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
sons antecedently to faith as Mr. Eyre would have it for though we are so called this is to be understood consequenter and not antecedenter because they shall be made such and whereas the Scripture saith he died for enemies and the ungodly therefore in these places where they are called his sheep children his brethren before faith this is to limit and restrain the death of Christ to such as shall be so made not that they are so de facto already but are so called in respect of certainty and what they shall be But to returne to that of Master Eyre that God hath chosen us in Christ as if we then existed in him Let the Reader observe how unhappily he joyneth with Arminius who seemeth such an enemy to him Arminius * Exam. p. 3â— saith Apostolus ait nos in Christo electos esse The Apostle saith we are elected in Christ And as something is put out of the Text by Arminius so something is put in God chose us before the world in Christ our Head this Arminius plainly asserts Exam. p. 158. and accordingly Mr. Eyre saith God constituted from everlasting Christ a Head and saith he in this respect we are chosen in Christ that is as in a Head the Text saith no such matter and as Arminius leaves out those words that we should be holy by which meanes the sense of our being in Christ is made obscure which if added would make it plain in what sense these words in Christ should be taken that is these words shew to what we were chosen to wit to obtaine holinesse and how to wit in Christ that is for Christs sake like as it is said vers 3. God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus that is for Christs sake So Dr. Twisse in his answer to Mr. Cotton upon these words of his that he saith God chose us before the world in Christ our Head p. 9. where because it 's very material to this passage I shall recite what he further saith Mark I pray you saith he speaking to Master Cotton of Arminius how he works upon each to be elect in Christ is with him to be elect being in Christ for nos in Christo with him is nos existentes in Christo and seeing we are not in Christ but by faith where let the Reader observe the Doctors judgement that we are not in Christ but by faith which is contradictory to Mr. Eyre Hereupon he maketh the object of Election to be fideles the faithful or in Christum credentes such as believe in Christ We answer first we may take as great liberty to interpret it for explication sake by supplying a participle of the future tense thus Elegit nos futuros in Christo He chose us hereafter to be in Christ like as it followes who hath predestinated us to be adopted Now we are adopted by faith Gal. 3.26 as he takes liberty to supplie a participle of the present tense especially considering that when we were Elect to wit before the foundation of the world we were not at all and consequently not fideles Believers Secondly we answer that the compleat sentence considered at full doth manifest in what sense this phrase in Christ is taken He chose us in Christ that we should be holy this shewes to what we were chosen to wit to obtain holinesse and how to wit in Christ that is for Christs sake like as ver 3. 't is laid God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus that is for Christ his sake and like as 1 Thes 5.9 't is said God hath ordained us to obtain salvation through Jesus Christ so here in conformable exposition 1 Thess 5 9 when it is said God hath chosen us in Christ that we should be holy a fair meaning may be this God hath ordained us to obtaine holinesse through Christ Jesus To this I will super-adde the testimony of Dr. Twisse and the rather because you alledge him for your defence in the Doctrine of eternal Justification Christus fateor caput est Electorum praedestinatorum sed non formaliter consideratorum Neque enim praedestinati quà praedestinati sunt membra corporis Christi sed potius futuri sunt membra ejus nam quod est membrum Christi procul dubio existit Neque enim membrum Christi est terminus diminuens existentiam at praedestinati quà praedestinati non existunt nam predestinatio fuit ab aeterno sed praedestinati non extiterunt simpliciter ab eterno hodie multi sunt Electi qui procul dubio adhuc non nascuntur Rursus unio illa per quam fimus ejus membra fit per fidem Ergo quotquot Christi membra sunt oportet esse fideles at non omnes praedestinati ex qùo primùm praedestinati sunt èvestigio fideles evadunt Adhaec cùm caput non potiùs fiat aliquorum quà m illi aliqui fiant membra corporis ejus sequitur Christum non ab aeterno fuisse caput cùm non ab aeterno corpus habuerit mysticum aut membra cujus ratione propriè dicitur caput Ecclesiae suae Membra verò corporis cùm fiant per vocationem unde dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ãdque per vocationem efficacem consequenter per fidem apparet Christum non priùs dici posse caput quà m sint aliqui qui credant in ipsum loquor de Christo Mediatore Redemptore Dr. Twisse Vind. li. b 2. digress 10. page 74. Col. 2. I confesse Christ is the Head of the Elect and predestinate but not formally considered For neither the predestinate as predestinate are members of Christs body but rather shall be members of it for what is a member of Christ without all doubt existeth For neither is a member of Christ a term diminishing existence But the predestinate as predestinate do not exist for predestination was from eternity but the predestinate do not simply exist from eternity This day there are many that are Elect which undoubtedly are not yet borne Again that union by which we are made his members is made by faith therefore it is needful that all that are his members should be Believers but all the predestinate do not prove Beli vers as soon as they are predestinate Moreover seeing a Head cannot sooner be a Head of any then they can be members of his body it followeth that Christ was not a Head from eternity because he was not a mysticall body from eternity or members in which respect he may properly be called the Head of his Church But seeing they are made members of his body by calling from whence it is called the Chu ch and that by effectual vocation and consequently by faith it appeareth that Christ cannot first be called a Head before there are some who believe in him I speak of Christ the Mediatour and Redeemer Now 1. That we were not united unto Christ
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
grace of God to wit Faith whose scope and object is God the Father by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ A second Scripture is Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture is that the phrase that we may be is as much as that we may be manifested and declared and know that we are justified To this I answer that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification but of a Justification real before God therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law he meaneth not a declarative Justification and therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith he means not a declarative Justification for then the opposition is not ad idem for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first therefore neither in the latter For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries nor could the Apostle say with truth that works do not evidence Justification As for Justification in foro conscientiae it is not Justification properly but the knowledge and assurance of it Justification is to be considered as an action of God for it is God that justifieth The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law Now there is no way but by the Law or by faith in Christ therefore they did beleeve in Christ where Justification by the faith of Christ is made the finall cause of their believing Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified how can that that was the end of their beleeving evidence that they were justâ—fied already before they did believe and here let the Reader observe that both the act and object is expressed and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily understands the object by the act why are both expressed Therefore the grace of Faith relatively considered as apprehending Christs righteousnesse is that by which we are justified The third Scripture being Rom. 8.30 I have already vindicated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justification A fourth place which he hath abused is Rom. 4 22. where it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve that is faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse as it was to Abraham for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified Mr. Eyre's answer is That this particle if is not conditional but declarative and so he taketh the meaning to be this Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle which is to encourage us to beleeve as did Abraham from the good effect of it for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have that it was done already where he changeth the time past for the time present and so overthroweth the Apostles scope and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional This is not to interpret Scripture but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne And hence I argue against him If the imputation of righteousnesse be a thing that is not already but shall be imputed if they beleeve then the particle if is not declarative but conditional But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done but was to be done Therefore And for this the words are plaine it shall be imputed if we believe A fifth Scripture is Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his Name whosoever believe shall receive the remission of sins He saith it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins and a little after we obtain remission by Christ but we receive it by faith I answer There is an ambiguity in the word obtain if by it he understand we do not merit purchase forgivenesse we grant it for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins but if by it he understand a receiving the remission of our sins through Christ which then and never till then was received we say thus forgivenesse is obtained by faith as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission as a thing before done and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith for it is said that by faith we receive remission not the knowledge of remission all the Prophets testifie this we receive remission not the sense of the remission of sinnes Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse Besides were we justified from eternity as Mr. Eyre wil have it when by Gods eternal act this remission was given it had been an injury to God Besides an improper speech to say All that beleeve shall receive remission They should have said ye were remitted before if ye beleeve ye shall know it The sixâ—h Scripture is Acts 13.39 By him all that believe shall be justified from all things from which they could not c. He saith that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification though he affirme that he that believeth is justified yet it followeth not the Elect are not justified before faith much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act or habit of faith I answer let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law yet he saith that by obtaining the Law they could not be justified and what they could not have by the Law or any sacrifice therein offeted that may be obtained by Christ through faith where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification he might have said only by him we are justified from all this from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely and if Believers only are justified then unbelievers are not and faith is necessary Therefore though we be not justified by it as the matter of our righteousnesse yet as the instrument to apply it and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine if unbelievers also were the subjects of it A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence is 2 Cor. 5.21 where Christ is said to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him where this is made the finall cause why
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
habere vim ad justificandas homines quà m Adami peccatum ad nos condemnandos which because it is the same in effect with mine I shall spare to English The next words of Mr. Eyre relating to this businesse are these Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous Besides the former errours it is guilty of I finde a double violence offered to the sacred Text. First in that he limiteth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the all that sinned in Adam to them that shall perish as if the Reprobates only sinned in Adam and not the Elect and as if they were not in the same sin and condemnation which it may be he doth because he is of his brethrens minde the rest of the Antinomians who affirming that they are justified from eternity and so God seeth no sin in them and he himself saith pag. 61. That the Divine Justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least punishment which their sins deserve But contrarily he beholdeth them as persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them as uch who have no sin at all in his sight And yet this man is offended to be called an Antinomian though he is not ashamed to be one but against this grosse conceit because it is sufficiently confuted by others I will say no more but alledge two Scripture-testâ—monies 1 Joh. 1 last ver The first is in the 1 John 1. the last vers After the Apostle had said that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin ch 2.1 yet he saith If any man say we have not sinned he maketh God a liar and his Word is not in us And in the second Chap. ver 1. for the sins of the justified he is an Advocate to procure pardon 1 Cor. 11.30 My little children if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous The other is that of the believing Corinthians For this cause many are sick c. Nor will the Antithesis bear him out for the Apostle doth not compare the Elect with the Reprobates but all that sinned in Adam which is all mankinde with all that shall be saved by Christ A second violence offered to the Scripture such men are fit to make their own Creed is in that he saith that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous the Text saith no such matter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that shall be made righteous not were made righteou which if Mr. Eyre might have done the office of a Gamaliel to the Apostle he would have counselled him to say were made righteous if Mr. Eyre's opinion of an actual justification from the time of Christs death be true he ought to have said were made righteous but the Apostle saith they shall be made righteous No wonder if he misrepresent what I said when he makes so bold with the Apostle and sacred Text and here let me returne that most justly upon Mr. Eyre which he saith to Mr Woodbridge * Vide Mr Eyre p. 10. This is not to interpret Scripture but to deny it such a liberty to alter tenses and formes of speech at our pleasure will but justifie the seâ—uits blasphemy that the Scriptures are but a leaden rule and a nose of wax which may be turned into any forme Turpe est doctori cùm culpa redurguet ipsum But now it is observable in this diversity that the Apostle saith not many were made righteous Hosius lib 3. de Auth Scrip. c. As in Adam many were made sinners but many shall be made righteous by this it is observable that the Apostle doth contradict what Mr. Eyre hath affirmed that the righteousnesse of Christ came upon the Elect in the same manner antecedently to their birth as the sinne of Adam came upon all to condemnation antecedently to their being And the reason of this diversity is because the Apostle had respect to all those Elect who have not yet believed either because as yet they were not in being and those that were in being were not all as yet called And truly this is a very great difference between the manner of communicating Christs righteousnesse and Adams sin for we being seminâ—lly in Adam Vide Downh Cov. of Grace p. 296. and having a natural relation to him sinned in him as being in 〈◊〉 â—oynes and hence we were as truly sinners in him though not as compleatly and formally sinful as he And by generation the sin of Adam is actually communicated to all his posterity and to all alike because we were all alike in him When they actually exist and no sooner are they partakers of the human nature but they are formally constituted sinners and partake iâ—â—is sin But now it is a manifest errour to think that we are all thus seminally in Christ and have any such union with him â—nâ—ecedently to faith as shall be made hereafter more evident or that the community of his person is equivalent to such an unâ—on and therefore the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ is not communicated to all from the time of their participation in the humane nature as for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration and the fuller answer to that I referre till I shall speak to his Argument drawn from them We are not then in our generation much lesse before made partakers of Christs righteousnesse but in our regeneration when faith is ingenerated by the Holy Ghost in our souls Hence then that we should not dream of being borne just as we are borne sinners which indeed were a contradiction to imagine that we should be borne both just and sinfull under the guilt of sin at the same time and that we should not neglect the grace of justification as though we had it already and brought it into the world with us as we brought sin in The Apostle speaks of it in the future tense to signifie that we are not immediately constituted righteous but must expect this benefit in our effectuall vocation when we are brought to faith for Whom he predestinated them he calleth and whom he calleth them he justifieth and no other and properly never till then and to this purpose Dr. Downham Cov. of Grace p. 296. Reverend Dr. Downam expresseth himself in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace And hence we see there is not the same reason for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to all the Elect before their birth or faith that there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a being because as Mr. Burges hath observed the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity
contrary Malem Corberum metueret quà m haec inconsideratè diceret 3. Doth not the Apostle judge of Apelles as a real Christian a little after when he saith he was approved in Christ and of Rusus that he was chosen in the Lord in the 12th vers and was he guided by Revelation there and not here did not he elsewhere say of the Thessalonians that he knew their Election 1 Thes 1.4 speaking of them as of the better part because it is more then probable where God will have his Word preached there he hath some people and St. John writing to a religious Lady stiles her Elect because he had seen her and her children walk in the truth and if these persons were not known to be such by Revelation yet had they strong ground for a judgement of charity and why we should not look upon the union spoken of as reall or spiritual between them and Christ I am yet to seek for a Reason But further he saith this is meant of a being in Christ by external profession and Church-communion but can he or any other say it is meant of no more 2. From hence I gather faith gives a real implantation for if an hypocritical faith will give a man an external denomination of being in Christ it is in the resemblance it hath to true faith and true faith must do more or else an hypocrites faith were as good as the faith of an Elect person Yea 3. Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth that one is in Christ before another as he is called and converted really or in appearance if really converted then really in Christ then let us take it for granted that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ really before Paul then Paul was not in Christ for if he were really in Christ this cannot be true that they were really in Christ before him for he was in Christ and that really according to Master Eyre from eternity But I desire Mr. Eyre to let us see the Scriptures and hear his grounds for a twofold union to Christ and both real unions one from eternity the other at conversion or faith and if he prove it Erit mihi magnus Apollo In the last place I shall now take notice of what he saith to that Logical Axiome Non entis nulla sunt accidentia in his Book pag. 7. where I desire the Reader to observe his mistake for I applied it to union with Christ he to the imputed righteousnesse of Christ I said that union with Christ is a thing accidentall to man and that being an accident requires that the subject united of whom this is denominated that he is united to Christ must be existent because an accident cannot subsist without its subject whether it be an accident by inhesion or adhesion both subsist dependently and without the subject they subsist not concerning union he objecteth nothing from this Axiome therefore I will hear what he saith concerning imputed righteousnesse Object He saith It doth not follow that Christs righteousnesse cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created being because accidents cannot subsist without their subjects For as much as imputed righteousnesse is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not require our existence Christ is the subject of this righteousnesse and the imputation of it is an act of God Answ What if imputed righteousnesse be not an accident inherent but an act of God yet in relation to us it is an accident by extrinsecall denomination and when it is imputed to us it is terminated upon us and we are denominated and constituted righteous by it and therefore it requires as much our existence as if it were an inherent accident for can he be made righteous and truly denominated so that is not a man nor any thing in rerum naturâ can any thing be predicated truly of that which is not can Paul be said to be learned before he had a being Surely this Axiome Non entis nullae sunt affectiones will be an unshaken truth when you and I shall cease to speak for it or against it I have spoken to the Logick of it and Mr. Baxter to the Divinity of it and who ever read it will finde it to be as he hath justly stiled it a very odde passage only this I shall adde We are speaking of imputed righteousnesse and he saith Christ is the subject of it if he mean of the righteousnesse imputed he saith true but if of the righteousnesse as imputed it is a very odde passage indeed for what need that to be imputed to Christ which is subjectively inherent in him already but take this righteousnesse as imputed and so we are the subjects recipient of it or the objects upon whom it is terminated and therefore it necessarily requires our existence Now to justifie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to us before we have a being he urgeth that of the Apostle Rom. 4.17 that God calleth things that are not as though they were to this I shall give that answer which Davenant de morte Christi Davenant de morte Christi pag. 61. pag. 61. puts into my mouth Quanquam Deo quidem tanquam jam facta sint quae ille ut fiaent ab omni aeternitate disposuit nobis tamen non aliter accipienda sunt nisi secundùm modum illum dispensationis quo ab aeterno decreta in tempore complenda nobis in actum perducenda sunt Although truly to God those things are as if they were now done because nothing is past present and to come with him which he hath decreed that they should be and ordained them from all eternity yet to us they are not otherwise to be taken then according to that manner of dispensation wherein they were decreed and in time to be fulfilled to us and to be brought into act Mr Eyre objecteth further that the righteousnesse of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarchs before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say that Christs righteousnesse is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a being To which I answer there is not the like reason for both the righteousnesse of Christ and the sins of the Elect are both moral causes of their effects which work according to the will and pleasure of him that is moved thereby hence God the Father is moved to give pardon to such as believe as an effect of Christs death and it is at the will of God when to give it therefore the effect sometimes goes before the cause as if a man promise to give a man five shillings for going so farre upon his errand the man may give it before he hath taken a step though he give it only for that reason here the effect goeth before the cause and thus he gave pardon to such as did believe in Christ before his death Sometimes it followes after it and not immediately
did not intend a direct Series and order of the causes of salvation in this place from whence then it may be concluded those that are uncalled are unjustified so are the Elect Jewes Therefore A third reason is because they who are alienated from God they are not reconciled and by consequence not justified So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled Therefore c. As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake that is as * De Judaeorum gente in genere disserit qui quòd Evangelium idest quatenus Evangelium non admittunc nempe in praesenti conditiâ—ne sunt Deâ— exosi c. Beza saith upon the place Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt sunt Deo exosi quod ad Electionem attinet c. That is as they refuse the Gospel they are enemies or hateful to God in the present condition for your sakes which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good that upon their rejection they might be called but as concerning the Election they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers but as to their present condition they are hatefull to God therefore unjustified Eleventhly That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false cannot be true But to make unbelievers though Elect persons the subjects of Justification doth this Therefore c. The assumption only needeth proof Rom. 8.15 yet it is evident because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate that they are in a state of bondage whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth therefore the Elect unregenerated are not justified CHAP. VIII Shewing that we are justified by faith and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith it doth not understand it only declaratively but really in the sight of God nor objectively excluding the act and the instrumentality of Faith is proved HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand I shall premise First That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists as if it did justifie us per modum causae efficientâ—â— morâ—â—oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour câ—â—â—e which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification so Bellarmine saith Bellar De Justific l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie impetrando promorendo inchoando justificationem Nor Secondly Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect â—ighteousnesse Thirdly Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righteousnesse as a grace or a work or an act or a habit but the matter of our Justification is Christs righteousnesse and obedience Fourthly Faith is not to be taken objectively only that is for Christ as Mr. Eyre interprets it though it be willingly acknowledged that we are justified by no other righteousnesse then the righteousnese of Christ But Fifthly I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification and so it is to be taken with connotation to its object That if you ask for what I am justified I say the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed if you ask by what I am justified I answer by Faith as an hand to put on Christ as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin Sixthly This grace of Faith is the free gift of God not the birth or spawn of free will but the effect of Election and a fruit of Christs death Seventhly When the Scripture saith We are justified by faith it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object and by applying Christs righteousnesse a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate from death to life so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Justification to the conscience but instrumentally it justifieth us so as that I must be justified by it though I am not justified for it These things premised I shall now prove it It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so but only the difference is how this is to be taken whether properly metonymically or both to which last I incline in the sense explained So that neither Christ alone nor Faith alone do justifie but that they are social causes though not co-ordinate and ejusdem generis of the same kinde or worth but Christ is a morall meritorious cause Faith the instrumental working only virtute agentis principalis by the power order constitution of the principal agent to the production of an effect far above its own native-worth or power Argument the first against declarative Justification The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justification but by what means we are justified it is of farre greater concernment to be justified then to know his Justification he said we were justified by faith they by the Law whence I reason If faith taken subjectively for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification then we are no more justified by faith then by works But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification The consequence is evident because works may evidence Justification nay works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works not only to others but to our selves and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner is apparent Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we know that we are passed c. 1 John 3.14 Now the Assumption I confirme thus that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood And when the Apostle speaketh of Justification by faith he meaneth of a Justification before God as in that third to the Romanes he concludeth by a sound argument that we are justified in the sight of God and not before conscience Thus if all have sinned and are come short of the glory of God and so are inherently wicked then we are
not justified by what we can do but we are all thus guilty before God therefore in his sight shall no flesh living be justified He speaketh there a Justification in foro Dei in the sight of God 2. If faith do only declare that we are justified then Paul did not say true in denying that by the works of the Law or holinesse we are justified for if he spake of a declarative Justification he had no reason to deny that we are justified by the works of obedience done to the Law for works of Sanctification do evidence this 1 John 2.3 4. 2 Cor. 5.17 1 John 3.14 1 John 3.24 Rom. 8.13 14. 3. If when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith be meant only we are declaratively justified by faith then we may as well say we are elected by faith as justified by faith because faith will as truly evidence Election as Justification hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 but the Scripture saith not we are Elected by faith or through faith but chosen unto saith therefore faith hath an influence into Justification though not into Election and something more is intended then a declarative Justification 4. Then Faith is not a believing on Christ for pardon but a believing on Christ because I am pardoned and if so then an Axiom or Proposition according to Mr. Eyre is the object of justifying faith contrary to all the * Actus credentis non terminatur ad axioma sed ad rem fatentibus Scholasticorum clarissimis Amesii Medul Theol. l. 2. c. 5 24. Orthodox who make Christ or the mercy of God in Christ the object of Faith 5. Then Faith may be necessary to Consolation but it is not necessary to Salvation contrary to the Scripture which saith that salvation is the end of Faith and we believe unto the saving of our soules 6. This inverteth the order of the Gospel for that commandeth us to believe that we may be justified this saith we are already justified therefore we must believe The Scripture saith We are justified by faith This opinion as Mr. Woodbridge observeth maketh us to be faithed by Justification 7. Then it is not lawful to pray for pardon of sin but for assurance the vanity of this is before discovered But Mr. Eyre will object that when the Scripture saith We are justified by faith the meaning is by Christ taking faith objectively and exclusively To which I answer that we deny not faith to be taken objectively if you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse but that therefore faith is excluded and that the object justifie without the act I deny and prove thus First It conduceth much to the beliefe of this truth that faith is to be taken subjectively with connotation to its object or that faith subjectively taken is not excluded from Justification because the letter of the Scripture expressely in many places affirmeth that we are justified by faith Secondly I conceive the matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries was not only precisely and abstractively considered what is the matter of our righteousnesse that God requires for our Justification for then his direct answer had been the righ eousnesse of Christ excluding faith for faith is in no sense the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified for then faith and works had not been opposed and we were then justified by works but I conceive the question was what was the matter of this righteousnesse and how is this ours as app areth by his answer Now if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Justification and is made ours by imputation antecedently to faith the Apostle did impertinently adde faith in the answer to the questions that we are justified by faith in Christ if that be excluded from applying Christs righteousnesse for he is not speaking here of a declarative Justification what shall evidence it to my conscience and give me knowledge of it but what justifieth me and seeing it is something without done for me and imputed how is it mine not how is it known to be mine Therefore faith is not exclusively taken Thirdly If when it is said we are justified by faith in Christ the object is understood by the act excluding the act then why is it that in most places where Justification is spoken of that the object and the act are both expressed if by the object and act the same thing be intended Fourthly It is not probable that the Apostle in such a weighty controversie wherein he did desire to speak clearly and had most reason to speak clearly rather then elegantly and obscurely should take the act for the object if the act had no influence into Justification neither as the matter of Justification nor the instrument to apply it for danger might arise and is given by such an expression to ascribe something to faith in the point of Justification if his intent were to exclude it therefore he intended not to exclude it hence we justly ascribe instrumentality unto faith in applying Christs righteousnesse to Justification Fifthly If Abrahams faith by which he was justified was subjectively taken for the grace of faith yet relatively considered to its object then our faith that are the children of Abraham is so taken in the point of Justification this inference shineth clearly like the Sun at noon-day But Abrahams faith was subjectively taken with relation to its object Therefore The assumption is proved from Rom. 4.3 Rom. 4.3 For first besides the letter where it is said that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith believing on God so that faith is described vers 17. in many excellent acts of that faith ne ther of which can in propriety of speech be applied to Christs righteousnesse and why the Apostle should impertinently break out into many expressions in the commendation of his faith as a grace when he is treating of the point of Justification and stirre up us to the imitation of the like faith telling us that it was written for our sakes that it was imputed to him for righteousness and that our faith believing on God that raised our Lord Jesus from the dead shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse if we so believe if faith hath no hand in Justification to apply Christs righteousnesse to that end I can no way rationally imagine Sixthly Nor can I see any supereminent excellency in that grace above all other as the Scripture expresseth and Divines acknowledge if its noblest effect of Justification be denied but as works of Sanctification do as evidently declare Justification as Faith as I have shewed so the grace of love farre excelleth it in other respects Therefore is it not exclusively taken in the point of Justification Seventhly Besides in Rom. 4.5 it is said That to him that believeth his faith is imputed for righteousnesse where something belonging to the Believer is called his to wit the act of
Justification to be effected by it as an inherent grace only it puts the subject into a capacity of being actually justified by the righteousnesse of Christ according to the tenour of the Covenant 2. Faith doth not justifie as a Work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse 3. Though Faith be a Work it is not ours but Gods and therefore none of our Works justifie 4. Though there be a priority of nature in Faith unto Justification yet there is not any priority of time but the same moment that Faith is wrought we are justified Sixthly That Interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involveth a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction I subscribe the Major with both hands and should be loth such a pouring showre of contradictions should fall from my pen as have done from yours which were enough to drown the reputation of a man that would be counted one of the more manly sorts of Divines And I deny your Minor it implieth not a contradiction to say Faith is a condition of Justification Your proof is this to be both passive and active in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect a condition hath not the least efficacy I answer therefore it is peccant against the Law of opposition for iâ— is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Praedicatum non disponitur cum subjecto secundum eandem subjecti partem naturam For faith is active and pâ—ssive in a different sense if you take faith in genere physico it is actâ—ve if you take it in genere moris it is passive for it is only a condition making us câ—â—â—ble according to the Covenant of Juâ—â—ification not meritoâ—â—ously deserving or by it self effecting Justification but it is not aâ— the same time active and pâ—â—sivâ— in genere phisico nor active and passive at the same time in genere moris and therefore here is no contradiction Besides faith as it is an act it is active and some way helpeth the agent not that God needeth it but because he will not justifie us without it but in regard that this is a receiving it is equivalent to suffering and is a going out of our selves renouncing our own righteousnesse and so is rightly judged passive though formally it be an action yet virtually it is but a passive reception In the next place we shall consider his Arguments which he bringeth in the 14th Chapter to prove that there was no Covenant between the Father and the Son to suspend the effects of his death untill faith and that it was the will of God that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation and Justification of all the Elect antecedent to Faith Now because these Arguments are his Triarii his Souldiers in the rereward in which he puts most confidence if we can but rout these the day will be our own His first Argument runs thus There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none A negative Argument I acknowledge in matters of great consequence is availeable Therefore I deny his Assumption and all those Scriptures which promise Justification upon believing and that limit the benefit of Christs death unâ—ill faith is proof enough to prove there was a Covenant between the Father and Christ to suspend the benefits of Christs death untill faith but because he will see the place we referre him to Isa 53.10 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 hand He shall see the travel of his soul and be satisfied by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth this place holds forth the Covenant between God and Christ about the effects of his death if you take the words as a prediction of the Prophet they hold forth a promise of God to Christ of the fruit of his death when God should make his soul an offering for sin or when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin for the words will bear it Now this promise is virtually a Covenant and doth not limit the benefits of his death to the present time but first presupposeth this work to be done and then as a fruit of this he shall see his seed not all his seed presently but he shall see it and prolong his dayes the pronoun is wanting and therefore the words have a twofold sense given them some expound them of Christ who after his Resurrection should die no more others of his issue and race of the Saints and say the Authors of our English Annotations the ancient Greek and old Latine go both that way and so take the meaning he shall see his seed that shall prolong its dayes with a supply of the relative and if so this maketh clear against Master Eyre But however take it which way you will there is enough to evince it He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied that is he shall see that as the fruit and effect of his death which shall give him full content he shall be much refreshed and gladded as a woman after hard travel that seeth the fruit of her womb and he shall live to see it And then follow the words which are the words of God delivered as in his person for Christ was not the Prophets servant But by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him not his knowledge taken subjectively but objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him where knowledge is put for faith as This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent and so Paul counted all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ his Lord. Now here God describeth how Christ shall justifie many by his knowledge or by faith on him Whence I argue If God in the Covenant made with Christ did mention faith as a means by which he should justifie many that is all his seed that should be the travel of his soul then was there such a Covenant that the fruits and benefits of Christs death should not be enjoyed untill faith for it is added that he shall bear their iniquities not that this should be a present discharge but to signifie that none else but Believers should be pardoned because he shall bear their sins and theirs only but if they be justified before faith then he beareth the sins of unbelievers and so unbelievers and Believers are the subjects of Justification contrary to the Scriptures But God made such a Covenant and made mention of Faith in it as a means whereby he should justifie
mystical union to be apprehended not made by faith Secondly Mr. Eyre excepteth against it as propounded universally that there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe 1. They are his own words not mine for there is a unity of natures in which they agree and a certain relative respect or union very improperly so called between Christ and his Elect but a mystical union I know none till faith and were there any real union before yet Mr. Eyre might have known that rule Analogum quando per se positum stat pro famosiori Analogato and so it ought to have been taken for this famous union or implantation by faith Thirdly He acknowledgeth that That conjugal union between them which consists in the mutuall consent of parties is not before faith And is not this to yield the cause Eph. 5.23 32. is not this the mystical union spoken of in Scripture and so called in relation to the similitude it beareth to the marriage-union and is there any more mystical unions then one and that made by faith hath the wife any right or property to the body name goods of the man till she be married to her husband So till this conjugal marriage-union between Christ and a Believer he hath no actual right or property to the Body Name Goods and Purchases of Christ Fourthly And yet he addeth There is a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs righteousnesse is made theirs Shall we not need any more proof of this but your bare word where is it written there is such a union before faith by whom is it besides your self so called and by what name is that union distinguished from the mystical union by faith But let us hear this proof God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ to be as it were one heap or lumpe one vine one body or spirituall corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the first fruits and they the residue of the heap in respect of this union it is that they are said to be given unto Christ and Christ to them to be in Christ Ephes 1. That they are called his sheep his seed his children his brethren before they are Believers and by vertue of this union it is that the obedience and satisfaction of Christ descends particularly to them and not the rest of mankinde Oh rare invention Oh mysterious union hidden from all ages but now revealed and discovered by Mr. William Eyre a discovery as far excelling that of Columbus as heaven exceeds earth This is such a mystical union as that it is not only not to be apprehended by sense and reason because against both but not to be comprehended by faith neither because it is no where written but let us weigh the strength of his words which carry this sense Because God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ to be a Head and Believers to be Members therefore there was such a union from eternity As good consequence as this your Book is in print therefore it is all true But I take this to be a grosse errour that the Elect and Christ were united from eternity For 1. Gods decree ordaining Christ to be a Head is terminus diminuens and doth not signifie that Christ was actually a Head having members united to him but it signifies Gods purpose what he did decree to be done in time and it is the continuall panalogizing of Mr. Eyre and the Antinomians to confound the decree and the execution of the decree God decreed to send Christ into the world was he therefore actually sent No not till the fulnesse of time came Gods decree ordaining Christ to be a Head and they to be Members doth not actually constitute Christ a Head and they his Members 2. That that is not cannot be united for union requires necessarily the pre-existence of the persons or things united But now Believers did not exist much lesse exist as Believers from eternity Christ had not a mystical body from eternâ—ty Therefore he was not a Head from eternity 3. This union to Christ is reciprocal whereby Christ is united to a Believer and a Believer to Christ and requires ligaments and bonds to make this union the Spâ—rit on Christs part Faith on ours But they that exist not are not subjects capable of receiving the Spirit or of Faith without which this union cannot be made 4. The Scripture no where speaks of an eternall union therefore there was no such union and as he telleth us We must pardon him if he believe not our unwritten verities * Aâ—â—d he must pardon us if we believe not his written vanities And therefore when it is said that God chose us in Christ Ephes 1. This is not to be understood as if we were then existing and had a being in Christ but it shewes the way and order how God would save us he ordained to save us in and through Christ and for his sake not that Christs merits were the cause quoad actum eligentis in respect of the act of Election but quoad terminum sive salutem ad quam eligimur but in respect of the end or salvation unto which we are elected or ordained And so Dr. Twisse a man of eminent worth and accurate judgement in his Vindiciae * Interca non dicimus Christum in negotie Electionis babere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs eligentis sed duntaxat respectutermini salutis videlicet aut vitae aeternae ad quam eligimur Nam Deum eligere nos in Christo ad vitam aeternam nihil aliud est quâ—m Deum constituisse nos ad obtinendam salutem per Jesum Christum Doctor Twist Vind. l. 2. digress 10. sect 2. pag. 74. c. 1. Perinde est ac si dixisset elegit nos ad salutem c. Ibid. In the mean while we do not say that Christ in the businesse of Election hath the consideration of a meritorious cause in respect of the act of God choosing but only in respect of the terme or end to wit of the salvation or life eternal unto which we are chosen for that God should choose us unto life eternal in Christ is nothing else then that God hath ordained us to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ and as he addeth Perinde est c. Even as if he should have said He hath chosen us to obtain salvation by Christ Hither also appertaineth the next verse wherein is taught that God predestinated us that we should be his sons by Christ Jesus implanted into Christ by faith Hinc enim nos filios Dei fieri profitetur Apostolus Gal. 3.26 Omnes est is filii Dei per fidem in Christo Jesu For from hence the Apostle professeth that we are made the Sons of God Gal. 3.26 Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus and therefore are not