Quibus condition bus peccata remittantur per tot passim Musculus m System Theol. tom 2. pag. 247. ad obj 5. Promissiones Evangelii semper requirere Conditionem fidei dâ—mus Brochmand n Thesâ— Salmur parâ— prior de Justif Thes 37. fide igitur justificamur non tanquam parte aliqua Justitiae c. sed tanquam Conditione foederis gratiae quam à nobis Deus exigit loco conditionis foederis legalis the Professors of Somers in France o Sâ—hol in Luc. cap 11. Deus promisit nobis remissionem cum hac Conditione si nos prius remiserimus proximo c. Piscator p Opeâ— Tom. 1 pag. 420. 4â—3 vide loca Wallaeus q In Thoms Diatâ—ib pag. 148. Promissiones de fine sunt conditionaâ—ae c. vide locum passim Abbot r Christ Theol. lib. 1. cap 22. ad Thes 2 Promissio remissioniâ— peccatorum vitae aeteâ—â—ae sub conditione fidâ—i c. Wendeline s Of the Covenant pag 66. and elsewhere frequently onely mislikes the tearme in some respect because it seemes to take away all causality from Faith in the matter of Justification and therefore chuseth rather to call it an Instrument then a Condition Ball t Treatise of Justif Sâ—ct 2. cap. 1. Pemble u In Eph. 2. pag. 250. Bayne x Voâ—st loc com â—x cap. 3. ad Rom. pag. 23 Tit. 6. Mr. Blake of the Covenant cap. 6. pag. 26. Mr. Bulkley of the Covenanâ— part 4. cap. 1. and many others All which being considered I shall neither account it Popery nor Arminianisme to maintaine that Faith is the condition of our Justification before God till Master Eyre hath proved that it cannot be made a condition but it must withal be made a meritorious cause or that to make it the condition of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a sinner be to deny that Christs righteousnesse is at all imputed to a sinner or to affirme that God of his grace doth accept of Faith as our legal righteousnesse which is a palpable contradiction None of which he hath performed in his book nor ever will do When he distinguisheth those that take Faith objectively from those that make it an instrument in Justification it is a distinction without §. 6. a difference on purpose to impose upon the Reader as if they were two sorts of Authours whereas the very same men that take Faith objectively for Christ beleeved on do yet universally make Faith an Instrument in our Justification Our Protestants do indeed maintaine against the Papists and that most truly that the righteousnes of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification or the righteousnesse for which we are justified but the same Authours do as unanimously affirme that Faith is the instrumental cause thereof though otherwhile they call it a condition and most use the words promiscuously Thus y Instit l. 3. c. 14. §. 17. Calvin z Epist 45. p. 210. Beza a Loc. com clas 3. cap. 4. §. 47 48. Peter Martyr b Explic. cat par 2. q. 61. 3. pag. 399. Vrsine c Thes Theol. cap. 35. 11. Junius d Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 36. p 456. Polaenus e De Justif per. fid cap. 4. §. 64. Sect. 6. §. 153. Gerhard f Enchyr. Theol. p. 134. Hemmingius g Synops pur Theol. disp 33. 27. the four Leyden Professours h In Heb. pag. 486. Hyperius i Meth. Theol. p. 227. Sohnius k Harm Evang. p. 279. Exam. Conc. Trid. ses 6. Kemnitius l Loc. Com. 31. 33. Bucanus and all the rest that ever I read both Lutherans and Calvinists voting concurrently for Faiths antecedency to Justification At last Mr. Eyre gives us his own sense of Justification by Faith in §. 7. these words My sense of this Proposition we are justified by Faith is no other then what hath been given by all our ancient Protestant Divines who take Faith herein objectively not properly and explain themselves to this effect We are justified from all sinne and death by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ who is the sole object or foundation of our faith or whose righteousnesse we receive and apply to our selves by Faith Yet I say it doth not follow that it was not applyed to us by God or that God did not impute righteousnesse to us before we had Faith If Mr. Eyre had concluded as he began leaving out the exception which brings up the rear and understanding our ancient Protestants in their known sense this one sentence had confuted all his book and saved me the pains of such an undertaking It is most true that our Protestants maintaine that we are justified by the obedience of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and it is as true that they maintaine a sinner to be justified by Faith as the instrument or condition of his justification Nor can I finde one amongst the ancient Protestants that did ever dreame of a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith no though for the most part they place Faith in a particular assurance To the single testimonies already mentioned let us adde a few more out of the Confessions that the difference betweene our Protestants and Master Eyre may the better appear We begin with the m Oâ—thodox Tig. eccles Minist confess Tract 2. fol. 43 44. Tigurine Confession Nullis humanis vel operibus § 8. vel meritis sed per solam Dei gratiam id est per sanctam illam crucifixi filii Dei passionem innocentem mortem homines justitiam consequi peccatis mundari docemus quod mortis Christi innocentiae meriti participes tunc reddamur cum Dei filium nostrum esse propter peccata nostra ut nos nimirum justos beatos redderet mortem subiisse vera constanti fide credimus To the same purpose the n Corp. Synt. Confes fid p. 45. Helvetian Confession Propriè ergo loquendo c. To speak properly God alone doth justifie us and justifies us onely for Christs sake not imputing to us our sinnes but imputing to us his righteousnesse But because we receive this justification not by any works but by faith in Gods mercy and in Christ therefore we teach and beleeve with the Apostle that a sinner is justified by Faith alone in Christ not by the Law or any works Therefore because Faith receiveth Christ our righteousnesse and attributes all to the grace of God in Christ therefore Justification is ascribed to Faith principally because of Christ and not because it is our work to the same purpose pag. 89. § 13. The o Gallic confess ibid. p. 105 §. 20. French Confession agrees Credimus nos c. We beleeve that by Faith alone we are made partakers of this righteousnesse as it is written that he suffered to obtaine
what is Why saith Mr. Eyre to shew that we are justified not by works or righteousnesse in us but by the righteousnesse of Christ freely imputed to us which we apprehend and apply by faith Very good and this is as much as I stand for namely that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith But know Reader that when we speak of apprehending Christs righteousnesse we mean not an intellectual apprehension when a man comes to discern and know that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth but the right and interest which is given us by the Promise in the righteousnesse of Christ when we believe And in this sense are our Protestants to be understood when they say the righteousnesse of Christ is apprehended by faith Therefore when a De instit lib. 1. cap. 16. pag. 992. in 80. Bellarmine denies that it is the office or property of faith to apprehend our Protestants reject him as a Quibler b Ames Bill ener page 314. in 12â— Non enim ignoravit Bellarminus longè aliud intelligere per apprehensionem quà m speculationem intellectus Rectè Contarenus Accipimus Justificationem per fidem Gal. 3. 14. Hanc acceptionem Thomas appellat applicationem Protestantes appellant apprehensionem non eâ significatione quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus sed quâ illud dicimur apprehender quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus This I thought good here to observe once for all that the Reader may not be deceived with the ambignity of the word apprehend but might know the different use of it in our Protestants writings and Mr. Eyres The mistake in my Conclusion was that I told unbelievers that §. 2. Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto which Mr. Eyre denies to be true If he mean they may appeal by faith I consent but that is nothing to his purpose If that they may appeal without faith or that Christ intercedes that their sins may be forgiven who yet live in impenitency and unbelief let him prove it Of this also I shall speak more when I come to debate how farre we are reconciled in the death of Christ In the mean time I wonder why Mr. Eyre should quarrel with Mr. Baxter for asserting universal Redemption in the sense of Davenant Cameron Testardus Crocius Amyraldus and others when in the words following he yields the main foundations of their judgements in this point namely when he sayes Our duty is to exhort all men every where to believe in Christ we were as good bid the devils to believe as those for whom Christ is not a High-Priest I inferre Ergo Christ died for all men though I say not for all equally or else we were as good preach the Gospel to divels as to men But let that passe After Mr. Eyre hath leaped from one end of my Sermon to the other he comes to the middle which indeed doth most concern him And whether he hath convinced me of errour in that also is our next enquiry And first he considers that place which was then my text Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ His answer is double First saith he we may without any violence to the text place the comma after justified as thus Being justified by faith we have peace with God Reply And yet gives us no intelligence of any one copy former or §. 3. latter printed or manuscript to warrant such a punctation As to the division of the sentence the Syriack the Ancients c Lib. 5. advers Marcion c. 13. Si in eum competit pax cum quo suit belsum ei justificabimur ejus eâ—iâ— Christus ex cujus fide justificabimur Tertullian d Trans lat cdit Loud 1636. Justificati ergo ex side pacem habeamus Et Exâ—os 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophylact e Edit Henr. Savill Fronto Duc. Paris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostome f In loc Origen and our Protestant Commentatours both Lutherans and Calvinists agree with our Translation And if Mr. Eyre will be just and allow the same liberty to others which he takes himself as small a matter as a comma is the mis-placing it may unravel a whole texture of Scripture The Psycopanycists and some Papists when they are urged with the words of the Lord Jesus To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise elude the place by putting the comma after day and so reade the words thus g Vid. Hag. Grot. Annot. in Luc. 23 43. Verily I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise 2. I accept of Mr. Eyres observation that the illative particle therefore shews that this place is a corollary or deduction from the words foregoing and that the Apostles scope in the whole chapter foregoing is to prove that we are justified by faith is more plain then to need proof So that these words are the Conclusion of the former dispute issuing into this doctrine That we are justified by faith The uses whereof the Apostle immediately subjoynes But this way not taking Mr. Eyre is provided of another which is this If saith he we take the words as commonly they are read the sense comes all to one sâ—il That being justified by Christ we have peace with God who by the faith he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation Rep. This is somewhat worse then the former The Apostle saith Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Mr. Eyre to turne out faith from its office in Justification will have the words read by transposition Being justified by our Lord Jesus Christ we have peace with God through faith Or the word faith in the beginning of the verse must signifie our Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus Christ in the latter part of the verse must be put for faith which as it is an intolerable liberty of interpreting Scriptures so is it without all precedent in Scripture which is neither wont to put faith for Christ nor Christ for faith though both are often included where but one is mentioned Some I know do fasten such a sense on a text or two but without any necessity or compulsory reason SECT II. THe next place is Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Jesus Christ §. 4. that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. That this doth no more infer that we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5. 44 45. Love your enemies c. that you may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before Adoption Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known manifested and declared to be Rom. 3. 26. That
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
rewarding of the believer with a right to blessednesse I gather from ver 4 5. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse Where the imputing of faith unto righteousnesse is directly opposed to the imputing a reward according to works Ergo as the imputing works unto righteousnesse were to give a right to blessednesse according to works sub ratione mercedis so on the contrary to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to give the beleever a right and title to blessednesse sub ratione mercedis The difference only is this the former is of debt the latter of grace as we shall further shew anon 2. Thus also we finde the Apostle interpreting the phrase for after he had said that Abraham was made the father of all them that beleeve that righteousnesse might be imputed unto them also ver 11. he explains himself ver 13. for the Promise was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law but by the righteousnesse of faith The reason whereof he renders ver 16. That it might be by grace that the Promise might be sure to all the seed So that the establishing of the Promise to Abraham and all that walk in the steps of his faith by which a right to life is given both to him and them is the imputation Vid. Dav Paraeum Dub. exâ—lic in Rom. 4. Dub. 3. of righteousnesse to them 3. The same phrase is used of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse unto all generations for evermore The meaning of which words is easie to be learned from the story it self Numb 25. 12 13. Wherefore say Behold I give unto him my Covenant of Peace And he shall have it and his seed after him even the Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood The Promise of the continuance of the Priesthood in his line from one generation to another as the reward of his zeal is that which the Psalmist calls the imputing it to him unto righteousnesse to all generations Indeed the phrase there is not altogether so comprehensive as it is here because the Promise made him was but of one particular blessing and so could not constitute him righteous universally but only in part and as to that particular blessing which the Promise gave him right to Yet it shews the scripture-Scripture-sense of the phrase as sufficiently as when the same phrase is used with reference unto faith to shew that thereby we obtain the reward of an universal righteousnesse 4. The imputation of righteousnesse in respect of the terminus à quo is all one with the non-imputation of sin ver 6 8. and what is it to non-impute sin but not to render the wages of sin by destroying the guilt and punishment of it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward it with a right to impunity and blessednesse though this reward be not of debt but of grace This therefore being the sense of the phrase throughout the whole Chapter we leave Mr. Eyres glosse to go seek entertainment where it can finde it SECT V. THere remain three texts more which I mentioned in my Sermon §. 13. to prove that Justification follows faith namely Acts 10. 43. Through his Name whosoever beleeveth on him shall receive remission of sin And 26. 18. To turne them from darknesse to light and from the Power of Satan unto God that they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified through faith And 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses To the two former Mr. Eyre answers That the giving of remission and receiving it are two things The former is Gods act and the latter is ours A Prince may pardon a Malefactour and he thereby is secured from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good whiles after Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken sometimes actively as when we are said to receive God and Christ and his Word Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely by believing Sometimes it is taken passively in which sense giving and receiving are not two acts but one and the same as when we are said to receive the reward of inheritance Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold Matth. 19. 29. In all which and the like places our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance eternal life a hundred fold And thus to receive remission of sin is all one with Gods giving remission or to have our sins remitted and pardoned In this sense do our Protestants understand Receiving remission through faith as was before observed out of Contarenus So do the Scriptures also Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under sin That the Promise to wit of Justification by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve In which place Gods giving righteousnesse by the Promise and our receiving it are one and the same act compare ver 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life c. Whence also it is manifest that Gods giving and our receiving are both one act Therefore this giving or receiving of righteousnesse is called the coming of grace or righteousnesse upon us ver 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification 2. The receiving of remission must be understood in the same sense as the receiving of the inheritance for they are joyned both together in the text Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance But for us to receive the inheritance is no more then to be made partakers of the inheritance not by any act of ours but by the free and effectual gift of God 3. To receive remission what act of ours is it Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly but by his answers to former texts and his instance here of a Malefactour pardoned before he knowes it I presume he meanes that it is our knowledge of our sins being remitted But such a knowledge is not wont to follow so presently and immediately upon believing as pardon of sin is every where in Scripture supposed to do unlesse it be in those who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their first Conversion unto God But most Christians attain not to such a knowledge till after long searchings and experience and it is very improper to say a man receives such an act of his own which himselfe works out with much labour and travel of minde if our knowledge of remission were by immediate
coâ—senting with him I confesse I can hardly think it worth my labour yet something must be done this only being premised which hath also been before observed That when our Protestants sometimes say the word faith in this Proposition we are justified by faith is to be taken objectively they intend not to exclude faith it selfe from its concurrence to our Justification as Mr. Eyre doth for we have shewed in the first Chapter their unanimous consent in making faith the instrument or condition of our Justification But only to deny it to be the matter or meritorious cause of our Justification which they truly say is only the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ who is the object of our faith So that we are justified by Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and yet by faith as the instrument or condition upon which the righteousnesse of Christ hath effect upon us to our Justification And so I come to prove that faith is to be taken subjectively for the grace or act of faith not objectively for Christ throughtout the Apostles discourse for Justification by faith SECT II. 1. SUch an Interpretation of the words as makes non-sense of most §. 3. of the Scriptures which speak of Justification by faith is not to be admitted But to put faith for Christ beleeved on makes non-sense of most of those texts which speak of Justification by faith Ergo. For proof of the minor we shall begin where the Apostle begins to dispute for Justification by faith Rom. 3. 21 22. But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ put faith for Christ believed or and the words run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by Christ of Jesus Christ or put it for the righteousnesse of Christ and they run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by righteousnesse of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve Almost the very same words doth this Apostle use Phil. 3. 9. That I may be found in him not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Where in like manner if faith be put for righteousnesse we must reade the words thus Not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through righteousnesse I hope the Reader doth not expect that I should spend time in confuting these absurd paraphrases I count that sufficiently done in mentioning them In the same Chapter to the Romanes ver 25. Whom God hâ—â—h set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood According to Mr. Eyre we must reade it Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Christ in his blood or at best through righteousnesse in his blood But his blood being here set forth as the object of the faith mentioned in the text the blood of Christ must be made the object of his righteousnesse if by faith be meant righteousnesse which will resolve the words into a pretty piece of sense Again ver 26. God through the death of Christ is said to be the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus What 's that of him that christeth in Jesus or what is it It is an easie matter to say that faith is put for Christ or his righteousnesse but the mischief is the substantive cannot be varied into a verbe or participle to make an intelligible Proposition for example We are justified by faith that is will Mr. Eyre say by Christ or his righteousnesse But then change the substantive into a verbe or participle and give me the sense of it As He that beleeveth in Christ is justified If faith be put for Christ what is it to beleeve in Christ or what do we mean when we say We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ We are justified by Christ in Jesus Christ or by righteousnesse in Jesus Christ This latter I confesse hath a more tolerable sound but not a grain more of sense For when we say We are justified by faith in Christ Christ in that Proposition is the object of faith and we the subject But if faith signifie righteousnesse then Christ is the object of his own righteousnesse Of the non-sense of this Interpretation the Reader shal see more in that which follows 2. Justification by Christ or his righteousnesse was finished in his death according to Mr. Eyre Ergo if faith signifie Christ or his righteousnesse we were justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead But many yeares after Christs death there were many who were to be justified by faith Rom. 3. 30. It is one God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future tense which shall justifie the circumcision and uncircumcision that is Jewes and Gentiles by faith which is the application of the general Conclusion ver 28. We conclude That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Ergo they were not justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead 3. But because Mr. Eyre by his marginal Annotation referres us §. 4. to Rom. 4. let us make some enquiry into that Chapter And if we prove that faith in that Chapter is meant of the act not of the object this controversie is ended We begin with the third verse Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse What can be more plain then that it was Abrahams believing which was imputed to him of the sense of that phrase we have spoke already even as when it is said of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse I appeal to common sense whether his executing of judgement were not the thing that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse or if something be to be understood which is not expressed let every mans fancie be left to its liberty to supply what he sees sit and we shall be much the better for the Scriptures 2. The same is also delivered more generally of all believers ver 5. To him that worketh not but beleeveth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse If there had been no more spoken in all the chapter this had been enough to prove that by faith here is meant the act not the object For 1. It is the expresse letter of the text To him that worketh not but believeth 2. That faith is here meant which is a mans own before it be imputed His faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is no mans before it be imputed If it be let us know what act that is distinct from imputation and antecedent to it by which Christs righteousnesse is made ours 3. That faith is here meant which is so a mans owne as that in individuo it is no bodies else But Christs righteousnesse is not so any one mans as to be no bodies
else for then should be but one man in the world to whom the righteousnesse of Christ were imputed The Proposition is manifest because the faith here spoken of is determined to the person of the beleever To him that beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS faith is imputed And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumcision ver 11. And the truth is that otherwise I mean if His faith be His Christ Abrahams faith or Davids faith or any other Christians faith may be said to be imputed unto us with the very same propriety of speech as it is said to be imputed to him or them 4. If faith be here put for Christ or his righteousness the words are non-sense Put faith for righteousness and the words run thus But unto him that believeth his righteousness is imputed to him for righteousness What sense is that or put it for Christ and they run thus But unto him that believeth his Christ is impured to him unto righteousness But what is it to impute Christ unto righteousnesse I know he is said to be made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wisdom and Sanctiâ—ication that is the Authour of both but to impute him unto righteousnesse is a barbarisme To say nothing of the insolency of that phrase His Christ in Scripture and of making Christ as distinct from his righteousnesse the object of justifying faith 3. We have already proved that to impute faith unto righteousnesse §. 5. is to reward the believer with a right to life If then faith be put for Christ to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward Christ with righteousnesse And if for righteousnesse it is to reward righteousnesse with righteousnesse both which are absurd 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteousnesse was the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised ver 10 11. If faith do here signifie Christs righteousnesse the words sound thus The righteousnesse of Christ which he had in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse And because he could not have it but by imputation therefore the full sense will be this The righteousnesse of Christ which was imputed to him in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Spectatum admissi c. 5. Consider we also what is said ver 9 10 11 12. from whence §. 6. we advance three Arguments more 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful was the habit or grace of faith not the object A conjugatis Even as it is the habit of wisdom goodness temperance c. from whence a man is denominated wise good temperate c. but the faith which was imputed to him was that from whence he was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful for faith was imputed to him unto righteousnesse saith the Apostle ver 9. and that in his uncircumcision ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might become the father of all the faithful that are in uncircumcision that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ver 11. for so stands the connexion of the sentences and the beginning of this ver 11. And he received Circumcision c. is answered immediately by ver 12. And the father of circumcision c. The like Argument doth this Apostle use elsewhere Gal. 3. 9. They which be of the faith be blessed with faithful Abraham 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing then Abrahams faith signifies his believing and not Christs righteousnesse The reason is because to be a childe of Abrahams faith is to follow or imitate him in that which is called his faith as when Mr. Eyre calls me a sonne of Mr. Baxters faith And if we are like him by believing then believing is the quality wherein the similitude consists between him the Father and us the children But we become the children of Abrahams faith even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse by believing ver 10. The father of all them that beleeve ver 11. That walk in the steps of father Abrahams faith Who are also called the seed of the faith of Abraham ver 16. 3. And I would that Mr. Eyre or some body else would make sense of the Apostles words if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse ver 12. Abraham became the father of Circumcision to them that walk in the steps of his faith What is that Why to them that walk in his Christs righteousnesse I am even sick of this non-sense let me adde one word more that I may rid my self of this nausâ—ous work 6. The faith spoken of throughout this chapter is that which is §. 7. described at large from ver 18. to the end where it is said that Abraham against hope believed in hope And being not weak in faith he considered not his own nor Sarahs age ver 19. That he staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith ver 20. And was fully perswaded that what God had promised he was able also to perform ver 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse is manifest from the very next verse ver 22. And therefore it â—as imputed to him unto righteousnesse To make this the description of Christs righteousnesse would render the sense so beyond measure ridiculous that I professe Reader I am afraid to represent it to thee in a paraphrase lest some prophane wits should take occasion to make this blessed Word of God the object of their derision and contempt I might adde that by the same reason that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteousnesse of Christ another may make as bold to interpret it of the Wisdome Power Goodness Faithfulness or any other Attribute of God for these also are the objects of faith and so to be justified by faith is to be justified by the Wisdome of God or by his Goodness c. every line in Scripture that speaks of Justification by faith will be as good sense thus expounded as if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse unless it be in those places where faith is particularly and expressely determined to Christ as its object and in all such places Mr. Eyre himself will surely interpret faith for the act not for the object SECT III. NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre opposeth to §. 8. prove that faith must be put for its obiect the righteousnesse of Christ Else saith he the Apostle contradicts himself in opposing Justification by faith to Justification by works because faith it selfe is a work of ours Answ But by his favour I will rather beleeve that he contradicts the Apostle and that as perfectly as if he had studied to do it on purpose then that the Apostle contradicts himself For it is as manifest as light can make it that it is the act of believing which the Apostle opposeth to works Rom. 4.
article But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise for he believes as much as the Scripture reports If it be said that a man cannot assent to the one but he must assent to the other I think so too But the ground of it is because it is against reason not because it is against faith and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason not purely of faith which was that I was to demonstrate The Conclusion is there can be no way imagined in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification but one of those three mentioned Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth but we have shewed that it must be reduced to one of these three and so differs in name only not in thing But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these wayes Therefore faith must be said to justifie in some other respect then that it doth evidence Justification or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all SECT VIII MY third Argument comes next in place That Interpretation §. 32. of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification is not true The Reason is because our Justification by faith in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith meerly for a Justification in our own consciences is to make us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification Ergo it is not to be admitted Mr. Eyre before he answers the Argument reformes my expressions and sayes That he doth not say that Justification by faith is meerly a Justification in conscience faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ c. Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly is an impertinent quarrel he doth it too frequently and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ he answers meerly so And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ we have already shewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God But I must tell him it is most intolerable dealing to build so large a discourse as is the greatest part of his book upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on The one is when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof The other when he pleaseth to put faith for its object Christ When such a weight is laid upon these foundations had it not been necessary to shew us the places to clear and vindicate them where these words must have this sense and no other But to the answer for this is nothing but a delay This it is The pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of our Justification but the imputing of righteousnesse which is the Act of God alone Ministers may pronounce us just without robbery done to God So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution c. Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded and the sinner thereby §. 33. made his own Justifier 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will it matters not much in the present case The Justification which in Scripture is said to be by faith is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22 24 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty to justifie us through faith therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences that is of our justifying our selves without setting up our selves in the Throne of God Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world as a friend to Papists for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification because he thinks it will follow thence that men may be said to justifie themselves But I see one may better steal a horse then another look over the hedge 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just I acknowledge to be a little too narrow as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement but I do therein also include Justificationem juris the act of God by the Law of grace that is the Promise of the Gospel giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ And this is formalissimè the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God saith r Medul theol l. 1. c. 27 thes 12. Dr. Ames Now that Justification which is in Scriptures said to be by faith is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin Rom. 4. 2 5. compared with ver 6. 11 24. Ergo by Mr. Eyres concession it is only Gods act and no creature can be joyned with him therein without robbery done to him But we do joyne with him by faith in imputing righteousnesse to our selves if imputing righteousnesse to believers be their knowing by faith that righteousnesse is imputed to them as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before in answer to Rom. 4. 24. 3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justifie §. 34. sinners yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justifie them that beleeve for that is an act proper to himself I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins John 20. 23. namely s Vid. Calv. in loc Altham concil loc pugn cap. 194. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis 3. pag. 65. because it comes to passe upon every one according to the Word which they preached He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdomes to root out and to pull down to build and to plant Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they but the Word which they preached which did justifie or condemn and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles but as moral instruments Such as they also were in raising the dead healing the sick converting of sinners and the like All which works were wrought immediately by God himself immediatione virtutis without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man But when we are said to be justified by faith if the meaning be that by faith we know our selves to be justified in this case faith hath a true proper immediate and real efficiency in our Justification And it
the following discourse Yet that the Reader may know what Justification it is which we speak of I shal here speak something briefly for explication of it leaving whatsoever is controverted to be proved in its proper place Justification then by our late Reverend a Larger Catech pag 94. in 12. Assembly is thus defined An act of Gods free-grace unto sinners in which he pardoneth all their sinnes accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them and received by Faith alone This for substance is the Justification which the Question speaks of if thou wouldest have it Reader more particularly take it as followeth The efficient ut quod of our Justification is God himself that justifieth §. 4. and his grace the efficient ut quo for he justifies us freely of his grace Rom. 3. 24. Jesus Christ also as King and Lord of life is joyned by special commission with the Father in his great Act of justifying sinners John 5. 22. 26 27. Acts 5. 31. Matth. 28. 18 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. and Luke 24. 47. The righteousnesse and obedience of Jesus Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification but whether his active or passive obedience either or both I do not dispute nor do I account it needful because all the active obedience of Christ was passive for it was part of his humiliation that being b See Bp. Usher Imman pag. 10 at the end of his Body of Divinity a Son he would subject himself to the payment of that tribute of obedience which was due onely from servants and all his passive obedience was active for he laid down his life of himself John 10. 18. The formality of Justification consists as I take it in a legal discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment and a donation of right and title to eternal life which discharge and gift because it was merited by the obedience of Christ without any contribution of merit from the sinner himself is truly called the c Christi justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 27. th 12. imputation of Christs righteousnesse and this is the sense of that phrase in the use of our Divines And these things I here take for granted reserving the proof of what is disputable in them to its proper place SECT II. THe second and more material labour is to explain in what sense §. 5. we are said to be justified by Faith Mr. Eyre gives us five senses of the phrase first of those that take Faith in a tropical and figurative sense as thus We are justified by Faith i. e. by the obedience and righteousnesse of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we rest for life and righteousnesse Secondly of those which say we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively Thirdly Of the Papists who ascribe a meritoriousnesse to Faith and do also make our Justification to be by inherent righteousnesse or doing of righteous actions Foutthly of the Arminians who explode the word Merit and deliver their opinion to this effect That God in the legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to performe Fifthly of those that say that Faith doth justifie as a condition or Antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The last of these is that which I contend for according to the explication given of it in my Sermon pag. 9. 10. which why Master Eyre should account a new opinion and charge it here upon Master Baxter and elsewhere upon Doctor Hammond as the first parents and patrons of it I know not much lesse why he should so very often accuse it as a piece of Arminianisme and Popery seeing it is a thing so well known that the Synod of Dort and almost all our Protestants do very frequently call Faith the condition of our Justification d De reconcil pecc par 1. l. 2. cap. 18. pag. 99. 100. Mr. Wotton doth purposely dispute for it and hath saved me the labour of transcribing the testimonies of many famous Protestants who say the same either in expresse termes as Fox Perkins Paraeus Trelcatius G. Downham J. Downham Schaâ—pius Tho. Mathewes or equivalent as Calvin Aretius Sadeel Oleviaâ— Mâ—lancthon Beza to whom I might adde e Disser de morte Christi pag. 63. Est autem hic ordo stabilitâ—s haec conditio expresse posita in â—vangelio quod reconciliationis gratia beneficium vitae aeternae ad peccatores ex morte Châ—isti redundaret si crederent Idem in praelect de Just Habit. act pag. 395 396. Davenant f Collat. cum Til pag. 6â—7 â—taque in vocatione aliam habet fides rationem quam in Justificatione nam in Justificatione conditio est praerequisita ut ita dicam in vocatione gignitur fusius in Disput de satisfact pag. 365. Cameron g Praelect Controv. 2. de not Eccles Q. 5. pag. 331. in 4. Cum primùm credo tum justus sum cum justus sum tum credo veluti si malefico cuiquam veniz cum hac conditione proponatur si eam amplecti velit c. Praelect de Sacram. cap. 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. Whitaker h De vocat pag. 16 17. Reliquum est ut videamus foederis gratuiti conditionem ea auâ—em sola est sides Deus promittit justificationem vitam sub conditione fidei passim Rollock i Syntag. Theol. l. 4. c. 10. de Evang. pag. 1106. Promissiones Evangelii de remissione peccatorum vita aeterna pertinen quidem ad omnes homines non tamen abâ—olutè sed sub conditione apprehensionis per fidem infra ibid. verum absolutae tamen non sunt sed hac conditione circumscriptae ut credant in Christum Grotius k De Evang Decad. 4 â— 1. pag. 238 Proposuit enim Deus Christum propitiationem nimirum ut is esset râ—conciliatio nostra propter quem placatus nos adoptat in filios Dei Verum non alia ratione quam per fidem in ejus sanguinem id est si credamus c. Bullinger l De remiâ—s peccat cap. 6. pag mihi 621. Discernendum inter eam gratiam Dei quae nullas haber adjectas conditiones qualis est quòd sâ—lem suum producit super bones malos pluitque super gratos ingratos eam quae conditionaliter confertur ad quem modum peccatorum nobis remissio contingit cap. 4.
he determines as supream Governour of the world what shall be our duty to do or not to do and what shall be due to us according to our doing or not doing of this Will Hence the Word and Lawes of God are called in Scripture his Will in hundreds of places By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity which is their proper Justification whereof his not punishing them de facto is the effect This I shall prove God willing when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre In the meane time the thing which he undertakes to prove is That the very essence and quiddity of a sinners Justification is Gods Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him I deny it and shall subjoyne some reasons against it by and by besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book But first let us see what he hath to say for it Thus then he begins Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse to a person Psal 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person is his non-imputing sin to him Ergo. Answ I grant the major but I do very much long to see what §. 8. definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification that may include Justification in Gods knowledge and in his legal justice and in our consciences that I might know whether these three be three several sorts or only three degrees of one and the same Justification but let that passe I deny the minor For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeales to the Original words both Greek and Hebrew both which saith he doth signifie an act of the minde or will Mr. Eyre is to prove that they signifie the purpose or resolution of the will in which sense they appear not so much as once neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Interpreters nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense and therefore that observation might have been spared 2. An act of the understanding they signifie often but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation but thinking devising esteeming or the like for example Isa 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Neither doth his heart think so Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendred Neither doth his heart impute se In like manner Psal 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt where the words are the same both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint And cannot be rendered Against me do they impute my hurt So Isa 53. 3. He was despised and we esteemed him not where the words are still the same It would be worthy sense to render them He was despised and we imputed him not Multitudes of like instances might be given But when the words will beare to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation they then signifie not an immanent act of the understanding or will but a transient act containing an objectum Quod or something that is imputed and an objectum cui some person to whom it is imputed who also is thereby changed physically or morally And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another Numb 18. 27 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned or imputed to you as though it were the corne of the threshing sloâ—re and ver 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it then it shall be counted or imputed to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floore c. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corne of the threshing floore for that had been a fiction or an errour and imperfection of the understanding but because by the determination of the Law it was made equivalent thereunto or equally available to all effects and purposes This is a transient act 2. When a man is charged as the Authour of such or such a fact 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris Junius This also is a transient act 3. The giving of a reward to a man whether the reward be of debt or of grace is Imputation Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. because punishment is the wages of sin and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law is the non-imputing of sin Psal 32. 1 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action which otherwise he might have expected that action is said to be non-imputed to him Lev. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him This also is a transient act In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament Righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur Beza Mr. Eyres glosse upon that text we shall meet with in due place and Paul prayes for them that deserted him in his troubles that their sin may not be imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyres Argument upon himself If Justification be a non-imputation of sin then it is a transient act and not an immanent act of Gods Will. But the first is true ex concessis Ergo so is the last And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weaknesse of his proofe The original words note an immanent act when they signifie some other thing then imputation Ergo imputation is an immanent act So much for the first Argument The second is this that which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification But by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. Answ The Proposition I readily grant the Assumption I deny §. 9. â— and detest For 1. It makes void the death of Christ for what sayes the Apostle Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain The case is altogether the same as to any other way by which men may be said to be justified for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ then was it a vaine needlesse thing that he should die for our Justification 2. Nor was there any need as to our Justification that he should rise again from the dead whereas the Scripture saith Arose from the dead for our Justification Rom. 4. 25. And therefore saith Paul 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins he speaks to those that did confesse his death but he was out when he
4 5. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth c. Not working is opposed to works Beleeving is not working with the Apostle Ergo believing is opposed to works Judge then who will for I am indifferent in so just a cause whether the Apostle contradict himselfe or Mr. Eyre him 2. The opposition between faith and works in the matter of Justification stands thus according to Scripture That he that worketh doth himself effect that righteousnesse for which he is justified personal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man to make him just before God And hence righteousnesse by works or by the Law is called our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth doth by the gift of God partake in the righteousnesse of another even of the Lord Jesus Christ for which only he is justified And hence righteousnesse by faith is opposed to our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith So that he that is justified by works is justified for his own sake but he that is justified by faith is justified for anothers sake §. 9. But because this is the total summe of all Mr. Eyre hath to say for the abuse of the word Faith from its own native sense to a tropical I shall set down my answer more fully I distinguish therefore 1. Of works 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action and so no doubt but faith is a work so is laughing crying speaking reasoning and the like 2. Strictly for that obedience by which the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled really or in conceit and so they are uncapable of an ordinability to or of being made the conditions of our Justification by the righteousnesse of another In this sense doth the Apostle take works when he opposeth them to faith b Vid Conraâ— Vorst Schol. in loc Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt and ver 2. If Abraham were jâ—stified by works he hath whereof to glory Both which Propositions were false if works were any thing lesse then perfect legal righteousnesse for he had said before that there is no glorying for a sinner before God * Vid. Joh. Piscat Schol. in loc ex Olev Calvin Rom. 3. 23. Not that I think the Jewes themselves who sought righteousnesse by works did conceive they were able so to keep the Law as not at all to sin but rather thought such was their blindnesse that the Law was sufficiently kept to Justification if they forbore the outward acts of sin and performed the outward act of duty c Joseph Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. Joh. Reynol Coâ—f with Hart. ch 7. D. 4. p. 264. neglecting the inward purity of heart d Sic Mâ—rmon in 〈◊〉 Te 〈…〉 or if their good works were more then their evil works or finally if they did perform those ceremonial observances which were required in the Law for the expiation of sinne Matâ—h 19. 18 19. and 23. 25 26 27 28. Luke 18. 11 12. Phil. 3. 6. Against which conceit of theirs the grand Argument which the Apostle opposeth is this That all had sinned against the Law Rom. 3. 19 20 23. and therefore none could be justified by the Law for it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10 11. Now works being taken in this strict sense it is manifest that faith is not works no e Fidem non esâ—e opus Viâ— Câ—mâ—ron prâ—lect in Mâ—â— 16. â—7 opâ—r p. 47 48. nor a work as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous as the Apostle expressely witnesseth Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith that is requires not faith in order to Justification but the man that doth them shall live in them 2. When we speak of Justification by works and of Justification §. 10. by faith the particle By hath not the same sense in both Propositions But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteousnesse for which a person is justified in the latter it denotes faith to be the meanes or condition upon which we receive the gift of Christs righteousness Of the use of that particle in such a sense the Reader shall finde many instances in answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter When then he disputes that if we are justified by faith in a proper sense we are justified by works because faith is a work I deny the consequence with the proof of it The former because to be justified by faith is to be justified by the righteousnesse of another through faith as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us but to be justified by works is to be justified by and for a righteousnesse wrought by our selves The latter because faith is not a work as the Apostle useth works that is no part of that righteousnesse for which we are justified What can be objected against this the Reader will meet with in the following discourse In the mean time I desire him to have recourse hither for answer to this Argument in all the following places which are very many wherein it is objected against me that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies even unto nauseousnesse SECT IV. THe second general Argument proving that Justification by §. 11. faith is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Justification is this It cannot be imagined how faith should evidence to us our Justification but one of these three wayes Either as an Argument affected to prove it or axiomatically or syllogistically which termes because Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obscurity we shall endeavour to explain as we come to them But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification in any of these three wayes Ergo we cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification This Reader is the summe and scope of my second Argument which I have here set down distinctly that thou mayest not be lead into a mistake common to Mr. Eyre with some of my own friends as themselves have told me as if I had denied all use of faith in evidencing Justification which is as farre from my judgement as the East is from the West I confesse I have little cause to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus mistaken because there is an ellipfis in my words which might give some occasion of such a misapprehension for whereas it is said in my Sermon page 3. It is a most unsound Assertion that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The full sentence should have been
righteousnesse as our natural being in the first Adam to our partaking in his condemnation Yea. 3. It is a great deal more necessary and therefore I deny §. 6 Mr. Eyres consequence for though it were yielded that condemnation comes on men only by the Law of Adam yet will it by no means follow that Justification descends to us from Christ as the immediate effect of that Law or Covenant by which himselfe was justified The reason is plain because Adam represented all mankind as virtually in the same obligation with himself b Vide Paul Ferrium scholast Orthod spe c. 20 §. 3. and his offence was the act of the whole humane nature though it be not imputed to particular persons till they begin to exist and his condemnation was so far forth the condemnation of all mankinde it being the very same sentence that condemneth both him and us But Christ Jesus represented no man as in the same obligation with himselfe either in his obedience or Justification otherwise we are justified by works or he by grace for we must be acknowledged to have satisfied Gods justice in him and to have merited eternal life in him in the very same propriety of speech as we are said to have sinned and dyed in Adam which I will never beleeve while I live because it excludes grace altogether from having any hand in the justification of a sinner The grace of our justification is usually placed in these c See the Assemb confes cap. 11. §. 3. two things 1. In that Christ was given freely of the Father for us 2. And his obedience and â—â—tisfaction accepted in our stead But in neither of these is there any grace at all if we have merited and satisfied in him as we are said to sin and die or be condemned in Adam For the Law it self will allow us to make satisfaction if we are able for it inflicts the penalty but in ordâ—r to satisfaction and the punishment of sinners is not eternall but because they cannot satisfie by bearing it But if we have satisfied in Christ it seems we were able to do it â—b esse ad posse valet consequentia And justice it self will accept of satisfaction being performed And as God deals not more rigorously with us in condemning us then he did with Adam in condemning him so neither doth he deale any whit more mercifully with us in justifying us then he did with Christ in justifying him if his satisfaction and justification be ours in the same sense in which Adams sinne and condemnation is ours How much safer is it to say with the Scripture He is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9. 12. then to talke of our being in him a propitiation for our owne sinnes or of purchasing in him redemption for our selves The conclusion is the Law that justified Christ cannot justifie us though the law that condemned Adam were yeelded to be the only law that condemneth us which yet I have already denyed Ergâ— there must be some other Law according to which sinners are justified and that is that Law of grace preached in the Gospel whosoever beleeveth shall be saved called the law of faith Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. 4. No saith Mr. Eyre those places are to be understood of the §. 7. new covenant made with Christ not of the conditionall promise as I would have it Rep. Which is spoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyres disputing that is dictating I acknowledge my selfe unworthy to be compared with him in any respect yet the truth if he think himself in the truth is worthy of a more laborious defense then a frigid so 't is or 't is not so though I may not be worthy of a better answer I am perswaded himself will acknowledge that the propriety of the phrases favours me and he doth not so much as pretend to any Argument hat may compell me to understand them improperly 1. For the law of faith it is expresly opposed to the law of works Where is boasting then it is excluded By what law of works nay but by the law of faith The law of works is the law that requires us to performe works that we may be justified Ergo the law of faith is the law which requires faith unto justification even that doctrine which manifesteth the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ without the works of the law as he had before described it v. 21 22. Thus Beza Evangelium vocat legem fidei id est doctrinum quae salutem propâ—nit sub conditione si credideris opposâ—tam doctrinae quae justitiam salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris To the same purpose Paraeus Aretius Hemmingius c. And therefore the Apostle having said that the law of faith excludes boasting he addes immediatly v. 28. we conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law To put faith for Christ is such a piece of boldnesse as I dare not adventure upon as much as Mr. Eyre challength me for my forehead The reasons are mentioned before 2. And as for the law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. it is called the righteousnesse which is of faith in the very next foregoing verse v. 30. And I would Mr. Eyre would tell us how we may otherwise make sense of the Apostle when he sayes the Gentiles attained it by faith v. 30. and the Jews fell short of it by stumbling at Christ through unbelief v. 31. And a few verses below chap. 10. 6. the Apostle calls it the righteousnesse which is of faith and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach the voyce and tenour of which he describes v. 9. If thâ—u shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved and all this in opposition to the righteousnesse of the law which the Jews sought after the summe of which is comprehended in these words The man that doth them shall live by them v. 5. Hence it is manifest that the law of righteousnesse is that by which only righteousness is attainable and that is the Gospel-promise of justifying them that beleeve in Jesus though they be not able to fulfill the Law of Moses SECT II. IN the next place Mr. Eyre offers us some Arguments to prove §. 8. that justification is not the discharge of a sinner by that signall conditionall promise of the Gospel he that believes shall be saved Let us try then for whereas he censures that saying of mine every man is then condemned when the Law condemnes him I stay not to answer him he might have seen if he would that I intended no more then that whosoever is condemned is condemned by a Law What then are the Arguments The first is crambe bis shall I say or
since that o De traduct peccat ad vitam thes 5. 6. Conditio reconciliationis a parte nostra est Christi receptio the condition of reconciliation on our part is our receiving of Christ which must first be done Cum ex ea tanquam medio praerequisito reconciliatio ineatur because it is a means praerequisite to our reconciliation As for Dr. Twisse if he were capable of receiving any addition of honour by my testimony I should be more ambitious to perform it then Mr. Eyre could be desirous of the favour of his p Ep. dedic most noble Senatours I may not deny that I had bestowed some paines in comparing the Doctours expressions in several places but it pleased God to stir up a far better hand q In his Preface to Mr. Gâ—ayles book Mr. Constant Jessop a learned faithful suffering servant and Minister of Jesus Christ to do the Doctour the honour of vindicating his judgement and doctrine from those general misreports and misapprehensions that went abroad of him Something I should alsospeak concerning Mr. Eyres marginal quotations which are many of them false as I was once intended to have shewed the Reader in a List But considering that the difference of Volumes or Editions in which his Authors are extant may breed a mistake of some and that the Printer tells us Mr. Eyre was not able to overlook the Presse and so through the errour of that others might be mistaken I have thought fit to forbear 3. As for this my Reply though the Authors above mentioned and Mr. Eedes besides who yet hath misrepresented me in reporting that I deny faith to be an evidence of our Justification coming all out so long before me may seem to make my undertaking needlesse yet I was loth to deceive the expectations of so many as had so long waited for my Reply The truth is I had soon drawn up the summe of my answer so far as I was sure that I understood Mr. Eyre aright That I made no more haste to the Presse the Reasons were 1. The incessant emploiments I have had both at home and abroad which have made me uncapable of following works of this nature so close as they should be 2. The frequent and long-continuing bodily infirmities which have kept me from writing many weeks together 3. While the controversie was hot I was willing to see whether any thing would come out pro or con that might occasion any new enquiries I hear of none but Mr. Robertson who threateneth us with a few pedantick Scoticismes and Mr. Crandon against Mr. Baxter whom for the report I had heard of the man I greedily desired to reade But lighting by accident upon his discourse about the afflictions which befal the godly in this life I found him vox praeterea nihil and so leave him to those Readers who can be edified by his melody Mr. Eyres Comment upon the title page of my Sermon I passe over His digression in chap. 2. about publick disputes with the Ministers will have some more cautions before it passe for canonical if ever it be his lot to be exercised in that way as much as some worthy Ministers have been in some Churches which I have known In my Reply to his Arguments I have faithfully set down the strength of his argument though not every word in every place And so Reader I commend thee and this my writing unto the blessing of him who will one day owne it for his truth and thee for a childe of truth if thou walk in it BENJAMIN WOODBRIDGE THE METHOD OF GRACE IN THE JVSTIFICATION OF SINNERS CHAP. I. An Answer to M. Eyres 6. chap. The Question stated Justification what Justification by Faith what The consent of Protestants in making Faith the condition of Justification Or an instrumental cause thereof Proved also by the confessions of several Churches SECT I. IN our entrance upon the discussion of the present Question namely whether a sinner be justified in §. 1. the sight of God before he beleeve or not till he beleeve I must crave leave to digresse a little from Master Eyres method who first gives his answer to those Texts produced in my Sermon for proof of our Justification by Faith in his fifth Chapter and then states the Question in his sixth and seventh I shall therefore first examine those two Chapters beginning here with the former and so proceed to the entire Vindication of my Sermon by it selfe In the stating of the Question these three things are to be dispatched 1. What Justification is 2. What it is to be justified by Faith or what is the office of Faith in Justification 3. What is meant by the phrase In the sight of God or before God when we enquire concerning the Justification of a sinner before God or in Gods sight For the first when we enquire what Justification is it is supposed §. 2. that the word Justification is taken properly in sensu formali not in a diminutive comparative or tropical sense Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato The Reason why I observe this is because Master Eyre pretends to his Reader that I have no lesse then yielded the cause when I grant a Justification purposed of God and merited by Christ before Faith So then saith he pag. 147. by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed pag. 101. challengeth some one text of Scripture to prove that Justification doth in no sense precede the act of Faith Whereas I doubt not but the world may be said to be from eternity in some sense namely in reference to the counsel and purpose of God And he that is never justified at all simply may yet notwithstanding be said to be justified in some sense that is comparatively as being lesse unjust then another Jer. 3. 11. And many of those who are now alive and never yet tasted of death may neverthelesse be said to be already risen from the dead in some sense to wit in Christ the first fruits of them that slept And Justification it self may be called condemnation in some sense for the Scots say a man is justified when he is hanged and the word seemes to be used in a sense not much unlike Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified from sinne If Master Eyre do indeed think which I am perswaded he doth not that the Question between him and me is whether the wit of man cannot invent some sense wherein Justification may be said to go before Faith he should have acquainted his Reader with it here in the â—stating of the Question and not have kept him ignorant of any such controversie between us till he is come towards the later end of his book Wherein the particular nature and formality of this glorious blessing §. 3. of Justification doth consist is more particularly debated in
came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God whereas saith he we say that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others And 2. Their notion who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature c. Answ Here is the foundation of all the following obscure discourse which I perceive Mr. Eyre had rather we should take for granted then he be put to prove I do therefore deny 1. That Justification doth any where in Scripture signifie Gods eternal Will or Purpose not to punish of which more presently 2. That it is any where in Scripture put pro re volitâ for the thing willed formally and under that habitude or relation Justification is the discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment whether it were willed or not willed from eternity is but extrinsecal and accidental to the Act it selfe 3. That Justification is any where used in Scripture for the effects of Justification though I deny no man the liberty of making use somtimes of such a trope but we are now enquiring de nomine concerning the use of the Word The Apostle makes that one Act of Election the cause of all spiritual blessings Eph. 1. 3 4. of which our Justification is one ver 6 7. no lesse then Adoption ver 5. which is an Act of the same common nature with Justification and by some eminent d See Dr. Reignolds Life of Christ page 402. Divines made a part of it and that suitably enough to Scripture phrase even when it is made consequent to our faith John 1. 12. Gal. 3. 25. with 4. 5 6. 4. Our discharge from the curse is either our discharge from an obligation to it or from our actual suffering it In this latter sense it is indeed an effect of Justification but in the former sense it is the very life being and forme of it unlesse it be understood passively and so that also may be called an effect of Justification because the immediate effect of a discharge active is a person discharged These observations Reader thou wilt finde useful in the following debate That absurd conceit as he calls it that some have inferred upon §. 5. an eternal Justification viz. that then Christ came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God is so natural a consequence of his doctrine that it will never be put off with a cold Negatur And I presume Mr. Eyre is not ignorant that it is a maine principle upon which the Socinians deny the satisfaction of Christ And if he will owne what himselfe hath wrote in this book he must joyne with them He affirmes that Gods eternal Will not to punish is the very essence of Justification page 64. 2. That by this Will men are secured from wrath and discharged and acquitted from their sins that it is a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin page 67. § 6. upon which premises I demand Whose debt did Christ pay his own That 's little lesse then blasphemy Ours why our bond was cancelled long before and our selves discharged and acquitted from all sinne and death really actually compleatly if Mr. Eyres doctrine be true And where then is any place left for satisfaction e De satisfact p. 119. Grotius hath well observed Obligationis destructio liberatio dicitur Hanc praecedere potest solutio sequi non potest quia actus nullus versari potest circa id quod non existit amplius To the same purpose f In tert Tho. tom 1. disp 4. sect 8. p. 58. edit Venet. Suarez Propriè non dicitur satisfactio quae post remissionem debiti sit sed quae fit ad debiti remissionem Est enim remissio debiti terminus satisfactionis non principium ut communi sensu omnium hominum constat Nec dici potest eandem peccati remissionem quae facta fuit gratis ante satisfactionem postea etiam fieri per satisfactionem quia repugnat idem debitum gratis remitti per justam solutionem But what need we the testimony of man the testimony of God is greater The text is plain Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sin is there is no more offering for sinne Ergo if sin were remitted from eternity Christ neither did nor could make any satisfaction If it be said that God did discharge us upon the foresight of Christs satisfaction I beleeve it to be most true of all the godly that lived before Christ but Mr. Eyre that makes this discharge to be an immanent not a transient act in God will not may not endure that it should be caused by the foresight of Christs satisfaction The next grosse mistake which Mr. Eyre tells us some have fastened §. 6. upon the doctrine of eternal Justification is theirs who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature thus If men are justified from eternity they are from eternity And I confesse Mr. Eyre hath well removed this consequence if his principle be good that esse justificatum is a terme of diminution But verily if the Scriptures have rightly informed us in the nature of Justification I do not see how the consequence can be avoided for Justification is one of the most eminent blessings contained in that Promise I will be their God So Paul Rom. 3. 29 30. Is he the God of the Jewes only and not of the Gentiles also yea of the Gentiles also seeing it is one God who shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living Matth. 22. 32. And if not the God of the dead who yet live as to their soules then much lesse is he the God of them that are not nor never were Ergo he doth not justifie them that are not Again He that is justified is blessed Rom. 4. And he that is blessed from eternity is from eternity for he that is not is neither blessed nor miserable To say he is blessed from eternity in Gods intention is no more then that there was a preparation of blessednesse for him in Gods intention which I readily grant and it profits Mr. Eyre nothing But it little concernes me to make good the foresaid consequence something more of it the Reader shall finde a little below in the mean time we come to the great Question whether Justification consist formally in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish SECT III. THe Will of God as Divines are wont to distinguish is either §. 7. voluntas beneplaciti or voluntas signi The former is the Intention Decree or Purpose of God concerning some Act of his owne to be done by himselfe in his due time The latter to confine it to our present use is his signal legislative revealed royal Will by which
he might be just i. e. that he might be known and acknowledged to be just So John 15. 8. and 13. 35 c. So here That we might be justified is that we might know that we are justified Not the being of our Justification but the knowledge and feeling of it is a consequent of faith Rep. 1. I would never desire that any Argument of mine should conclude more firmely then that text Mat. 5. will infer that none are the children of God in the sense there meant before they love their enemies and performe the other duties there enjoyned for it is manifest the Lord there speaks of becoming the children of God not by adoption but by similitude of manners Reader see ver 46 47 48. and give judgement impartially Now in this way it is impossible to be a childe of God till these things be done and therefore that part of the answer strengthens my Argument 2. To Rom. 3. 26. where God is said to have set forth his Son c. that he might be just I answer that there is no necessity of understanding the word just of being known and acknowledged to be just for it will be a kinde of tautologie To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse That he may be declared to be righteous Nor yet will it follow that God was not just before but that he had not been just now if Christ had not suffered for sinners But if by the word just be meant declared to be just it will not reach our case We seek such a sense of the word Justification when God is the justifier and man the object which throughout all Mr. Eyres book is a non-inventus when man is the justifier and God the object such a sense is necessary because God is capable of no other Justification from man as man is from God 3. As to the thing it self I acknowledge it readily That things are many times said to be in Scripture when they are only manifested and declared to be but such an interpretation is seldom warrantable unlesse the subject-matter invite to it as in John 15. and 13. where the Lord speaking to those that were already disciples that if they brought forth much fruit they should be his disciples it is most natural to understand it of being manifested or of continuing his disciples But we may not therefore interpret Justification by faith of a manifestation or declaration that we are justified not only because the texts wherein that phrase is used suppose no Justification before it but also 1. Because other Scriptures deny them that beleeve not to be justified John 3. 18. Rom. 3. 19 22 23 24. 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. Eph. 2. 3. and other places And 2. Because when to be in Scripture signifies to be manifested or declared it is understood perpetually of an external publike manifestation or declaration to many not of an internal spiritual private discovery to the soule or conscience of a particular person for proof of which I desire no other witnesse then these very texts which Mr. Eyre hath here mentioned supposing them all to be understood as he would have them Our love to our enemies declares us to be the children of God our bringing forth much fruit declares us to be the disciples of Christ both publikely and in the sight of many witnesses God is declared to be just still publikely and in the judgement of many yea of all good or bad men or devils But this sense will by no meanes fit Mr. Eyres turne for he contends for no more then that Justification is manifested upon faith to the believers own conscience nor do I think he will so much as pretend that he that believes is by his faith publikely declared to the world to be a justified person So that neither can Justification by faith be allowed to be understood of a declarative Justification nor if it might could it yet at all gratifie his design Of all places it cannot have that sense in this text 1. Because §. 5. Justification by faith is expressely opposed to Justification by works Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified But it is most certain and Mr. Eyre confesseth it roundly that works do manifest and declare our Justification page 79 80. Ergo by Justification here is not meant the declaration or manifestation that a person is justified 2. Justification in regard of its common nature is the same whether it be by faith or works namely as it signifies a constituting of us just before God for Christians attain that righteousnesse by faith which the Jewes sought after by works as the Apostle doth more largely expresse it Rom. 9. 31 32. Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse have not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law Ergo Justification when ascribed to faith must be taken in the same sense as when it is denied to works But the Jewes by their works sought to be justified before God and not simply that it should be manifested to them that they were justified before their works were wrought for they sought to be justified by works as the matter for which they should be justified And therefore when the Apostle opposeth himself directly to their principle it is in these words By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh living be justified that is in the sight of God as it is expressed by the Psalmist Psal 143. 2. and by this Apostle in this Argument Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. Ergo to be justified by faith in this place is not simply to be assured of a mans Justification but to be justified before God 3. And because Mr. Eyre doth use to oppose Justification by faith to Justification by Christ I desire him to consider that Justification by faith is here the very same with Justification by Christ for after he had said ver 16. We have beleeved in Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ he addes ver 17. but if while we seek to be justified by Christ But to be justified by Christ is not meerly to have it by Christ declared that we are justified This is not only a concession but a main principle of Mr. Eyres Ergo to be justified by faith here is not simply to have the knowledge of our Justification But Mr. Eyre hath another answer a very strange one and that §. 6. is this In the text it is We have believed that we might be justified by faith so that from hence it can be inferred only that we are not justified by faith before believing Rep. As if the question between the Jewes and
the Apostle were not whether a man be justified simply by faith or works But whether a man were justified by faith by faith or works and the Apostles answer is to this effect That indeed if you speak of Justification by faith we are justified by faith and not by works He that hath nothing else to do may exercise his wits farther upon this acumen if he please If Mr. Eyre mean no more then that we are not justified in conscience before we believe as the latter words of his answer seem to import then is this second answer a meer tautologie as being the very same with the former SECT III. THe next Scripture alleged is Rom. 8. 30. Whâ—m he predestinated §. 7. them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified From whence it is manifest that as glory follows Justification so doth Justification follow vocation unto faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the order of words in Scripture doth not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9. 2. The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked to our predestination 3. The Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our consciences Rep. Mr. Eyre is the first of all Authors that ever I met with or heard of ancient or moderne Papist or Protestant Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant that ever denied the Apostles scope in this place to be principally to shew the order in which the benefits mentioned are bestowed upon us And though I will not build my faith on humane authority yet neither do I account it â—ngenuous to desert the sense of all men gratis without pretending at least some reason for my singularity but to the matter I acknowledge that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact do frequently use a Hysteron prâ—teron reporting those things first which it may be were acted last or è câ—ntra as in 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. Also that in a copulate axiome where many things are attributed to one subject the order many times is not attended but the connexion only as if I should say of God as the Apostle doth of the Law that he is holy and just and good or the latter is exegetical of the former as in that of the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 9. He hath saved us and called us But 2. I do utterly deny that such manner of speech as is here used Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation where several Propositions are linked together the predicate of each former being the subject of the latter is any where else to be found but where the Speakers Purpose is to declare not only the connexion but specially the order of the things themselves h Vid. Vâ—ssâ—um instit orat lib. 5 cap. 8. And. Talâ—um Rhetor â—x P. R. cap. â—1 Examples hereof out of Poets Oratours Greek and Latine and Ecclesiastical Writers the Reader may see in almost every Rhetorician Ovid. Mars videt hanc visámque cupit potitúrque cupitâ Cicero In urbe luxuries creatur ex luxuriâ— existat avaritia necesse est ex avaritiâ â—rumpat audscia c. But let the Scriptures determine it Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Affliction worketh patience and patience experience and experience hope and hope maketh not ashamed that is for the words are a Meiosis giveth boldnesse and joy which is the thing the Apostle is proving ver 3. so Rom. 10. 14 15. where the order is retrograde How can they call on him on whom they have not believed how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard how can they heare without a Preacher how can they preach unlesse they be sent The wit of man cannot digest words more methodically to shew the orderly dependance of things one upon another As in the former example of patience on affliction experience on patience hope on experience joy on hope And in the second example of invocation on faith faith on hearing hearing on preaching preach 〈…〉 3. In the present text the matter is yet more clear because Predestination §. 8. Vocation Justification and Glorification are all of them actions of one and the same efficient tending unto one and the same end and every second action cumulative to the former as the partitle also doth evidence Whom he predestinated them he also called whom he called them he also justified whom he justified them he also glorified And though one and the same person be the object of all these acts yet from the termination of each former act upon him he becomes the more immediate object of the succeeding as appears by the relative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom Them So that the object of vocation is a person predestinated of Justification a person called of glorification a person justified or else those particles are utterly superfluous and the whole sentence ridiculous 4. Mr. Eyre will also acknowledge that in two of these Propositions not only connexion but order is observed namely in the first whom he predestinated them he called and the last whom he justified them he glorified Yet hath he as much reason to deny both these as the middlemost And if Arminians who acknowledge no absolute election before faith should deny the first and a Sadducee who confesseth no resurrection but what is past already should deny the last he could not vindicate the text against either but by the same Arguments which will convince himself of errour in denying the second 5. But what doth Mr. Eyre meane to make us beleeve when he §. 9. tells us he can see no inconvenience at all in saying the Apostle here speaks of Justification as declared in conscience whereas one would think it had been easie to see that he is liable to a double shrewd inconvenience in so saying the one is of contradicting himself the other of abusing the text 1. The Apostles scope here saith he is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us I wonder in which of them he breaks order In the first and last Proposition as was but now observed it will surely be granted that he keeps order punctually and when he saith in the second Proposition whom he called them he justified I am sure Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge that he hath hit the order as right as can be if by Justification be meant that which is terminated in conscience as he speaks And why then doth he deny that the Apostle intends to declare the order of these benefits belike though his scope were not to do it yet he had the good hap to stumble upon it quite besides his purpose and intention 2. But neither can it be understood of Justification in conscience for the Justification here spoken of is only and entirely Gods act no lesse then Predestination Vocation
this It is an unsound Assertion that we are said to be justified by faith because that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The proof of this is the manifest tendency of every branch of this Argument and of each Argument under each branch And I am apt to think Mr. Eyre himself so understood me when he comes to particulars for he doth not once charge them with impertinency which he might have done with advantage enough if it had not been clear that they were all levelled at another scope then simply to prove that faith is of no use to evidence Justification As to the thing it self I am so far from denying faith to evidence our Justification that I do assert as followeth 1. As the word evidence signifies that which is affected to argue another thing so faith doth â—vidence our Justification yea and is the first thing that doth evidence it 2. Faith doth also evidence Justification axiomatically to all those that have a particular testimony from God that they are justified As those whom Christ tells in the Gospel that their sinnes were forgiven them Matth. 9. 2 5. Luke 5. 20 23. and 7. 47 48. If any man now living hath the like testimony from God that his sins are forgiven he hath no better way to evidence it to himselfe then without any more ado to beleeve that they are forgiven 3. Faith doth also concurre to the evidencing of Justification syllogistically but then the whole evidence is not of faith as we shall shew by and by I do therefore acknowledge the use of faith in evidencing Justification in all those wayes by which it may be evidenced though not of faith only in the last nor at all in the second unlesse there be any man that hath heard God saying to him Thy sins are forgiven thee Come we on then to the proof of particulars And first that we §. 12. cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect thereof To evidence Justification as an Argument is no more then for faith to have such a relation unto Justification as that where the one is the other must needs be also and he that knows the relation they have to each other cannot but know that where faith is there Justification must needs also be Even as laughing and crying may be said to evidence reason in a childe though it may not evidence it to the childe himself because he knows not the dependance of these actions upon his reason so we say where there is smoak there is some fire Groanings argue some ill affection in the body and generally every effect doth argue and evidence its cause to them that know the connexion between the cause and effect Mr. Eyre disclaims faiths evidencing in this way though in answer to Rom. 4. 24. above debated of his Book pag. 44. § 6. he hath as plainly yielded it as can be in these words Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us that we whether Jewes or Gentiles are the persons to whom this grace belongs if God hath drawn our hearts to beleeve and obey the Gospel in regard that none do or can beleeve but such as are ordained to life and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ What is this but that faith doth evidence our Justification as an Argument seeing that where one is the other is also where there is faith there is Justification It seems the same thing is good Divinity out of Mr. Eyres mouth but out of mine an errour Yet though Mr. Eyre will not owne that faith doth evidence Justification in this way he thinks fit to give his Reader his sense of my Reasons There are therefore three Reasons in my Sermon why we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument The first is this Because then Justification by faith is not necessarily so much as Justification in conscience A Christian may have faith and yet not have the evidence that he is justified As a childe may laugh and cry and yet not have the evidence or clear knowledge that himselfe hath reason c. Mr. Eyre answers 1. By intimating that this agrees not with what I allege out of the Apostle 1 John 3. 20. to prove that if our hearts condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. If faith did evidence only as a signe it would be a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Nothing that precedes faith doth prove a man justified nothing that follows it is so apt to prove it as faith it selfe 4. Wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of this grace In the least spark of fire and the least twinkling starre there is some light Rep. To the first I say that it never came into my minde to prove that God condemns every one whom his own conscience condemns but that if conscience condemns truly then the judgement thereof is according to the judgement of God and so God condemns as well as conscience But if a beleevers heart shall tell him that he is not justified and his sins not pardoned his conscience is erroneous and judgeth otherwise then God judgeth 2. The two next answers are like chips in pottage that do neither good nor hurt as I see When I can understand whether they make with me or against me I shall consider them farther 3. The fourth answer that whosoever hath faith hath some evidence of his Justification for that he meanes by grace or else it s nothing to the purpose I deny utteâ—ly if by evidence he mean not that which would prove it if it were rightly understood but a mans actual knowledge that he is justified And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it why the least spark of fire hath some light and the least twinkling starre True So the least degree of true faith hath that in it which if it were rightly apprehended would make some discovery that a man were justified But these sparks of fire give no light at all when they lie buried under heaps of ashes and such black and dâ—smal clouds may cover the face of the Heavens that we cannot see not only the lesser stars but not those of greatest magnitude And the Scripture testifieth not only positively that a gracious soule may walk in darknesse but to expresse the greatnesse of this darknesse addes an universal negative And may see no light that is as f Childe of light page 5. 6 8 9 10. Dr. Godwin hath excellently proved he may be without all evidence of his Justification of which the said Doctor gives several instances in David Job Heman and Christ himself and proposeth largely the causes and cure of such darknesse in all which he hath bestowed a great deal of excellent and acceptable paines to no purpose if Mr. Eyres doctrine here be true How many soules have I known and g See Mr. Tho.
Brookes Heaven upon earth page 65 66. heard of in such a condition If it be said we may be mistaken in men I acknowledge it But withal I am not bound to beleeve impossibilities and contradictions If I must beleeve that it is possible for them to have true faith even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be universally true That wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of Justification And me thinks he should not have expected that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both 2. Yet if all this were granted it comes not up to our case when the Scriptures say He that believes shall be justified it surely speaks of a Justification which is the same equally unto all that beleeve And for Mr. Eyre to say every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification though it may be not so much as another is to say one believer may be more justified then another which we desire him to prove the Scriptures imply the contrary Romanes 3. 29 30. and 4. 23 24. and 10. 12. The second Argument to prove that we are not said to be justified §. 13. by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect was because faith is not the effect of Justification for if it be then we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to be justified by our faith and in stead of saying Beleeve and thou shalt be justified we must say hence-forward Thou art justified therefore beleeve Mr. Eyre answers That he sees no absurdity at all in saying That faith is from Justification causally That grace which justifies us is the cause and fountain of all good things and more especially of faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29. Rep. Is it then no absurdity to set the Scriptures upon their heads we are said in Scripture to beleeve unto righteousnesse or Justification Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say we are made righteous or justified unto believing when the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve unto the saving of the soule Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence in the former perdition of drawing back in the latter salvation of believing 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification if Justification be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely the eternal Will of God not to punish precisely for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith unlesse Gods not punishing be our believing 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things and particularly of faith Ergo Justification is the cause of faith This is Logick of the game The grace that justifies us is also the grace that glorifies us shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith I did therefore truly say that according to this doctrine we must §. 14. not say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified but rather thou art justified Ergo beleeve No saith Mr. Eyre because 1. It is not the priviledge of all men 2. We know not who are justified no more then who are elected Though faith be an effect of Election yet we may not say Thou art elected therefore believe 3. When the cause is not notiâ—r effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the priviledge of all men yet Justification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men if they will beleeve which yet it cannnt be if Justification be the cause of faith and not the consequent 2. It is also true that we cannot say Thou art elected therefore beleeve neither may we say Beleeve and thou shalt be elected But we may and must say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same The third answer I understand not nor I think no man else at least how it should be applied to the present case and therefore I say nothing to it My last and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position §. 15. namely that we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect is this because then it will unavoidably follow that we are justified by works as well as faith works being an effect evidencing Justiâ—ication as well as faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. By retortion That this follows from my opinion for if we be justified by the act of beleeving we are justified by a work of our own For answer to which I refer the Reader to the second and third Sections of this chapter If works be taken largely for any humane action faith is a work but it is as I may so call it an unworking work for to beleeve and not to work are all one with the Apostle as we have shewed before out of Rom. 4. 4 5. His second answer is a large grant that works do declare and evidence Justification and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely and have proved that the Apostles words We have beleeved that we may be justified cannot have this sense we have beleeved that we may know our selves to be justified And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again at the common rock of contradicting himself in alleging that text He here acknowledgeth that works do evidence our Justification but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of Ergo The Justification there spoken of is not the evidencing of Justification The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these Therein namely in the Gospel is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That is as the Apostle expounds himself chap. 3. 21 22. In the Gospel is manifested the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles for that questionlesse is the meaning of those words from faith to faith as is manifest by comparing them with the foregoing ver 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation to every one that belâ—eveth to the Jew first and also to the Greek But how this proves that to be justified by faith is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences I cannot divine At last Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer or rather something §. 16. like an answer and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith where
any mans Justification I am perswaded the devils beleeve it and it cannot be denied but that the merits of Christ were a price of themselves sufficient to have purchased salvation for them yea and to have turned all the stones in the streets into men and to have glorified them in Heaven And it is very strange that a soule should be drawn to Christ upon a ground common to divels with himself or have the evidence of his Justification by believing such a truth in which the devils have as much interest as himselfe SECT VII THe third branch of my Argument succeeds Namely that we §. 29. cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification syllogistically Two Reasons I gave of this The first is because there cannot be found out a medium before faith it selfe c. The farther Explication the Reader may see in my Sermon Mr. Eyre answers That it is not needful It is sufficient that faith it selfe is the medium as thus He that beleeveth was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo. Rep. The Argument remaines good for the purpose for which I advanced it For I not knowing certainly in what sense Mr. Eyre would maintain that faith did evidence could conjecture at none more probable then that he placed the nature and being of justifying faith in the evidence knowledge or assurance of our Justification Upon which presumption as I had before proved that it was not assensus axiomaticus an axiomatical and immediate assent to this Proposition I am justified so in this Argument my intent was to prove that neither was it assensus syllogisticus an assent to the same Proposition deduced by way of Conclusion out of premisses And this the Argument proves invincibly Let us set Mr. Eyres syllogisme before us and the matter will be plain He that beleeves was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo I was justified before faith Hence it is manifest that the faith which I affirme of my selfe in the minor cannot consist essentially in my assent to the Conclusion for then the Syllogisme would consist but of two Propositions This is the manifest scope of the Argument which now I know Mr. Eyres minde better I see well enough doth him but little hurt and therefore I insist not on the vindication of it Nor yet may the Reader charge me for arguing impertinently seeing it was necessary I should suppose and confute what might be said when I did not know what would be said I know no other way I had to get out of Mr. Eyre his sense of faiths evidencing Yet because I did easily foresee he might give that answer which here he doth I added the next Argument which meets with it to the full If we are said to be justified by faith because faith doth evidence §. 30. Justification syllogistically then may we be said as well to be justified by sense and reason as by faith because sense and reason concurre with faith in a syllogistical evidence As thus He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The Proposition only is the assent or act of faith The Assumption an act of sense or spiritual experience The Conclusion an act of Reason Mr. Eyre answers That the Conclusion is of faith As in this Syllogisme All men shall rise from the dead I am a man Ergo I shall rise from the dead Rep. That the Conclusion is de fide is said not proved and I would that way of disputing were lesse frequent with Mr. Eyre I acknowledge the Conclusion to be partly of faith and partly of reason and experience as Mr. o Vindiâ— grat pâ—g 41. fol. Pemble determines it And that the Schooles determine otherwise I will beleeve when I see That it is not purely of faith I thus prove The assent of faith is grounded in the verity of divine testimony But the assent to a Conclusion is grounded in the necessity of its p Vid. Frâ—â— Bâ—ur Meneriz dâ—f P. Râ—dial l. 2. c. 9. disquis 1 2. consequence upon such and such premisses which forceth the understanding to assent to it whether of it self it be of necessary or contingent truth or in what matter soever it be whether grammatical physical theological or the like So that a Conclusion is said to be de fide because it depends upon some principle of saith in regard of its supernaturality but formally Et quâ—tenus attingitur per actum Conclusionis Reason is principium assentiendi proximum the nearest q De Mendâ—z loq disp 1â— de demonstr sect 3. â— 47. principle and cause of my assent otherwise we must have some other definition of a syllogisme then our Universities have hitherto been acquainted with 2. In the present case the matter is clearer then Mr. Eyre is aware of We will suppose Peter to be the man that makes the Syllogisme He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified When he faith in the minor I beleeve he is supposed to speak not only of that faith which sin the Will accepting and embracing a promised good but of that ialso which is in the understanding assenting omni credibili to all truths proposed to be believed But according to Mr. Eyre it is a truth proposed to Peters faith that himself is justified Let it be expressed then in the Syllogisme and it runs thus He that beleeves all the objects of his faith and particularly that himselfe is justified he is justified But saith Peter I beleeve all the objects of my faith and particularly that my self am justified Ergo I am justified If the Conclusion be here de side then Peter beleeves he is justified because he believes he is justified which Conclusion I confesse is no act of reason Neverthelesse if Reason be yielded to be principium assentiendi the principle of assenting to the Conclusion there will be better sense in his Argumentation namely that Peter knows that he is justified or is perswaded thereof with a certainty of Reason because he beleeves it with a divine Faith and that he could not do if he were not justified As to the Syllogisme which Mr. Eyre proposeth for Illustration §. 31. All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again The Conclusion is partly of faith and partly of reason Of reason formaliter elicitivè of faith fundamentaliter imperativè as I may so speak it being a particular knowledge grounded in a principle of faith for I could not have this knowledge unlesse I did by faith assent to the Proposition But that it is not purely of faith I thus prove If a man be sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise then to assent that himself shall rise is not purely an act of faith Because a man cannot at the same time be sound and unsound in the faith of the same
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour and Heb. 3. 6. whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence unto the end As to the former place it should have been proved and not said only that the particle If is not a note of a condition if to be a vessel of honour be to be glorified in heaven Or if to be a vessel of honour do signifie a man specially and eminently serviceable unto God sanctified and meet for the Masters use and prepared unto every good work as the Apostle in the same verse expounds it then the particle If is a note of more then a condition even of a true proper cause of an effect that follows naturally and not by Promise for the more a man purgeth himself from spiritual defilements and defilers the more prepared and disposed he must needs be to every spiritual employment The next place Heb. 3. 6. is nothing to the purpose if the particle If be there granted to be meerly a description of the person because the consequent part of the Proposition is not promissory but simply affirmative The text saith not whose house we shall be if we hold fast but whose we are if we hold fast Neverthelesse g Parall l. 3. in loc Junius upon ver 14. which in sense is much the same with this doubts not to affirme the holding fast of our confidence to be a condition A nobis verò conditionem unicam desiderat scil Christus nempe ut maneamus in ipso atque hanc conditionem nâ—tat Apostolus his verbis siquidem principium illius subsistentiae c. which testimony I quote the rather that Mr. Eyre may know that Junius was no enemy to faiths being a condition as he doth somewhere represent him yea and on this verse he is expresse that continuance in the faith is the condition of our continuing to be Gods house §. 4. And that the words Rom. 10. 9. If thou beleeve with thine heart c. cannot be a description of the person meerly I prove largely below in a particular debate of that place I have here only one word to speak against it Either it describes the person from his faith to signifie that as such that is as a believer he is the subject of Justification and then faith must needs be antecedent to Justification and if it be antecedent as an act required of us in point of-duty to a blessing consequent by vertue of a promise then is it antecedent as a condition Or it is a meer description of the person shewing that that is the man that shall be justified though his faith have no order nor tendency to his Justification but may as well follow after it as go before it But 1. This cannot be current sense if Justification be either from eternity or immediately in the death of Christ or at any time before this description be made for example Is it sense to say If thou be the man that dost or at any time shalt beleeve thou shalt be elected or Christ shall die for thee when both election and the death of Christ are long since past or if a man should say If thou shalt be glorified thou shalt be justified would not such a speech suppose that the person to whom those words are spoken was as yet not justified though the Scripture is not wont to speak after this manner in any place 2. Let us take some parallel place and see how it will accord with it As the words of Christ to the father of the childe that was possest Mark 9. 23. If thou canst beleeve all things are possible to him that believeth Or the same words to his disciples Matth. 17. 20. If you have faith as a grain of mustard-seed nothing shall be unpossible unto you If faith do here only describe the person and not propound the condition then whether the father had at present believed or no his childe must have been presently healed notwithstanding supposing him to be a person that at any time should believe and whether the disciples beleeve or no at present all things are possible to them presently they being the persons whose property it is to believe some time or other But more of this hereafter Another note of a condition is the particle if not or except which §. 5. we finde also used in Scripture in this matter for men are threatened that they shall not be justified except they beleeve John 8. 24. If you beleeve not or except you believe you shall die in your sins when men are threatened with damnation except they believe are they threatened absolutely or conditionally if the first then all the men of the world shall be damned for this is to be preached to all men that if they believe not they shall be damned If conditionally then faith is the condition of deliverance from damnation And is not God to be thus understood in all his speeches of like nature Gen. 44. 23. Except your youngest Brother come down with you you shall see my face no more Josh 7. 12. Neither will I be with you any more except you destroy the accursed from amongst you Can the Sun shine more bright in the firmament then it is clear from hence that their destroying the accursed from amongst them was a necessary condition of their enjoyment of Gods Presence Acts 27. 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved See also Luke 13. 3 5. Rev. 2. 5 22. and multitudes of other places In all which the same particle is a note of a condition unlesse we shall have the modesty to think that the Scriptures were penned on purpose to puzzle and confound our understandings All those texts of Scripture which promise remission of sins to §. 6. them that believe prove the same thing particularly Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life and 6. 40. This is the Will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life with many places of like nature To all which I guesse what Mr. Eyres answer will be by what he saith of the last of these chap. 13. § 14. pag. 135. This text saith he and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit They that beleeve Many such cathedral determinations we have from him without §. 7. so much as a pretence to proof especially in his answers to Scriptures alledged against him yet might he very well think that we would expect some solid reason for this his perpetual wresting and abuse of words from their obvious and common sense 1. It
cannot indeed be denied but that the same words which propose the condition upon which a benefit is obtained may also consequentèr declare the persons to whom the said benefit doth belong but that such manner of speech as is used in these texts doth only shew the persons who and not the condition or meanes by which a benefit is obtained is contrary to the perpetual sense of Scripture Let us transcribe a few texts of many Numb 21. 8. And it shall come to passe that overy one or whosoever is bitten when he looketh upon it namely upon the brazen Serpent shall live I do the rather instance in these words because the Lord illustrateth the method of Redemption by them John 3. 14 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish c. If the protasis had been full it had run thus As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed even so c. And do those words that whosoever looked on him only describe the person that was healed but not propound the condition or meanes of healing common sense cannot endure it Their looking up to the brazen Serpent was antecedent to their healing and a meanes ordained for them to use that they might be healed and their healing followed by vertue of Gods power and faithfulnesse Ergo it was a condition of their healing And the distributive particle whosoever doth sufficiently shew that it was every one promiscuously one as well as another for whose healing the Serpent was lifted up through their looking on it and not a note of distinction to difference one from another So Mark 11. 23. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain believingly Be thou removed he shall have whatsoever he saith Is this also a description of the person but not a propounding of the meanes by which those works may be obtained to be wrought see the like expressions Matth. 13. 12. and 16. 25. and 18. 4. Mark 9. 41. Rev. 22. 17. and other places without number To all which if Mr. Eyre can oppose but one that will admit such a sense as here he puts upon the texts under debate he shall do more then any Authour else that I can yet meet with 2. If these and the like places do only describe the persons that shall be saved then do they ascribe no more to faith in reference to salvation then unto works Works of righteousnesse being as proper and peculiar to them that shall be saved as faith it selfe and therefore the description of the person might as well be taken from them as from faith 3. That which serves only to describe a person in specie cannot be proposed to another person as a meanes by which he may enjoy a like benefit no more then if the said person had been described in individuo for example suppose the Lord had described them that shall be saved not from faith their specifick quality but by their proper names and had said God gave his Son to death that Peter and Paul and James and John c. might be saved were it not against all sense and sobriety to go to Geofry Roger and Anthony and tell them if they will be Peter and Paul they shall be saved or suppose the description had been from the species and the words had run thus God gave his Son that whosoever is borne of Jewish Parents should be saved were it not ridiculous with all seriousnesse earnestnesse and tendernesse of compassion to exhort and beseech and charge the Gentiles to be borne of Jewish Parents that they might be saved yea suppose they had been described from their Election as they might have been more properly then from their faith had it not been absurd to exhort men that they would be elected that so they might be saved I conclude therefore that the texts before us are not a description of the person but a proposing of a condition upon which only salvation is attainable words that are meerly descriptory can never be resolved into a command or exhortation SECT II. LEt us now see whether Mr. Eyre hath done any thing towards §. 8. a proofe that faith is not the condition of Justification His first Reason is this That interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true But to interpret Justification by faith meerly thus that faith is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification as to repentance charity new obedience c. Answ 1. If the Proposition be true as I believe it to be most true Mr. Eyre hath hitherto deluded us grossely in interpreting Justification by faith for a knowledge or evidence that we are justified seeing works concur to such an evidence and that by his own concession as was above demonstrated 2. The Assumption also I presume proceeds upon the supposed principles of those whom he opposeth and not according to his own sense for I think he will not say that any works of Sanctification do qualifie us for Justification 3. I deny the Assumption And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it Why Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond say so Yet are neither of these Authours of such authority with Mr. Eyre in other cases as that their word should passe for a proof And yet hath he not fairly represented them neither Dr. Hammond I confesse is to me lesse plain and intelligible but if Mr. Eyre will undertake that his notion is the same with Mr. Baxters he might have seen in very many places of Mr. Baxters writings that he makes works but the secondary lesse principal conditions at most and denies them to be any conditions at all in reference to our first entrance into a state of Justification And must we yet believe against an Authours owne words that he ascribes no more to faith then unto other works of sanctification in the matter of Justification 4. I also do make repentance a necessary condition of remission of sins because the Scripture doth so Luke 24. 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and 3. 19. Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out c. But I conceive withal that the one is included in the other and that their difference is rather respective then real if we speak of faith as it is in the will partly as to the object faith respecting Christ immediately and repentance God Acts 20. 21. partly as to the termes the same motion of the soule in respect of the terminus à quo namely dead works being called repentance and in respect of the terminus ad quem namely God in Christ more peculiarly faith Heb. 6. 1. Repentance also in its formal
notion includes shame and sorrow and self-abhorrency c. which faith precisely doth not As to the Conclusion of this paragraph which concernes my subscription to the testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ a book so called I do not remember that ever I subscribed it in this or any other County The second Argument is this To interpret Justification by faith §. 9. that faith is a necessary antecedent condition of Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature as to sight of sin legal sorrow c. for if these be conditions disposing us to faith and faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causa causae est causa causati Answ This Argument at the long run overthrows all humane contracts at least it fights as strongly against them as against us Titius gives a hundred pounds per annum to Sempronius upon conditon he give two pence a week to Maevius This two pence cannot be paid unlesse the silver be digged out of the mines and melted and stamp't and delivered out of the Coyners hand c. Ergo Sâ—mpronius his giving two pence a week to Maevius is not the condition of his holding his 100. li. per annum at least no more then the mine or bank is Is not this gallant Logick 2. I deny that legal sorrows and the sight of sin c. are necessary conditions disposing to faith because God hath not promised to give faith if we be convicted or legally sorry These Preparations are necessary physically not morally because the soule cannot seek out for life and salvation in another while it hath confidence of sufficiency in its selfe If any man beleeve without these he shall be saved notwithstanding 3. The answer therefore is that the things which are necessary naturally are not the conditions of gift but those only which are made necessary by the will of the Donour h L. conditiones eztrinsec F. de cond demonstr and so doth the Civil Law determine Caius gives Seius all the fruits that grow upon his farme the next year it is necessary that fruits grow upon the farme or else Seius cannot have them yet Caius his gift is not conditional but absolute 4. As to that logical axiome Causa causae est causa causati Mr. Eyre knows it must have more limitations then one or else 't is dangerously false But in the present case 't is altogether impertinent for neither are legal preparations the cause of faith nor faith the cause of Justification but the condition only and so the causa causatum may go whistle The third Argument is this that by which we are justified is the §. 10. proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification Faith as a condition is not so Ergo. Answ I deny the major Mr. Eyre proves it by a threefold Argument 1. By the use of these Propositions particles he would have said by and through in ordinary speech which note a meritorious or instrumental cause As when we say A souldier was raised by his valour a tradesman lives by his trade 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works and by the Law he excludes works from any causal influxe into our Justification Now that which he denies to works he ascribes to faith 3. From other parallel phrases in Scripture where we are said to be redeemed justified and saved Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera Answ These are i De Justif l. 1. c. 17. Bellarmines wise Arguments to prove that faith doth justifie per modum causae dignitatis aut meriti by way of causality worth or merit which it seems Mr. Eyre accounts unanswerable otherwise he would not have brought them again upon the stage in an English dresse when our Protestants have beat them off so often in Latine 1. To the first I deny that the particles By or Through are alwayes the notes of a cause meritorious or instrumental How many times do we finde them in one Chapter where they are not capable of any such signification Heb. 11. 5. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death and ver 11. Through faith Sarah received strength to conceive seed ver 30. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down ver 33. By faith they stopped the mouthes of Lions ver 35. Women by faith received their dead raised to life again with many other passages in that Chapter That it is the grace of faith which is here spoken of appears from the description of it ver 1. will Mr. Eyre grant the Papists that faith was the meritorious cause of these effects I hope then he will no more reproach me as popishly affected It may be he will say it was the instrumental cause But let him shew how What instrumental efficacy did faith put forth in Enochs Translation did it either subtilize or immortallize his body or how was faith an instrument in throwing down the walls of Jericho It is naturally impossible agere in distans to act upon an object which the Agent toucheth not formally or virtually or what efficiency did faith put forth upon dead bodies to raise them to life again These effects are no otherwise ascribed to faith then as the condition upon which they were wrought and without which they could not have been wrought according to Gods ordination As it is said concerning the Lord Jesus That he could not do many mighty works in his own countrey because of their unbelief Mark 6. 5 6. with Matth. 13. 58. Not that their faith had contributed any thing to his ability but that their unbelief by vertue of Gods ordination made them uncapable of being the subjects for and amongst whom those works were to be wrought To the second I deny that Justification is ascribed to faith in the §. 11. same sense in which it is denied to works though it be the same Justification as to its common nature which is ascribed to that and denied to these and therefore cannot be meant of a Justification manifested to conscience as Mr. Eyre interprets it when he comes to particular places 'T is confessed that when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works he excludes works from any causal influx into our Justification But it will by no means follow that when he ascribes it to faith he doth therefore acknowledge faith to be a cause No more then the like opposition in Scripture doth denote the same kinde of cause on both sides Râ—m 9. 8. Nâ—t the children of the flesh but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed and ver 11. Not of works but of him that calleth and ver 16. Not of hâ—m that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy and Rom. 11. 6. Not of works but of grace Estne inter Pontisicios quisquam tam excors â—t audeat affirmare in istis oppâ—sitioniâ—us
c. 6. circa princip a cause which is also made the condition Moreover we must also distinguish of that which Mr. Eyre calls a §. 15. due debt for u Hug. Grot. de jure Belli l. 2. c. 7. § 4. Covarr◠v. 2 ae part relect §. quartus n. 5 p. 288. Debitum vel strictè sumitur c. A debt is either taken strictly for such an obligation as ariseth from commutative justice or largely for that which is due in point of honesty and faithfulnesse though it be not due in justice so that if it be not done there is no injustice to any other person but he that doth it not is defective as what is due by vertue of a free Promise And such an obligation as this God himself refuseth not 1 John 1. 9. Tit. 1. 2. Heb. 6. 10. and 10. 23. Nor is that which is given by vertue of such an obligation any whit lesse free or lesse of grace then if it were given without it x Lessius de just jur L. 2. c 40 d. 8. p. 548. Si obligatio orta sit ex liberali promissione quod ex eâ datur etiam gratis datur non enim obligatio quae nascitur ex promissione liberali repugnat liberalitati sed est ejus effectus What is given by vertue of a free Promise is also freely given because an obligation arising from such a Promise is not repugnant to grace or liberality but is the effect thereof And that conditional promises may be such not only all I say all thar ever I could get sight of our Protestants stand for but the Papists themselves yield it y Snarez opus relect delib divin d 2 n. 44. A Sanct. Clara. de Nat. Grat. p. 135. 136. Durand in 2. d. 27. q. 2. n. 12. 13 14. Promissio beneficii sub conditione alicujus operis requisiti solummodo ex quadam decentia vel dispositione non quia in eo invenitur valor respectu mercedis non impedit quin collatio boni promissi sit simpliciter liberalis etiam tali conditione praestita ita ut donum sit gratuitum quia tale opus non est sufficiens ad fundandam justitiam ac proinde non excludit gratiam The Promise of a benefit on condition of a work required only as of decency or as a disposition and not because of its worthinesse in reference to the reward doth not hinder but that the giving of the promised benefit is simply free even when the condition is performed because such a work is not sufficient to ground an obligation of justice and so doth not exclude grace These things being thus premised we shall now cast Mr. Eyres Argument §. 16. into forme and turne it going If faith be the condition of our Justification then upon our believing we are justified of debt not of grace The reason is because what is promised upon condition the condition being performed becomes a due debt But the consequence is false Ergo so is the antecedent Answ To the Proposition I answer 1. In general that Mr. Eyre himself denies it when he thought it might be for his advantage pag. 190. No man saith he will say that the condition required of Adam was meritorious of eternal life in a strict and proper sense And yet urgeth here that if faith be the condition Justification must needs be of debt 2. I distinguish if the meaning of the Proposition be that Justification becomes due in that larger sense which we spake of but now if faith be the condition of it then I grant it But if the meaning be as I believe Mr. Eyre intends by quoting Rom. 4. 4. that it becomes due in justice then I deny it And what 's the proof why a condition performed makes the thing promised a due debt The substance of this axiome I meet with I think not lesse then twenty times in Mr. Eyres book but no where else in all the books I have Civilians or Canonists And as often as 't is used he doth not once attempt to prove it but leaves it naked to the world to shift for it selfe Conditions are either causal such as have proportion of worth to the benefit promised and these being performed make the thing promised a due debt As when I promise my servant five pounds if he will serve me for such a terme of time Some be meerly illative or dispositive as when I promise a man to give him twenty pounds if he will come and fetch it And these conditions of which kinde is faith do not make the reward due in justice which I thus prove Where there is not aequalitas dati accepti an equality between §. 17. the thing received and promised there can be no obligation of justice But it is supposed that between these conditions and the things promised there is no equality Ergo. I suppose it will be said that though the things of themselves be not equal yet they are made equal by the promise or contract the condition being performed To which I answer that it is impossible Indeed I think the Civil Law allowes an action upon such promises when the condition is performed z Vide Vigel de Dreys Jnst Jur. l. 3. c. 8. Wessemb paratit D l. 50. tit 12. and so it doth also in some cases upon the most absolute promise but we enquire not what is just justitiâ civili but what is just justitiâ naturali And I say again that a work which hath of it selfe no proportion to such or such a reward receives no increase of worth by the Promise that settles such a reward upon it or by being made the condition of such a Promise If it doth then the value of the work is to be measured by the reward that is promised to it and so the mercy and liberality of the Promiser excludes his mercy and grace in fulfilling his Promise For if the Promise make the condition equal to the reward then in fulfilling his Promise he doth but aequalia aequalibus rependere proportion the reward to the worth of the action and so cannot exercise grace and liberality in performing his Promise for example A King promiseth a condemned Traitour that if he will but acknowledge his offence and accept of his royal favour he will not only give him his life but advance him to such honour wealth and power as shall make him the second man in the Kingdome yea and leave him his successour in the Throne That such a Promise is of special grace and favour he is not a reasonable creature that shall deny but if the Traitours acknowledgement and acceptance of the Kings favour by being made the condition of his deliverance and advancement become forthwith proportionable thereunto then is it no mercy nor grace in the King to bestow these favours upon him Yea the same work will be of more and lesse value Suppose another Traitour upon the same condition be promised his
not have saved him without his reading and much lesse would his reading have saved him without that favourable Law yet his life is a thousand fold more worth then his reading of two or three lines and therefore he owes a thousand times more thanks to his Prince for giving him his life upon such a condition then to himself for reading supposing his reading to have been the purchase of his life If a man sell a farme to his friend for five hundred for which another would have given him a thousand what more common then to say He hath given his friend five hundred in the buying 3. But in sober sadnesse doth Mr. Eyre think the welch man speaks §. 25. properly in his God blesse her father c That were a jest indeed How comes it then to be a ridiculous object if there be not some h pleasing deformity in it that flatters the fancie and surprizeth k See Sie râ—de la Câ—ambre Charact. of the Passions ch 4. of laughter p. 210. the soule so moving laughter And what can that deformity be except the welch idiome but the fallacy of non causa pro causa putting that for the cause which is not the cause as we are wont out of Cicero when we see a little man girt with a great sword to transplace the Subject and the Adjunct and say who tied that man to that sword Had the welch man cried as he was bid God blesse the King and the Judge the propriety of the speech had spoiled the jest and deprived it of that facetiousnesse and lepidity which now causeth us to make merry with it A certain discovery that the speech is not proper nor the condition of reading the cause of his pardon the speech becoming ridiculous upon no other account but because it would insinuate that to be the cause which was no more then a condition But the serious judgement of all offendors who escape death by this means and the wisdome of our statâ— determining it to be an act of royal grace and favour to pardon a man on this condition might one would think be of as much authority as one welch mans word It is true indeed the Law nor the Judge could save him unlesse he read nor will God save us unleâ—â—â— we believe Heb. 3. 19. They could not enter in because of unâ—eliâ—f Not through defect of power or mercy in God which are both inâ—inâ—te but because he hath confined himself in the dispensation of pardon and salvation that he will bestow it upon none but them that believe Is it therefore not of grace because not without faith Whereas the Apostle sayes It is of faith that it might be of grace Rom. 4. 16. In that which followes I finde nothing which is not answered already §. 26. or must not be answered in due place for whereas Mr. Eyre sayes that the performance of the condition makes the conditional grant to become absolute the words are ambiguous If he mean it makes it absolute as that without which it had never been absolute I grant it if he mean it makes it absolute by contributing any direct causality I deny it for upon performance of the condition the conditional grant doth indeed become absolute not by the worth or efficacy of the condition but by the will of the Promiser that upon the existence of such a thing or action will be obliged and not without it We have already given several instances of conditions which have nothing of worth in them to engage the Donour and therefore cannot be the cause of the gift for nothing can produce an effect more noble and excellent then it selfe Nor doth it receive any addition of intrinsecal worth by being made the condition otherwise we might work as rare feats by the influence of our wills as l Magnet cure of wounds Van Helmont thinks may be wrought by the magick of the fancie 'T is but willing a pin to be worth a pound and it shall be done And when he addes in the next place that if faith be the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense as perfect obedience was the condition of the old man must needs be his own Justifier if he mean such in the matter and particular nature of the condition It is true if he mean such in the common nature of a condition it is false for we have shewed before both from Reason and Scripture Divines and Lawyers that some kinde of conditions are so far from being inconsistent with grace as that they advance it rather As suppose some benefit of very great value be bestowed on a worthlesse person upon condition that he acknowledge the rich superlative grace and love of the Donour to be the only cause of it Finally thus he speaks As in the old Covenant it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world just so in the New if it be a conditional Promise it is not the Promise that justifies a beleever but the beleever himself The answer is ready Death came into the world by sin as the culpable meritorious cause but sin could not have slain us but by the Law 1 Cor. 15. 56. Rom. 5. 13 14. Ergo. It is not warily said that Gods threat did not bring death upon the world 2. And when Mr. Eyre hath proved that our performance of the Gospel-conditions hath the same proportion to our salvation as sin hath to our destruction the Papists shall thank him Rom. 6. last The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Mens not-accepting of the grace of God may make that grace without effect as to themselves 2 Cor. 6. 1. Rom. 3. 3. But that therefore their acceptance is the cause of Gods being gracious to them is wilde reasoning And as to worthy Dr. Kendal out of whom Mr. Eyre quotes these passages he hath publickly enough and in Mr. Eyres hearing for one declared himself to be no enemy against conditions of Justification or salvation That he that is pardoned upon his reading doth not pardon himself §. 27. I proved thus because then he must concurre either to the making of the Law which gives pardon upon such a condition or to the pronouncing of the sentence of absolution upon himself according to that Law This Mr. Eyre saith is an impertinent answer because the question is not whether a man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification but whether he had any causal influxe in producing the effect thereof Rep. My answer if he will call it so was very pertinent as to the case of an offendor saved by his Clergy whose pardon is perfected by a Law which gives the remote right and sentence passed according to that Law which produceth his immunity it selfe If then the said offendor cause his own pardon it must be by concurring some way or other to the production of one of these The case is altogether
decies cocta that it will inferre justification by works for answer to which I referre the reader to chap. 4. and 5. having proved in the former that it is the Act or grace of faith which the Apostle perpetually opposeth to works and in the latter that benefits may be given of grace which yet are given upon condition His second Argument therefore is this If justification be by that signall promise he that beleeves shall be saved then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published But the Fathers of the old Testament were justified before the publishing of that gracious sentence or any like it Ergo. Rep. A particular explicite faith in Christ was not absolutely necessary §. 9. to salvation till the times of the Gospel and the doctrine of faith and remission was in former times very sparingly and darkly revealed especially in the time between Adam and Moses Yet was the faith of the ancients the same for substance with the faith of Christians and of a like necessity to justification and salvation For Abel was justified by faith Heb. 11. 4. and Enocâ— v. 5. and Nâ—ah v. 7. and Abraham Rom. 4. sic de caeteris and surely they could not believe without a Preacher by whom they might heare of him on whom they beleeved But supposing the promise of remission to be suitable to those times of darker dispensation and the condition of that faith which was then required as sufficient to salvation I passe the proposition 2. I deny the assumption which hath here no other proofe then the old Argument so t is namely that there was not a promise of forgivenesse preached unto the world upon condition of repentance and returning unto God which is the substance of faith before the incarnation of our Lord. There were many Preachers of righteousnesse in the old world Noah d See Dr Golls Sermon before the Astrologers p. 28 29. Manasse Ben. Israel Concil in Gen. 4. 26. 3. is reckoned the eighth 2 Pet. 2. 5. beginning at Enos Gen. 4. 26. And he no question preached faith and repentance to the world that they might escape the destruction of soul and body at once who notwithstanding his preaching perished by their disobedience or unbelief the Greek word signifieth either 1 Pet. 3. 20. and he by his faith is said in a comparative sense to have condemned them Heb. 11. 7. And in the book of Job who lived before the law we finde the world had notice of such a conditionall promise though not from any written word but by tradition or by Preachers immediatly raised up Job 8. 4 5 6. If thy children have sinned against him If thou wouldest seek unto God betime and make thy supplication to the Almighty if thou be pure and upright surely now he would awake for thee c. and this he tells us was the faith of the Fathers many generations before v. 8 9. compare v. 20 21. So chap 33. 27 28. he looketh upon men and if any say I have sinned he will deliver his soul from going down into the pit So chap. 22. 21 22 23. Acquaint thy self with God lay up his words in thy heart If thou returne to the Almighty thou shalt be built up c. see also chap. 11. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. And what lesse doth the Lord say to Cain Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted namely if thou dost well as Abel did shalt thou not be accepted as well as he And wherein Abel's well doing consisted the Apostle tells us Heb. 11. 4. By saith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice then Cain So that from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Moses the world was not altogether without notice of the promise of salvation upon condition of faith and repentance c Vide Mos â—myrâ—â— Spec. anima lâ—er special pâ—r 3 anima i. General par 3. 4. In Moses's time the matter is clearer then to need proofe Heb. 4. 1 2. Let us therefore feare least a promise being left us of entring into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it for unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the word preached did not profit them being not mixed with faith in them that heard it Hence 1. it is manifest that salvation was promised Israel under the type of rest in Canaan 2. That it was not promised them absolutely but upon condition whether the condition were expressed or understood otherwise their non-entrance into Rest must have been imputed wholly to Gods unfaithfulnesse and not to their unbelief whereas the text sayes expresly it was their unbelief which made the promise of no effect to them and they could not enter in because of unbelief chap. 3 19. 3. That the Gospel is preached to us as it was to them and therefore the same condition is required of us as was required of them namely faith otherwise we also shall fall short of the promised rest as they did v. 1. The third Argument is this If justification be only by a declared §. 10. discharge then elect infants that die in their infancy have no justification Rep. I deny the consequence where 's the proofe I can find no other but this that infants are insensible of this declaration and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise which is nothing in the world to the purpose Cannot infants have right to a benefit by law or the declared act of a Rector or Lawgiver because they are unsensible of it and cannot plead it They are condemned by law whiles infants Rom. 5. 14. They may be servants or free by law Do not our laws provide for the rights of Minors Pupils and Orphans even in their infancy 2. It doth also ruine the maine pillars of Mr. Eyres discourse All the places which I before alledged to prove justification by faith according to him are to be understood of the manifestation of justification to the conscience Give me leave then to retort his owne Argument The justification spoken of in the places aforesaid Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. and 4. 24. Act. 10. 43. and 13. 39. c. is that without which no man can be saved But some may be saved without justification manifested and declared to the conscience as infants Ergo the justification mentioned in those places is not justification in conscience or manifested unto conscience The fourth Argument succeeds The making justification a §. 11. declared discharge detracts from the majesty and soveraignty of God for it ascribes to him but the office of a notary or subordinate Minister whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court rather then of a Judge or supream Magistrate Rep. If this Argument be cast into forme it runs thus He that forgives sin by a declared Act is but a notary or subordinate Minister for their work it is to declare and publish the sentence
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher
be said that all the world are children of wrath by nature but by grace justified and children of life at the same time If not it must be yeelded that the elect and reprobate are both equally under the same condemnation both equally obnoxious to eternall punishment so long as they continue equally in a natural unregenerate condition 4. The parallel place before-mentioned Colâ—s 2. 13. confirmes all I have said And you being dead in your sinnes and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven you all your trespasses Beleevers then themselves were sometimes dead that is under condemnation and so under it as that they were then without remission of sins for their quickning is by remission and nothing is quickned except it be dead That the elect though children of wrath by nature may yet at the §. 12. same time be the objects of love is nothing to the purpose till that love be proved to be their justification which we have before disproved 2. That the elect are called the children of God before conversion I cannot conceive how it is proved from any or all the texts mentioned if Mr. Eyre had formed any Argument from them it should have had an answer Neverthelesse I acknowledge that elsewhere in Scripture they are so called but metonymically not because they are children properly for the relation of father and children supposeth the existence of the terms on both sides related take away one and the other also is taken away but because they were designed and predestinated to be children according to that of the Apostle Eph. 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself Even as the Lord tells Paul Act. 18. 10. That he had much people in Corinth that is many who were to be made his people by Pauls ministery though before they were not his people 1 Pet. 2. 10. And as God calls Cyrus his shepherd Isa 44. 28. Two hundred years before he was borne because he was designed to such an employment and so he is called not from what he was but from what he was to be as on the contrary others sometimes are named not from what they are but from what they had been in times past Matth. 21. 31. Publicans and harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before you that is such as had been so 3. That it is the good pleasure of God and not any inherent qualiâ—â—cation in us which makes us his children if it be meant of children by Adoption and of that good pleasure of God which is a temporal transient Act is true But it should have been proved that the said good pleasure of God makes us his children without any inherent qualifications in us The Scriptures tell us that we are the children of God by faith Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. and 4. 5. c. 4. I also yeeld that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to infants though they know it not and that so it is also to multitudes of grown Christians But it should be proved that such infants are uncapable of the habit of faith or that their parents faith doth not supply their incapacity as to their justification of which more hereafter SECT III. IN the next place Mr. Eyre gives us an account in what sense the elect though freed from wrath and condemnation may yet §. 13. be said to be under it namely in regard the Law doth terrifie and affright their consciences Rom. 4. 15. In which respect it is called a ministration of wrath and death 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Answ Whether Mr. Eyres intent in this undertaking be to give another exposition of the elects being children of wrath I cannot tell If it be he must quit the former for this will not consist with that There he told us the elect were children of wrath that is by nature or in themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam abstracting or rather prescinding from any effect of wrath that ever was or was to be upon them But here they are children of wrath in reference to the effects of wrath in their consciences 2. When he sayes the Law is called a ministration of death and condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. because it did terrifie and affright the conscience if he mean that this is the only reason why it is so called as if it did not condemn persons as well as their consciences I deny it altogether Death and condemnation when they expound one another as there they do signifie that of the person and not of the conscience only Rom. 5. 16 17. 3. In like manner when the Law is said to work wrath Rom. 4. 15. I deny it to be meant meerly of horrour of conscience but principally of that wrath which excludes them from a right to the heavenly inheritance which right is given by the promise v. 14. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the wâ—rkes of the Law are under the curse Mr. Eyre proceeds The wrath of God haâ—h a threesold acception §. 14. in Scripture 1. It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to inflict upon men the punishment which their sins shall deserve 2. It notes the threatnings of the Law Rom. 1. 18. Psal 6. 1. Hos 11. 9. Jon. 3. 9. 3. The execution of those threatnings Eph. 5. 6. Luk. 21. 23. Matth. 3. 7. The elect are under wrath in the second sense only Answ If the first sense be a Scripture-sense why have we not one word of Scripture to justifie it The reason 's ready because that will of God which we are wont to call Reprobation is neither wrath nor an Act of wrath in Scripture language 2. When Mr. Eyre grants that the elect are subject to the threatnings and comminations of the Law he explaines himself thus The threatnings of the Law do seize upon and arrest their consciences as well as others the Law as a rigid Schoole-master doth never leave to whip and lash them untill they fly unto Christ I asked then 1. Whether that paine and anguish of Spirit which the elect whiles unbeleevers feele be any part of the evil threatned in the Law If it be as most undoubtedly it is then Mr. Eyre contradicts himself in saying the elect are under the threatnings of the Law but not under the execution of them If it be not he contradicts himself againe in saying the Law doth whip and lash them It is not the Law that torments them but somewhat else what it is I cannot tell if their torment be none of that evil which the Law threatneth 2. I would ask also what power there is in these arrests of the Law to make them fly to Christ If by representing to them that they are under condemnation till they lay hold on Christ by faith then they are under condemnation till they believe which Mr. Eyre will not heare of If only that they are damnable in themselves as he
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
especially for the momentous consequence thereof c. 3. And of beâ—ievers the Apostle sayes 1 Thes 1. 6 7. It is a righteous thing with God to recompence to them rest and on the contrary that God were unjust if he should not save them Heb. 6. 10. Now take righteousnesse and unrighteousnesse in any sense the words will bear according to their use in Scripture I appeal to the conscience of any man that is acquainted with the Scriptures whether it be agreeable to them to say that God is unjust if he doth not save them that live in all manner of ungodlinesse and debauchery supposing them to be elect If there be any expression in Scripture that doth sound to such a sense if they do not say the contrary that the justice of God is engaged to take vengeance of such unlesse they repent and bring forth fruits of righteousnesse then must we reade them backward and understand them in a sense contrary to what the words pretend to See Ezâ—k 18. 20 25 26 27. to the end Exod. 34. 7. Rom. 3. 9. Eph. 2. 3. and other places without number 4. But let us examine the text The unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicatours nor idolaters nor adulterers c. shall inherit the Kingdome of God And such were some of you but you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified The inference in the affirmative is this Ergo now they might and should inherit the Kingdome That which made them uncapable of inheriting the Kingdome before was not only the filth of sin from which they were now washed in sanctification but the guilt of sin from which they were now also washed in Justification Hence the first Argument That Justification which washeth away the guilt of sin upon the removal of which they were made capable of inheriting the Kingdome that Justification gave them right to the Kingdome But the Justification which they now had and not before was that which washed away the guilt of sin upon the removal of which they were capable of inheriting the Kingdom Ergo This Justification is that which gave them right to the Kingdom The Proposition is necessary as consisting of termes immediately contrary Guilt is obligatio ad poenam an obligation to punishment that which is contrary to it and destroys or expels it is a right to impunity if the losse of heaven be part of that punishment to which they are obliged that which is contrary to it and expells it is a right to heaven The Assumption is so plain in the text as nothing more Time was when you could not have inherited the Kingdome of God because of the fearful sins you lived in but now you are justified and therefore may inherit it 2. The same barre which lay against the entrance of other sinners into the Kingdome of God lay against these Corinthians also No fornicatours idolaters c. shall inherit the Kingdome of God And such were some of you But ye are justified But the want of Justification and pardon is a barre or hindrance against the entrance of other sinners into the Kingdom of God This I think will not be denied and if it be it is easily proved because the Justification of these Corinthians is mentioned by the Apostle as that which changed the case and put the difference between them and other Gentiles yet unconverted in respect of their capability of inheriting the Kingdome Now he that perisheth for want of Justification or pardon perisheth but for want of a right to heaven Ergo he that may now inherit heaven because he is justified or by vertue of his Justification may therefore inherit it because he hath now a right to it by his Justification And whereas Mr. Eyre sayes that their right to salvation was §. 22. grounded only in Gods Purpose and in Christs Purchase I thought the Scriptures had mentioned a third and a more immediate ground then either of these and that is the Promise Gal. 3. 18. a Promise made not only to them that be believers but through believing ver 22. and Rom. 4. 13 16 23 24. though I confesse Mr. Eyre is concerned to take but little notice of it for if the right to heaven be given by the Promise then they that are without the Promise as these Corinthians were sometimes no lesse then the Ephesians Eph. 2. 12. are also without a right to heaven As for Gods Purpose if that give a right to Heaven it must be proved either from Scripture or Reason There is not a word in Scripture to proveit Reason is against it Men may purpose many benefits to others without any t Vid. Less de Just Jur. l. 2. c. 40. dub â— Azor. Instit moral par 3. l. 1â— c. 15. intention of obliging themselves thereby to give them and if they be not obliged to give others have no right to receive Adde if Purposes essentially do give right then the donation of right is a thing of its own nature uncapable of being purposed for the right is given eo ipso that it is purposed to be given nihil agit in simile The Purchase of Christ may with much more reason be said to give a right to heaven But the Purchase of Christ though it was made for our good yet not in our names for Christ in purchasing was neither our Mandatory Proxie nor Delegate and therefore gives right immediately to none but by the intervention of that Covenant which was sealed and established in his blood even the Promise through faith in Jesus Christ as we shall shew more particularly hereafter And as to the second answer wherein Mr. Eyre denies my consequence §. 23. viz. That if the Elect have right to heaven without faith then they may inherit heaven without faith we shall make this good and then enquire into the reason of his denial The consequence therefore is thus proved To deny heaven to him that hath right to it is to deny a man his right a thing most unworthy to be thought of God u Vid. Sebast à Costa Com. in loc Decret Greg. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 7 §. Si vero aâ— er câ—nnot 〈◊〉 Alciat ib. cum in muâ—â—is câ—sib Lam. 3. 35. Ergo if wicked men any of them have right to heaven they must have it whether ever they beleeve or no. Here of necessity Mr. Eyre must distinguish of right but whatsoever distinction he apply he must quit his assertion That the elect have no more right to heaven after they beleeve then before He will not say the right which the wicked have to heaven is conditional and so may be lost for non-performance of the condition and if it be absolute from eternity it admits of no condition in time x L. Perfecta C. de donat quae sub modo a perfect donation admits of no after-conditions at least unlesse they be added y Vide Covar
faith is rather a hinderance then a furtherance of their happinesse for they have right to heaven even while they live in all manner of ungodlinesse only that which hinders their enjoyment is that there is a purpose of giving faith which must be accomplished before they can inherit were it not for that purpose they might go to heaven presently and as they are 4. And that without all gain-saying of the Law which though it be a bug-beare even to the elect themselves to terrifie and affright the conscience while they live in sin and ungodlinesse yet hath no authority it seemes to debarre them from entrance into heaven no more then if it never had been violated And so if it might be supposed per pâ—ssibile vel impossibile that an unrighteous man might go to heaven yet were this no impeachment to the justice of Gods government but would argue at most some kind of mutability in God in not doing according to his purpose Whereas the Lord himself professeth that if he should give life to an impenitent sinner it were against his equity The waies of the Lord are equal Ezek. 18. throughout Fiftly If ungracious men have a right to heaven onely they cannot §. 25. possesse it till they have the evidence of faith either this evidence is of such necessity that if they have it not they shall lose that life to which they are adjudged or no. If not then whether they believe or no they shall be saved if so then there is no absolute justification before faith and justification must be conditional To this Mr. Eyre answers 1. By this Argument not only faith but all other works of sanctification and perseverance in them must be the conditions of our justification and then we may be said to be justified and saved by them but this is no good Argument No man is saved or glorified without works Ergo men are saved by works 2. This reason makes as much against absolute election before faith as against absolute justification 3. The answer is election and justification are absolute because they depend upon no antecedent condition not because they are without consequents that depend on them Rep. To the first we reply That if the question be concerning our first entrance into a state of justification we have already with the Apostle Rom. 10. 10. excluded works from being at all necessary thereunto But if the question be of our last and universal justification at the day of judgement which the Apostle there calls salvation Mr. Eyre knows we maintaine that perseverance in the faith to the end and in a Christian conversation is a necessary condition of salvation according to Scriptures Rev. 2. 17. and 22. 14. Colâ—s 1. 23. 2 John 8. Heb. 10. 26 36. and the places quoted by M. Eyre Prov. 28. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Matth. 24. 13. And the consent of c Ames Bellar. enervat tom 4. lib. 6. cap. 6. de nâ—ces oper ad salut ad obj ex Rom. 8. 13. Mortific tio igitur est conditio aâ— vitam quis negat Gerhard de bonâ—â— operib c. 9. §. 55. 4. Zanchius Gry 〈…〉 Sohnius Piscator ibid. §. 45. Chamier 〈◊〉 de bon Oper. Neceâ—â— cap. â— sect 7. 11 15 17 20 〈◊〉 c. appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus non 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Davenant de 〈◊〉 Act cap. 〈◊〉 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestants But when he infers then we may be said to be saved by works I deny the consequence partly because of the ambiguity of the word works which in our use generally hath another sense then with the Apostles who oppose them not only to faith as we have largely proved before but sometimes also to sanctification Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but by the renewing of the holy Ghost partly because the works of saâ—ctification are not the condition properly of our obtaining but of not losing our right to the heavenly Kingdom As if Titius upon 〈◊〉 his intreaty give him a farme to be held by him jure feudi the non-performance of that homage and fidelity which the feudatory is bound to forfeits his right neverthelesse his title is grounded in the Donors benevolence In like manner we are saved by grace through faith though if we do not by the spirit mortifie the deeds of the flesh we forfeit our life Rom. 8. 13. To the second I reply That there is no comparison between §. 26. election and justification as is at large above demonstrated Let us set Mr. Eyres parallel before us that the dissimilitude may the better appeare Thus then he argues Faith is of such necessity that they that have it not shall lose the life to which they are elected or not if not then whether the elect believe or no they shall be saved if it be then there is no absolute election before faith Here 1. The comparison is between an Act that giveth a right to life such is justification and an Act which giveth none such is election which indeed doth make the donation of right to be a thing future but is not it selfe the Act which giveth it as we have shewed before Now if a sinner have a right to the inheritance and yet it be necessary for him to believe that he may inherit then is his inheriting suspended upon believing that is faith is the condition of his inheriting and so the right he had to it before must needs be conditional more then this neither reason nor the civil Law requires to denominate a gift to be conditionall In election the case is otherwise which because it doth not transmit or conveigh any right but is only a preparation or preordination in the mind of God of those causes by which it shall be made to exist in time therefore may the purpose it self be absolute yea though it be of things which do not exist but upon condition Thus Dr. d In Coâ—vin dofens Armin. Cont. Tilen pag. 355. Twisse Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scil neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit nec damnatio c. and particularly of justification or pardon of sin he addes Remissionem peccatorum salutem omnes consentiunt nemini contingere nisi sub conditione fidei i. e. All agree that pardon of sin and salvation betides none but upon condition of faith God may absolutely will or purpose to give a right to life upon condition of faith but he cannot absolutely give a right to life and yet afterwards require us to believe under a penalty of forfeiting or losing that life for then the gift is not absolute but conditional 2. The word necessary must be distinguished for it may be understood either in reference to God and so whatsoever he purposeth is necessary because his purposes being immutable and his power irresistable it must needs be that whatsoever he purposeth
must come to passe or in reference to us and so that is necessary which is enjoyned us by precept as a means appointed and ordained of God for such or such an end The necessity of faith in the former sense will by no means inferre that it is a condition but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life and yet our believing remaine necessary as a means appointed for the obtaining of life then the right we had before was but conditional The necessity of faith compared with election is only a necessity of existence upon supposition of a powerful and immutable cause Obj. But I my self grant will it be said that faith is necessary as a means of obtaining life yet are we elected unto life so that hitherto the case is still the same Ans Therefore we distinguish farther Gods giving life may be considered either simply as it is Gods act and the execution of his eternal purpose or as withal it is our blessednesse reward In the former respect faith hath no other order to life then purely of an antecedent because he that purposed to give life purposed also to give faith before it but it is neither means nor condition nor cause of life no more then Tenderton steeple was the condition or cause or means of Godwin sands or an earthquake over night of the suns rising the next morning It is in reference to life only as by the promise it is made our reward that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it Now if faith according to the constant language of Scripture be necessary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward then whatsoever justification adjudgeth us to life before faith must be conditional But upon supposition of election both unto faith and unto life if there were no other act of God which made faith necessary to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be only necessary in regard of its presence or existence but not at all necessary as a means to be used by us in order to our receiving of righteousnesse and salvation and so election will neverthelesse be absolute And therefore the third answer which Mr. Eyre gives as most direct §. 27. to the Argument namely that justification is absolute though faith be necessary because faith is necessary only as a consequent is without strength For 1. If by consequent he mean that which is purely and only so sin and death will put in for as necessary an interest in justification as faith it self 2. If by consequence he mean an effect then is it againe supposed that faith is an effect of justification which should be proved and not unworthily begged I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteousnesse of being justified unto beleeving I read not a word 3. Mr. Eyre himself when he would distinguish justification from election determined the former precisely to a non-punition If now it lay claime to faith too as it 's genuine proper effect his distinction evaporates into a nullity 4. Nor doth he ascribe any thing more to faith in the matter of justification then all our Divines with one consent ascribe to works namely a necessity of presence for the necessity of faith as a consequent is no more Which they indeed ascribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture he to faith without any evidence at all And so much for the defence of the Arguments which I advanced to prove that we are not justified till we beleeve CHAP. IX A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures which seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ without the intervention of faith SECT I. AGainst what we have hitherto been proving I know §. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures more then a Text or two that seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ which if it be so then their justification is not suspended upon believing and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves But the Arguments drawne from those places which seeme to favour it most are so inconsequent and contrary testimonies so many and irrefragable that I am very little solicitous about the issue Both these things we shall shew in order and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front This is my beloved sonne §. 2. in whom I am well pleased that is saith Mr. Eyre with sinners The inference should be Ergo God was well pleased with sinners that is reconciled to them immediately in the death of Christ To this in my sermon I gave a double answer 1. That the well-pleasednesse of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ who gave himself unto the death an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Mr. Eyre in his reply to this produceth many testimonies of Musculus Calvin Beza Paraeus Ward Ferus and some reasons to prove that which never came into my minde to deny namely that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners To all which I shall need return no other answer then an explication of that which is given already The words therefore may be understood either 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of and well-pleasednesse in Christ as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends and producing those effects for which it was offered Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only and above all other men or Angels or 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing namely Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners for Christs sake Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say the words may be taken only in the former sense and so confined to the person of Christ that I must be printed as a man that thinks my self worth a thousand such as Colvin Beza Paraeus c Whose judgements I had not then consulted nor do now finde any thing which I consent not to except one passage in Beza When 1. Mr. Eyres exposition cannot consist without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased he must adde in whom I am well pleased with sinners 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters nor of the New Testament is acquainted with namely that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should governe two dative cases one of the cause and the other of the object Adde the word sinners and the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Eyre match this construction if he can 3. And if he give the right sense of the words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom is
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
angry with his brother without a cause Whosoever shall say unto his brâ—ther Racha Whosoever shall say thou foole shall be in dangâ—r of such and such punishments Can these or the like expressions any where else be onely the descriptions of persons that shall be punished and that from the consequent of their punishment as already begun 2. The Lord by comparing faith to seeing seems to allude to Israels §. 37. looking up to the brazen serpent for healing Numb 21. As he also doth almost in the same words altogether in the same sense Joh. 3. 14 15. As 〈◊〉 lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish c. Now I would know when it is said Numb 21. 8. Every one or whosoever looketh upon it sâ— the Serpent do the words onely describe the persons that should be healed from their property oâ— looking up or do they also proâ—â—â—â— the Act upon which their healing was suspended If the latter 〈◊〉 those words Whosoever seâ—â— and beleeveth the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life must be understood in the same sense If the former thâ—n the Israelites might also have been healed before they looked up to the serpent for to denominate them lookers it is sufficient that they looked up at any time whether before or after they â—â—re healed But I will not do one work twice enough hath been spoken already against this notion unlesse it had some better authority then meerly mans invention The next place I mentioned was â—â—l 5. 2 4. without faith Christ §. 38. shall profit us nâ—thing 〈◊〉 it was not the will of God nor of Christ that any man should be justified by the death of Christ till he doth beleeve But sâ—ith Mr. Eyre this place is pâ—lpâ—â—ly abâ—â—eâ— Thâ— Apostle doth nâ—t 〈◊〉 withoâ—t faith Christ shall profit â—s nothing but if we 〈◊〉 any thing 〈◊〉 Christ as necessary to attaine salvation we are not beleâ—vers our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing Rep. Where doth the Apostle say these words If M. Eyre give us onely the sense of them we shall shew presently that what I say is included as part of the sense But I will never beleeve while I live that Mr. Eyre hath rightly expressed the Apostles sense As if the Apostle spake against joyning of any thing with Christ as necessary to attaine salvation unlesse by joyning with Christ he mean in an equal degree of causality or as sharing in that kind of causality which Christ put forth for our salvation For out of doubt Faith and Repentance are necessary to be joyned with Christ that we may be saved 2. But to discover how palpably Mr. Eyre hath abused me in charging me with an abuse of the Text let us transcribe the words v. 2 3 4 5 6. If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole Law Christ is become of no effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law you are fallen from grace For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by Love 1. I do here observe the Apostles Argument by which he proves that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing Thus it runs He that is bound to keep the whole Law for justification to him is Christ of no effect for justification He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law for justification v. 3. Ergo Christ is of no effect to him or as the Apostle varies the words v. 4. Ergo he is fallen from grace whosoever he be that expects to be justified by the Law In opposition to this he declares in his own and other Christians example the only way how Christ may become profitable and of effect to us for justification and that is by faith without legal performances v. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith And have I yet abused the Text because I say it hath this sense that without faith Christ shall profit us nothing yea 2. The whole discourse of the Apostle proceeds upon this ground that legal observances make Christ of none effect to us because they overthrow faith For he that will be justified by the Law must keep the whole Law and that destroys faith as he had also often and plainly told them before chap. 3. 12. 10 11 17 18. compare Rom. 4. 14. 3. Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth in the very next words that the Apostle attributes that to faith which he denyes â—o other works v. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love I assuâ—â— But the thing denied to other works is that they are able to justifieâ— yea rather that they make it impossible for us to be justified because they make Christ to become of none effect to us v. â— 4. Ergo the thing ascribed to faith is that by it we are justified and through it doth Christ become profitable and grace of effect to our Justification Ergo without it Christ profits us nothing as to that end and purpose Therefore Mr. Eyre contradicts himself immediately in his Comment upon that v. 6. When he sayes that the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the exercises of divine worship in which Christians should be conversant But out of doubt his meaning was to shew how Christ and grace become effectual to our Justification if he do here ascribe to faith that which before he had denied to other works which is Mr. Eyres own grant and the Apostles unquestionable intent for the words as appears by the particle for in the beginning of the verse are the reason why through faith he expected Justification and not in the way of circumcision ver 5. to wit because circumcision availeth nothing no nor uncircumcision neither but faith which worketh by love which reason of his faith he had also given before chapt 2. 16. As to those two truly godly learned Authours Calvin and Perkins whom Mr. Eyre alledgeth as abetting what he saith concerning the Apostles intent if the cause were to be carried by number of voices we could quickly dispatch it But neither do either of these gratifie Mr. Eyre a whit Calvins words are these Quantum ad praesentem locum attinet Paulus nequaquam disputat an charitas ad justificandum cooperetur fidei sed tantùm indicat quae nunc sint vera fidelium exercitia i. e. As to the present place Paul doth by no meanes dispute whether love do cooperate with faith unto Justification but only intimates what are now the true exercises of the faithful Is this all one as if he had said faith availes us nothing in order
it is a strange kind of reason Cannot a soul by faith behold the certainty and glorious effects of his justification notwithstanding all the opposition of sense and reason by looking on Christ justified as an exemplary cause to whom himself also shall be conformed in one time Secondly Mr. Eyre argues against it thus He that pays our debts §. 5. to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a paterne of our release Rep. More then a patern of our release Is this all Mr. Eyre contends for upon what pretence then doth he oppose me I acknowledge Christ to be the meritorious cause of our release in his death and not only the exemplary cause of it in his resurrection As to the thing which I think Mr. Eyre intends I have told him often that Christ entred into an obligation of his own to make satisfaction for our debt from which obligation he was discharged in his resurrection God acquitting him as having paid as much as was demanded But if Christ had power to do what he would with his own then was it in his power and his Fathers to give us the effect of this satisfaction when and upon what tearms they pleased and to suspend our discharge notwithstanding Christ were long before discharged till himself should sit down at the right hand of Glory and give it us with his own hand according as sinners in successive generations come to him for it M. Eyre hath often said the contrary but proves it no where His third Argument chargeth high magnis tamen excidit ausis §. 6. take it at large If Christ were only a patern and example of our justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ was but a patern of our justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed Rep. 1. This the charge this the proofe But because M. Eyre is so carelesse of what he speaks let us see whether the matter be mended according to his own principles He then doth not only acknowledge but contend that the elect were justified in Christ as a common person Now what is a common person It is a general tearm and should have been described more plainly then it is but something he speaks of him § 1. Whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose steed he stands and § 4. 1. The act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents The summe is A common person is he that represents another both in what he doth and in what is done to him Now then thus I proceed If Christ were justified as a common person then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ was justified as a common person then was he justified as we are for a common person is he that represents another both in what he doth and in what is done to him Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed Ergo. Let M. Eyre answer this for himself and he hath answered for me But because he hath put me out of hope of the former I will do the latter presently 2. In the mean time I will propose one thing to M. Eyres consideration If the justification of Christ as a common person were actually and formally the justification of the elect then are not the elect justified of grace but of works which is the most horrid contradiction to the Gospel that can be uttered the reason of the consequence is evident because Christ was not justified of grace but of debt Ergo if that act of justification which passed upon him be that which justifies us then are not we justified of grace But to M. Eyres Argument if it may so be called I deny his consequence §. 7. as evident as it is and the proofe of it To the former I say that Christs resurrection was his discharge from his own obligation which he voluntarily undertooke to suffer and satisfie for our sins and therein he became the exemplary cause of a like discharge which should follow on them that beleeve from that obligation which comes upon them involuntarily and necessarily because of sin To the proof I say that Christs Justification was such as ours is in regard of its common nature and effects which is sufficient to the agreement of the example and counterpart as the sacrifices of old represented Christ dying though he were a man and they were beasts not in its principle and special nature Surely it will not be denied that we beare the image of Christ in our resurrection from the dead but then will Mr. Eyre say he was raised as we are now we are raised from corruption Ergo he also was raised from corruption which is as horrid a contradiction to Scripture as can be uttered Psal 16. 10. or he was raised by his own power John 2. 19. Ergo if we in our Resurrection are conformed to him then are we also raised by our own power which is blasphemy as bad as the other that makes Christ as bad as sinners this makes sinners as good as Christ Did M. Eyre think it possible to convince mens understandings by such Argumentations as these His fourth Argument is upon the point all one with this and hath been answered already over and over in that wherein it differs from this His fifth Argument is That I recede very far both from the §. 8. meaning and expressions of all our orthodox writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never the exemplary cause of our justification particularly my Grandfather Parker de descens lib. 3. sect 49 50 53. Rep. 1. I did not think before nor do I now that the affirming of Christ to be an exemplary cause of all those spiritual heavenly blessings which God bestows on us had been to deny him to be a common person The Scriptures call him the first borne amongst many brethren Rom. 8. 29. The first borne of every creature Colos 1. 15. the first fruits of them that slept 1 Cor. 15. 20. phrases importing that there are many others who by his power shall be conformed to his image in all his heavenly perfections which is all I seek by the tearm of an exemplary cause But he that calls Christ the first borne the first begotten the first fruits is so far from denying him as that he doth suppose him to be a common person in regard that the proper import of these phrases is to teach us that he hath received excellent blessings not for himself but for others also The reason why I use the tearm of an
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose then nothing at all As to the reason added we have already shewed at large in what sense Christs death may be called the payment of our debt A debtour cannot discharge a debt and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid or upon some condition to be performed by him I shall beleeve when I see not words but power and argument which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre The Conclusion therefore and summe of my Answer was this Justification §. 15. is either causal and virtual or actual and formal we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things already confuted concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ and the payment and satisfaction in his death but upon the distinction it self he fixeth nothing By all which I perceive he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resurrection to prove ours I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection and he answers I know not what concerning Christs death Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration I grant saith Mr. Eyre that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us formally And therefore Christs dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase Rom. 58 9 10. Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before nor can I understand now viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ as it was his death not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth yet is the speech strangely improper As if a broken undone debtour seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him then his debt comes to should say his debt is virtually paid or himself virtually discharged by that mans money 2. To say that Christs satisfaction doth justifie us formally is to deny our Justification formal to be Gods act for it was not God but Christ that satisfied or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him or that he was justified before us yea rather we are first justified if his satisfaction justifie us formally because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified never till now that it justifies formally 2. The next observation that Christs dying for us or for our sins and our being justified are Syâ—â—nyma's in Scripture is most plainly refuted by Scripture Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered namely unto death for our sins and rose again for our Justification In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection §. 16. not made by me but by some others and it is here brought in by head and shoulders without the least occasion offered saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person to the Purchase of Justification in his blood Neverthelesse because the truth is on the objectours side and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself let us see what is said The objection is this 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the righteousnesse of God in him Ergo the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Thou seest Reader that the scope of the objection is to prove that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which Mr. Eyre after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it doth now plainly deny and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects What have we heard so often of Christs procuring meriting purchasing Pardon and Redemption when he is here denied to have done any thing tending to the procuring of our Justification But let us see Mr. Eyres answer it consists of three parts 1. Saith he That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause as when it is said That light is let in that darknesse may be expelled Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely if at all used in the New Testament and improperly wheresoever it is used and thrice in this chapter but a little before used in its most obvious sense verse 10. 12 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer that the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us do differ But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us Ergo the making of him to be sin for us and of us righteousnesse in him is not formally the same Mr Eyre 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act differing only in respect of the terminus à quo ad quem Rom. 4. 6 8. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin and the non-imputation of it is all one Rom. 4. 7 8. Ergo it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse but not the non-imputation of sin that is it procures positive blessings but not the destruction of or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse which
arguments advanced with my answers then given to them to which I do not intend to digresse so far as to reply 1. Because the Basis and foundation of his whole Argument as he hath now proposed in print is laid in this that we were justified in Christs Justification and therefore as to the summe is answered already 2. Because there is no proof of any particular branch of the Argument but is proposed again before he hath done and therefore must be answered hereafter 3. Because though I have altogether forgotten the order of his arguments and of my own answers yet I very well remember that as I understood his argument in no other sense then as it is set down in my Sermon printed so many things I spake by way of answer whereof his relation takes no notice but I must desire him to take more notice of before he and I part My answer then to the foresaid argument was double 1. That upon supposition that we were in Covenant before we beleeve yet would it not follow that we were justified before we believe because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another To this Mr. Eyre replies in the second paragraph of this his sixteenth chapter and says That though a man be not sanctified and glorified before faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. one of the elect he is certainly justified For 1. God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect which is real Justification Rep. To this Reader thou must expect no other answer from me then what I have at large given already 2. Saith he Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ for Justification goes before Sanctification and faith is a part of Sanctification Rep. I acknowledge that our English Divines whom I confesse in matters of this nature I preferre before any other are wont to place Sanctification in order after Justification which also is so plain from Scripture that it cannot be denied But Mr. Eyre also knows that they are wont to distinguish faith and sanctification as two things as the Scriptures also do 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 15. 9. and 16. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 13 14 15 16. though I do not finde that they do all expresse this difference in the same manner Should I interpose my own opinion it may be I should finde little thank for my labour and therefore I shall say no more then what others have said before me 1. It being plain that faith and holinesse are tâ—o things in the use of Scripture Mr. Eyre should have proved and not laid it down so rawly without any distinction that faith is a part of sanctification I deny it provided I may be tried by Scripture-language 2. As faith is in the understanding a perswasion of the truth of the Gospel and the Promises of life and glory contained therein so is it wont to be distinguished from sanctification 2 Thes 2 13. is not so much a part of it as a cause for by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve and see the glory of the Promises by so much the more are we changed into the image of Gods holinesse 2 Pet. 1. 3 4. 2 Cor. 3. 18. and 7. 1. 3. As faith is in the will an acceptance of Christ that by him we may be brought unto God it hath much the same difference for as God hath made Christ to us sanctification 1 Cor. 1. 30. so doth faith receive him and in that respect is not properly any part of our sanctification but the turning of the soul to Christ as unto a most sufficient principle and authour thereof Acts 26. 18. and so much for the exceptions against my first answer My second answer was a flat denial of the Assumption viz. that we are in Covenant with God before we beleeve if the phrase of §. 2. being in Covenant be understood properly for such an interest in the Covenant as gives a man right and title to the blessings of the Covenant Mr. Eyres proof is this Some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which works faith is given us before we beleeve My answer to this was large and distinct though Mr. Eyre reproach it sufficiently with a designe of darkening the truth and blinding the Reader but that 's no matter I shewed 1. That the word Give had a double sense in Scripture 1. When no receiving follows and so it signifies no more then the Will of God constituting and appointing Acts 4. 12. Eph. 1. 22. and 4. 11. 2. Sometimes it includes a receiving and possession of the thing given Thus the Spirit is given when we receive him and are as it were possest of him and he dwells in us In this sense is the Spirit never said to be given in Scripture but unto them that do beleeve Luke 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 3. 16 17. with Rom. 8. 10. 11. 2 I shewed also that the Spirit may be said to be given three ways essentially personally or in regard to some peculiar operations which he worketh in us Now there being no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in an hypocrite which hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God therefore the Spirit is neither given nor received before faith be wrought but is given and received together with faith and not before This is the summe the further explication the Reader may see in my Sermon at leisure Mr. Eyre thus expounds the giving of the Spirit That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel to work faith in all those that are ordained to life Rep. Then see Reader what a proof we have that the Spirit is given us before faith Mr. Eyre should prove that we have some benefits of the Covenant before faith viz. the Spirit when he explains it he tells us the Spirit is given before faith not in that sense in which the word give or given includes our receiving but as it signifies the sending or constituting of the Spirit to be by way of specialty the efficient cause or worker of faith Mr. Eyre doth not so much as open his mouth against what I said before that the Spirit is said to be given to us in reference to some peculiar work of his upon or in us which work is faith Here when he should shew how he is given us before faith he says he is sent to work faith in which sense the Spirit may be said to be given in the first sense mentioned of that word but not given to us so as that we can be therefore said to receive him eo ipso because he is sent to work faith and therefore this is but a deserting of the Argument in hand nor are we yet proved to have received any benefit of the
Covenant I mean any saving benefit before faith Therefore Mr. Eyre answers secondly That though the Spirit be not given us one atome of time before faith yet it is enough §. 3. that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that faith is not before the Spirit Rep. Neither for if the Spirit be not said to be given to us but in reference to his working of faith in us then faith is wrought in nature before the Spirit can be said to be given to us as if the Sunne be said to dwell or be in my house because it enlightens my house then in order of nature my house is first enlightened before the Sun can be said to be or dwell in it There is but one thing more in this Chapter that needs answer and that is this I had said the Spirit is not given us but in reference to some peculiar operation of his working faith in us and added for illustration that as a man doth first build himself an house and then dwell in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organize and prepare the soul to be a house unto himself and then dwells in it Mr. Eyre answers But is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of faith Rep. If these interrogations have the force of an affirmation Mr. Eyre should have proved them and not barely asserted them I have answered sufficiently already There is no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in a hypocrite who hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God Ergo there can be no work of the Spirit before faith it self in reference unto which the Spirit can be said to be given to us Preparative works do not difference a beleever from an hypocrite and therefore in themselves are no fruit or benefit of the Covenant So much â—o thâ— sixteenth Chapter CHAP. XIII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Seventeenth Chapter Concerning the Covenant wherein faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us SECT I. HAving thus shewed that we receive not the Spirit before we beleeve §. 1. it remains that we enquire whether faith it self be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for if we are in Covenant with God before faith be given us it is every whit as much to Mr. Eyres purpose to shew that we are in Covenant before we beleeve as if he had proved that the Spirit is given us before we beleeve For answer therefore to the question understand Reader that it may have a double sense 1. Whether the Covenant of grace that is the Gospel have any efficiency in converting the * â—id Dr. Ed. Reynold Sinful of siâ— page 337 Mr. bâ—lk 〈…〉 oâ— the Covenâ—â—â— pâ—â—t 4. page 318. soul and working it to beleeve and in this sense I readily grant that faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant Or 2. Whether God have engaged himself by Covenant to any sinner in the world to give him faith so that if God should not give him faith he were unfaithful and a breaker of his own Covenant In this sense is the question to be understood and my answer to it was a Faith is not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ God hath promised Christ that sinners shall beleeve on him Isa 53. 10. and 55. 4 5. Psal 2. 8. and 110. 3. Matth. 12. 21. Psal 89. 25 26. c. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is given to the Elect by vertue of the Covenant made with them the sense of which we have already explained that the Elect are supposed to be in Covenant with God before they beleeve and so God obliged to them by Covenant to give them faith I deny it See we what Mr. Eyre brings for proof of it First a similitude at the end of his first section If one promise §. 2. another that in case he shall bear so many stripes or perform any other condition he will then take care of and provide for his children doth not this promise made with the father most properly belong to his children The case is the same between Christ and us He performed the condition and we receive the benefits of the New Covenant Answ Whether the case be the same between Christ and us is the proper debate of the next Argument in the mean time this comparison is not to our case because the Promâ—se made to Christ that Jews and Gentiles shal come into him by faith is a promise that he shall have children spiritual that he shall have a numerous seed even like the stars of heaven for multitude But as the promise made to Abraham concerning the multitudes of children which he should have was no promise to them that they should becom children which were promise to nothing that it should become something so the promise to Christ that many Nations shall come unto him and becom children to him in a spiritual sense is no promise to them nor have they thereby any right given them to be made believers but unto him and in gratiam sui for his own honour and glory Much lesse doth such a promise hinder that that faith by which they become children unto Christ may not be enjoyned them as the condition upon which they are to partake in Christ and blessednesse by him The serond and great Argument is this If there be but one Covenant §. 3. of grace which is made both with Christ and us then faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us But there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Christ and us Ergo Hence a little before I am bid to shew that there are two distinct Covenants of grace one made with Christ and the other with us or that there is any other Covenant made with the Elect then that which is made with Christ c. Answ Before we can give a distinct answer to this we must first enquire how we may conceive of the forme and tenour of the Covenant of grace The tenour of the Covenant of works is plain and intelligible Do this and live But it seems there is no Covenant of grace made with men at all though some men are the intended objects of the blessings therein contained but only with Christ with whom we are to conceive the father striking a Covenant to this sense If thou wilt make or do thou make satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and I will give them grace and glory where the condition is Christs death or rather his satisfaction for his death if it had not been satisfactory had availed nothing and the promise is that the Elect shall have grace and glory This being explained I do utterly deny that there is but one Covenant of
the consequence because though Christ merited nothing for himself it being unworthy to rank him amongst such mercinary servants to whom nothing is due but for their labour in which sense are our Divines to be understood when they deny him to have merited for himself yet what he did and suffered was necessary for himself at least as a condition without which he had not obtained that advancement which now he hath viz. power of sending the Spirit Act. 2. 33. dominion over Angels in short all power both in heaven and earth as our Divines do liberally grant Which promises are not made to us but to Christ though instrictnesse of propriety he did not merit them And therefore though I do not find that he is called his own mediatour yet he was his own way unto the father Joh. 14. 4 6. forasmuch as not without the rending of his flesh and the shedding of his own blood he entred into the holy place Heb. 9. 11 12. Mr. Eyre proves his consequence in these words Christ is the mediatour of the new covenant Heb. 12. 24. Faith is bestowed upon us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour Now Christ is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us not of a covenant made singly and particularly with himself for a man is not properly a Mediatour for himself Answ Which words if they had stood by themselves as an argument directly proving the maine question viz. that faith is given us by virtue of the covenant made with us they had been of more strength then all that Mr. Eyre hath said for it besides But as they now stand for a proof of the foresaid consequence I cannot imagine into what forme to cast them though I have toyled my self about it more then enough Therefore leaving it to Mr. Eyre to shew how they prove his consequence let us consider them as an argument by themselves the forme whereof is this What is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour is given us by that covenant which is made with us the reason is because Christ is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us not with himself But faith is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour Ergâ— I cannot guesse what strength the argument looseth in this forme if it loose any Mr. Eyre must thank himself for speaking no plainer my answer to it is this faith may be said to be given by virtue of the covenant in a double respect 1. Operatione â—fficacia foederis by the operation and efficiency of the covenant working faith in the soul by the power of the Spirit accompanying it In this sense I deny the proposition because what is given us by the efficiency of the covenant doth not suppose us to be in covenant before our receiving it forasmuch as the working of faith it self by which we are brought into covenant is the effect of the covenant or 2. Ex obligatione faederis and so that is given by virtue of the covenant which we by the covenant have a right to receive and God by the same covenant hath obliged himself to us to bestow upon us In this sense which onely is proper to our Argument I deny the assumption because there is no covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour which gives any man a right to the receiving of faith or makes it due to him that faith be given him as I shall farther shew by and by when I come to examine Mr. Eyres answer to my explication of Heb. 8. 10. And that faith is given us by the righteousnesse and merits of Christ will never prove that therefore it is given us as unto a people in covenant with God What may not Christ merit faith that thereby we might be estated in the covenant though I will also tell Mr. Eyre that the three places he mentions viz. 2 Pet. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 3. Rom. 8. 32. to prove that we obtaine faith by the merits of Christ would never convince me if I were contrary minded The third argument proceeds thus If faith be given us by virtue §. 9 of that covenant whereby justification sanctification perseverance and glory are bestowed upon us then faith is given us by virtue of that covenant which is made with us But the first is true Ergo so is the last In the same covenant wherein God promiseth to cleanse us from our filthinesse to cause to walk in his ways c. he promiseth to circumcise our hearts to make us beleeve c. Ezek. 36. 25. c. Jer. 31. 34. Answ I deny the assumption if understood according to the foregoing distinction of what is given by a covenant obligation Till I see better proofe then any I meet with in Mr. Eyres book which I beleeve I never shall it will never enter into my heart that God is as much bound to give faith to sinners and rebells as he is to give righteousnesse and salvation to beleevers As for the proofe out of Ezek. 36. and Jer. 31. I deny that God doth give righteousnesse or glory by virtue that is by the obligation of the covenant there mentioned The reason which shall be farther explained by and by is because those texts do not expresse the forme and tenor of the covenant of grace but onely the matter and particulars wherein God would make the said covenant as administred in the days of Christ to excell it self in its administration before his coming As for example that it shall have greater efficacy in giving ability to fulfill it and to conferre more excellent spirituall and eternal blessings to them that do fulfill it But he that declares that his purpose is to establish and enact such a covenant by and according to which such excellent blessings shall be given doth not by such a declaration oblige himself to give them it is the covenant it self enacted and established which enduceth the obligation Wherefore the texts mentioned do indeed declare that the effects of the new Covenant that is of the Covenant in its new administration shall be farre more excellent then of the old but they do by no means declare that the said Covenant shall produce these effects in one and the same way or manner It produceth faith by its reall efficacy as I may so call it for it is the new Covenant which administreth that Spirit by which faith is wrought and having thus brought souls within the bond and made them to take hold of it self it produceth justification perseverance and salvation by its legall efficacy inasmuch as it makes these and all other blessings due to them that beleeve The fourth argument succeeds Faith is given by virtue §. 10. of that Covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed Ergo it is given by virtue of the Covenant made with us Answ I deny the antecedent The reason is because the seed of Abraham according to Scripture are they that do beleeve Rom. 4. 11 16.
Gal. 3. 7 9 26 29. If then the promise be made to them that are beleevers the thing promised cannot be that they shall be beleevers And therefore Mr. Eyre in the proofe of his antecedent doth palpably contradict that which he would prove The same Covenant saith he which God made with Abraham is made with all the faithfull to the end of the world and therefore they are called the children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7 29. A Covenant made with the faithfull is not that they shall have faith And so we come to the last argument which onely was mentioned §. 11. by Mr. Eyre and answered by me in my sermon If faith be given us by virtue of the Covenant made with the house of Israel then is it given us by virtue of the Covenant made with us for the house of Israel is the whole company of Gods elect who are therefore called Spiritual Israel Rom. 9. 6. But faith or the Spirit which works faith is promised in the Covenant made with the house of Israel Jer. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 8 9 c. Answ Though Rom. 9. 6. will by no means prove that the elect as such are Spiritual Israel for the words may and I think must be understood of beleevers as such yet I will have no quarrel here with Mr. Eyre about his interpretation Neverthelesse I do ingenuously confess to him I am very much puzled about one objection which it concernes him as much as me to see well answered Suppose then a man should say that by the house of Israel is not meant the elect as such but beleevers and that it is not faith which is here promised but some greater measures of grace which they that beleeve should receive above what were usually communicated before the times of Christ he mâ—ght thus argue from the words Whatsoever blessings are promised in the Covenant recorded Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. are such as are peculiar to the days of the New-Testament But the giving of faith is not peculiar to the dayes of the New-Testament for since sin entred into the world there was no other way of salvation then bâ— faith and therefore God gave faith in all ages to the elect The proposition may not be questioned For the time and season of giving the blessings mentioned Heb. 8. is expressely determined v. 8. Behold the dayes come when I will make a new Covenant c. and v. 10. This is the Covenant which I will make after those dayes and in reference to these blessings in this Covenant called a better Covenant and the promises thereof better v. 6. All which prove that the blessings here mentioned are such as were never given before But as the pardon promised v. 12. the knowledge of God v. 11. Gods being a God to his people v. 10. are all more perfect then ever before though the substance of these blessings were alwayes the same so it is not the substance and being of faith which is here promised but some more eminent degrees of grace then ever were dispensed before these times of the New-Testament Unlesse Mr. Eyre can answer this argument better then I the whole foundation of his discourse sinkes and he doth but labour in vaine to prove from these Texts that faith is given us as unto a people in Covenant with God before our receiving it Neverthelesse other reasons preponderate with me to cleave to my §. 12. former interpretation and therefore yeelding that faith it self is promised in this Covenant I deny Mr. Eyres assumption understood in the sense often mentioned viz That faith is given by the obligation of that Covenant in which Israel is supposed to be before they beleeve To the Texts mentioned for proofe Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. I gave a double answer 1. By retortion That if Mr. Eyre urge the words of these Texts rigorously they will prove more then he would have This he hopes is no hurt But as they say in Logick that those Syllogismes are fallacious which though they conclude true yet in the same forme will conclude false so is that interpretation of Scripture to be suspected which though it may serve a mans purpose will yet if received carry him beyond his purpose to that which he will not grant That which it proves more then I thought Mr. Eyre would have granted I delivered in these words It is manifest that this covenant containes a promise of sending Christ to dye for our sins Heb. 10. 14. 15 16. So that we may as well inferre from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the mediatour as that we are in Covenant before we beleeve and then his death shall serve not to obtaine all or any of the blessings of the Covenant but onely as the Sâ—cinians to declare and confirme to us that we may beleeve that God of his own good will without expecting any satisfaction will do all this good for us c. Mr. Eyres first answer is but a repetition of his argument now under debate and is more particularly answered below Two things he sayes to it 1. That it is not manifest that these texts containe a promise of sending Christ to dye for us The Apostle Heb. 10. 15. mentions the Covenant not to prove that God would send his Son to dye but that being come he hath offered up a perfect sacrifice v 10 12 14. Rep. The words are these v. 14 15. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witnesse to us And then quotes or rather cites the words of Jeremy Now if the Holy Ghost in that place of Jeremy do witnesse that Christ by offering himself should for ever perfect them that are sanctified then doth he also testifie that Christ should come at the time there mentioned to be made a sacrifice and the coming of Christ though it be not expressed yet is included and understood as promised in that Covenant Yea and all the promises or predictions of the glory of the Church in the New-Testament above it self under the old do signally include the promise of Christ himself as the Author of that glory and perfection Secondly He ownes it as an undenyable truth that the new §. 13. Covenant was made with all the elect in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid it being the fixed and immutable will of God concerning all those good things which in time were bestowed upon them Therefore it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. As it shall have no end so it had no beginning Rep. It is very strange to me that the New Covenant should be now discovered to be older then the world and that at no lesse distance then there is between time and eternity And more strange that Mr. Eyre should tell us gratis that it is Gods immutable purpose without so much as pretending the least jot from Scripture where either the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
That I may as well say that the bond and condition of the covenant on our part is expressed in that clause I will be their God which one would have the condition of the covenant on our part who that one is I do not know but I know one who may stand in steed of many hundreds d Thes 4. pag. 109. ex Gen. 17. 1. Hos 2. 16. 23. Dr. John Reynâ—lds who was accounted the ornament and wonder of his age for piety and learning that doth so expound those words and that from one who is above all even God himself who doth plainly so sense the words in some places Dâ—â—t 26. 17 18. Zech. 13. 9. Neverthelesse I did wave this interpretation in this place and interpret both clauses I will be their God and they shall be my people as expressing one and the same thing in reference to two tearmes as when it is said I wiâ—l be their father and they shall be my children because whatsoever is essentiall to the taking of the Lord for our God I conceive to be included in the words foregoing I will write my Laws in their hearts c. Whereas I said that faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant §. 20. already made but as the means by which we are brought into Covenant this Mr. Eyre invades by many arguments â— saith he the same words cannot be formally both a precept and a promise This is answered already The words are a promise but they suppose a precept what Is it such a strangâ— thing in Scripture that that should be promised which is our duty to do Ezek. 26 27. God promiseth to cause us to walk in his statutes Is it therefore no duty of ours to walk in his statutes In the same chapter v. 26. he promiseth to give a new heart and a new Spirit yet are we elsewhere commanded to make as a new heart and a new Spirit Ezek. 18. 31 God hath promised to circumcise our hearts to love him Deut. 30. 6. Yet is it our duty to circumcise our hearts Jer. 4. 4. And may not then faith be promised and that as the condition or meanes by which we are brought into Covenant Mr. Eyre 2. If the promise of faith be a part of the new Covenant then faith it self is an effect of the Covenant or a benefit given by virtue of it But the promise of faith is part of the new Covenant Ergo. Rep. I deny the Assumption The new Covenant worketh or begetteth faith but it doth not promise it Note therefore Reader that there is a great difference between what is promised concerning the new Covenant and what the new Covenant promiseth Concerning the new Covenant it was promised that it should be effectual to quicken the soul and cause it to beleeve but it self doth not promise to make us beleeve If it did forasmuch as that can be no other then an absolute promise then God doth promise in the Old-Testament namely Jer. 31. 31. that he will promise faith in the New But a promise to promise and that to the very same persons concerning the same benefit is so contrary to reason and runs such an infinite course of promising without beginning or ending that it may not be admitted But how doth Mr. Eyre prove his Assumption Thus. All the promises of God do belong either to the Covenaut of works or to the Covenant of grace The promise of faith is no part of the Covenant of works Ergo of the Covenant of grace Rep. I deny the proposition The promise of the Covenant of grace it self Of which Covenant is it a part of the Covenant of works or of the Covenant of grace not of the former for that promiseth no good to sinners Not of the latter for the Covenant it self is the thing promised If then the Covenant it self may be promised and yet that promise be no part of the Covenant may it not also be promised to be in such a manner or degree more or lesse efficacious and perfect and yet that promise in like manner be no part of the said Covenant Hence we answer the third argument If the promise of faith be an effect of Christs death then it is an effect of the Covenant already made for all the effects of his death are effects of the Covenant which was confirmed by his death Rep. I deny the consequence with the proof of it Not to question againe whether Christ merited the Covenant M. Eyre here acknowledgeth that he confirmed it in his death But that which confirmes the Covenant is no part of the Covenant for the whole Covenant is the thing confirmed Ergo all the effects of Christs death are not the effects of the Covenant which God hath made with us Yea and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations Gentiles as well as Jews that they thereby might be brought into Covenant is an effect of the death of Christ Eph. 2. 16 17. Colos 1. 20. But affording the means by which men may be brought into covenant is not an effect of the covenant In like manner the promise of a better covenant which God would make in the dayes of Christ a covenant more able and successefull in all respects may be very well yeelded to â—â— the effect of the death of Christ but it will by no means follâ—â— that therefore that promise is also an effect of the Covenant promised 4ly Thus he speaks The Scripture no where affirmes that faith is promised as a means to bring us into covenant or to invest us with a right and title thereunto Rep. Nor doth it any where say that it is promised as a part of the Covenant already made with us But it sayes that in sense which Mr. Eyre denyes and that in this very place supposing which Mr. Eyre hath not hitherto denyed that faith is included in those words I will put my laws into their minds c. For in these words as we are forced often to note is declared the successe of the new covenant above the old that it should enable men to beleeve that God may be their God and they his people But if it were not promised in this place yet the constant voyce of the Gospel is beleeve and thou shalt be saved Which words shew that faith is the means by which we obtaine the blessings of the Covenant What saith Mr. Eyre against it Nothing but this we may as well make Baptisme Sanctification Perseverance c. to which the promise of salvation is sometimes annexed means to bring us into Covenant Rep. Alas how frigidly where is the Scripture that saith Be baptized and thou shalt be saved or where doth it say to men that are strangers from the covenant persevere and you shall be saved Indeed they that have already received Christ are wont to be exhorted to holinesse and perseverance in the faith that they may not lose or forfeit their right Rev. 22. 14. and 21. 7. 2 John 8.
into covenant If the assumption be denyed we confirme it diversly 1. From the plaine scope of some places as Ezek. 37. 23. I will cleanse them So shall they be my people and I will be their God and chap. 14. 11. That they may be no more polluted with all their transgressions but that they may be my people and I may be their God Even as he is often said to have brought them out of Egypt which signifies spiritually the bringing of sinners out of the darknesse and slavory of a sinful condition into the way of life Jude v. 5. that he might be their God Lev. 11. 45. and 26. 45. and 25. 38. and 22. 33. Numb 15. 41. 2 Faith is promised for this end that we thereby might obtaine that which was promised to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt though they obtained it not because they continued not in Gods covenant Ergo it is promised as a means for this end that God may be our God and we his people The reason of the consequence is because this was that which the Lord said to Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt obey my voice so will I be your God and ye shall be my people Jer. 7. 23. and 11. 4. The antecedent is written with a Sun beam in the place under debate Jer. 31. 31. c. Where the writing of Gods Laws in our mind which in some other of the places mentioned is called the putting of a new Spirit within us and a causing us to walk in his statutes is most apparently promised as a means of obtaining that good which Israel by the covenant made with them in the day when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt did not obtaine for herein lay the imperfection and faultinesse of that covenant that they brake it and consequently that the Lord regarded them not In opposition to both which it is that God promiseth to write his Laws in their minds and so to be their God other things we referre till by and by It is therefore a truth beyond contradiction that the giving of the first grace is promised not as a part of the Covenant but as a means §. 4. and qualification on mans part for his entrance into covenant Let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it and first in generall from § 4. downward First he excepts against the fitnesse of my expression in calling our conversion the first grace which he saith is more properly spoken nf Gods eternall love or of Christ himself Answ But the question is onely understood of the grace of God in us which is more frequently called by the name of grace then either of the other two Jam. 4. 6. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 12. 28. and 13. 9. c. The first of which is faith or our conversion unto God But even in this sense saith Mr. Eyre inherent sanctification is unduly put in the first place which is a consequent both of justification and adoption Gal. 4. 5 6. though it be promised in Jeremy before remission of sins yet in other places it is put after it as Ezek. 36. 25. 26. Jer. 32. 38 39. Answ The former part is true of sanctification strictly and most properly taken for the habits of the life of holinesse opposed to the body of sin in us But in this sense I deny faith to be any part of sanctification and if Mr. Eyre doth thus interpret the promise of writing Gods Laws in our heart c. Then shall I also deny that faith in Christ is herein promised but onely a greater measure of grace to them that beleeve which will much advantage his cause But if sanctification be taken largely for any gracious workings of God upon the soul so as it includes faith it self then do I deny that it is any where in Scripture put after remission of sins The two places mentioned for of Gal. 4. 5 6. we speak below say nothing so Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle cleane water upon you and you shall be cleane from all your filthinesse and from all your Idâ—ls will I cleanse you Mr. Eyre takes it for granted that this is meant of pardon of sin and I acknowledge that sprinkling or washing with water doth sometimes also include that 1 Cor. 6. 11. But sometimes also it signifies our regeneration or conversion unto God Tit. 3. 5. and so do I understand it in this place for a through conversion of them from dumb Idols to the true and living God the former of which is more peculiarly intended v. 25. and the latter v. 26. my reason is because the cleansing of them from their Idols is expressely opposed to their defiling themselves with Idols chap. 37. 23. Neither shall they dâ—file themselves any more with Idols But I will cleanse them and that for this end that he might be their God Which by Mr. Eyres own acknowledgment includes remission of sin and therefore the said remission is not meant by cleansing them from their Idols otherwise the sense were this I will pardon their sin and so I will pardon their sin The second Text is Jer. 32. 38 39. They shall be my people and I will be their God and I will give them one heart and one way that they may feare me for ever for the good of them and of their children after them to which I adde the next verse v. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turne away from them to do them good c. Here indeed it cannot be denyed but that Gods giving a heart to feare him is mentioned after the promise of forgivenesse of sin included amongst other things in the words foregoing I will be their God But though it be mentioned after yet is it apparently mentioned as the means to this end that God may be our God I will give them a heart to fear me for the good of them and of their children The fear of God is promised for this end that he may do us good or as v. 40. that he may never turne away from us to do us good Ergo it is promised for this end that he may be our God because as we have shewed before for God to be our God is all one as to be our benefactor and to do us good Wherefore this verse followes the former in place or writing not in dependance declaring the way which God will take that he may be our God namely by putting his feare into our hearts and so advanceth what Master Eyre would prove from it by overthrowing it Secondly He utterly denyes that the giving of a new heart is §. 5. promised as a means on mans part for his entrance into covenant For 1. The Scripture no where affirmes it and it is weakly concluded hence because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recitall of the covenant c. Answ Whether it be
Which way doth this prove that Gods eternall Election is the thing in respect of which he is our God and we his people 4. That the said Covenant was a type of the Covenant made with Christ Yet againe The Prophet inferres this their relation unto God from his everlasting love Jeremiah 31. 1 3. Answ Negatur The Apostle likewise Romans 8. 31. Answer Negatur So 2 Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of God standeth sure The Lord knoweth who are his Implying that the Election and foreknowledge of God doth make men his Ans Mr. Eyre knows how Mr. Mede and others expound this place Prove 1. That by Gods foundation and knowledge is meant his Election and foreknowledg 2. That his are meant of his by Election It may be meant of such as are his by sincerity of faith 3. That if men were called his in reference to his Election of them it must therefore needs be understood in the same sense as when he is said to be our God and we his people The second Argument is this God is a God not only to his §. 3. people who are called and do believe but to their seed who are not called and do not yet beleeve As the God of Abraham and his seed So Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children This is the ground of Infant Baptisme Answ It is not then in reference to Election that God is said to be our God and we his people for certainly all the children of faithful Parents are not elected 2. The children of the faithful are altogether in the same Covenant with their Parents whiles by reason of their infant age they are in morall consideration raâ—â—er parts of their parents then divided from them by a personal subsistence of their own as not being then able either to owne or reject their Fathers Covenant Neverthelesse when they come of age they must themselves answer and fulfill the conditions of the Covenant as their Fathers did else will God call them as he did Israel Hos 1. 6 9. Lo Ammi Lo Ruhama ye are not my people nor will I be your God And thus I think are all those Covenants to be understood wherein God promiseth mercy to the faithful and to their seed God promised mercy to David and his house yet so that thy children take heed to their way to walk in my Law as thou hast walked before me 2 Chron. 6. 16. and chap. 7. 17 18 19. God promised mercy to Abraham and his seed by vertue of which promise he was gracious to the children that had not rebelled against him though the same promise profited not their Parents because of their unbelief Deut. 1. 39 40. With Heb. 4. 1 2. and often doth the Lord require of them to return to him and obey his voice that he might give them the blessings of their Fathers Covenant See Lev. 26. 40 41 42. Deut. 29. 12 13. and other places innumerable In like manner the promise is to you and your children saith Peter Act. 2. 39. therefore are they exhorted to repent and be baptized that they and their children might continue the people of God and partake in the full blessednesse promised long before and now exhibited in Christ Jesus The same promise is left to all in the Church under the Gospel Heb. 4. 1 2 c. But it concerns them to see that they do not fall short of it through unbelief as the Apostle there speaks The sum is God is the God of the infants of faithful Parents in signe whereof they are baptized But they when they are grown up must see that they personally fulfill the conditions of the Covenant otherwise God remaines no longer their God unlesse it be externall and in regard of outward Administrations which doth not concerne our question Thirdly thus he argues They whom the Lord hath purchased §. 4. to be a peculiar people to himself have the Lord to be their God Answ I deny this proposition Christ purchased his wife before he made her his wife and he purchased a people out of the hands of those Lords that ruled over them Sin Satan the Law and God himselfe as the Judge and Executioner of his Law before he made them his people Indeed Mr. Eyre tells us a little below that by the purchase of the blood of Christ we were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peculiar people Tit. 2. 14. when the text saies no such thing but the just contrary He gave himself for us that he might purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works He might as well say that by the death of Christ immediately we are made zealous of good works or redeemed from all iniquity that is made to deny all ungodlinesse and worldly lusts for that 's the meaning of those words here as appears by their opposition to verse 12. That which makes us a pâ—culiar or a choise and excellent people is Christs purifying us which purifying being the effect and end of his death is some other act then his dying for us Compare Eph. 5. 25 26. 2. This Argument contradicts the first There Mr. Eyre argued that God was our God and we his people by the act of eternal election if that be true then the purchase of Christ is not that which immediately makes God our God and us his people 3. The promise that God will be our God and we his people is no effect of Christs death if his purchase immediately made that God was our God and we his people for what was already done could not be promised to be done But saith Mr. Eyre What a man purchaseth he obtains a Legal right and propriety in therefore the Apostle concludes from hence that we are not our own but Gods because we are bought with a price 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. Answ A right Why I doubt not but God and Christ have a right not onely by creation but by redemption to the obedience and subjection of all the world at least wheresoever he comes by the Gospel to challenge it that they should not live to themselves but should wholly addict themselves to glorifie God in their souls and bodies Otherwise let Mr. Eyre tell me how men can be said to deny the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But if this were not so and that it were no sin in men to deny the Redeemer to be their rightfull Lord as the Apostle sayes he is Rom. 14. 9. What hath Mr. Eyre gained If I buy a piece of Land to make it a Garden an Orchard or a Vineyard 't is neither of these till I have made it so Or if I purchase a servants freedome that I may make him my heire some other act besides the meer purchase is necessary that he may be my heir In like manner if Christ purchase sinners that he may purifie them and make them his peculiar people they are not his people nor is he their God meerly because of his
purchase See Exod. 19. 5. We shall cleare all this by a distinction at the end of Mr. Eyres Arguments Mr. Eyre proceeds fourthly We receive faith it self upon this §. 6. account because we are Gods people Ergo God is our God before we believe The antecedent he proves Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba father So. Isa 48. 17. I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profâ—t Answ I deny the Antecedent The proof is such as I never expected to have met with from a Scholar and a Divine To Gal. 4. 6. I deny that the Spirit of the Sonne there mentioned is to be understood of faith but of that Spirit of prayer which includes that boldnesse liberty and confidence spiritual which God gives to them that are his Sonnes by faith For we are the Sonnes of God by faith in Jesus Christ saith this Apostle not farre before chap. 3. 26. and receive the Spirit of the Sonne through faith ver 14. a Spirit given to believers not a Spirit given to make men believers Joh. 7. 38 39. Rom 8. 14 15. for we are believers before we are Sons Joh. 1. 12. as to the other text Isa 48. 17. I consent to Junius that the meaning is Praesto quod mearum est partium not that they had actually believed which sense the very next ver contradicts but as Piscator in his Scholia upon the place because he had taught them ea quae apta vel comparata sunt ad prodessendum those things which if they had observed would have been very much for their profit and advantage Fifthly saith Mr. Eyre None do or can believe and repent §. 7. but they to whom the Lord doth manifest this grace That he is their God Ergâ— the Lord is our God before we beleeve and repent Answ This is strange Divinity that the soul must be assured by revelation that God is his God before he can believe or repent If this be true souls are in worse condition after they have repented and believed then before many faithful souls are groaning all their daies after this manifestation of God to be their God But what is the proof We châ—se and love him because he chose and loved us first Joh. 15. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. Hâ—â— 2. 23. And Burroughs Rivet and Zanchy are quoted to prove what That God begins with us first and makes us his people before we owneâ— him for our God Alas the thing to be proved is not that God gives faith and repentance of which there was never anâ— question between Mr. Eyre and me but that he is our God and we his people before he give it us we have shewed from Scripture that he gives faith that he may be our God and we his people And if God make us his people viz. by giving us faith and repentance before he be our God which is the sense of the Authours whom Mr. Eyre quotes have they not fairely proved his proposition viz. That none can believe and repent but they to whom God hath manifested himselfe to be their God His sixth and last Argument is They to whom God is a Father §. 8. and a Shepheard have the Lord for their God But God was our Father and Shepheard before we believed All the Elect are the sheep and children of Jesus Christ before they believed Joh. 10. 16. Isa 53. 10. Heb. 2. 13. Jer. 3. 19. Answ I deny the assumption Indeed the Elect are called the sheep of Christ Joh. 10. 16. not that they were his sheep at present for none of the qualities of sheep mentioned or not ment oned in that Chapter a gree to men dead in sinne and ungodlinesse and much lesse to men that are not and a shepheard actually there cannot be where there are no sheep but proâ—eptically from what they should be of which manner of speech we have given many instances before from Scripture Thus saith Abraham to his servant Gen. 24. 4 38. Thou shalt go unto my kindred and take a wife unto my Son Isaac Not that she was his wife or any mans else before he took her but because she was to be made his wife or she whom God had appointed for him ver 44. and if Abraham knowing Rebeckah had said to his man as is usual to be said amongst our selves in like cases I have a wife for my son in such a place it would have argued no more then that he had an intention if he could to make such a one his sonnes wife Thus a Qâ—est super Lâ—vâ—t cap. 23. Hieron in Ezâ—k 30. Augustine observes that before the ordination and sanctification of the Priests they are yet called by the name of Priests Exod. 19. 22. Non quia jam sacerdotes erant sed quia futuri erant hoc eos jam tunc Scriptura appâ—llavit per anticipationem sicut sunt pleraque talium locutionum Nam filius Nave Jesus appellatus est cum longe postea hoc nomen ei Scriptura narret impositum As to Isa 53. 10. and Heb. 2. 13. We have spoken to them often It should be proved and not only said that the seed and children there mentioned are meant precisely of the Elect. As to Jer. 3. 19. But I said how shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land and I said Thou shalt call me my Father and shalt not turn away from me Deodate gives the true sense viz. my will indeed is firme to re-establish you but true conversion is the only means and necessary condition of it God according to the order of government he hath established cannot give the inheritance of children to any but those whom he hath converted and made his children Junius upon the place to the same purpose Upon the survey of this whole dispute I have onely two things to §. 9. observe 1. That whereas I have proved the words of those covenant I will be their God and they shall be my people to be a promise made to them that beleeve of the many places in Scripture where those words are used Mr. Eyre cannot find us so much as one wherein they are applyed to men that are not converted unto God 2. His arguings from such passages of Scripture wherein men are sometimes said to be the Lords or to be Gods or the Lord thy God and the like conclude nothing till it be proved that such expressions imply as much and the same with those words in the Covenant I will be their God c. forasmuch as men may be said to be his and he theirs sometimes in some other sense then those words in the Covenant signifie All the earth is Gods and all the fullnesse thereof Psal 50. 12 10. 11. All men are his Ezâ—k 18. 4. generally whatsoever is made by him or used to his glory or subject to his government or separated more immediately
to his service as the Levites were Numb 3. 12. and the first borne Exod. 13. 2 12. or the like these in a generall sense are his So the Lord thy God a phrase which God often useth when he speaks to Israel mostly signifies the God whom they professed and externally worshipped or at least whom they ought to have worshipped as is to be seen in places without number Therefore it is not every sense in which we are called his or he ours which will conclude him to be our God in the covenant sense Jer 7. 23. compared with Jer. 31. 33. where it is plainly a promise of spiritual eternal universal and perfect blessednesse though gradually accomplished Accordingly neither did I use any of the foresaid texts or phrases though I might have used many with great advantage to prove either that I will be thy God c. contained all the blessings of the covenant on Gods part or that it is a promise made to them that beleeve and are converted but those plaine texts where these words are set down syllabically as the matter and summe of the Covenant nor can Mr. Eyre gaine any thing by the use of them till he hath better reconciled the Scriptures to his cause As to the following observation which I had from some learned Jewish and Christian writers viz. That God is never said to be our § 10. God in reference to his giving the first grace but onely in reference to the blessings which he promiseth to them that have faith My memory did a little faile me in the words but not at all in their sense If Mr. Eyre must needs know my authors they are b Upon Gen. 28. 13. R. Solomon Jarchi who saies that God is not in Scripture said to be the God of any whiles they are alive endeavouring to prove it out of Job 15. 15. c It is in Tanchum fol. 13. Col. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Nâ—n in venimus in Scriptura Deum nomen ejus junxisse hominibus justis â—um in vivis sunt ut scribe retur â—eus cujusâ—â—bet c. â— In Berachoth fol. 5. Col. 4 c. and assignes a peculiar reason why in that place of Gen. 28. 13. God saith he is the God of Isaack whilest Isaack was yet alive The same author doth there also repeat the words in Tanchuma though he do not quote the place where it is said The holy blessed God doth not joyne his name to the Saints while they are alive but when they are dead as it is said to the Saints which are on the earth c. and to the same purpose the Jerusalem d Targum though I know some of them and particularly More Nâ— voch part 3 cap. 51 Maimâ—â—des give a farre different reason of Gods calling himself the God of any one though with farre lesse probability As to the notion it self I seek no more from it then that God is called the God of a people or person in reference to the blessednesse and rewards which he gives to them especially that of a heavenly and eternal life And thus farre forth it is grounded on Scripture Rev. 21. 3 7. Otherwise I cannot conceive how our Lord concludes the resurrection from hence that he calls himself the God of Abraham the God of Isaack and the God of Jacob Matth. 22. 32. and the Apostle so expounds it Heb. 11. 16. He is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City which place firmlâ— shews that God is called their God in reference to the reward of a heavenly blessednesse specially which he gave them Mr. Eyre whether willingly or ignorantly himself best knows quite mistakes the Argument from the place as if it were no more but this God was the God of Abraham Isâ—ack and Jacoâ— who were beleevers Ergo he is not the God of any before they do beleeve No. The Argument is grounded in the Apostles interpretation of the phrase He is called their â—oâ— inasmuch as he hath prepared for them a City Neverthelessâ— â—f I had argued in his sense the Argument had been strong and undeâ—iable for their faith is mentioned as the reason upon wâ—â—ch God became a God unto them as appeares by the note of inference 〈◊〉 werâ—fâ—re Wherefore he is not ashamed to be called their God Hence the Argument is and let Master Fyre answer it if he can If Gods being the God of Abraham Isaack and Jacoh were a consequent of their faith then is it also a consequeâ—t of all other mens faith or he is not the God of any other before they beleeve the reason is because he is the God of all men in the same way Rom. 3. 29 30. But the first is cleare from the teâ—t Wherefore Ergo so is the last Mr. Eyres parallel if he will review it he will acknowledge to be rediculous and unworthy of an answer And as thus Gods being our God is clearly made a consequent of §. 11. faith so elsewhere our being his people is made a consequent of the same faith 1 Pet. 2. 10. In times past you were not a people but are now the people of God This saith Mr. Eyre is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant and not the reall participation or interest in the blessings of it Rep. 1. If the words be spoken of Jews to whom this Epistle is written chap. 1. 1. they were externally the people of God before and in reference to them it must be therefore something more that is here promised then that they shall be externally the people of God 2. If of Gentiles whom the Apostle also includes in this promise Rom. 9. 25. their condition had been happy if the want of an externall covenant had been the worst and they had had right and interest in Christ and everlasting life by some Covenant internall But all gentiles equally in their gentile state are strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2. 12. that is have no right to any of those blessings which pertaine to the houshold and City of God v. 19. no more then Spaniards or any other forreigners have a right to any of the priviledges honours preferments of the City of London or an Indian in America hath right to inherit with the Son of an Englishman 3. To be externally in covenant is to be in covenant by visible profession and it is opposed to him that is in covenant internally by true faith this is the usual sense of that distinction used by the Apostle for substance when he distinguisheth between a Jew outwardly and a Jew inwardly Rom. 2. 28 29 if M. Eyre have here the same sense as he seemes to haâ—e or at least willing to have then when the Apostle sayes you are now a people and Mr. Eyre interprets him of a people onely visible and external either he supposeth that they had faith long before the time he speaks of or that
the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching Because to preach the Gospel is no more then 1. To publish that the Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle themselves upon him for all the purchases of his death and in so doing confidently to expect the fruition of them Rep. Here are words enough but whether they tend I can scarcely see I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man If there be nâ—t what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this that it is the promise of the inheritance Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe I cannot imagine if not I would ask 2ly Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve it knows not why nor wherefore Paul gives a better reason of his faith Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises and that after so long a dispute that it is an absolute promise I said in the minor that every man is pressed to fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—st we fall short of it viz. by unbelief v. 2 3. No says Mr. Eyre The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession by a similitude taken from foolish racers c. Râ—p As who should say it is not faith but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise The promise mentioned is of such constitution as that our obtaining or not obtaining it is suspended upon our beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall questions 1. Whether there be §. 5. an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace No saith Mr. Eyre yet the generall promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith because faith doth not receive it self But the covenant which is to be preached to every man is the promise of that good which faith receives for the covenant and the promise are all one in Scripture Gal. 3. 17 18 21. Ergo the absolute promise is not the Covenant I asked 2ly Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies yes For to lay hold of the Covenant is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve not to be beaten off c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely presumption but naturally impossible for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God without a promise and a command to lay hold of it But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant which it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne be admitted into that I asked farther whether if the Covenant be an absolute promise §. 6. men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute promise Mr. Eyre answers The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose himself acknowledgeth in his next words Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent and not the cause of their destruction We seek therefore an answer That 's this formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve If it doth it is not an absolute promise if it doth not their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant in which yet the Apostle placeth the heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not
they were but hypocrites now both which are absurd If he use the distinction in any other sense I know neither Scripture nor reason to justifie it 4. What manner of people they now were and formerly had not been is set down v. 9. Yea are a choice generation a royall priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people c. all which they were internally if Mr. Eyres glosse be true even while they were a generation of Vipers base idolaters a prophane people defiled with all manner of abominations yea and multitudes many years before they are borne for this internall covenant is nothing else but Gods election or Christs purchase 5. These words in Peter are taken out of Hos 2. 23. which text Mr. Eyre urged but even now in that very sense which here he opposeth 6. The former part of the verse is an universal negative you are sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a people Ergo whatsoever God had done for them towards their salvation before their conversion was not sufficient to denominate them to be a people of God 7. Especially when it follows but now you are the people of God which being the accomplishment of that promise so frequent in Scripture they shall be my people containes more then a promise of that whereof a hypocrite or a hypocritical people is as capable as themselves CHAP. XVII A Reply to Mr. Eyres 21 Chapter being a vindication of the additionall Arguments proving the Covenant to be conditionall SECT I. AT the close of my Sermon I added foure brief Arguments proving that we are not in Covenant §. â— with God beâ—ore we beleeve The first was this Isa 55. 3. Come unto me that is beleeve on me Joh. 6. 35. and I will make an everlasting covenant with you Mr. Eyre answers 1. The particle vaâ— may be taken illatively thus come unto me For I will make an everlasting covenant with you Rep. 1. If this be the sense of the words yet at first sight 't is evident that the rationall particle for notes the following words to be a reason or motive to that act which is here called a coming unto God that is beleeving Ergo the words still suppose that we must beleeve before God make a covenant with us for his making the Covenant is proposed as the end of our coming Or 2. saith he If we take the words as they are rendred they are all one as if he had said I will performe or give you all other benefits promised in my everlasting Covenant Rep. This also yeelds the Argument for hereby it is acknowledged that faith is required as the means which we are to use for obtaining all other blessings of the covenant and a means for obtaining good things by anothers promise is formalissime a condition faith therefore is yeelded to be the condition of obtaining pardon of sin and all other blessings besides it self which is that Mr. Eyre hath hitherto disputed against What follows in this answer hath been spoken to largely already and to what purpose it is mentioned here againe I apprehend not My second Argument was this The voice of the Gospel which §. 2. is the covenant of grace is every where Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved in opposition to the covenant of works which saith do this and live Rom. 10 5. 6 9. This is the Covenant whereof Christ is mediatour Heb. 9. 15 that they that are called unto faith shall receive the promise of the eternall inheritance Mr. Eyre answers The Gospel properly and strictly taken consists neither in precepts nor promises of the New-Testament but in the declaration of these glad tidings that the promises which God made unto his people in the Old-Testament are now fulfilled Rep. This is indeed a prime part of the Gospel but no otherwise then as it tends to hold forth Christ Jesus as the onely and most sufficient cause or author of salvation to as many as will beleeve on him and therefore the whole doctrine of the Gospel is summarily comprehended in this that whosoever beleeves shall be saved Mark 1. 14 15. and 16. 15 16. Matth. 4. 17. 23. Heb. 4 1 2. Act. 20. 20 21 and a hundred other places If the Gospell have no precept how are men then professedly subject to it 2 Cor. 9. 13. Or what is it to obey or not obey the Gospel Rom. 10. 16. 2 Thes 1. 8 1 Pet 4. 17. But what is the direct answer to the Argument This. The command of beleeving with the promise of life to beleevers are parts of our ministry they are not the tenor of the Gospell or New Covenant Rep. 1. A strange answer our ministry is the ministry of the Gospell Ergo when we command men to beleeve with a promise of life we preach the Gospel Ergo such a command and promise are parts of the Gospel 2. Yea they are the summe of all we preach if we preach no more then the Apostles Rom. 10. 8 9. The word of faith which we preach and yet surely the Apostles were ministers of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3. Then Mr. Eyre tells us againe that the tenor of the New Covenant is I will put my Laws into their hearts c. And I can but answer him againe that not the tenor but the matter of the effects of the New Covenant are there described Act. 5. 31. Christ is said to be exalted to give repentance and remission of sin to Israel Is not therefore repentance to be preached in his Name for the remission of sin or may we not say repent that your sins may be blotted out To Heb. 9. 15. He answers as to other texts formerly that it describes onely the persons that are saved but not the tearmes or means by which they do obtaine salvation Seest thou not Reader how faith is denyed to be so much as the meanes of salvation and no more ascribed to it then to eating drinking sleeping reasoning crying or the like which do all of them in some degree describe the quality and condition of the persons that shall be saved Though I confesse not from that which is proper and peculiar to them but that alters not the case But of these things more at large before Hitherto we have not one Scripture example of such phrase of speech serving onely for a description My third Argument is this The Covenant which is to be preacheed §. 3. to every man and every man called upon to fulfill the conditions of it namely faith that he may receive the blessings of it is not an absolute promise The Covenant of grace is to be preached to every man and every man called upon to fulfill the conditions of it that he may receive the blessings of it Ergo I have put it thus into forme because Mr. Eyre quarrels at the forme He yeelds That the Gospel or Covenant of grace ought to be preached to every creature Marke 16. 15. Matthew 28. 19. But denyes that