faith which is his before the imputation of it is made to him and that is imputed for righteousnesse that is that act of Faith relatively considered is that that gives him a title to Christs righteousness and so that that is due to Christ is attributed to the act and hence that is said to be imputed for righteousnesse Now that Christ without faith justifies not I prove by these follow arguments 1. If Christs righteousnesse will not profit a man without faith theâ— Christ alone separated from faith doth not justifie But Christs righteousnesse will not profit any man without faith Therefore c. The Major carries sufficient light The assumption is proved because Christ saith to the Jewes John 8.24 John 6. If ye believe not ye shall die in your sins and Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life where though there be righteousnesse in Christ to justifie he saith If they believe not they shall die in their sins and He that believeth not shall be damned there was life in Christ but for want of coming or believing they did not partake of it I am not ignorant what Mr. Eyre will answer as I conceive to this That Christs righteousnesse will not profit him that is a final unbeliever and that Faith is a consequent condition of Salvation but not an antecedent means to apply Christs righteousnesse To this I answer that the Scripture speaketh of unbelievers indefinitely He that believeth not shall be damned and therefore it is understood of all unbelievers so long as they abide such they are under condemnation Let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture that holds forth an unbeliever the subject of Justification or one instance of a justified unbeliever and if final unbelief will hinder salvation then temporall unbelief may hinder the application of it for the time present and so long as he continueth an unbeliever it is of the same nature with final unbelief because it keepeth the soul from coming unto Christ for life To the second exception that it is a subsequent not antecedent condition of Justification I answer by a second Argument thus 2. If Christs righteousnesse be the end of faith and is obtained by faith then it is antecedent unto the Application of it But it is the end of faith and obtained by it The Assumption only needeth proof and yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth it Rom. 20.10 With the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation And To him that believeth it shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse that is Christ apprehended by faith shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse It is not said man believeth with the heart to the manifestation of righteousnesse but unto righteousnesse righteousnesse being that which he attaineth by believing and hence salvation is called the end of faith 1 Pet. 1.9 receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls and life is made the end of believing John 20.31 John 20 3â— These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life through his Name not that ye might know ye had life before ye believed but that believing ye might have life and Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth God did therefore cause the Law to be delivered that by the knowledge of mens sinfulnesse manifested by the Law they might flie to Christ for righteousnesse 3. If no man have eternal life but such as eat Christs flesh and drink his blood then no man antecedently to faith hath eternall life and by consequence Christ justifieth not without faith But no man hath eternal life but he that eats his flesh and drinks his blood Therefore The Assumption are the words of Christ John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you where Christ compareth himself to food Now as food though never so good nourisheth not unless we eat and drink it and it be incorporated into our body and become one with us so unlesse we thus eat Christ c. that is unlesse we feed upon his death and sufferings by faith and apply them by faith so as to be one with him we cannot live by Christ where observe Christ is the Food Faith is the Hand to take this Food and the Mouth to eat it without which this food will do us no good so here therefore he hath no life and an unbeliever hath not yet eaten 4. Such whose mindes and consciences are defiled are not justified but the mindes and consciences of all unbelievers are defiled The Major appeareth because when Christ justifieth he * Heb. 10.22 purgeth from an evil conscience The Minor is expressed * Tit. 1.15 where he speaketh indefinitely of unbelievers and therefore it is understood of all 5. Such whose persons are abominable who are Reprobates to good works are unjustified such are unbelievers for he speaketh there indefinitely of all unbelievers Having then proved Justification not to be before faith I shall now prove the instrumentality of Faith unto Justification and the consistency of it with the free grace of God For the right understanding whereof we must know what an instrumental cause is and wherein the nature of it consists and whether an instrumental cause be in the number of true causes and to what it is reducible and then apply it to faith Now we must know that an instrument hath divers significations I will not trouble the Reader with all sometimes it is taken for any thing which is moved and directed by a superior agent thus the Platonists take it and according to this acceptation every agent but God is an instrument and God alone in this sense is the principal efficient cause of all things and thus Isaiah the Prophet seemeth to take it Isaiah â—0 15 when he calleth the King of Assyria Gods Axe and his Saw in respect of God that used him for the destruction of the Nations and in this sense all causes as they depend upon GOD in their working are instruments but we take it not in this sense 2. To omit the rest an instrument according to the vulgar and usual acceptation of it is any thing that is used by the superiour agent moving and directing it to the production of an effect superior to it self for if it be proportionated to the effect it is not an instrument but an efficient principal cause And I conceive five things are required to an instrumentall cause First That it be a necessary antecedent to the effect not a consequent of it and I say a necessary antecedent to distinguish it from a contingent antecedent not that the whole nature of an instrumental cause consists in this for a thing may be a necessary antecedent and yet not a cause of the thing as the opening of a mans eyes is a necessary antecedent to sight but not a cause of sight
be a necessary antecedent of salvation as other graces are which are necessary necessitate medii and are causae dispositivae of salvation but this is necessary by way of causality for the application of Christs righteousnesse unto justification And when we say that we are justified by faith we understand it not by faith as a work or a grace as an act or as an habit by vertue of any innate worth excellency and dignity in faith we do not take it sensu proprio in whole or in part as Arminians Papists and Socinians doe in making it the matter of our righteousnesse but when that is spoken of we understand it metonimicè tropically by relation to its object for what man that is not a professed Papist and enemy to the free grace of God did ever dreame of justification by faith without an object you may as well dreame of a man without a soul as to be justified without Christ Yet when we take faith tropically for the object of faith we do not take faith exclusively although we so apprehend it when you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse as if faith had no hand in justification no not by way of application of Christs righteousnesse as if by the word faith were understood Christ surely this were not to keep our wits company And if it were the Apostles meaning to exclude faith from having any hand in justification upon any tearmes whatsoever surely he would not so darkly have expressed himself by a figurative expression when he might have done it more clearly by putting in the name Christ for faith as Mr. Eyre would teach us to doe Wee willingly grant that Christ is the meritorious cause of justification which he seemeth to me to deny making justification an * Christis not the meretorious cause of any immanent act in God immanent and not a transient act as we doe we also grant that Christs active and passive obedience is the matter of our righteousnesse and the formal cause of justification is the imputation of this righteousnesse without any works of ours Yet this no way excludes faith from being an active instrument to apply this righteousnesse to us faith it is our act although it be Gods gift it is our instrument wrought in us by God for our benefit to apply by his ordination the righteousnesse of Christ unto justification For as the efficient cause excludeth not the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious exclude the instrumentall which in suo genere in its kind is as necessary as the other for bonum est ex integris causis but I shall more fully open this in stating of the controversy and will not therefore anticipate my selfe any further but shall referre the reader thither for further satisfaction where I intend to handle this controversy more largely though I desire the reader to take notice that I shall chieflly meddle with that in Mr. Eyres his book which relates to my selfe and purely belongs to this controversie leaving that which belongeth to Mr. Woodbridge that I may not falcem in alienam messem immittere put a sickle into another mans harvest And if any man desire further satisfaction why I publikely interpose in this controversie seeing Mr. Woodbridge so eminently qualified hath already undertaken this taske I take that of Hierom Hierom. to be a sufficient apology Nolo quenquam in suspicione haereseos esse patientem I would have none to beare the suspicion of heresie and Mr. Eyre hath both in the pulpit and presse rendred me to be heterodox in the point of justification he hath declaimed against my Sermon as anti-scripturall my arguments as irrationall and in his booke he saith I have delivered what was wide from the orthodox faith Mr. Eyres vindic p. 5 and contrary to many plaine scriptures derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death disconsolatory to the soules of men in laying the whole weight of their salvation upon an uncertaine condition of their own performing And should I be silent in such a charge the world would count me guilty therefore to purge my selfe from these crimes I have published my sermon with a vindication of it and a short refutation of the said book and although I have a little in one place digressed from the controversy spâ—aking more largly then I needed in the doctrine of Christs death and passion yet it is only to shew that I have delivered and hold nothing therein contrary to the orthodox faith as Mr. Eyre affirmeth which he is more able to say then prove And for as much as he hath wronged both me and the truth in relating what I said not viz. that I should say that the union between Christ and the Saints was a personall union which I called a union of persons but not a personall union and hath represented our conference in as unhandsome a dresse to render me contemptible I am the lesse troubled though I rejoyce at no mans sin knowing that he is a man of hard language and morose carriage unto many of my brethren of farr more eminent worth and esteem in the Church of Christ then my self And for that slaunder where he saith that I compared him to Judas and my self to Christ I doe solemnly beseech him to remember what God hath threatned to him that loveth and maketh a lie Rev. 22.15 and to take heed how he beareth false witnesse against his neighbour where he hath God angels and men and his owne conscience to contradict him least God impute that as sin to him which he feareth not to commit it may be upon this ground because he judgeth it to be antecedently pardoned before it is committed My expression for which he blameth me was this I said to him What are you come out against me as against an heretique before you know whether that which I hold be a heresy or that I am obstinate in the defence of it moreover at the request of friends that heard my Sermon with which Mr. Eyre hath dealt as Pharaoh with the male children of the Israelites having given way to the publishing of it not doubting but when it cometh under the censure of my brethren but they will do the same office for it that the religious midwives did for the male children to save it alive from the hand of the oppressour I conceive I was ingaged to some further act towards the ending laying this controversy asleep especially seeing Mr. Eyre saith Mr. Woodbridg did but blow the coales that Mr. Warren had kindled whereas this fire was kindled long before by himselfe and the pulpit turned by him into a cock-pit to defend this errour And because some are infected more are in danger the truth is oppressed the course of the Gospel like to be hindred and prophanenesse and Antinomianisme goe hand in hand and speake with one tongue as Mr. Baxter hath well observed I have put my selfe upon this taske of confuting his conceit Besides his dis-ingenious
person but if by a full propitiation he understand an immediate discharge of the sinner from condemnation before faith to apply the benefits of Christs death this I deny and will make manifest in its peculiar and proper place Where I shall shew it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect person that the benefit of Christs death is suspended till faith And in this sense I acknowledge that the Elect had no actual right or interest in Christ if you take it for jus in re and not for jus adrem because his death was intended for their benefit not for the reprobate though they have not actual benefit and possession of the good things purchased untill faith In respect of Gods and Christs intention in his death surely an Elect person hath more right to the benefits of Christs death then the reprobate it being intended effectually for Peter and not for Judas and by vertue of this faith shall be given to apply it to all for whom Christ died and so they have a right to the thing but in respect of any right in the thing it self or actual discharge of the sinner I acknowledge in this respect there is no present difference between the Elect and reprobate this is that which soundeth so harsh in Mr. Eyre's eare which I shall sufficiently cleare when I produce in its due place Scripture-authority and Arguments to confirme it I shall now onely vindicate it from those monstrous absurdities that he unjustly loades it with First he saith Nothing could be spoken more contradictory to plain Scriptures but produceth not one place to confirme it but referres us to such Scriptures as he forceth to speak in defence of his own opinion where we shall examine whether what we affirme or he maintaines be most agreeable to the truth only I shall instance in two Scriptures to relieve this truth The first is in Ephesians 2.1 2 3. where the Apostle telleth the Elect Ephesians whom God had ordained to life and for whom Christ died that they were dead in sins and trespasses Wherein they walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience into which number in the third ver he puts himself and all believers before their conversion and saith that they were children of wrath by nature as well as others where the Apostles scope is to shew the freenesse of Gods grace in saving them by faith in Christ by an argument drawn from the change of their estate he telleth them the time was they were children of wrath as unable to help themselves as the dead to raise themselves to life therefore their deliverance was by grace Where by children of wrath the Apostle must mean an estate and condition opposite to their present estate of salvation and justification into which they are now brought by the grace of God and merit of Christ by faith Else first the Apostles Argument from the change of their estate were invalid Now if they would know when they were children of wrath seeing God loved them as elect from eternity and they were redeemed by Christ He answers that it was when they were dead in sins and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience and then they were children of wrath but thus they did walk and live before faith and regeneration were wrought 2. Such an estate of condemnation is here meant as others are in that are the men of this world children of disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children of unbelief which notes a refractory contumacious disobedience of unbelief seated in the will which is more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is remissible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is irremissible being a note of finall imperswasibility 1 Tim. 1.13 Paul was sometime a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore when the Apostle saith their condition by nature was such as theirs that are children of disobedience a note of such that shall perish surely they were such as were in an unjustified estate 3. If it be such an estate wherein they were dead in sins and trespasses did walk according to the prince of this world and according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh surely this was inconsistent with salvation and the estate of justification God cannot justifie a man with imputed righteousnesse but at the same time he sanctifieth him by imparted Prov. 17.15 and inherent righteousnesse It is not agreeable to the purity and holinesse of Gods nature to justifie a wicked man for He that justifieth the wicked be that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord and what God condemnes in others he will not do himself therefore they were not then justified Nor doth the Apostle make a naked comparison between the two estates and conditions derived from the first and second Adam but compares the same persons not barely in relation to these but as being really in both these estates at a different time being under the first before conversion and passing from it upon believing where it is observeable that the Apostle doth not say ye are by nature children of wrath which is all Mr. Eyre will acknowledge as you may see pag. 111. but ye were children of wrath he speaks of a condition they were in and delivered from The second Scripture is in the 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicatours nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankinde nor thieves shall inherit the Kingdome of God such were some of you but you are washed but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Where you see the Elect Corinthians were while unsanctified such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God and therefore were in the same estate with other persons till they were washed and justified where he maketh an evident opposition between the time past and present they were then such as could not inherit eternal life and therefore were justified for if they were then justified what could hinder their salvation And he saith but you are justified he doth not say but you were justified restraining their justification to the time present upon their faith and sanctification being an evidence of the truth of that faith that makes him put their sanctification before their justification so that you see the Apostle affirmes while they were unsanctified they could not inherit the Kingdome of God that is they had no right to it by justification and were uncapable of it but upon the change
of their estate by faith they were justified by Christ of which change in the judgement of charity he concludes by their sanctification Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie that before faith and effectuall vocation they are no more freed from condemnation then others 2. He saith It is wide from the Orthodox Faith To which I answer first by retortion that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith because pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes Mr. Eyre vindic pag. 66. Num. 2. Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present difference for Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato is a known rule Secondly It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate as to present enjoyment untill actual faith indeed they hold in this respect a difference which I never questioned that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery and to leave the reprobate Rom. 9.13 in which respect God is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau and in this respect Acts 13.48 all that God hath ordained to life shall believe and whosoever the Father giveth unto Christ they shall come for 2 Tim. 2.19 The foundation of God standeth sure the Lord knoweth who are his but on the other hand for the present there is no difference both are children of wrath both are without Christ both aliens to the Covenant of Grace having no promise of the pardon of sin both without hope in the world only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica p. 188. Burgess of Justific p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him I will propound three others of unquestionable authority Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3 drawes this observation from it First then saith he we have to consider how that the chosen of God before their conversion have nothing in them dâ—ffering from other sinners the Election of God standeth sure Vide Calv. Institut Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually it doth put nothing in the party Elected so where you may see more to this purpose And he gives two reasons why God will have it so 1. That the mercy of God may be magnified and made manifest in the free grace of Justification 2. That love may be engendred in us being justified Mary who had many sins forgiven loved much so that eminent servant of Christ Dr. Tayl. in his Commen upon Titus ch 3. v. 3. Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith have experience of a double estate in themselves once in time past and another for the present the one of nature the other of grace And a little after And good reason there is that he that is now beloved should see that once he was not beloved and that he who now is in the state of grace should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others which will cause him to love much And indeed the Elect could not be Elect nor justified nor washed if they were alwayes the children of God and were it not for this once and time past wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate but only in Gods counsel and possibility of calling Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quà m ad alium quemvis sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum Camero opusc misc p. 534. And that he was no Arminian is evident by what he saith in another place Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter ut loquntur satisfecisse docent efficaciter autem pro solis piis Cam. opusc misc p. 534. Sect. 6. Thirdly he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death If this could be proved there needed no further argument to silence me yea it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ I therefore answer that if Christ had died to purchase forgivenesse of sins whether we believe or not this argument would have some strength in it then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ but Christ did not so die for the Elect that whether they believe or not believe they should be saved therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt Mr. EYRE p. 138 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities and therefore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby should be immediate because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the surety or principal I will here lay down sundry conclusions which may serve to vindicate our doctrine that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith as to a formall justification of the sinner and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time of Christs death antecedent to their faith First therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person and a surety for the Elect taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation That the act of Gods Ordination together with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life John 10.18 and his voluntary consent and submission to become a surety for the Elect Heb. 10.7 9. for it was not imposed upon him by constraint therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will his own will is included John 10.18 And no man took away his life from him but he did lay it down of himself this act of Ordination in God and submission in Christ together with his free dominion over his own life which dominion he had both by vertue of the hypostatical union and the command of the
Father to lay it down accompanied with sufficient power to break through the sufferings he undertook and to raise up himself again all this constituted Christ God-man being perfectly righteous a fit person to become a surety and now it was just and righteous that Christ an innocent person should be charged with the sins of the Elect. Secondly I grant that no creature that was only a creature whether Angel or man could or ought to undertake this work 1. No Angel ought because Gods justice required that satisfaction should be given by the same nature that had sinne Bernard de pass Dom. 1. Cap. 46. nor was it meet he should be man only that our redemption and salvation might be attributed to none but him from whom we had our creation for that reason which Bernard alledgeth because our redemption would more oblidge us to love then our creation if therefore we had been redeemed by any other then him by whom we were made we should have loved him more then our Creatour Neither could any pure creature be fitly qualified for this work for whatever the creature can do is already debitum a due debt and therefore it cannot supper-erogate or merit any thing for us Thirdly I grant therefore that Christ was God and Man and that it was needful he should be both 1. He must be God that must satisfie God for God was offended and therefore to make satisfaction God in our nature satisfieth for our sin So that here is God satisfying God that if the sin be infinite in the object the satisfaction is infinite in respect of the subject suffering God in our nature and although his sufferings were not infinite in duration nor was there need they should be because he satisfied for such sins as should be broken off by repentance And his end was in suffering to satisfie therefore his sufferings must have an end yet his sufferings were unmeasurably great and what was wanting in the shortnesse was made up in the sharpnesse of the sufferings and it was impossible Christ should be held under the sorrows of death the duration of the prisoner in the Jayle is no part of the debt but accidentall to it he lies there but till the debt be paid Now Christ paid all so as fully to satisfie the justice of God and hence there was no need of his eternal suffering Besides it was needful he should be God that his obedience might be perfect and meritorious to dignifie his obedience and make it of infinite value that he might merit and support himself under his suffering and raise up himself again and performe the rest of the works of the Mediatourship And it was needful he should be Man for as he was God he could not suffer and that he might as justice requireth satisfie in our nature that our pardon might not be an act of dominion only and forgivenesse but an act of justice and satisfaction Fourthly I willingly grant that Christ did suffer whatsoever appertaines to the substance and essentials of the first death or the death naturall consisting in the separation of soul and body and though the curse doth not require any one particular death yet that the Lord might shew the hainousnesse of sin which deserves the worst death of all and that the love of Christ might be manifested and Gods justice declared God the Father appointed it and Christ undertook it to die the death of the Crosse a shameful and base death appropriated to the worst of malefactors Phil. 2.6 8. to shew the hatefulnesse of sin and the greatnesse of Christs humiliation and love in submitting to it he humbled himself to the death of the Crosse 2. I willingly grant Christs suffered and endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul not by sympathy with the body only but peculiar to his soul all that was due to the sins of the Elect that was consistent with his Godhead and Holiness Catechismus Romanus 4. Art Symb. Aquinas Part. 3 q. 46. art 5 6. the Papists deny not that he suffered inward grief in his soul and Aquinas that he suffered the greatest sorrow that could be but I affirme for quantity Christ might and did in this life endure the paines of hell he did not locally descend into the place of the damned he did indure the same that was due to us for substance and kinde though not in all accidents that belong to it he suffered and felt that heavy wrath of God due to mans sin his soul was so struck with horrour that all faculties for a time left there proper fruction and did concurre to relieve nature in that extremity he lay under the revenging stroakes of Gods justice due to mans sin it put him into a bloody sweat in the forethought of it and made him cry earnestly If it be possible let this cup passe My God my God why hast thou forsaken me God for a time withdrew the solace and comfort he was wont to finde in him that sensible refreshing of the light of Gods countenance which was wont to fill him with satisfactory sweetnesse was for a time withdrawn which is a part of the second death and answers to the pain of losse yet in all his time the union of the Manhood with the Godhead was untouched though there was a withdrawing of the sense and sweetnesse of the favour of God his righteousnesse and graces were no way diminished he was most pure in his passion free from all sin Christ brought none of this upon himself by his own sin but was called to this work and in all this conflâ—ct his faith was unshaken crying out My God even when to his present sense and feeling he was forsaken Fifthly I willingly grant that Christs death and sufferings was a very valuable compensation for the sin of man yea he satisfied Gods justice to the full not by divine acceptation God abated him nothing for the dignity of his person but he fully satisfied for the substance what the justice of God could fully inflict yea in respect of some circumstances he suffered more then was due indeed in respect of the substance of his sufferings neither as * Parker lib. 3. de discon li. 51. p. 97. Mr. Parker hath observed the love of the Father nor the justice of God could permit more to be imposed then what was necessary for him to bear as a surety Quoad substantiam poenae nihil plus perpessus est Christus quà m quod per legem debebatur neque enim vel amor Patris vel etiam justitia permittere potuit plura Filio ut imponerentur quà m quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant Quoad circumstantias autem patientis personam patiendi causam pâ—ssionis efficaciam plus quà m sufficiens satisfactio Christi à nobis dicitur In respect of circumstances as the person of the sufferer the cause of suffering and efficacy of the passion it was more then the Law
agnoscat Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris munificentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debitor beneficium agnoverit And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish And in Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 John 6.40 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Sonne and believeth on him may have everlasting life And Mark 16.16 Whosoever believeth not shall be damned nay is condemned already John 3.18 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him Now that is a superficiall and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this Pag. 135. that such places as these are do shew only who have th◠fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe but the true scope of these places is to shew not only who shall be saved and have the benefit of Christs death to whom this priviledge belongs but to shew when and how Christs death became effectual namely upon and by believing so that Christs death it self is not available unto salvation without faith to apply it And out of his own Concessions I argue against him If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death then while they remain unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges But they are communicable both to such as believe and such as believe not Mr. Eyre ch 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true and the reason he addeth is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification for works of sanctification declare this Thus the Apostle makes it an evidence of a person in Christ to whom there is no condemnation that He walkes not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body Rom. 8.1 13. 1 John 3.14 ye shall live By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Mr. Eyre Vind. p. 135. And in the same place he objecteth that the Apostle doth not say Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing But I answer Though this is no where expressely spoken yet it is evidently implied and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost For when Christ saith That unlesse they believe that they shall die in their sins and he that believeth not shall be damned is not this equivalent to this Proposition That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing 2 Cor. 13.5 And doth he not bid the Corinthians Examine themselves whether they be in the faith Prove your own selves know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates where though I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not signifie reprobates as opposed to the Elect yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified And whereas he saith that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe he will yield the cause let him but stand to his word and the Controversie will soon be at an end For the making good of this over and above what is written I premise 1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Covenant passed between the Father and the Son about reconciling the Elect believers by the death of Christ for that is evident from many Scriptures Isa 42.6 Gal. 3.16 And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Mediatour are expressely mentioned Heb. 1.5 6. Acts 10.38 Eph. 1.22 Isa 11.12 Isa 49.18 Isa 53.10 11. Acts 2.27 and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it but the question is not whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son but whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe 2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words and I judge him so rational that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures he will acknowledge it as authentick as a literal expression 3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concerning the time and manner of our reconciliation with God so that what the Father willed the Son willed and vice versâ And so I joyne with him and argue 1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ or his Covenant with him about his death and the effects of it did mention faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied then there was such an agreement that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death made mention of faith for the application of it Ergo. The consequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion for what God would do upon Christs death he promised and more then he promised Christ could not nor did expect for in all this work of dying he was a servant of God subject to his good pleasure Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do and Christ could expect no more And the assumption I prove from Isa 53.10 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth a Covenant made with Christ pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father with whose words the Prophet began as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English
called uncertain or contingent and this is no more then what is unanimously acknowledged by the Orthodox and that no way hinders the salvation of the Elect. And by this time I hope the Reader plainly seeth this truth of Christ that the very Elect are without Christ and without hope in the world as the Apostle affirmeth untill faith that they have no actuall right or interest in the death of Christ until faith and so as to their present estate there is no difference between them and Reprobates being children of wrath as well as others this is that which the tender eares of Mr. Eyre cannot bear but I believe it sounds not so harsh in the ears of a judicious Reader as being an undoubted truth of God but let it be compared with that filthy and dirty opinion of Mr. Eyre more beseeming the Gnosticks of old or the present Ranters of this age then a sober Christian which is this Master Eyre page 61. That the Elect while they are unregenerate while they lie like swine wallowing in the miâ—e of sinne antecedently to faith are justified and so though Infidels and wicked yet divine justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve but contrarily he beholdeth them as perfectly righteous and accordingly deales with them as such who have no sin at all in his sight And I doubt not but the naming of his will vindicate mine and render his justly abhorred to an utter nauseating saying Durus est hic sermo who can bear it And those monstrous absurdities which he chargeth our Doctrine with I doubt not but the intelligent Reader seeth that they are as unjustly fathered upon us as his deformed errour is by himself stiled with the same likenesse of truth to have the complexion of a saving truth CHAP. II. Containing a Vindication of my Argument drawn from the Parallel between the first and the second Adam shewing that as no man is lyable to condemnation by the first Adam but such as are in him by natural generation descending from him so no man is freed from condemnation till they be in Christ by supernatural and spiritual regeneration AGainst this Errour of the Antecedency of Justification to Faith I used in my Serm. at N. Sarum this Medium As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternal death but he that is a member of him by naturall generation so Christ freeth no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till he be a member of him by supernatural generation But this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as received him to them gave he power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty right power priviledge or prerogative to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Therefore no man stands reconciled before God though Elect persons till by faith they are incorporated into Christ and have this priviledge to be the children of God Now let us see what Mr. Eyre replieth to this he saith that this maketh much against me Mr. Eyre p. 6. for saith he If the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle sheweth it doth Rom. 5. then it must follow that the righteousnesse of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a being and then much more before they do believe in him for Adams sin it is evident that it came upon all men to condemnation before they had a being For by the first transgression sayes the Apostle ver 12. sin entred into the world and more plainly death passed upon all men The reason followes because in him or in his loyns all have sinned so Mr. Eyre For answer whereunto I shall premise this that I did not affirme that we are no way guilty of Adams sin before we have a being For I willingly grant that of Augustine * Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manif stùque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo fuerunt Aug. de peccat merit Remist l. 1. c. 10. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manifestúmque est alia esse propria c. Adam was as it were we all we were all that one Adam it is most certain and manifest that some sins are proper to every one in which they only sinned whose sins they were this one sin is another in which all have sinned seeing all were that one man and it is a general received truth among the Orthodox that there was an inexistence or being of all men in Adam And therefore I willingly grant that we did no lesse sin in Adam then Levi paid tithes in Abraham Heb. 7.6 because as he was in the loynes of Abraham when Melchisedech met him so were we all in the loynes of Adam and when I said that no man is guilty by the first Adam of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation I intended nothing but to shew that we are not guilty of Adams sin so as to be actually and formally sinners though virtually we are untill we be in him by naturall generation and so actually members and so I grant we are virtually justified from the death of Christ not formally And 2. I intended to shew that as Adams sin is not ours but as we are in him so Christs righteousnesse is not ours unlesse united to him this premised I shall now reply to Mr. Eyre's Objection That I apprehend in his answer a double Errour 1. He takes that for granted which will not be yielded that the Apostle saith We were formally constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam as we are by his opinion formally not only virtually justified at the death of Christ Vide Mr. Eyre page 68. so he expresseth his meaning p. 68. and herein he is contrary to all Orthodox Antiquity Learned Wotton doth deny it in expresse termes in his answer to Hemingius his Argument whose words are these Wotton de Recon pecc par 2. l. 1. c. 9. p. 148. Primam propositionem nego quia sumit pro concesso Apostolum dicere nos Adami inobedientiâ formaliter factos esse peccatores quod parùm liquet certè alia fuit antiquorum Theologorum sententia and reciteth for that end Chrysost Theophilact Pacianus Anselm Haymo Hugo Aeterianus OEcumenius Calvin Who so please to read them may finde them in the fore-cited place of Wotton We therefore affirme that although Adams sin was not altogether another mans but in some sense ours because we were seminally in
him that were virtually sinners in him and that act of his in eating the forbidden fruit was as truly ours though not so compleatly and perfectly as his for we are not formally constituted sinners till we are actually members of him by natural generation 2. A second Errour I conceive him guilty of is in that he saith That the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation and it 's so much the worse that he will father it upon the Apostle which he no way intended in that place that as Adams sin came upon men to condemnation before they had a being that so the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed to the Elect before they had a being To which I answer that it is a manifest untruth for the sin of Adam descends upon us not only by imputation but by propagation so doth not the righteousnesse of Christ that is ours only by imputation The sin of Adam becomes ours by vertue of a natural union in whom we are seminally antecedently to our birth but Christs righteousnesse becometh ours by spirituall and supernatural union to whom we are strangers and alienated from him by nature we are virtually united to Adam because we had existence in him as in our first Parent before we had a being but we were actually sinners whâ—n we had an actuall being because we had a compl aâ— being out of our cause but we are not actually united to Christ before faith Wotton de Râ—con pecc par 2. l. 2. c. 2â— p. 210 Hence learned Wotton in answer to this Objâ—ction saith Nos unum fuisse cum Adamo credentes unum esse cum Christo si utrumque verè dici possit tamen alio atque alio modo haec vera essâ— intelliguntur unum suimus cum Adamo originaliter liceat enim his verbis uti seminaliter ut arbor ejúsque omnes rami in glande aut alio quovis semine inesse dicuntur hác ratione fit ut non minùs verè in Adamo peccâsse quà m Levi apud Apostolum Heb. 7.9 decimatus esse in Abrahamo affirmatur jam verò longè alio modo in Christo esse censemur non naturâ aut proprie sed improprie per similitudinem quandam Praeterea semper ex quo creatus est Adamus unum cum illo in illo fuisse deprehendimur ut cum illo etiam quodam modo peccare potuerimus Quod de nostrâ cum Christo conjunctione sive unione affi mari non pâ—test uniri enim nos Christo cum illo conjungi oportet priusquam unum esse cum illo possimus existimari wh ch for the Readers sake I will English Although it may be truly said that we were one with Adam and believers are one with Christ yet this is to be understood in a different manner we were one with Adam and in him naturally originally and let it be lawful to use these words seminally as a tree and all his branches are said to be in the 〈◊〉 or in any other seed By this reason it comes to passe that we know that we sinned no lesse in Adam then Levi by the Apostle is said Heb. 7.9 to have paid tithes in Abraham But now we are reputed to be in Christ in a farre different manner not by nature or properly but improperly and by a certain similitude Moreover from the time that Adam was created we were alwayes one with him and in him that with him we may be said after a sort to have sinned which cannot be affirmed concerning our conjunction with or union to Christ for it behoveth us to be joyned and united to Christ before we can be esteemed to be one with him and he addes Quare tum primùm in Christo esse incipimus quum in illum credimus Wherefore we then first begin to be in Christ when we believe in him And let me adde that there are many different considerations and circumstances between the bringing in of salvation by the one and condemnation by the other and the Apostle giveth instance in Rom. 5.15 16. And besides these there are many other I shall think fit to adde but one Vide John Goodwin Treat Justifica part 2. pag. 17. taken nootice of by Master John Goodwin in his Treatise of Justification and in hâ—s words The sin of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posterity as his own in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but the obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence with truth be said to have been theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not been saved at all It is said indeed that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 but it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it self to God Let no man blame me for his authority fas est ab hoste doceri And the ground of Mr. Eyre's mistake if it be not wilfull is that he thinks the Apostle doth compare the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ as causes of the same kinde which produce their effects after the same manner which was not the intent of the Apostle but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious unto Justification to them that are his one with him then the sin of Adam was to condemnation to them that were in him but not to shew that we were in Christ as we are in * Câ—nfertur autem A la nus cum Christo tum in re simili cùm in contrariâ siwiles enim sunt in eo quòd uterque quod suum est cum suis communicat sed in eo planè dissimiles quòd ille pecatum in suos naturâ derivat ad mortem Christus verò suam justitiam cum suis communicat per gratiam ad vitam Beza large Ann. on Rom. 5.12 Wotton de recon peccat par 2. l. 1. c. 9 p. 149 Adam that as we were in Adam antecedently to our being that so the Elect are in Christ antecedently to their birth and faith for as in the next Argument that I shall vindicate I shall shew that we are not united to Christ until faith And the very same answer doth Wotton give to Hemingius whose words are these Quod ad assumptionem attinet sumet ille pro concesso Apostolum Adami inobedientiam tanquam ejusdem generis causas comparare quae eodem plane modo effecta sua producant At verò id potiùs agere videtur Apostolus ut Christi obedientiam non minùs ad justificationem valere quà m Adami in obedientiam ad condemnationem imò Christi justitiam majorem
sins be imputed then that first transgression why should the sins of any other parents be imputed And the reason is not alike for none but Adam could be a publick person representing all mankinde and that sin was not only personal and proper to Adam but common to the whole nature and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person For it is a mixt act in God when he doth impute Adams sin partly arising from his Sovereignty and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are and may be imputed to the children And whereas he saith Unlesse they can shew any proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force I answer here needs no other proviso or restriction but only to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we are in Adam and therefore the benefits of his death cannot immediately follow our birth or be antecedent to it but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ and the parallel holds firme for as in Adam we all virtually sinned and so were virtually condemned so we grant Christ hath meritoriously redeemed us and we are virtually justified in him and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity till they have an actuall being and are actually members of Adam so are not we actually justified till we be actual members of Christ by faith As for the Logical Axiom Non entis nulla sunt accidentia it was used in my next Argument and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ shewing that where there is no union there can be no communion his unjust charge refuted and the nature of our union with Christ further declared MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence was drawn from our union to Christ Where there is no union there can be no communion for union is the ground of all communion which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union But we are not united unto Christ untill faith Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification And in the further prosecuting of the Argument I shewed that this union is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union it must require our existence for an accident cannot subsist without its subject because * Where I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio quâ— tenus opponit sub stantiae ne strictè pro omâ— quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio Accidentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it for Non entis nullae sunt affectiones and that this union was the formal effect of faith Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument First he saith that I called our union with Christ a personall union which seems to fav ur that absurd notion that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personaliâ—y also and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word and his shamelesse dealing in this respect is the more injuriously evident in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses that I neither said nor did own any such thing but did declaâ—e that I said and meant that it was such a union whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever yet is he a man of that face and fore-head to print and declare that to the world which he hath God Angels and men if not his own conscience to witnesse against him but this he hath done to render me odious to the world the Lord forgive him and let him see the evil of these and the like slanders against me and others of his brethren that differ from him And let him now know that I utterly abhor that Familistical notion that there should be an hypostaticall union between Christ and a Believer for Christ is one person and a Believer another Apage Theologiam hanc erco relegandam I forced my self publickly to oppose it as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Doctor doth condemne Dr. Chambers that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the person into the nature and person of the Son of God I desire no better Umpire to determine I affirme that the union made between us and Christ by faith is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ What is here that savours of such a notion yea Mr. Hooker Souls union pag 7 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise called the Soules Exaltation and in the Sermon called the Souls Vnion with Christ expressing what this union is and how it is made by faith hath this passage he saith It is a totall union the whole nature of a Saviour and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church not only according as he is God but as he is God and man and a Believer is a member not only according to his body but according to his body and soul whole Christ being the Head and the whole Believer being a Member therefore a whole Christ and a whole believer must be joyned together Perkins 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20 p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78 The whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins Of this conjunction saith he two things may be noted The first that it is a substantial union in that the person of him that believeth is united to the person of Christ but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith Because saith he they are given to Christ and Christ to them
referres his Reader to Junius his Parallels lib. 3. This is brought to prove our union before faith and therefore he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the substantive made so by some but I believe none can be produced as for Junius he saith no such matter but saith it must be taken either in the Masculine gender and relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the substantive they are of one father or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Neuter and so it signifies they are of one common Lump or Masse agreeing in the community of nature and indeed this is most agreeable to the Scope of the place for as he had shewed ver 10. that it was convenient for Gods justice that our Mediatour should by his death satisfie Gods justice in the 11th ver he sheweth how he could die and how it could be accepted in our stead he answereth because he was one indued with the same nature for He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are of one that is all of one common Father as Adam or are of one and the same nature and substance and what is this to prove a mystical union before faith and it is observable that he maketh those that are the sons to be brought to glory such as are sanctified and Christ is not ashamed to call these Brethren but as for unbelievers that are not sanctified Christ will never call them Brethren and such as he calleth sons he doth not intend to call them so antecedently to their faith but only to shew who shall be brought to glory by his death and that is only sonnes And by Mr. Eyre's leave it is wholly excentrical to this place to compare Christ to the first-fruits and those for whom he died to the residue of the heap as he doth in quoting that place Mr. Eyre p. 8. That which he presupposeth likewise that by vertue of this eternal union the sins of the Elect do become Christs and Christs righteousnesse becomes theirs will seem not only a Paradox but little better then blasphemy if throughly examined for the humane nature of Christ was not existent from eternity and to what end should their sins be imputed to the Divine Nature who can bear the thought of it without trembling And surely at our union with Christ our sins become Christs as well as his righteousnesse becomes ours yea before when he was actually a surety for us but not from eternity He addeth that by vertue of this union that they are said to be given to Christ and Christ to them Page 8. I answer that when the Elect are said to be given to Christ that is that he should die in particular for them this includes not any actuall Donation of them to Christ by mystical implantantation but it signifies Gods ordination and constitution whereby he did ordaine that the benefits of Christs death should be for them though not to be applied to them from the time of this ordination and this may very well stand and yet they not united untill faith In the next place I shall take notice of Mr. Eyre's slight answer to the Reverend Mr. Conant since deceased who as Moderator in our first Conference proposed the Objection drawn from Rom. 16.7 Rom. 16.7 where Paul speaking of Andronicus and Junia saith they were in Christ before me but if this union be eternal or antecedent to our birth and faith one cannot be in Christ before another He saith he returned no answer and the truth is he can returne no solid answer And though he now insult since the decease of this Reverend Servant of Christ and saith he passed it over because there was little difficulty in it yet when he was living he was no more able to stand against him in an Argument then Dagon before the Arke then Stephens adversaries who could not resist the Spirit by which he spake But let us consider the force of his Answer It is evident saith he the Apostle speaketh not there of their spiritual union with Christ which is invisible to man for God onely knoweth who are hi◠but of such a being in Christ as is by external profession and Church-communion in respect of which the whole visible Church is called Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 And hypocrites as well as the Elect are said to be in Christ and to be branches in him And thus it is acknowledged that one is in Christ before another according as they are called and converted whether really or in appearance It doth not follow that union to Christ is successive or that it is an act done in time depending upon conditions performed by men His first Answer is This is not meant of spiritual union with Christ his reason is because that is invisible to man First This is over-boldly asserted that he saith it is evident that this is not meant of spiritual union with Christ when there is nothing said but what may rather evidence the contrary 1. Either this was a true union or they were but hypocrites but it is too much rashnesse to say they were hypocrites 2. They were such as were of note among the Apostles chief Evangelists I think at least in the judgement of charity they should be such as were truly in Christ 3. The Apostle indued with a great Spirit of discerning judged them so he saith they were in Christ therefore we should judge it really 4. 'T is such an union and in-being in Christ as Paul himself afterward had but his union was real he meant and understood a real union in respect of himself and what he affirmes of himself he saith the same of them and that they had this priviledge to be in Christ before him 5. This was no such great priviledge for the pen of an Apostle to commend them far above himself if he thought only it was an union in profession in shew only and not in truth Secondly That which leads him to judge it was not a real spiritual union with Christ is because this was invisible to man because saith he God onely knowes who are his But 1. Might he not here well exempt the Apostles who were by an extraordinary gift indued with a Spirit of discerning and especially were they guided in their Epistles written for a rule of life whereof this is a part 2. Let it be granted for a truth that no man can know infallibly the Election or regeneration of another but by special Revelation then no man can absolutely say of such who live holily in respect of conversation whose actions are materially good and nothing appearing to the contrary but that they are in Christ really none can say they are not in him really therefore an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspense of judgement had been better then for him to say rashly it is evident the Apostle speakes not of spirituall union with Christ when he saith these that were of chief note among the Apostles were in Christ and nothing appearing to the
and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel he implanteth us into Christ hereby we are only united and now being one hence his death and sufferings in the merit of it is imputed to us and hereby are we actually acquitted and justified and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath liable to condemnation at our birth and then were not justified from eternity for if we were justified from eternity then we never were borne sinners under the guilt of sin liable to condemnation for Justification is a removal of this guilt therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature denieth this eternall Justification and so the Minor is also made evident 2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer where he saith that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words by nature where he saith that in reference to their estate in Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but fiery indignation yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love c. Where observe That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate what it is as they are descended from Adam but he speaketh of it what it was as that which they were actually delivered from and are now not in the same state they were And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification for it implies a contradiction that they should be in both at the same time and that in reference to God 't is true they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man but no man can actually be in both these estates sure they are two different estates the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam another in Christ by faith and at their birth they were in the first in which they could expect nothing but wrath and God in that estate could not pardon them keeping to his own order of salvation therefore then they were not justified therefore when he saith that this first estate hindered not but that by grace they might be the children of love if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of benevolence and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate it is not denied but if he mean that they were not then guilty of and subject to the wrath of God and so were objects of Gods love of complacency and justified and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell and actuall right to salvation it is denied and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost who saith they are children of wrath John 3.36 and that while they remain in unbelief the wrath of God abideth on them there it was and will remain till removed by faith and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost He addeth that God calleth them his Sons and Children before conversion be it granted yet this is not because they actually are so but certainly shall be made so and to distinguish them for whom Christ died from them that shall perish and to shew that it was not for any thing in them that he first set his love upon them therefore he calleth them so not because they were such antecedently to their conversion but consequently should be made such He addeth likewise that it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive moving cause inward or outward that moveth God to make and take them for his children it is readily granted but if he deny any inherent qualification to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship that he hath predestinated us unto he contradicteth the Holy Ghost which saith John 1.12 John 1 1â— To as many as received him to them gave he power not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity but predestinated to the Adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus He further answereth pag. 112 by concession Mr. Eyre pag. 112 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath because the Law doth terrifie their consciences but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their conscienceâ— but threateneth death and damnation to their persons and God by the Law so long as they remain unregenerate and not only their consciences as he affirmes but their persons are under wrath and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God and how God doth account of them till they are delivered from that estate by grace and not only what he is by nature For the Law is the Law of God and what power it hath to threaten and condemne it hath it from God and therefore when that condemneth God condemneth if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing so that it is not a meer scare-crow or bug-beare to affright the consciences of the Elect when it cannot reach their persons for it holdeth their persons under condemnation till by faith laying hold upon Christ they are delivered from the sentence of the Law for Paul speaketh of himself and the believing Romans Rom. 7.5 that While they were in the flesh that is in their unregenerate estate wherein they could not please God the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our Members to bring forth fruit unto death the corruptions of nature took occasion by the Law forbidding sin to commit sin more greedily so to bring forth fruit unto death i. e. death eternal which is the wages of all sin and thus they did but heap up and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate till they were married to Christ and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law and of their corrupt nature The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God First he saith It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve Secondly It noteth the threateniâ—gs and comminations of the Law Thirdly It notes the executions of those threatenings In the first and third sense the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath but in the second sense they are under the threatening of the Law
proper certain and true difference that is to say the Law propoundeth salvation upon condition of fulfilling the Law but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ to wit that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense that is that they have the same order to their respective Covenants otherwise faith is not a condition so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Covenant antecedent to salvation thereby expected As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony but could produce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note Your last is Dr. Ames whose testimony you might have left out because he speakeâ—h far more against you then for you in the same place for he saith that it was quasi concepta as it were conceived in the minde of God and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ as it were or virtually pronounced but he doth not say it was so really and formally as if we were so justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death yea a little after which you could not be ignorant of he saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum Ames Medul l. 1. c. 27. s 14. quo sensu Christuâ— est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum justitiam Christi ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur unde justitia dicitur esse ex fide Rom. 9.30.10.6 justificatio per fidem Rom. 3.28 This Justification is for Christs sake not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation but for Christs sake apprehended by faith which faith followeth effectual vocation as the effect and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended Justification followeth hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith Rom. 9.30.10.6 and Justification by faith Rom. 3.28 And in the sixteenth Section thus Neque est propriè loquendo specialis siducia Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance speaking of justifying faith whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins and our justification Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam ut causa suum effectum sed fides justficationem apprehendens necessariò praesupponit ac sequitur justificationem ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur For justifying faith goeth before Justification as the cause before its effect but Faith comprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth it to go before as the act its object about which it is conversant so that faith as it is assurance followeth Justification but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act so it goeth before Justification as the cause goeth before the effect Thus having examined his authorities we see that if they may be impartially examined and permitted to speak their own minde they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification antecedent unto faith THE first Scripture is Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God 1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified as thus being justified by faith we have peace with God But first This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men Secondly It offereth violence to the Text for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification as may appear by the illative particle therefore which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith and not by the works of the Law drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified By the same it behoveth his children to be justified that is all Believers but Abraham was not justified by any works neither preceding nor following his faith but by faith Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption because Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith was imputed not in an Arminian sense but his faith properly taken in relation to the object and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham the grace of faith and sets it forth in many excellent properties which can no way agree to the object and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith telling us that it was not written for his sake only but for ours also and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we believe then he describeth the object of this faith God in Christ as raising Christ from the dead where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith Christs Death and Resurrection and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these 1. He delivered him to death for our offences that is to satisfie for our sins 2. He raised him again for our Justification to declare he was absolved from our sins and so had made full satisfaction hence then he drawes down this conclusion and shewes a new effect of faith and so a new argument Being therefore justified by faith we have peace with God as if he should say By what we have peace we are justified But by faith we have peace therefore we are justified Thirdly Neither can faith be taken here for the object excluding the act but for the grace and act of faith with relation to its object for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tautology for the meritorious cause is expressed Therefore here by faith the act must be understood for it is said Being justified by faith we have peace through our Lord Jesus there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed therefore the same thing is not understood by faith yea here saith Beza Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation Tres hîc enumerat causas nostrae pacis Apostolus fidem Deum Jesum Christum non coordinatas ejusdem generis sed subordinatas incipiente Apostolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ instrumentali nempe fide cujus scopus objectum est Deus Pater interveniente Jesu Christi propitiatione Here saith Beza the Apostle doth enumerate three causes of our peace Faith God and Jesus Christ not coordinate causes and of the same kâ—nd but subordinate The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause given us by the