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
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
after that adde he p. 67. l 16. blot out for p. 71. l. 30. after being blot out that p. 74. l. 13. for affirming r. affirme p. 91. l 1. blot out but p. 99. l r. blot out the fiâ—st as p 108. l. 14. for malem r. mallem p. 134. l. 27. blot out for p. 145. l. 25. for there read theirs p. 146. l 16. foâ— noâ— not p. 150. l. 26. for the first is r. as p. 154. l. 11. for my r. mee p. 158. l. 5. after unto adde were elected p. 159. l. 33. for these r. thee p. 176. l. 26. after but adde we p. 180. l. 29. for at r. as p. 183. l. 2. after the first foresight add but and for nor r. not p. 195. l. 37. blot and p. 199. line 34. for soile r. soule October 13. 1654. Imprimatur EDM. CALAMY A Christless-estate A HOPELESSE-ESTATE EPHESIANS 2.12 That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world THe Scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is the same with that in the former to set the forth freeness of Gods grace in Christ proving sometimes in hypothesi that the converted Ephesians sometimes in thesi that all the faithful are saved by grace And he useth many Arguments Arg. 1 to this end the first is drawn from their natural estate O Ephesians if ye consider your selves in the common estate of nature you will finde that such was your condition that you could not be delivered from it but by grace which Argument he amplifies by a sixfold consideration of their natural condition First in the state of nature they were not onely defiled with sinne but were altogether dead in sinnes and trespasses and were no more able to help themselves then the dead is able to arise from the grave and therefore unlesse the same Almighty power that raised Christ from the dead had beene exerted to quicken them they could never have beene saved In the second place verse 2. He telleth them that their whole life was a life of sinne though they were dead to grace and spiritual life yet they were alive to sinne Yea thirdly that they lived after the custome of natural and unregenerate men who did minde and savour onely the things of this life And fourthly that they lived as those that had Satan the God of this world for their guide and were so farre from being led by the Spirit of God that the same uncleane spirit and enemy to mans salvation did rule them which now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience Fifthly in the third verse he sheweth that they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh doing what their vaine minde did dictate their corrupt appetite and sinful affections did desire Sixthly The Apostle amplifies this by comparison shewing that the estate of himself and the beleeving Jewes was no better then theirs both in respect of sinne and punishment being all by nature the children of wrath as well as others In the fourth verse the Apostle layeth down a second Argument Argument 2 to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in our salvation drawn from the Author of our salvation the inward impulsive moving cause prevailing with him to do this for us the rich Author is God the moving cause his free love but God who is in mercy for the great love wherwith he loved us did deliver us In the fifth verse he shewes the order of Gods dispensing grace to us and that is by the redemption of Christ amplified from the time that while we were yet dead in sinnes God quickened us with Christ and therefore by grace we are saved that is while we were dead in sinnes and trespasses a Covenant passed between God and Christ our Redeemer and God gave us unto Christ that by him we should be redeemed and when he raised Christ he gave us a pledge of our redemption and justification in him In the sixth verse he telleth us that we are not only quickened and raised to life begotten to a living hope of eternal life but we were in a manner raised with him and ascended with him as in our head and set down together with him in heavenly ace spl that is in respect of our right purchased we had it before faith but in respect of actual possession and application of these mercies this is not conferred upon our persons untill we do beleeve In the seventh verse the Apostle sheweth what end God had in all this that in the ages to come be might shew the exceeding riches of his grace and kindnesse towards us in Jesus Christ In the eighth ver he concludes from his former discourse that therefore we are saved by grace And goeth on to prove it by a third Argument taken from the meanes whereby this grace is received and applied we are saved by grace because we are saved by faith where faith is taken metonymically for Christ apprehended by faith yet not excluding faith as a meanes to apply Christ to us and that which is due to Christ is attributed to faith because it alone is the onely instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto justification Now the Apostle to prevent a mistake lest any should think because faith is our act that therefore we are saved by something in us he answers that though it be our Act it is Gods gift and therefore we cannot challenge any thing in the work of Salvation because we are passive in this work it is a grace wrought in us by God to apply Christ to us and therefore in 9. verse he removes all works whether performed by grace or nature from being the cause of our salvation knowing how deeply this error is rooted in all men by nature to seek righteousnesse in themselves and he gives a reason why God will not have salvation by works because as they cannot stand with grace as faith may so they are enemies to the glory of God and will lift up the heart of man to glory in himself therefore God will have it to be by grace received by faith that no man might boast In the tenth verse the Apostle having shewed that our salvation is only of grace and the meanes by which we are made capable of all saving good in Christ by faith excluding all causes in man lest he should boast he layeth down a new reason why we cannot be saved by works because in the work of regeneration we are wholly Gods workmanship in Christ created to good works and we are as meerly passive in this work as in the first work of creation for as no creature contributed any thing to its own being and as there was no disposition in man to make himself a man so there is naturally no ability in us to contribute any thing to our new creation therefore seeing all we have and are inabled to do is by grace we are not saved
not onely caring for thy credit that thy life be unblameable but that God may be honoured do'st thou abound in the fruits of righteousnesse art thou full of love peace long-suffering gentlenesse goodnesse meeknesse faith humility patience temperance He that is not thus fruitful is not ingraffed into Christ if thy faith be a dead faith that doth not manifest it self by good works if thou beest barren and unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ and hast nothing but the outward leaves of profession thou wert never truly ingraffed into Christ A 2d note is this he that is united to Christ lives the life of Christ for it is not he but Christ that liveth in him neverthelesse saith Paul I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me As a branch in the tree if it be a living branch partakes of the same life it doth not only cleave by adherence and continuation to the body of the tree but it is in the tree by a real participation of life partaking of the sap and influences of the root thus it is between Christ and a Christian united to him by a true faith Acts 3.15 he partakes of spiritual life from Christ hence Christ is called the Prince of Life 1 Cor. 15.45 and a quickening Spirit 1 Cor. 15.45 Now Christ is the Root Author and fruition of all spiritual life in us and thus he lives in us by his Spirit which is called the Spirit of life which is in Christ and by this he freeth us from the law of sin and death Rom. 8.2 The same Spirit that dwells in Christ dwells in a Beleever and quickens him as it raised Christ from the dead so it doth raise up us to newnesse of life and so to live a life in conformity to the life of Christ which appears in two things because it makes a Christian live by the same rule and to the same end 1. By the same rule Christ as Mediatour lived according to the written Word of God Pâ—al 40.8 The Law of God was written in his heart look what the Law did require there was a disposition in his heart suitable to that Law and hence Christ professed He came not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him It was his meat and drink to do the will of his Father John 4.34 And in the most difficult case wherein he could be tried though nature started and stood amazed at the greatnesse of the sufferings and therefore as man could not but fear the wrath of God and in this sense he feared and declined the bitternesse of the cup and desired it might passe away and unlesse he had put off the nature and affections of man he could do no otherwise yet knowing that immutable purpose of God and for that end he came to this home in that sense he voluntarily submitted and so though here were a diversity of wills yet not a contrariety of wills in Christ and truly his will was wholly agreeable to the will of God so in such as Christ lives by his Spirit he makes them so live as to make the will of God the rule of their life and to this end he writes the Law in their heart that they may both know and have an inward suitablenesse of Spirit to yield obedience to the will of God And hence he that hath had communion with Christ in his death is said to cease to sin for this end that he should no longer live to the lusts of men but to the will of God 2. Christ made the honour of God his end thus Christ saith He did honour the Father and sought not his own glory John 8.49 50. Thus also a Christian that is united to Christ seeks that glory of God and makes that his last end as Paul injoynes Whatsoever ye do 1 Cor. 10.31 do all to the glory of God Now if thou art one that doest make the will of God the rule of thy life and obey it from thy heart making God thy last end in all thou doest surely this is an infallible signe of a man in Christ 3. That man that is united to Christ cannot live to sin any longer as a graft cut off the old stock lives not in the stock any longer but wholly lives in another so that man that is united to Christ being cut off from the old stock lives not to corrupt nature any longer Nay there is nothing now so contrary to the life of a Christian as sin nothing so hateful nothing was more hateful to Christ he came into the world to destroy the works of the devil to destroy sin 1 John 3.8 Rom. 6.6 1 Pet. 4.1 2. and they that are in Christ their old man was crucified with him and thus he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin i. e. he that hath been crucified with Christ sin reignes no more in his heart so then they that are Christs have crucified the flesh Gal. 5.24 with the affections and lusts thereof they cannot cleave in their affections unto sin nay they cannot but hate it as being that that drew tears and blood from Christs heart who is now dearer to them then their own lives Therefore such as can give up themselves to the love of any one sin and suffer their affection to be insnared with the love of it were never united truly to Christ for separation from sin and union to Christ are inseparable companions Thus you see how we may know our union to Christ The last Use shall be to perswade every man to labour after this union seeing life and death stands in it Christ himself will profit us nothing without this union Wealth in the Mine doth not inrich any man till it be severed from its drosse and appropriated to a particular use water in the Fountain profits not a man till it be conveighed by some pipe into his cisterne light in the Sun doth me no good unlesse I have an eye to behold it Christ is a rich Mine in which are hid unsearchable treasures but what am I the better if he be not mine Tolle meum tolle Deum saith Luther Take away my propriety in Christ and the knowledge of a Christ will torment and not comfort my heart He is a Fountain of living water but unlesse faith be the conduit-pipe and cock to conveigh this water I may perish for all that he is a Sun of righteousnesse yet if he do not enlighten me I may be cast into utter darknesse therefore till Christ by some bond or union become mine and I his I may be as miserable as if this Mine had not been discovered as if this Fountain had not been opened as if this Sun had never risen Now this union and communion with Christ on our part is by faith Oh let us labour for faith Consider how freely God hath given Christ for us and how willing God is to give Christ to us consider how
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
intercession which is the best Index and Interpreter of his minde and intention in his death limits and restraines the benefits of his intercession to Beleevers then it was his minde and intention in his death to limit the benefits thereof unto Believers because Christs intention of the benefits of his death and the fruit of his intercession are of equall latitude and by consequence what was his minde was the Fathers minde for Christ and his Father are one and have the same will but Christ limits the benefits of his intercession unto Beleevers as we may see in John 17.20 Christ prayes for them that shall believe in him John 17.20 Heb. 7.25 nor do these places only declare who shall have the benefit of Christs intercession but how and when it shall be obtained by faith by coming unto Christ for if they did obtain it before faith immediately from his death what need were there of Christs intercession for that which they did already enjoy From whence I argue 8. That that destroyes the end and use of Christs intercession cannot be agreeable to Scripture But to make Christs death to justifie us actually and immediately this destroyes the end of his intercession for Christ is now in heaven an Advocate for sin that it might be pardoned to them that believe so that Christ in his death took it away meritoriously and now he is in heaven to intercede for all that by faith seek for the benefits of his death that it may be formally applied Yea the children of God though they fall not from the state of justification by new sins they lose not their right to heaven yet they lose their aptitude for heaven and by every new sin they contract a new guilt and without a new remission of the sins committed they cannot be saved and hence Christ is a daily Advocate to intercede for us as St. John saith My little children 1 John 2.1 if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous I might adde to these many mâ—re but these are sufficient to demonstrate this truth and will prove a burdensome stone to Mr. Eyre if he endeavour to contradâ—ct them And as for those Arguments which he Chap. 14. useth to prove the actuall and immediate reconciliation of the Elect before faith they have all the same unhappinesse to fall like arrowes farre short of the mark intended and have most of them the same common fate to be guilty of a miserable non sequitur as shall in my reply to them in its proper place appear Now the next thing to be superadded for a full vindication of this truth is that this suspending the benefits of Christs death until faith is no way derogatory to the atonement made by Christs death which may as easily be proved as that Pilate was guilty of Christs blood And I prove it thus 1. If there were such an agreement as the arguments above declare then what wrong is it to the atonement made by Christs death that the effect of it should not be enjoyed untill faith when as it was the mutuall agreement between the Father and the Son to have it so it was his will to have it so and volenti non fit injuria there is no injury to him that is willing 2. If the death of Christ were in value a sufficient ransome for the whole world the very Reprobates not excepted and yet without injury and wrong to Christs satisfaction it is by the will of God ordaining and so accepting it to be only effectual for the Elect which comparatively in respect of the Reprohates is a small number why shall it be judged a wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit of it for whom it is intended should be for a time suspended for gracious and good ends at the will of the Father to make them see what they are and deserve and what need they have of Christ and to raise up their desires after him and to increase their love unto God for Christ and also for the honour of the Lord and his Christ that though he justifie the ungodly yet that he doth not justifie them so remaining that his enmity and hatred against sin may the more appear and that wicked men might not think God a justifier of the wicked in their abominations which is contrary to the purity of his nature and justice to do why should this be thought more injurious to Christs satisfaction then a peremptory excluding of all the race of the Reprobates from salvation by his death But 3. If notwithstanding the suspending the benefits of Christs death untill faith the death of Christ be no lesse satisfactory to divine justice and the intrinsecal worth and value of his merits no whit lessened and the efficacy and certainty of the effects of Christs death be no lesse established by our Doctrine then if the effect did immediately follow then this is no impairing of the atonement made by his death but the premises are true which I evidence thus 1. We willingly grant that the death of Christ was a full and compleat satisfaction to divine justice and a valuable compensation for the sins of those that shall be saved and God did not accept lesse at the hands of Christ then was due to our sins but he made satisfaction ad ultimum quadrantem to the last farthing the justice of God can require no more either at his hands or at the hands of those for whom he suffered by way of satisfaction and hence in his resurrection he gave him a publick acquittance and sent his Angel to roll away the stone from the Sepulchre as a publick Officer to testifie his acquitting him from the debt of our sins and so he sets him at liberty and brings him out of prison 2. The intrinsecall value and worth of Christs merits is no way diminished Christ did not compound with the Father as broken debtors with the creditour making him to take lesse then was due nay as we have shewed in some respect if you consider the dignity of the person there was more laid down then the Law required though in regard of the substance of the punishment it was that which the Law required and the justice of God and the love of the Father could require no more the prorogation or deferring the actuall enjoyment of the thing purchased by that satisfaction ariseth not from any impotency or defect in Christs sufferings but from the liberty of Gods will who in mercy accepts of that which a surety hath done for us which in it self was refusable till by an act of grace it was admitted as available for us but in that time onely that the Father should appoint whose will Christ as a Mediatour and Servant was obliged to obey 3. The death of Christ is no lesse efficacious and certain in the effects of it then if an immediate participation of it were granted the efficaciousnesse of Christs death is not to be
Law in whole as the Arminians and in part as the Papists But we take faith for a condition in this sense for an Evangelicall qualification wrought in us by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified nor saved and shall not enjoy the benefits and blessings of the new Covenant as a cause of life not efficiently as works in the old Covenant but instrumentally by applying by Gods order and constitution Christ and his benefits to the Believer And thus the Scripture saith He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned and that the wrath of God abideth on him * There it was and there it shall rest till by faith it be removed works are required as conditions of those that shall be saved but faith is a condition of Justification And because this faith is freely given salvation is no lesse of free grace then if this condition were not required nor is it absurd that the same thing should be freely promised of God and yet required as a duty of us 't is we are bound to believe and repent and yet faith is Gods gift and Christ is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his people for remission of sins CHAP. V. Containing a brief description of M. Eyre's opinion shewing wherein he departeth from the Orthodox faith together with a brief Synopsis of the several errors unsound opinions and selfe-contradictions that he hath intangled himselfe in in the defending of his errour of eternall Justification HE is an unfit man to establish another in the truth who himself is l ke a Reed shaken with the winde inconstant to himself Vide Mr. Eyre pag 62. as well as disagreeing from the truth such in this Chapter shall the Reader finde Mr Eyre so farre as relates to his Book I trust in Christ to manifest and therefore let the judicious Reader observe and judge Now for his opinion as farre as I can gather from his Book I conceive it to be this First He saith that Justification in Scripture is taken variously pro volitione Divinâ pro re volità 1. For the will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people And 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 is Justification is taken by him actively for Gods eternal will not to punish and passively for the effect of that will as it is terminated upon the Elect or Believer And he saith that he looks upon Dr Twisse 's judgment as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish Wherein first let the Reader observe his departing from the received judgement of all Orthodox Divines except three or four in making Gods eternal will to be that wherein the Essence of Justification consists it is well known that unanimously they agree that Justification is not an immanent but a transient act done in time And the Scripture no where calleth Gods eternal will Justification and if the essence and quiddity of Justification consist in this it is marvell the Scripture should never call it so and so often as the Scripture speaks of Justification should speak of it in an improper sense passively taken as terminated upon us Besides the will of God not to punish is but terminus diminuens a decree or will not to punish in time Besides this is not the whole of Justification for it is a will not to punish according to the tenor of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace which requireth faith But I shall argue against this in a more proper place Now if we take it thus as Mr. Eyre will have it his opinion is this Justification is an eternall immanent act or will in God not to punish and impute sin unto his people antecedently not only to their birth and faith but to the death of Christ nor is the death of Christ the cause of this Justification though with him Justification thus taken is most accurate and properly taken and so he maketh Christ no cause of the act of Justification for he will acknowledge no other transient act and immanent there is none 1. And this act is not purely * Page 67. negative as the non-imputation of sin to a stone but privative being the non-imputation of a sin realiter futuri inesse which how Scholastically it is spoken being a privative act of a privation in a positive decree of God when neither the subject nor the sin are in being and as if sin were debitum inesse that that ought to be in us for privation is properly understood of these 2. And this non-imputation is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being a will not to impute it hereafter may be actual but to call that an actuall non-imputation is improperly spoken 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it c. Here is a compleat Justification then without a satisfaction for which Socinus will give him the right hand of fellowship and many thanks for a gratuity And yet he addeth that this renders not the death of Christ uselesse surely as to this act it is uselesse * And Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other act of Justification and if it be the meritorious cause of the effects of this Justification how was that Justification compleat whose effects could not be obtained without the death of the Son of God Where let the Reader observe also that he maketh Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election for he addeth by way of similitude As the love of God is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effectt of it Pag. 67. and so Pag. 66. As electing love precede c. so this act of justifying is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Moreover he saith That the Lord did not impute sin to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant Page 64. that his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins should deserve Surely the Lord must then by Mr. Eyre impute it to Christ and so Christ was man and a sinner from eternity and crucified from eternity and all this in Gods minde and there Judas and Pilate and those that murdered Christ did exist too and what will not this bring in And * Mr. Eyre p. 8. the ground of this is that he conceives God constituting and ordaining Christ a Head and the Elect his Members they were by this mystically implanted before they were borne even from eternity And Justification thus taken saith he makes no change in God nor
of the loved and hated Mr. Eyre p. 66. compared with pag. 5. are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth and yet findeth fault with me for asserting the same that there was no difference between the Elect and Reprobate as to their present condition whilest the Elect are unregenerate but only in the purpose of God intending to make a difference by bringing the Elect unto faith in Christ that they may be justified which was all I said or intended Fifthly He saith Gods eternall decree to justifie Mr. Eyre p. 64. compared with pag 140. is Justification because it secures men from wrath and by this immanent act of God they are discharged and acquitted from their sinnes Then what need Christ to die here is forgivenesse without a satisfaction Christs death was not the câ—use of this immanent act or will in God And yet he contradicteth himself for pag. 140. he saith that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justititiâ bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his eternal Election Surely Justification is one of the good things intended in Election and therefore God could not bestow this salvâ justitiâ till their sin was satisfied for but with him they were according to the first place discharged from sin by this immanent act yet Christs death was not a cause of this act and if they were actually discharged from sin how did that lie as a block in the way to hinder any of the good things intended And he citeth a place which he owneth out of Mr. Rutherford pag. 140. God might will unto us that which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice and this he understands of Gods saving and pardoning us but if we were actually discharged we were actually pardoned and that without the merit of Christs death and satisfaction to his justice Sixthly He interpreteth pag. 60. what is meant by Gods sight when it is said We are justified in his sight this phrase he saith is variously used 1. Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts and knowledge of God c. 2. Sometimes it relates more peculiarly unto his legal justice and although in articulo providentiae in the Doctrine of Divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo justificationis in the article of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and God is never said to blot our sins out of his knowledge but out of his sight Now saith he pag. 62. If we take it for the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed and determined in himself not to impute to us our sins c. and this was from eternity And with him the 63. pag. the essence and quiddity of Justification stands in this will of God not to punish this is properly Justification in his judgement and then God knew them to be righteous yet he saith in the article of Justification knowledge is constantly distinguished from sight throughout the whole Scripture and God is never said to blot sins out of his knowledge as much as if he should say If you take this phrase as it is never to be taken then we were justified from eternity And the Scripture doth not acknowledge this eternal Justification for when it speaks of the Doctrine of Justification it speaketh of blotting out sins out of his sight and this is to be referred to his legal Justice and this is the most proper and genuine use of it saith he and so we were justâ—fied in the sight of God when he exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood for all our sins and yet this Justification is not the most proper acceptation of Justification for that was from eternity and yet we were then most properly justified in his sight how well this agrees let the Reader judge Seventhly He taketh Faith objectively Mr. Eyre p. 47. Pag. 58 76. not for the act with connotation of the object but for the object excluding the act as if the word Faith signified Christ and yet when we urge him with such places where it is said We are justified by Faith and the like he understands it of a declarative Justification and so taketh Faith subjâ—ctively not objectively So he taketh it p. 73. In this sense men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the Medium or instrument whereby the sentence of forgivenesse is terminated on their conscience Eightly Pag. 63. He affirmeth that the judgement of Dr. Twisse is most accurate in placing the essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish pag. 63. yet he saith and that truly in respect of this immanent and eternal act of God that the merits of Christ do not move Gods will not to punish or impute sinne to us yet he acknowledgeth no other act that Christs death is the meritorious cause of he saith it is the meritorious cause of the effects of this eternal Justification Pag. 67 but the Scripture maketh Christs death the meritorious cause of some act of God justifying us can Christ cause the effect and not the act Merit is an outward procatarâ—â—ical cause moving the principal agent extrinsecally ad agendum and hence God is said for Christs sake to forgive us Christs death doth morally work upon him by way of motive and objective moving and is a remote cause of the effect and God as the principall efficient is the immediate cause and what influence then can this remote cause have to produce the effects of Justification and no way by any causal influx to cause the act Though I still willingly acknowledge that the internal moving cause is Gods own will for nothing out of God can be the cause of his will unlesse we make God beholding to another for his being 9thly He giveth a very superficial slight answer to those Scriptures that speak of receiving remission of sins by believing Acts 10.43 Acts 26.18 Though it be said whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin it is not said saith he by believing we obtain remission of sins true who would make an instrumentall cause the meritorious cause of remission of sins but if by obtaining be meant no more then a receiving and possessing what we never had before so we do by Faith obtain remission of sins he distinguisheth between the giving of remission and the receiving it as if one were long before the other To which I answer If you take giving for the will of God ordaining to give remission so it is long before receiving but that is not an actual bestowing of the thing purposed but if you take it for an actual collation of the thing given it implies the receiving of it for Relata se mutuo ponunt tollunt thus giving and receiving are together and so forgivenesse of
Reprobatio neque damnationis neque peccati quod incretur damnationem est propriè causa sed antecedens tantum Ames Medul c. 25. s 40. 1 John 3.4 Rom. 5.13 of this act And they that were not could not have any sin imputed yea it chargeth God with untruth and with unjustice to impute sin before committed for the very formality of a sin consisteth in the privation of that rectitude the Law requireth or in the transgression of the Law Now where there is no Law there is no transgression therefore the Apostle proveth That before the Law was promulged there was some Law given and transgressed by which sin entered into the world and death by sin which was that * Not the Moral Law existing in the mind of God before it was declared as Master Eyre seemes to intimate in the same place positive Law forbidding Adam and in him us to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and had there been no Law there had been no trangression but now from eternity there was no Law given nor any person to whom it should be given and therefore from eternity there was no transgression and therefore to make God impute that which was not is to ascribe unto God a fallible judgement and to make God to esteem them sinners before they were men yea and in justice too will it charge upon God to make him impute sin to them which they â—â—ver committed and for this to hate them and passe them by and not Elect them Here is a complication of errours in this passage God doth not esteem any person a sinner till by 〈◊〉 act that he is guilty of his Law be violated nor adjudge any man to punishment nor execute or inflict any punishment untill sin be committed So that Gods imputation of sin followeth that act of sin and doth not precede it and is a transient not an immanent act And a little after he contradicteth himself A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or representative which necessarily supposeth a Law for sin is the transgression of the Law Why then it necessarily followes no man was a sinner from eternity and so God did not impute it but let it go for one of his Paradoxes the Law and sin had a coeternall existence in the minde of God together with his own eternall Essence Eighteenthly When we urge Mr. Eyre with those Scriptures He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him and that the Elect are children of wrath as well as others and tell him a man cannot be a child of wrath and a justified person at the same time then the argument will not hold and is invalid as you may see in his slight Answers to Mr. Woodbridges Arguments from these Scriptures Pag. 110 111 112. compared with pag. 138. pag. 110 111 112. and yet when he cometh to prove that we are justified immediately from the time of Christs death he can use the same Argument and then it is a divine Oracle his words are these p. 138. It was the will of God saith he that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be children of Christ and children of Wrath at the same time and because this deserves a more full examination and it was an Argument used by my against Mr. Eyre in our conference I will reserve what I have to say further to it to another place Ninteenthly He saith That the Elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after believing then they had before Unhappy man Mr. Eyre pag. 122. that he should be the father of so many foule errours what had the Elect Corinthians when they were Idolaters Fornicators Adulterers effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankinde had they then as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as after What will this man make the Kingdome of Heaven to be that admits of such Sodomites and Whoremongers to be the actuall heires of it If they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven they were a blessed people Oh blessed Sodomites Oh blessed Whoremongers if this Doctrine be true here was all the unhappinesse of these Sodomitical Saints they knew not their happinesse before they had as much right to salvation as before only they had more knowledge of it after believing but if they had as much right why doth the Apostle say as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived no such shall inherit the Kingdome of God why then what a wrong is this to them when they have a right to the Kingdome of God Do any persons more deserve the same stile of the Gnosticks of old to be called the dirty Sect then such panders for the flesh as these But I hope such as fear the Lord will take the Apostles caveat and not be seduced by such filthy dreamers to believe that when they lie in Dalilahs lap they are as dear to God and have at much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as when they lie in Abrahams bosome Twentith He saith in pag. 129. That the best actions of the unregenerate are impure and sinful which though they are all pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight But are their persons acceptable and justified so as to have as much right as ever they shall have to the Kingdome of God And are their best actions such as are their praying hearing for the matter good and duties commanded and are all the sins pardoned which make them only evil in Gods sight and yet are they abominable and loathsome in his sight who will believe you can the want of faith which is by you pardoned hinder the acceptance of their works and not the acceptance of their persons Nay what do you affirme of the actions of the Regenerate more then may be said of the actions of the Elect unregenerate if they be justified persons as you say they are for the best works of unregenerat justified Infidels as you will have it are as you say of the regenerate pleasing to God not only comparatively because better then the works of Reprobates or then the sins of unregenerate persons but absolutely 1. Abstractly as you affirme of the others and in themselves for they are such things as are lawful and commanded and if they faile in the manner of doing it in faith hope and love this is but a faile in the manner and Gradus non variat speciem and the Regenerate Elect faile in the measure of faith hope and love neither in them doth their faith hope or love merit the acceptance of their duties And 2. Concretely as they are acted by justified persons and so passe through the hands of pardoned persons and the sins are washed away in Christs blood this want of faith hope and love is pardoned I
pray tell me now what reall difference you make between the duties of an Elect unregenerate person and of a Regenerate person Let not the ignorant Reader mistake me here I affirme not that any duties of an unregenerate person are acceptable to God or that the want of faith hope and love maketh but a failing only in the manner and circumstances of the dutie but I have only presented the Reader with a glasse to let him see that Mr. Eyre for all the seeming difference he maketh between the actions of the Elect Regenerate and unregenerate yet indeed maketh none and according to him it cannot be found Pag. 18. Thus the Reader may see that one truth of Mr. Eyre verified where he saith We may no more judge of Books by their Title then of strumpets by their foreheads and although his Tittle-Page hold forth the Gospel-language of free Justification yet if thou read the Book thou shalt finde Esaus hands though thou sometimes hearest Jacobs voice And therefore the Reader that is judicious will not be like a silly fish taken with the bait though it swallow the hook I have given thee a few Animadversions but a judicious Reader will observe more This is enough to give the Reader warning to preserve him from the infection of this aire And I hope sufficient to reduce them that are led captive by him into the same Errour CHAP. VI. Proving that we are not justified from Eternity HERE I shall premise these few things First That as we hold Justification to be a transient act done in time so there is no transient act but it presupposeth necessarily an immanent act in God And therefore secondly I acknowledge there was an eternal and an immutable act of Gods will decreeing to justifie his Elect in time through faith in Christ Thirdly As for that conditionate decree which Arminians make in God making the condition antecedent to the act of Gods will I no way acknowledge and judge it absolutely inconsistent with Gods Nature and Essence but such a conditional decree as is so called subsequently not in respect of God willing but in respect of the thing willed sive objecti voliti is not repugnant to him especially in such contingent effects as come to passe by vertue of his decree ordaining them Thus God willeth salvation to the Elect which salvation they shall be brought unto by faith in Christ not that faith is the cause of the act of Election or God willing their salvation yet it may be the cause of the thing willed a subsequent condition wrought by God for the execution of his decree And therefore when the Orthodox acknowledge Election to be absolute they understand it not exclusively to the means which God hath ordained for the obtaining of salvation for God in the same eternall act did ordain the end and the meanes hence Paul telleth the Thessalonians that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 2 Thess 2.13 1 Pet. 1.2 and belief of the truth and Peter saith The strangers he wrote unto according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ And as I acknowledge this to be an eternall decree Because he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy so I willingly grant it to be immutable for he that changeth his purpose doth it for want of wisdome in deliberating or for want of power to execute it neither of which can be ascribed to God without blasphemy And hence the Scripture saith The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his Fourthly I grant that Christ was elected and constituted to be a Head and all the Elect were predestinated to be his members and in this sense we were chosen in him not existing but only we were pre-ordained unto salvation by him And that this act was one in God in respect of whole Christ mystical although I deny that the Elect were by this act of God mystically united unto Christ which is done upon believing yet I grant a certain relative respect and mutual relation between them In which sense the Elect are called his people before he saved them from their sins and while they were not yet converted and his sheep for which he laid down his life although not yet brought home to him yet was not Christ the meritorious cause of their Election much lesse their foreseen faith or good works although he be the cause of the effects of their Election as therefore this salvation unto which we are predestinated is the act of God so Christ is the effect of Gods love of Election and the means of salvation and our salvation is the end in respect of us but as this salvation is our good so Christ is the cause of it Fifthly Though Christ were thus predestinated to be a Head and the Elect his Members yet was not he a Head actually from eternity nor the Elect actual members because he had not a mystical body from eternity and although God decreed from eternity to justifie the Elect through faith in Christ yet were not they actually justified For * Praedestinatio enim anâ—e applicationemgratiae nihil ponit in praedestinatis sed latet solùm in praedestinante Ames Medul Theol. cap. 25. sect 2. Predestination maketh no internall difference between the Elect and Reprobate untill actuall grace be given for applying the things intended in Election nor doth Predestination necessarily presuppose the existence of its terme * Praedestinatio enim nec terminum nec objectum suum necessariò praesupponit ut existens sed ponit ut existat ità ut vi praedestinationis ordinetur ut sit Amesii Medul c. 25. s 8. nor object but the futurity of both Having premised these things which I have the rather more fully done because he representeth me and such as differ from him as Arminians and Papists I shall now prove that we were not justified from eternity 1. Gods decree to justifie is terminus diminuens is a terme of diminution and therefore is not actuall Justification 't is amor ordinativus but it is not amor collativus it is a love ordaining and preparing good things for us but not an actuall bestowing them Justification is an actual bestowing of some special mercy a discharge from the guilt of sin and death a passing us from an estate of death into an estate of life this may be intended but is not actually performed by Predestination for it 's a known rule Praedestinatio nihil ponit in Praedestinato but I will not strangle the question so by the prejudice of a word or two therefore I argue 2. The Scripture no where speaketh of an eternal Justification Therefore we were not justified from eternity The Antecedent is acknowledged and made use of by Mr. Eyre and a negative argument in matters of great
upon a man at the same time as sinful and righteous if you mean by it an estate of sin and a righteous or justified estate for this would ascribe to God a fallible judgement to judge them otherwise then they are but if your meaning be he may see at the same time what they were by nature and what they are by grace 't is not denied but to look upon them as being in their naturall estate and in a state of grace at the same time implies an errour in his judgement which is blasphemy to imagine and is a contradiction in adjecto 5. Christs death is the meritorious cause of our Justification But Christs death was not the meritorious cause of Gods eternall purpose Therefore that immanent act or eternal purpose of God to justifie us is not our justification The Major is expresly delivered in the Scripture Eph. 4.32 2 Cor. 5.19 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.12 God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians God was in Christ reconciling the world c. and whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith c. He hath obtained eternal redemption for us c. And to deny it were with Socinus that cursed Heretick to deny the satisfaction of Christ The Minor is acknowledged by himself page 67. It may be he will answer as he saith in pag. 66 67. If Justification be taken for the will of God so Christs death is not the * Nihil movet voluntatem Dei nisi bonitas sua Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art 2. cause c. but if you take it for the thing willed or effect of this will by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law c. so it hath Christs death for the adequate cause but the vanity of this distinction is discovered in the foregoing Argument and here the Reader may see he maketh Christs death the cause of Justification passively taken but of no act of God in justifying Besides our deliverance from the Law is an effect of Justification not Justification it self which is an act of God for Christs sake forgiving us upon which followeth our delivery from the Law 6. If we were actually and formally justified from eternity then Christ died in vain or his death was not to purchase forgivenesse but to apply forgivenesse or to manifest Gods love not to satisfie Gods justice But Christs death was not in vaine he died not only to apply but to purchase forgivenesse not to manifest Gods love only but to satisfie Gods justice Therefore the first consequence is evident because his death was in vain as to the act of Justification for as in the former Argument Christs death was not the cause of that act and Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other and yet he will have Christs death to be the cause of the effect of that will how can it cause the effect and be no cause of any act of Gods will for we acknowledge it the cause of the transient act of Gods will which is properly our justification which act he will not acknowledge The second inference is evident for if we were justified from eternity then we were forgiven from eternity and then either Christ doth but apply it at the most for he did not purchase it or only he doth but manifest Gods love to the world but the Scripture is evident That he hath purchased forgiveness In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of our sins and he died to satisfie Gods justice hence he is a propitiation for our sins 7. This overthroweth the merit of Christs death because if we were justified from eternity then Justification is a due debt to the Elect and then what place is left for Christs merit for it must be bonum indebitum that that is properly merited was not due before but if we were justified then it was due and so no roome is left for Christs merits 8. That which will not secure the sinner from wrath is not Justification But this decree will not secure the sinner from wrath The Major is evident for how can he be justified that is not secured from condemnation The Minor I prove because notwithstanding Gods decree Christ must die there was a necessity of Christs death supposing Gods decree not to pardon sin without a satisfaction I grant that Gods decree doth eventualy secure the Elect but not actually it is true because a man is Elect he shall not as to the event be damned but God will give faith to apply Christs righteousnesse but this is not an actual acquittance or discharge from sin when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect that is to such as are declared or evidenced to be Elect by believing or effectual vocation And that the Apostle must mean so is evident the Apostle is comforting in that Chapter Believers that are in Christ against condemnation Now this he proveth because they are Elect The Elect shall not be condemned but you are Elect Now how shall this be known by faith and our effectual vocation Hence in the 30. ver he speaketh of effectual vocation as that that precedeth and is a sign of Election and hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure Why is Calling put before Election because our Election is unknown to any till it be evidenced by their effectual Calling Now surely the Apostle did not barely propound Election as a signe of Justification without some means to know it for how can a thing so secret be a comfort till it be manifested and how shall it be manifested but by Faith and Sanctification therefore surely they being the subjects of his discourse must be understood by the Elect Now if you take the Proposition as an universal Negative or universal Affirmative No Elect Believer can be justly charged with sin or All Elect Believers are freed from the charge of sin both are true but to take it for the Elect antecedently to Faith the Proposition is not true for the Word may and doth charge him with sin for it threateneth damnation to him but it threateneth damnation for nothing but sin and God doth look upon him as a sinner and he ought to charge himself with sin therefore though all Elect Believers shall be freed from sin yet all the Elect are not formally discharged from sin As for your weak and feeble endeavour to cast an Odium of simplicity upon so learned a man as Master Burges who is well known to be an Aristotle to Mr. Eyre that he should speak as weakly as if he said Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it should say that by omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the expression legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo but it may be very justly retorted upon Mr. Eyre thus His opinion is as
Calvin is in expresse termes for us against you and I will manifest in a few passages Calvin ad Concil Triden Sess 6. ad Can. 9 Calvin Insti l. 3. c. 11. N. 7. Hominem solâ fide justificari quum dicimus fidem non fingimus charitate vacuam sed ipsam solam justificationis causam esse intelligimus and so he saith We gather we do not take from Christ the power of justifying when we teach that he is first received by faith but yet I doe not admit of the crooked figures of this Sophistor meaning Osiander when he saith that Faith is Christ where let the Reader observe that Mr. Eyre agreeth with Osiander in interpreting faith to be Christ and it is the high way to Familisme and to think with Osiander that the essential righteousnesse of Christ is ours and withall how Calvin disliketh this interpretation As if saith he an earthen pot were a treasure because Gold is hidden in it For the reason is not unlike but that faith although it be by it self of no worthinesse or price may justifie us in bringing in Christ as a pot full of money maketh a man rich therefore I say that faith which is only the instrument to receive righteousnesse is unfitly mingled with Christ which is the material cause and both Author and Minister of so great a benefit And again Quo enim modo vera fides justificat Calvins Inst l. 3. c. 17. N. 11. nisi dum nos Christo conglutinat ut unum cum illo facti participatione ejus fruamur So again However we be redeemed of Christ yet till we be by the calling of the Father graffed into the communion of him we are both heires of darknesse and death and the enemies of God 1 Cor. 6.11 for Paul teacheth that we are not cleansed by the blood of Christ untill the Holy Ghost worketh that cleansing in us 1 Pet. 1.2 which same thing Peter minding to teach declareth that the sanctifying of the Spirit availeth unto obedience and be sprinkling of the blood of Christ if we be by the Spirit sprinkled unto cleansing by the blood of Christ let us not think that before such watering we be any other then a sinner is without Christ Let this therefore remain certain that the beginning of our salvation is as it were a certain resurrection from death te life because when for Christs sake it is given to us to believe in him then we first begin to passe from death to life Vnder this sort are comprehended they which have in the division above been noted for the second and third sort of men for the uncleannesse of conscience proveth that both of them are not yet regenerate by the Spirit of God And again where there is no regeneration in them Calvins â— Inst 3. Book 14. c. N. 6 7. this proveth the want of Faith whereby appeareth that they are not yet reconciled to God nor yet justified in his sight for as much as these things are not attained to but by faith The length of the Testimony hath made me omit the Latine it is endlesse to repeat more I conceive Calvine sufficiently vindicated by what is already cited Your next Author is * Zanchy lib. 50. de Natura Dei c. 2. p. 539 Zanchy who though in the words cited something favoureth your opinion yet he meaneth only that we were virtually justified in Christ and in other places is most expressely against you And to avoid prolixity I will give his Testimony only in English The fourth benefit saith he is Justification that is the forgivenesse of our sins and the imputation of Christs righteousness for this followeth faith So also he saith in a twofold sense it may be said and understood that a man is justified by faith instrumentally and formally and in both senses we are justified by faith alone in the first sense because by this as an instrument fitted for this matter we receive the grace of God and righteousnesse of Christ in the latter sense as by the only obedience and righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith we are formally justified as the faith apprehending is taken for the thing apprehended So again * Zanch. Loc. Com. Theol. Epist ad Eph. Loc. 2. p. 83. there are three things required to this that we be partakers of salvation and without which we cannot be saved First As the fountain of all benefits the grace of God his eternal favour love and mercy to us Secondly The other is the complement or fulfilling of the promises and figures of the Old Testament concerning our redemption by blood and the offering up of a Lamb without spot whereby sins might be expiated The third benefit necessary to salvation and sine * Zanch. de tribus Elâ— lib. 5. pag. 195 196. quo reliqua duo nobis inania inutilia sunt est vera Dei cognitio sive fides nam sine fide est impossibile placere Deo Without which the other two are vaine and unprofitable is the true knowledge of God or faith without which it is impossible to please God * Zanch. Tom. 8. de justisi fidei loc undecim p. 781. Once more the wrath of God saith he resteth upon all sinners so long as they continue to be sinners that is unsanctified persons that is his meaning therefore sin is a division between God and man it is a turning of the face of God from the sinner nor can it otherwise be seeing it is repugnant to his righteousnesse to have any fellowship with sin whence the Apostle teacheth that a man is an enemy to God untill he returne into favour through Christ whom therefore the Lord receiveth into conjunction He is said to justifie because he cannot receive into favour nor unite any man to himself but of a sinner he maketh him righteous The next Author is Chamier and it cannot be denied but he hath the words you have cited but it is no hard matter to prove that he contradicteth you and himself in other places I will instance in one Itaque semel habeto nos Legis Evangeliâ— discrimen cùm quaerimus * Itaque semel habeto nos Legis Evangelii discrimen cùm quaerimus utrumquâ— nominare câ—ntractâ illâ significatione secundùm quam Paulus opponit legâ—â—â—perum legi fidei Dâ—inde proprium verum certum discrimen conditionem operum fidei hoc â—st legem operam proponere salutem sub conditione legis perficiendae at legem fidei eâ—â—dem proponere sub conditione tantùm credendi in â—hristum nimirum ut utrinque sumatur conâ—ttio eodem sensu Cham. Panstrat Tom. 3. Lib. 15. Cap 3. Sect. 26. c. Therefore take it for once that we when we seek a difference between the Law and the Gospel do name both in that short signification according to which Paul opposeth the Law of Works to the Law of Faith therefore the condition of Works and Faith do constitute a
concernment is of necessary consequence 't is not written therefore there is no such thing now let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture wherein the decree of God to justifie is called Justification and I yield the cause 3. That that is an act of God done in time was not done from eternity But Justification is an act of God done in time Therefore it was not from eternity The Major needs no proof the Minor is no lesse evident Gal. 3.8 Gal. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through fainh preached the Gospel before unto Abraham saying in these shall all the nations of the earth be blessed where the Apostle maketh it a work to be done in time that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith not that he had justified them whereas if he had meant Justification was eternal it had been senselesse for him to say that God would do that which was done already nor is this meant of a declarative justification in foro conscientiae for it is such a justification as Abraham had but Abraham was not only justified in his conscience but before God So 2 Cor. 5.18 19. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. And God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their transgressions to them But Christ did reconcile us in time and not from eternity Therefore God did not justifie from eternity Christ reconciles us to God not only as God but as God-man by h s death but Christ was not God-man and died not from eternity Therefore c. 4. That action of God which maketh a real change in the creature is a transient action done in time because it passeth from God to the creature and some way worketh a change But Justification is such an action of God that maketh a present change Therfore it is a transient not an immanent act The Major is clear for what action soever is terminated in patiente or upon the creature is certainly transient because it doth not remaine in God and if transient it must be temporary for no creature did exist from eternity The Minor will invincibly remain a truth for it is most certaine that by Justification the state of a sinner is changed he that was in the state of condemnation is now in the state of salvation Justification is opposed to condemnation He that is under condemnation is not justified and he that is justified is freed from condemnation Now let us see what he answereth to this pag. 65. where he answereth this Objection that Justification imports a change which cannot be attributed to the simple decrees of God He answereth That if Justification be taken for the thing willed the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made c. but if we take it for the will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose a change as if God had a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will to a will not to punish Where let the Reader observe the vanity of his distinction in separating the thing willed from the act of Gods will for the whole nature of Justification doth not consist in the thing willed to wit a delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law but in some act of God as a Judge declaring his will to deliver Take a man condemned to die by a Judge this prisoner may by power be rescued from the sentence for the present but is he therefore justified and acquitted in Law by the Judge Justification is an act of God delivering the sinner or acquitting him from the crime or accusation laid to his charge and so from condemnation and where this is there is necessarily a change 2. Observe his equivocation and fallacy in the second member of his distinction if we take it for the will of God not to punish and then Justification doth not import a change as if God had a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will not to punish them we are speaking of a change made by Justification upon the sinner he saith there is none made in Gods will quid hoc ad rhombum and who said that God did first will and then cease to will and then take up a new volition truly Arminians feign such a mutability in God but the Orthodox abhorre it Nor doth Mr. Eyre rightly understand at leastwise represent the Orthodox Doctrine we say and that truly that God by one act of his will willed that he that is a sinner and remaineth so in unbelief should be liable to condemnation and that upon believing he shall be freed from condemnation that before faith he should be in a state of sin and consequently of damnation and upon faith that he should be justified and delivered from it Here is no change in Gods will but in the object a great change in man but not in God God may velle mutationem when he doth not as Aquinas saith mutare voluntatem God may will a change in the creature when he doth not change his own will as a Father may will at his death and accordingly bequeatheth an estate to a prodigal childe and in case he will become a new man he shall possesse and enjoy it but if he will not he shall go without it here he wills a change but doth not change his will So it is in the present case I will here also take notice what he addeth The change of a persons state ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man thereunto by whose sentence the transgressor is unjust but considered at the tribunal of Grace he is righteous which is not properly a different estate before God but a different consideration of the same person God may be said to look upon him as sinful and righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature as righteous to his estate by Grace I answer The change of a mans state ariseth not from the Law for that condemneth him but from an act of God acquitting him from the Law if God did not acquit him the Law would not 'T is true the Law pronounceth him guilty because a transgressor and so doth God whose Law it is for it was the will of God so long as he remaineth a transgressor without a righteousnesse to deliver him that he stould be in a damnable estate and upon such a righteousnesse as God hath provided in Christ if he believe and be cloathed with this righteousnesse he shall be saved Now 't is true this mans state is really changed but God is not changed for he willed according to his righteous Law his condemnation he willeth upon believing his salvation and this with one eternal unchangeable act of his will and whom he hath elected he giveth faith hence they are justified here is a new effect of Gods love but not any new immanent act Nor is there any truth in that that God looks