that the sufferings of Christ though in themselves they be adequately proportionable to the justice of God should be accepted for us therefore God may at his pleasure appoint the manner how whether absolutely and immediately or upon a future condition For as Scotus saith well Meritum Christi tantum bonum est nobis Scotus lib. 3. dist 19. qu. vind p. 74. pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo The value of Christs merits is to be accounted to us only so farre as God accepteth it and therefore to that which Mr. Eyre and his adherents urge that satisfaction was given and accepted I answer by distinguishing upon acceptance This may be taken in a two fold sense either in respect of the surety Christ and the price paid or in respect to the sinner and the actuall application of it 1. In respect to Christ and the value of his sufferings it was a full satisfaction that God neither can having admitted Christ a surety require more at the hands of Christ nor any thing else of the sinner by way of satisfaction to his justice but he never accepted it in respect of the sinner to effect his freedome and present discharge without some act of his intervening to give him interest in this satisfaction Nor do I judge faith to be a moving cause or organical instrument either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation of it for us Faith doth not make Christs satisfaction to be meritorious Faith is not the condition of Christs acquiring pardon but of the application of pardon the dignity and worth of Christs merits and satisfaction arise from the dignity of his person nor is faith the moving cause of Gods will to accept of Christs satisfaction for us that ariseth from Gods will of purpose ordaining it for us And therefore Mr. Rutherford speaks appositely Ruth Apâ—â— p. 42. Nos credendo non efficimus vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Deus Christi mortem pro peccatis nâ—stris acceptet neque ulla causalitas externa movere potest Dei voluntatem 4. It is of great consequence toward the clearing of this that the death of Christ doth not procure an immediate discharge to the sinner to consider that the death of Christ is not a naturall and physical cause of removing and taking away sin for then the effect must immediately follow but it is a meritorious cause which is in the number of morall causes and here the rule is not true Positâ causâ ponitur effectus for here the effect is at the liberty of the persons moved thereby and hence sometime the effects of morall causes precede the cause as for the death of Christ God pardoned the sins of such as died in the faith long before Christ was borne and sometime it followes a long time after at the agreement and liberty of the persons that are perswaded thereby to do any thing 5. Christ by his death did not absolutely purchase reconciliation and an actual discharge from the guilt of sin for any whether they believe or not believe for then faith were not necessary to salvation but at the most to consolation and finall unbelief would condemne none of those for whom Christ died but the Scripture saith He that believeth not shall be damned and Mark 16.16 John 8.24 If you believe not ye shall die in your sins and it makes faith necessary to salvation hence when the Jaylor said What must I do to be saved Acts 16 3â— 1 Pet. 1.9 Paul and Silas answered Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved And salvation is expressely said to be the end of faith when therefore we say that Christ died absolutely we must know that the word absolutely may be taken two wayes 1. As it is opposed to an antecedent condition to be brought by us by the power of our own free-will so that upon this shall depend the fruits of Christs death Or 2. Absolutely may be taken as opposed to any prerequisite condition ordained by God as a certain order and meanes to obtain the fruit of Christs death which condition is the fruit and effect of Christs death and in this latter sense the death of Christ was not an absolute purchase of reconciliation 't is true the Arminians hold that Christ hath purchased pardon for us upon condition of believing which believing they make not a fruit of Christs death but of their own free-will and thus they make Christ to open a door of hope for us but it 's possible that no man may enter in and be saved and thus by them we have only a salvability by Christ but no certainty of salvation but we affirme no such matter and say that Christ satisfied Gods justice so that God is not placabilis but placatus not appeasable but appeased and God is now reconciled and will give pardon but in that order and method himself hath appointed which is faith which faith God hath predestinated us unto that shal be saved Christ hath purchased it for us as well as remission of sins and therefore it shall infallibly be wrought that there may be an actual application of Christs death unto justification now in this sense the death of Christ is not absolute so as to exclude any condition and qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ to apply his death Johan Cam. opus misc p. 5.32 col 2. And to this purpose learned Camero hath expressed himself A Christo satisfactio exigi non potuit nî Deus eum considerâsset ut eorum caput pro quibus satisfecit fructus ergo satisfactionis ad eos solos redire potuit qui membra forent hujus corporis ii autem sunt soli fideles credo igitur Christum prâ— me satisfecisse quia verè satisfecit sed satisfactionem illam deo novi mihi esse salutiferam quia mihi fidei meae sum consciu Neque tamen fructum satisfactionis ab ipsa satisfactione divello Christus enim pro te satisfecit sed eâ lege si tu id factum credas ut si captivum redimerem pretio numerato ìta tamen ut nî ille se redemptum agnoscat meo beneficio habeatur pro non redempto Et paulò post pag. 534. col 1. sect 4. Illud nempe est quod dixi pro nemine Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfecisse verùm hà c lege additâ ut qui naturà sumus è mundo mundo exempti verá fide Christo inseramur That he was no Arminian is evident to all that have read him And a little after in the 2. Col. p. 534. he answereth an Objection Sed ais in omni satisfactione tria tantùm requiri 1. Vt numeretur summa quae contractum aes exaequet 2. Vt numeretur creditori 3. Vt numeretur ejus nomine qui eam debebat Id quidem verum est quoties creditor non id praecipuè spectat in satisfactione ut cujus nomine satisfactum est is beneficium
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
In respect to their exclusion or admittance to the Covenant in the Gospel and thus the Elect Gentiles were once not a people and then made a people to the Covenant of Grace And in this sense I adde all unregenerate though Elect are not Gods people untill faith And hence Zanchy saith thus that whereas the words should have run thus that in the place where it is said ye are not my people there it shall be said ye are my people instead thereof he saith it is said ye are the Sonnes of God and he assigneth three reasons the third is Vt meliùs hâc locutione indicaret rationem quâ justificamur salvamur nempe per fidem verbum Dei apprehensantem si enim filii Dei sumus ergò nati ex Deo si nati ex Deo ergò per semen Dei in nos illapsum à nobis apprehensum in nobis retentum semen Dei est verbum Evangelii in nos illabitur per virtutem Spiritûs sancti à nobis verò fide quae it idem opus est Spiritûs sancti solâ recipitur ergò solâ fide fimus filii Dei He speaketh thus that he may the better declare the manner of our Justification or Salvation ta wit by faith apprehending the Word of God where he taketh faith not objectively but subjectively with connotation to the object for if we be the sons of God we are therefore borne of God if borne of God therefore by the seed of God falling into us and received and retained by us The seed of God is the Word of the Gospel it falleth into us by the power of the Holy Ghost but of us it is only received by faith which again is the work of the Holy Ghost therfore by faith alone we are made the sons of God where you see that Zanchy maketh this great change to be by faith and that such a change is made is evident for before faith they are * Eph. 2.1 2 3. 2 Tim. 2.26 Acts 26 18. Ezek. 44.7 Heb. 2.15 Mark 16.16 dead in sins and trespasses are children of disobedience in whom Satan acts and rules by whom they are led captive at his will and pleasure they are under his power they are unrenewed uncircumcised slaves in bondage to death subject to damnation children of wrath but upon believing are new * 2 Cor. 5 17 2 Pet. 1.4 John 1.12 Eph. 1.5 1 Pet. 1.3 23. creatures partakers of the Divine Nature they are actually instated into the number of children to which they were predestinated are begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead are borne again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever But could this be affirmed of them ever since Christs death surely no thâ—refore here is a change and that before God wrought in their estate by effectual vocation and therefore they were not justiâ—â—ed before Fifthly If we are exhorted to believe in God for pardon and remission of sins then were not we pardoned from the time of Christs death before faith But we are thus exhorted to believe in God for the pardon of sins Believe and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.31 and the Scripture was written for this end that we might believe and that believing we might have life through his Name John 20.21 The consequence is confirmed because if we were justified already before faith it were a needlesse exhortation to call upon us to believe for pardon when we are pardoned already and therefore we might be called upon to believe to get assurance of our pardon but not to obtain pardon it self it were an exhorting us to seek for that by faith which according to Mr. Eyre is to be evidenced not to be obtained through faith and so were a needlesse and a groundlesse exhortation Sixthly Such as were not mystically united to Christ at his death could not be justified actually by his death But Believets that now live were not then mystically united Therefore The Major Proposition will need no shield and buckler to defend it for Christ justifieth none but such as are in him as the first Adam brings condemnation to none but such as are in him so the second Adam gives life and salvation to none but such as are in him The Minor is proved because that that is not cannot be united Believers were not then existing Besides 2. This union is made by faith They that were not existing were not then believers 3. Christs being a common person is not sufficient to make the mystical union 4. Christ as a publick person is a surety but Christ as united to us is a Head which are different considerations in the one he is a meritorious moral cause of salvation in the other a physical cause or efficient natural cause 5. The mystical union is by a work of the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit but if the mystical union be made by Christs being a publick person that needeth not any new work of the Spirit to joyn Christ and Believers together 6. Those places where it is said Ephes 2.5 6.13 Ephes 2.5.6.13 Col. 2.13 14. Col. 2.13 14. That we were quickened with Christ and are made to sit together in heavenly places And in Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afarre off are now made nigh and that the handwriting of Ordinances was blotted out signifie no more then that in and through him as a meritorious cause we obtain such mercies but they hold not forth Believers to be existing in him before they had a being and our sitting in heavenly places is spoken only in regard of the certain right we have thereunto jus ad rem though not jus in re and in a qualified sense in Christ our Head who is already ascended Seventhly Christ in his death was not mystically but personally considered For though he were a publick person and Mediatour yet as so he was personally not mystically considered in his death and resurrection and the Justification that he received from God Therefore we were not justified actually from the time of Christs death The Antecedent is thus made good because it was not Christ mystical that was crucified but Christ the Son of God and He trod the * Isay 63.3 Wine-presse of his Fathers wrath alone Christ mysticall is not the Saviout of the world then the work of Redemption is to be attributed to every Believer and they are as truly Saviours of the world as Christ but this is blasphemy to imagine and therefore if he were not mystically considered in his death then not in his Resurrection nor in that Justification he received and so by consequence we were not justified by his death nor were in him antecedently to faith Eightly If we were pardoned from the time of Christs death then as Bellarmine objecteth against our Divines that make faith an assurance then it is
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
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
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
justified without the intervention of faith nay the Scriptures expressely threatning unbelievers with damnation and limiting salvation to Believers do evidently declare the contrary Neither let any reject this argument drawn from the Scripture negatively for although this argument be infirme in matters of lesse consequence yet in fundamentals it is of great force such as this is by what means this righteousnesse of Christ shall be applied to justification therefore in such truths as concerne our salvation this is of maine importance it is not written therefore it is not to be believed Indeed if Christ had merited this absolutely that we should be justified whether we believe or not believe the matter had been otherwise And when we make faith the condition necessary to justification we do not with Arminians make it a potestative uncertain condition depending upon the liberty of mans free will but though it be contingent in respect of us yet it comes to passe necessarily in respect of God who hath ordained unto faith such as he hath chosen in Christ unto salvation And it is an effâ—ct of the death of Christ which shall be given in Gods appointed time to such for whom Christ died Nor do we make faith a condition of Christs acquiring pardon nor an instrument to make his merits satisfactory nor an organical instrument of Gods acception of it Christs merits have their worth whether we believe or not and Gods will cannot be moved by any externall cause but it is a prerequisite condition by Gods appointment which is to be fulfilled by us through his grace working it whereby Christs righteousnesse shall be applied to us for justification And as for those Scriptures that speak of Gods being reconciled by the death of Christ they are to be restrained to actual Believers to whom Paul wrote his Epistles or if they be indefinitely understood of all the Elect they hold forrh no more then that Christ hath by a sufficient price paid removed the cause of enmity meritoriously but not by any formal application of it unto any until faith And whereas they speak of Gods reconciling us while enemies from whence our Adversaries inferre that we are reconciled while enemies antecedently to faith this only shewes what we were when Christ died for us enemies to God as well as others but that we are while we remain so reconciled is atheologon and not worthy of him that savours of the Spirit of grace nor can any sober man that keeps his wits company imagine any such thing in God who is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity 5. Besides in the fifth place it is considerable among what sort of causes the death of Christ is to be ranked it is a meritorious cause which is to be numbred amongst moral causes Christ in his death is not to be looked upon as a natural agent that the effect of his sufferings should work immediately but as a voluntary agent and hence the effect doth not necessarily follow but at the will of the agent moved thereby yea the effect of a moral cause or voluntary agent may sometimes precede the cause as in this of the death of Christ by which all that believed in Christ to come were justified as well as we though Christ had not as yet made an actuall satisfaction by his death for in this case the effect is wholly at the will of the Agent moved thereby who together with Christ hath suspended the effect untill faith I adde in the 6th place Bonum est ex integris causis and therefore where many causes concurre to the producing of one effect the effect is not accomplished till every cause hath contributed his proper influence Now there are three causes of mans justification which may therefore be called sociall causes but not co-ordinate but the two last subordinate to the first The first is the efficient cause that is God of his free mercy The second is the meritorious cause the death and obedience of Christ The third is the instumentall cause and that is saith Now as the efficient justifies not without the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental and much lesse the instrumental without the other but all three conjoyned constitute a person actually justified in the sight of God And whereas they argue that those Scriptures that speak of justification by faith are to be understood in foro conscientiae that they do but justifie us declaratively and serve to evidence justification but not to conferre justification upon us neither are we justified by faith say they in the sight of God I will therefore propound three arguments against this which is a chief corner-stone in the Antinomians building 1. That that doth change and alter the state of a sinner and put him into a new condition in refrence to God that doth more then evidentially justifie But faith doth thus alter the state of a sinner and the Major is above contradiction the Minor is no lesse true which I prove thus If before faith a mna is in the state of damnation and upon believing he be put into a state of salvation and that before God then faith doth really alter and change a mans estate before God But before faith a man is under condemnation and upon faith delivered from it Ergo. Mr. Eyre his answer to this was that the Law did condemne him but God dâ—d not To which I replyed If the Law be the Law of God and receive all its power and authority from God then when the Law condemneth then God condemneth But the Law is the Law of God and hath all its force and efficacy from the will of God Now look what answer he hath given to Mr. Woodbridge which you may see Mr. Eyre p. 112. Num 6. Vindiciae Justifica p. 112. Sect. 6. the same he gave to me which I shall answer in its proper place 2. What the Aposle denies to Works he attributes to faith therefore faith hath an influence into justification which works have not From whence I argue If faith do only declaratively justifie the sinner then faith doth no more towards the justification of a sinner then works because works may evidence my justification as well as faith but according to the Apostle faith contributes more to justification then works Ergo. The proof of the consequence that works may evidence justification will appear from p 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 q 1 John 3.14 know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren 3. Besides the controversie between the Apostle and the Justiciaries of his time was not whether faith or works do evidence our justication but by what we are justified in the sight of God From whence I argue That that makes the Apostle to assert an untruth that interpretation cannot be true But if the meaning of the
Annotations and they clearly hold forth the effect and fruit of Christs passion where observe a plain promise to Christ or Covenant with him about dying and making his soul an offering for sin When thou shalt make his soul an offering or as the Hebrew if his soul or when his soul shall make it selfe an offering for the second Person Masculine and the third Foeminine are in letters and sound the same so I take it the speach of the Father introduced by the Prophet speaking unto Christ that when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin then he promiseth he shall see his seed that is his issue and posterity that should be borne to him as an effect of this which words do not import that all his issue and posterity should be an immediate effect of it but he should see it he should live and survive to see it after his resurrection he should die no more but live for ever and see the fruit of his death The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand that is he shall daily see souls brought to salvation as a fruit of his death He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied As a woman when her travel is past is filled with joy to behold the fruit of her wombe so Christ should be satisfied to see a numerous issue of faithful soules begotten to God by his death And what that satisfaction is in particular he tells him it shall be the justification of many for whom he died and then he tells him how they shall be justified He saith it shall be by * Notitiâ sui his knowledge or the knowledge of him not his own knowledge taken subjectively the knowledge that he hath of God Vide English Annot. or of them but his knowledge taken objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him and this is not a bare knowledge of Christ whereby we are justified for the devils themselves both know and acknowledge him but by knowledge is meant faith the antecedent put for the consequent because the knowledge of him is the ground of trust I shall not need to prove that knowledge is put for faith * John 17.3 John 4.42 And the words that follow are a reason for he shall bear their iniquities though in the Hebrew the word is copulative yet it is often used as a cause And if this be granted it renders a reason why he should justifie them because he did bear their sins where the persons are described whom he should justifie not all promiscuously but Believers whose sins he undertook to discharge for he did bear the sinnes of none but Believers Now let Mr. Eyre tell us why God speaking to Christ of our justification by him should say that Christ should justifie us by his knowledge or by faith in him 1. His death alone antecedently to faith did justifie those whose iniquities he did bear unlesse it were to declare his will that his death should be effectually applied only by faith and that none should have immediate benefit but expect it by faith 2. That that was Gods intention in giving Christ was the intention of Christ in dying But God in giving Christ intended not the benefits of Christs death unto any untill faith Therefore Christ died not to purchase immediate forgivenesse unto any untill faith and by consequence there was a mutual agreement The Major is beyond all contradict on because of the unity of heart and will between Christ and God therefore he intended not his death for any nor in any other way then God intended it The Minor is written as with a Sun-beam in Scripture John 3.14 15 16. John 3.14 15 16. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse Even so must the Son of man be lifted up That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternall life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life In which words you have a threefold cause of mans salvation 1. The principal Gods love ver 16. 2. The meritorious Christ death 3. The instrumental our faith Secondly You have a comparison between Christ and his Type in two things 1. That as the Serpent must be lifted up for a meanes of healing or else it could not heal and none would look to it so there was a necessity of Christs being lifted up upon the Crosse God must deliver him up to death and he must be considered as dying or else there is no salvation by him 2. The end that such as did look to it might be healed of the stingings of the fiery Serpent so this was the end of Christ dying that whosoever believe should not perish Now as the Scripture sheweth those stingings were deadly and none were healed but such as looked to the brazen Serpent so are the stingings of sin deadly and none are healed by Christ but such as believe Now as Mr. Woodbridge observes they were not first healed and then did look up to see what healed them but they did first look and then were healed so we have nor first everlasting life given us and then we believe but first we believe and then we have everlasting life Now to this Mr. Eyre answers nothing but denies it was the intent of the Holy Ghost to shew in what order we are justified in the sight of God but in so doing he doth not only senselessely beg the question but doth overthrow that wherein the truth and verity of the type consisted for as the brazen Serpent though endued with a healing vertue yet it healed none till he did look so though Christ as dying be sufficiently able to save yet saveth not any till he look to him by faith and in so doing doth destroy that that was the main end of God in giving Christ and of Christ in dying that upon believing we should be saved And therefore I come to the third thing considerable and that is Gods end in giving Christ and Christs end in dying both these are expressed in the same words the Son was lifted up that whosoever believeth c. and Gods end was that whosoever believeth c. where the verity of the major is confirmed that they had the same end Now the Minor is no lesse evident for if Gods end in giving Christ to die for us and Christs in dying were to limit the benefit only to Believers then it followes by undeniable consequence that untill faith none are actually justified by Christs death otherwise the benefit of Christs death is equally extended to Believers and unbelievers and if he saith faith is only a consequent condition and not antecedent then he must corrupt the Text and alter the sense of the Holy Ghost and say that God gave Christ to give eternall life and Christ was lifted up to purchase eternall life that they for whom he was so given and so died
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
no condition required to entitle us to the blessings of it and that Faith is not the condition of the New Covenant because then men must be Believers before they are justified for the condition must be performed before that benefit which is promised can be received But men are not Believers before they are justified the Scripture witnesseth that the subiect of justâ—fication as a sinner or ungodâ—y person Rom. 9.5 5.8 10. Now the Holy Ghost never calls Believers ungoâ—ly or wicked but Saints Faithful holy Brethren children of God members of Christ the Covenant with them â—s absolute made with Christ and all the conditions in the Covenant are promised Page 191. And he takes the condition as a part of the Covenant because promised so that believing with him is a consequent of the Covenant not antecedent to it where he wholly departeth from the received truth of Christ and speaketh that which is as contrary to the Scripture as darknesse is to light For 1. He destroyes the nature of a Covenant which is and necessarily requires a mutual stipulation else it may be a promise but no Covenant 2. Salvation is undoubtedly a fruit of the Covenant but without faith there is no salvation 3. He destroyes the order of the Gospel which saith believe and thou shalt be saved he saith thou art saved believe and thou shalt know it and that faith is a fruit of this salvation not a cause 4. The Gospel saith no where that a sinner under the reigning power of sin and remaining so is a subject of Justification but the contrary 1 John 1.6 If we say we have fellowshep with him and walke in darknesse we lie and do not the truth The meaning then of this Scripture that God justifieth the ungodly is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly in the midst of his prophanenesse delighting in it but by ungodly is meant a man that hath not a perfect legal righteousnesse not an unsanctified man as if he were a justified person this is a prophane Justification indeed not agreeable to the nature of a Holy God But the meaning is 1. That God hath found out a way to justifie the ungodly by faith in Christ which the Law knoweth not nor the wisdome of men and Angels could have contrived how God might do it salvâ justitiâ supposing his decree And therefore when we say that God justifieth the ungodly we understand it 2. In sensudiviso not in sensu composito that is not that he is so when justified as the Scripture saith The lame man shall leap Isa 35.6 Mark 11. the tongue of the dumb shall sing and the blinde see and the deaf hear but no man will say that the lame as lame can leap and that the dumb remaining so can sing and that the blinde as blinde see and so no man should dream that the ungodly as ungodly are justified for in order of nature our Faith goes before Justification though there be no priority of time between our ungodlinesse and Justification for immediately before our saith we are ungodly and upon the creation of faith we are justified and sanctified at the same time and our ungodlinesse done away And what if Faith be promised and freely given it is a fruit of the Covenant as made with Christ but not as the Covenant was made with us God covenants with Christ to save all that he died for and that shall believe so that upon believing they shall have the fruit of Christs death and the fruit of the Covenant of Grace Christ undertakes for them to make them believe hence faith is wrought and given and then they are Christs Members and so in Covenant not before for God promised salvation to none but such as believe Hence Christ teleth the world This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him John 6.40 may have everlasting life Surely he willed nothing but agreeable to his Covenant with Christ therefore he covenanted that Believers only should be saved for where he saith that it is the will of the Father that they that believe should have everlasting life the contrary also is meant that he that believeth not should not be saved I shall not prosecute his opinion any further here I will now lay down some animadversions upon several passages in his Book wherein his manifold errors unsound opinions and self-contradictions shall be manifested which he hath cast himself upon in defence of this one error and hath verified that old saying Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur First He blameth us as if we did agree with Arminius in holding a conditionall reconciliation which we utterly disclaime and yet he himself symbolizeth and agreeth with Armininius in that very thing which occasioned that error of Arminius Armin. Exam. p. 31. 158. in holding a temporal suspensive and conditionall decree for Arminius because the Scripture saith we were chosen in Christ will have it to be nos existentes in Christo that we had an existence or being in Christ And seeing we are not in Christ but by Faith hereupon he maketh the object of Election to be fideles and so this decree to be temporal and suspensive upon the will of man in whose power it is to believe though herein Arminius was more in the truth then Mr. Eyre in that he judgeth we are not in Christ but by faith which Mr. Eyre denieth But for us we acknowledge no such temporall decree nor do we hold this condition of faith to be an effect of our free will but an absolute effect of Gods free grace And in two other things he joyneth with Arminius who seemingly is a mortall enemy to him 1. They both stumble at the same stone for the Arminians think it absurd that the same thing should be donum promissum and officium requisitum a gift promised on Gods part and yet a duty required on our part Rem Apol. c 9. pag. 105. Thus the Remonstrants Anne conditionem quis seriò sapienter praescriberet alteri sub promisso praemii poenae gravissimae comminatione qui eam in eo cui praescribit efficere vult haec actio tota ludicra vix scenà digna est Nihil ineptius nihil vanius quà m fidem merito Christi tribuere si enim Christus meritus est fidem tum fides conditio esse non poterit c. 8. p. 95. They think it a ridiculous conceit that any should prescribe that as a condition which he intendeth to work in them or for them and that faith if it be merited by Christ cannot be a condition Vide Mr. Eyre pag. 175. And saith not Mr. Eyre the same page 175. But I appeal to the Reader whether it doth not sound very harshly that the same words should be formally both a Precept and a Promise and that God should require a condition of us and yet promise to work
faith which is his before the imputation of it is made to him and that is imputed for righteousnesse that is that act of Faith relatively considered is that that gives him a title to Christs righteousness and so that that is due to Christ is attributed to the act and hence that is said to be imputed for righteousnesse Now that Christ without faith justifies not I prove by these follow arguments 1. If Christs righteousnesse will not profit a man without faith theâ— Christ alone separated from faith doth not justifie But Christs righteousnesse will not profit any man without faith Therefore c. The Major carries sufficient light The assumption is proved because Christ saith to the Jewes John 8.24 John 6. If ye believe not ye shall die in your sins and Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life where though there be righteousnesse in Christ to justifie he saith If they believe not they shall die in their sins and He that believeth not shall be damned there was life in Christ but for want of coming or believing they did not partake of it I am not ignorant what Mr. Eyre will answer as I conceive to this That Christs righteousnesse will not profit him that is a final unbeliever and that Faith is a consequent condition of Salvation but not an antecedent means to apply Christs righteousnesse To this I answer that the Scripture speaketh of unbelievers indefinitely He that believeth not shall be damned and therefore it is understood of all unbelievers so long as they abide such they are under condemnation Let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture that holds forth an unbeliever the subject of Justification or one instance of a justified unbeliever and if final unbelief will hinder salvation then temporall unbelief may hinder the application of it for the time present and so long as he continueth an unbeliever it is of the same nature with final unbelief because it keepeth the soul from coming unto Christ for life To the second exception that it is a subsequent not antecedent condition of Justification I answer by a second Argument thus 2. If Christs righteousnesse be the end of faith and is obtained by faith then it is antecedent unto the Application of it But it is the end of faith and obtained by it The Assumption only needeth proof and yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth it Rom. 20.10 With the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation And To him that believeth it shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse that is Christ apprehended by faith shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse It is not said man believeth with the heart to the manifestation of righteousnesse but unto righteousnesse righteousnesse being that which he attaineth by believing and hence salvation is called the end of faith 1 Pet. 1.9 receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls and life is made the end of believing John 20.31 John 20 3â— These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life through his Name not that ye might know ye had life before ye believed but that believing ye might have life and Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth God did therefore cause the Law to be delivered that by the knowledge of mens sinfulnesse manifested by the Law they might flie to Christ for righteousnesse 3. If no man have eternal life but such as eat Christs flesh and drink his blood then no man antecedently to faith hath eternall life and by consequence Christ justifieth not without faith But no man hath eternal life but he that eats his flesh and drinks his blood Therefore The Assumption are the words of Christ John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you where Christ compareth himself to food Now as food though never so good nourisheth not unless we eat and drink it and it be incorporated into our body and become one with us so unlesse we thus eat Christ c. that is unlesse we feed upon his death and sufferings by faith and apply them by faith so as to be one with him we cannot live by Christ where observe Christ is the Food Faith is the Hand to take this Food and the Mouth to eat it without which this food will do us no good so here therefore he hath no life and an unbeliever hath not yet eaten 4. Such whose mindes and consciences are defiled are not justified but the mindes and consciences of all unbelievers are defiled The Major appeareth because when Christ justifieth he * Heb. 10.22 purgeth from an evil conscience The Minor is expressed * Tit. 1.15 where he speaketh indefinitely of unbelievers and therefore it is understood of all 5. Such whose persons are abominable who are Reprobates to good works are unjustified such are unbelievers for he speaketh there indefinitely of all unbelievers Having then proved Justification not to be before faith I shall now prove the instrumentality of Faith unto Justification and the consistency of it with the free grace of God For the right understanding whereof we must know what an instrumental cause is and wherein the nature of it consists and whether an instrumental cause be in the number of true causes and to what it is reducible and then apply it to faith Now we must know that an instrument hath divers significations I will not trouble the Reader with all sometimes it is taken for any thing which is moved and directed by a superior agent thus the Platonists take it and according to this acceptation every agent but God is an instrument and God alone in this sense is the principal efficient cause of all things and thus Isaiah the Prophet seemeth to take it Isaiah â—0 15 when he calleth the King of Assyria Gods Axe and his Saw in respect of God that used him for the destruction of the Nations and in this sense all causes as they depend upon GOD in their working are instruments but we take it not in this sense 2. To omit the rest an instrument according to the vulgar and usual acceptation of it is any thing that is used by the superiour agent moving and directing it to the production of an effect superior to it self for if it be proportionated to the effect it is not an instrument but an efficient principal cause And I conceive five things are required to an instrumentall cause First That it be a necessary antecedent to the effect not a consequent of it and I say a necessary antecedent to distinguish it from a contingent antecedent not that the whole nature of an instrumental cause consists in this for a thing may be a necessary antecedent and yet not a cause of the thing as the opening of a mans eyes is a necessary antecedent to sight but not a cause of sight
say that Christ purchased onely a new way of Salvation whereby we may be saved if we performe the conditions required of us we acknowledge no condition to be performed by us by the power of free-will but a condition as freely purchased and given and as certainly bestowed as the Salvation it self so that Christs death is no way rendered uncertain or lesse sure Fourthly Doth he say that God justifieth the ungodly so do we but we dare not say with him that he justifieth the ungodly so remaining under the reigning power of sin but whom he justifieth he also sanctifieth at the same time for we think it dishonourable to God to the purity and holinesse of his nature to justifie a man while he is a servant of sin The Lord is of purer eyes then to delight in an unsanctâ—fied wretch and it is a wrong to God to make him a Father of such an unclean beast and such a prophane ungodly person his adopted childe though he did purpose to adopt him yet he did not he could not adopt him without changing his nature We judge it a wrong to Christ that a limbe of the devil should so remaining be made a member of Christ For he that committeth sinne is of the Devil or 1 John 3.8 if he that hath the Devil for his father should have at the same time Christ for his head but all sinners that are under the reigne of sin have the Devil for their father John 8.44 Ye are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father ye will do And thus you may see which Doctrine ascribeth most glory to God in Christ Thirdly He purgeth himself from this crime by describing Antinomists in Austins time from Eunomeus their leader of whom St. Austine saith Fertur usquè ad eo c. August de Haeresibus c. 54. It is reported that he was such an enemy to goodnesse that he affirmed though a man did commit or lie in any kinde of sin it should never hurt him if he had but that faith that he taught and of the same straine were the Gnosticks who for their filthy lives were called Coenosi the dirty sect And what saith Mr. Eyre lesse doth he not say that the unregenerate while they so remaine that is let them commit or lie in any kinde of sin yet if Elect they are justified that is secured from wrath and so it shall not hurt them yea though they have no faith if those were the dirty Sect I am sure this is no better And he further saith of the Corinthians whom the Apostle called unrighteous fornicators adulterers abusers of themselves with mankinde c. such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God That they had no more right unto salvation after faith then before 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Mr. Eyre pag 122. so then by him they had right unto salvation and these sins could not keep them out of Heaven when the Apostle saith as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Is not this as bad as the opinion of Eunomius nay of the two the first borne of abominations because he will make God the justifier of these while they so remaine Fourthly He vindicates himself from Antinomianisme by the authority of some godly men that have asserted Justification in foro Dei before faith who were never accounted Antinomians 1. From the authority of Mr. Pemble in his Vindiciae Grat. to which I answer That if Mr. Pemble saw reason to alter his judgement as it seemeth he did in his Treatise of Justification Mr. Eyre upon deliberate thoughts may finde as much reason if he hath as much ingenuity to change his minde although he hath doated upon an erroneous opinion as many persons do upon a vaine fashion when it is new yet let him have but a little more time and serious thoughts about it and he will see cause to lay it aside as men do when their fashions grow stale And that Mr. Pemble dissents from him I shall make to appeare by a testimony or two of Mr. Pembles in his Book of Justification which is directly contrary to what he formerly asserted in his first Sect. Cap. 3. pag. 22. of his Treatise of Justification he hath these words The condâ—tion required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Justification is true faith whereunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priviledge that by faith and faith only a sinner shall be justified and pag 23. speaking of the Covenant of Grace The other Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the tenor whereof is Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved the condition of this Covenant is faith And pag. 24. A sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Christ Jesus believed on and embraced by a true faith where he taketh faith subjectively and objectively which act of Justification of a sinner although it be properly the onl wo k of God for the only merit of Christ yet it is rightly ascribed unto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that maine condition of the New Covenant which as we must performe if we will be justified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine Justification and life for when God by grace hath enabled us to performe the condition of believing then do we begin to enjoy the benefit of the Covenant then is the sentence pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last judgement So in pag. 57. We confesse faith is a work and in doing of it we obey the Law c. but now we denie that faith justifieth as a work which we performe in obedience to this Law it justifieth us onely as a condition required of us and an instrument embracing Christs righteousnesse Thus his first authority is found to beare witnesse against him His second witnesse is Mr. Rutherford whom he scoffingly derided when in our conference he told me with contempt as appeared to them that heard him that it was Mr. Rutherfords judgement which he hoped I did like well enough and here he suborneth Mr. Rutherford to serve his turne and had he had the honesty to quote his Author and recite his whole minde he had found but little shelter for his opinion on his words the place cited is this Sanè prius quam Electus credit cessat ira Dei adversus ipsum Rutherford Apol. Exercit. pag 45. omnésque effectus irae erga ipsius personam Ãdque propter Christi meritum Sed non virtute illius palmaris promissi Evagelici Qui credit in Christum non venit in condemnationem nunquam enim removentur effecta irae Dei adversus peccatum Electi virtute illius promissi donec quis actu credit Verily saith he before an Elect person do believe the wrath of God ceaseth against him and all the effects of Gods wrath towards
his person are removed for the merit of Christ but then you fraudulently withold the latter part of the sentence which makes against you as he did that cited Scripture to Christ but not by vertue of that signal promise of the Gospel He that believeth shall be saved for the effects of Gods anger against the sins of the Elect are not removed by vertue of that promise till he actually believe for hence the Elect have no consolation till faith Now if you say he meant our Justification was not evidenced to our consciences till faith and that is all he meanes Ruth Apol. Exercit. p. 44. Hear what he saith Pag. 44. Dicent ergo Arminiani nos hîc Justificationem sumere pro sensu notitia Justificationis remissionis ideòque homines fide Justificantur idem valet ac homines tum demum Justificantur quandò credunt hoc est sentiunt se justificari cum anted essent justificati Nugae tricae Siculae Nam justificari plus est quà m sentire se justificari Nam 1. Est actus Dei absolventis terminati in conscientiam hominis citati tracti ad tribunale tremendi Judicis qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiam 2. Deus hoc actu certum facit conscientiae citati innitenti fiducialiter in Christum jam etiam in Christo plenam expiationem omnium peccatorum factam Ipse peccator actu fiduciali recumbit in Christum sufficientem Salvatorem credentium at verò actus Dei terminatus in nos non potest esse nudus sensus illius actûs quis sanus ità argumenta retur cui paulò magis sobrium est sinciput The Arminians will say for against them he principally dealeth in that Book and therefore opposeth an Arminian condition of faith and not ours that we take Justification for the sense and knowledge of Justification and pardon and therefore to say men are justified by faith it is as if we should say that men are then justified by faith when they believe that is when they perceive they are justified when as they were justified before These are but fables and trifles for to be justified is more then to know we are justified For First It is the act of God absolving terminated in the conscience of a sinner cited and drawn to the tribunal of a dreadfull Judge which act before this instant was not terminated upon the conscience Secondly In this act God assureth the conscience of a sinner cited to his barre fiducially trusting upon Christ that now a full expiation is made of all his sins Thirdly The sinner by a fiducial act relying upon Christ as a sufficient Saviour of Believers But the act of God terminated upon us cannot be a bare sense or knowledge of that act what sound man that hath a sober brain would so reason And immediately followeth Quamvis itaque in mente Dei peccata c. Although therefore sins were remitted in the minde of God from eternity where let the Reader observe he is speaking against the temporal and conditional decrees of Arminius making God to elect upon foreseen faith yet is not a man justified from eternity that is declared to be just in Christ in his conscience when he is cited to Gods tribunal where he taketh declared to be just for a transient act of God terminated upon the conscience fotgiving and declaring this forgivenesse and not for a bare knowledge of this by a reflex act of faith for although that act of justifying in God note an immanent and an eternal act of God yet notwithstanding that act is not the whole integral and formal reason of the Justification of a sinner of which Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and the Scripture speaketh Formaliter enim justificare c. For for God formally to justifie is to declare actually to wit in a judiciall act that the guilty sinner trembling before his Judge now hath the benefit of eternal absolution and now first of all and never till now that the effects of his divine displacency against their sins do now cease by vertue of that divine promise wherein Christ and all his benefits and an actuall right to the Kingdom of God and the dignity of Adoption or Son-ship are promised to the Beleever Indeed he saith Pag. 43. N. 20. that faith is not the instrument of Justification actively taken as an immanent eternal act of God for no man saith he by believing doth make God to have a will not to punish sin or to have a will to love us which the Arminians plainly make and therein he saith true yet he maketh faith the instrumental cause of Justification passively taken as a declared act of God terminated upon us as that place declareth and in expresse words in pag. 37. Ruther Apol. Exer. p. 37. which Mr. Eyre in his 32. pag. of his Book when he boasted that Master Rutherford made the opinion he did oppose the chief of the Arminians and Socinians and Papists Errors could not be ignorant of for he there maketh faith the organical cause of Justification In that place he saith the Arminians would desire nothing more then this that remission of sin is not before actuall faith And that the Remonstrants in their Apology do say that nothing is more false Socinus part 4. de Salv. c. 10. then that men have sinnes remitted before they believe in which they make Socinus more plausible who saith that sinnes cannot be forgiven by an act of believing if they are remitted before they believe and Bellarmine who hath these words how is that faith true whereby I believe my sins are forgiven if while I therefore believe they are not forgiven but are to be remitted by the act of faith because every object is before his act so the Remonstrants urge to which he saith I would have these three acts distinguished 1. The act of satisfying for our sins performed by Christ and of reconciling us to God 2. The act of God the Father accepting it wherein he doth acknowledge that he is abundantly satisfied for all the sins of the Elect. 3. The act of Justification cui fides subordinatur tanquam organica causa to which faith is subordinate as an organical cause in all which Mr. Rutherford meaneth nothing but this that God did not take up a new volition but sins were intentionally pardoned from eternity Ruth Apol. page 4. which yet in his judgement is not justification for pag. 43. Homo non est justificatus ab aeterno quia homo non est ab aeterno homini credenti non sunt remissa peccata ab aeterno qumiam non estab aeterno nam justificatio remissio hoc sensu-non sunt termini diminuentes A man is not justified from eternity because a man is not from eternity sins are not remitted to a Believer from eternity because he is not from eternity and Justification and Remission passively taken are not termini