CHAP. I. Being a Vindication of my Sermon preached at N. Sarum, shewing that Union to Christ, and Justification by Christ is not Antecedent to Faith.

ABout April (which was Anno 1652.) according to my course in the Lecture at New Sarum, I preached the foregoing Sermon, grounded up­on the second to the Ephesians the 12. vers. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the co­venants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.

From which words the Point observed was this, That a Christlesse estate is a Hopelesse estate; for the explication and proof of the Point, I referre the Reader to the Sermon it self.

That which I chiefly aimed at was to shew, that the very Elect are said to be without Christ, or in a Christless estate untill actu­all faith; because without union to Christ, there is no com­munion with him, but this union is the formall effect of faith, or is made by believing. After the Sermon, Mr. Eyre took liberty to remonstrate, and since in his Vindiciae Justifie, he hath declared to the world, that I said, ‘That the Elect them­selves, (to whom Christ was peculiarly given by the Father before the foundations of the world, for whom Christ gave himself a sacri­fice of a sweet smelling savour, whose sins he bare on his body on the tree, even to a full propitiation,) had no right or interest in Christ; nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates, till they did be­lieve, and that they are but dreamers who conceit the con­trary.’

To which I answer, that as he hath a faculty to speak of o­thers what they never said, so he can hear what they never spake; he hath innovated my tearmes, of which as in our conference, (so in his Printed relation, where he is no lesse peccant,) he was always wittingly, (as I conceive) guilty, which because I minded him of before the people; he stiles in his Book a provocation of language which I gave him.

But to the matter, because I intend not a strife of words, I shall first readily grant him, that the Elect were given to Christ by the Father before the foundations of the world, and Christ to them; if he understand it onely of an immanent act terminated in God himself, and understand by it no more then an eternall purpose in God, to give Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for those whom in his eternal counsel he had fore-ordained to eternal life, and to give them faith whereby they may become his members; but if he judge this to be actually done, and that Christ and all the Elect were one mystical bo­dy, and so justified from eternity, I wholly dissent from him; Predestination is only a love of purpose and intention, not of execution; it being an immanent act, leaveth no positive reall effect upon the person predestinated. Hence when God [Page 33] is said to give Christ to the Elect from eternity, it signifies only the will and purpose of God, constituting and appointing Christ to die for the Elect, (but he was not actually given till in the fulnesse of time he sent him into the world; and although in his death he gave him to die for them, yet was he not actually given to them, that they should possesse the benefits of his death until actuall faith; and I shall further manifest this, when I shall prove that an immanent act of God purposing to justifie us, is not our formal justification.

Secondly, Whereas he saith, that Christ gave himself a sacri­fice of a sweet smelling savour, and bare our sins in his body on the tree, even to a ful propitiation: This I willingly acknowledge, and blesse the Lord for; if he understand it only of the fulness of satisfaction, and not of an immediate discharge of the sinner for whom he died; Christ did not satisfie the justice of God by divine acceptation, but he satisfied the justice of God fully; the dignity and excellency of his person did no way dispense with any degree of the extremity of the punishment due to our sin, (which was consistent with his Godhead and holynesse to suffer) but it was to make the sufferings of one available for ma­ny. And Scotus gives a considerable reason for it, quia poenâ ab unà eximere Christum si valuisset, valuisset etiam ex duabus, Scotus in quar. Sentent. dist. 46. Q. 4. Art. 4. atque ita ex omnibus eum emancipare. And I acknowledge there was not a deficiency, but a redundancy of merit in his sufferings; the justice of God cannot require any thing more at the hands of Christ our surety, or of the sinner by way of satisfaction, and in this sense he is well pleased with Christ as a publick person; but if by a full propitiation he understand an immediate dis­charge of the sinner from condemnation before faith, to apply the benefits of Christs death; this I deny, and will make manifest in its peculiar and proper place; Where I shall shew it is no wrong either to Christ, or the Elect person, that the benefit of Christs death is suspended till faith. And in this sense I ac­knowledge, that the Elect had no actual right, or interest in Christ, if you take it for jus in re, and not for jus adrem, be­cause his death was intended for their benefit; not for the re­probate, though they have not actual benefit, and possession of the good things purchased untill faith. In respect of Gods, and Christs intention in his death, surely an Elect person hath more [Page 34] right to the benefits of Christs death then the reprobate, it being intended effectually for Peter and not for Judas; and by vertue of this, faith shall be given to apply it to all for whom Christ died, and so they have a right to the thing; but in respect of any right in the thing it self, or actual discharge of the sin­ner, I acknowledge in this respect, there is no present dif­ference between the Elect and reprobate; this is that which soundeth so harsh in Mr. Eyre's eare, which I shall sufficient­ly cleare when I produce in its due place Scripture-authority, and Arguments to confirme it.

I shall now onely vindicate it from those monstrous absurdi­ties, that he unjustly loades it with.

First, he saith, Nothing could be spoken more contradictory to plain Scriptures; but produceth not one place to confirme it, but re­ferres us to such Scriptures as he forceth to speak in defence of his own opinion, where we shall examine whether what we affirme or he maintaines, be most agreeable to the truth; on­ly I shall instance in two Scriptures to relieve this truth.

The first is in Ephesians 2.1, 2, 3. where the Apostle tel­leth the Elect Ephesians, whom God had ordained to life, and for whom Christ died, that they were dead in sins and tres­passes; Wherein they walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the aire, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; into which number in the third ver. he puts himself and all believers before their conver­sion, and saith, that they were children of wrath by nature, as well as others; where the Apostles scope is to shew the freenesse of Gods grace in saving them by faith in Christ, by an argument drawn from the change of their estate; he telleth them the time was they were children of wrath, as unable to help themselves, as the dead to raise themselves to life, therefore their deliverance was by grace. Where by children of wrath, the Apostle must mean an estate and condition opposite to their present estate of salvation, and justification, into which they are now brought by the grace of God, and merit of Christ by faith.

Else first the Apostles Argument from the change of their estate were invalid. Now if they would know when they were children of wrath, seeing God loved them as elect from eterni­ty, and they were redeemed by Christ; He answers, that it was [Page 35] when they were dead in sins and trespasses, and walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the aire, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, and then they were children of wrath; but thus they did walk and live before faith and regeneration were wrought.

2. Such an estate of condemnation is here meant, as others are in that are the men of this world, children of disobedience, [...], children of unbelief, which notes a refra­ctory contumacious disobedience of unbelief seated in the will, which is more then [...], which is remissible, [...] is ir­remissible, being a note of finall imperswasibility;1 Tim. 1.13. Paul was sometime a childe [...], but not [...]; and therefore when the Apostle saith, their condition by nature was such as theirs, that are children of disobedience, a note of such that shall perish; surely they were such as were in an unjustified estate.

3. If it be such an estate wherein they were dead in sins and trespasses, did walk according to the prince of this world, and ac­cording to the prince of the power of the aire, the spirit that now ef­fectually worketh in the children of disobedience, having their con­versation in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh; surely this was inconsistent with salvation, and the estate of ju­stification; God cannot justifie a man with imputed righteous­nesse, but at the same time he sanctifieth him by imparted,Prov. 17.15. and inherent righteousnesse: It is not agreeable to the purity and holinesse of Gods nature to justifie a wicked man; for He that justifieth the wicked, & be that condemneth the just: even they both are abomination to the Lord; and what God condemnes in others, he will not do himself, therefore they were not then justified. Nor doth the Apostle make a naked comparison between the two e­states and conditions derived from the first and second Adam; but compares the same persons not barely in relation to these, but as being really in both these estates, at a different time; be­ing under the first before conversion, and passing from it upon believing, where it is observeable, that the Apostle doth not say, ye are by nature children of wrath, which is all Mr. Eyre will acknowledge, as you may see, pag. 111. but ye were children of wrath; he speaks of a condition they were in, and delivered from.

The second Scripture is in the 1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankinde, nor thieves shall inherit the Kingdome of God; such were some of you, but you are washed, but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus. Where you see the Elect Corinthians were while unsanctified, such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God, and therefore were in the same estate with other persons till they were washed and justified; where he maketh an evident opposition between the time past and present, they were then such as could not in­herit eternal life, and therefore were justified; for if they were then justified, what could hinder their salvation? And he saith, but you are justified; he doth not say, but you were justi­fied, restraining their justification to the time present upon their faith, and sanctification being an evidence of the truth of that faith, that makes him put their sanctification before their justi­fication; so that you see the Apostle affirmes while they were un­sanctified, they could not inherit the Kingdome of God; that is, they had no right to it by justification, and were uncapable of it; but upon the change of their estate by faith, they were justified by Christ, of which change in the judgement of cha­rity he concludes, by their sanctification: Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie, that be­fore faith and effectuall vocation, they are no more freed from condemnation then others?

2. He saith, It is wide from the Orthodox Faith.

To which I answer, first by retortion, that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith; because, pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes,Mr. Eyre vin­dic. pag. 66. Num. 2. [Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God, yet not in the persons them­selves, till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth.

Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present differ­ence; for, Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato, is a known rule.

Secondly, It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox, that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate, as to present enjoyment, untill actual faith; in­deed they hold in this respect a difference, which I never questi­oned; [Page 37] that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath, yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery; and to leave the reprobate,Rom. 9.13. in which respect God is said to love Jacob, and to hate Esau; and in this respect,Acts 13.48. all that God hath ordained to life, shall believe; and whosoe­ver the Father giveth unto Christ, they shall come; for,2 Tim. 2.19. The foundation of God standeth sure, the Lord knoweth who are his; but on the other hand, for the present there is no difference; both are children of wrath, both are without Christ, both aliens to the Covenant of Grace, having no promise of the pardon of sin, both without hope in the world, only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them; so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica. p. 188.Burgess. of Ju­stific. p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him; I will propound three others of unquestionable authority; Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3. drawes this observation from it.

First, then (saith he) we have to consider how that the cho­sen of God before their conversion have nothing in them d [...]ffer­ing from other sinners; the Election of God standeth sure,Vide Calv. In­stitut. Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually, it doth put nothing in the party Elect­ed; so where you may see more to this purpose: And he gives two reasons why God will have it so.

1. That the mercy of God may be magnified, and made ma­nifest in the free grace of Justification.

2. That love may be engendred in us, being justified; Mary who had many sins forgiven, loved much; so that eminent ser­vant of Christ, Dr. Tayl. in his Commen. upon Titus, ch. 3. v. 3.Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith, have experience of a double estate in themselves; once in time past, and ano­ther for the present; the one of nature, the other of grace. And a little after: And good reason there is, that he that is now be­loved, should see that once he was not beloved; and that he who now is in the state of grace, should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others, which will cause him to love much: And indeed the Elect could not be Elect, nor justified, nor washed, if they were alwayes the children of God; and were it not for this once, and time past, wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate, but only in Gods [Page 38] counsel and possibility of calling. Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth; Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quàm ad alium quemvis, sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum. Camero, opusc. misc. p. 534. And that he was no Arminian, is evident by what he saith in another place: Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter (ut loquntur) satisfecisse docent, efficaciter au­tem pro solis piis. Cam. opusc. misc. p. 534. Sect. 6.

Thirdly, he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atone­ment made by Christs death; If this could be proved, there need­ed no further argument to silence me; yea, it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth, then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth, or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings; he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy, that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ.

I therefore answer, that if Christ had died to purchase for­givenesse of sins whether we believe or not, this argument would have some strength in it, then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith, were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ; but Christ did not so die for the Elect, that whether they believe or not believe, they should be saved; therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith, is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death.

Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts, and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion, That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt, Mr. EYRE, p. 138, 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities; and there­fore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby, should be immediate, because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity, that a debt when it is paid, should be charged either upon the surety, or principal.

I will here lay down sundry conclusions, which may serve to vin­dicate our doctrine, that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith, as to a formall justification of the sinner, and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument; from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time [Page 39] of Christs death, antecedent to their faith.

First, therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person, and a surety for the Elect, taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation. That the act of Gods Ordination, toge­ther with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life,John 10.18. and his voluntary consent and submission to become a sure­ty for the Elect,Heb. 10.7, 9. (for it was not imposed upon him by con­straint, therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will, his own will is included;John 10.18. And no man took away his life from him, but he did lay it down of himself;) this act of Ordina­tion in God, and submission in Christ, together with his free dominion over his own life, (which dominion he had, both by vertue of the hypostatical union, and the command of the Father to lay it down,) accompanied with sufficient power to break through the sufferings he undertook, and to raise up himself a­gain; all this constituted Christ God-man, being perfectly righteous, a fit person to become a surety; and now it was just and righteous, that Christ an innocent person should be charged with the sins of the Elect.

Secondly, I grant that no creature that was only a creature, whether Angel or man could or ought to undertake this work.

1. No Angel ought, because Gods justice required that satis­faction should be given by the same nature that had sinne;Bernard de pass. Dom. 1. Cap. 46. nor was it meet he should be man only, that our redemption and salvation might be attributed to none but him from whom we had our creation, for that reason which Bernard alledgeth, be­cause our redemption would more oblidge us to love, then our creation; if therefore we had been redeemed by any other then him by whom we were made, we should have loved him more then our Creatour. Neither could any pure creature be fitly qualified for this work; for whatever the creature can do, is already debitum, a due debt, and therefore it cannot supper-ero­gate, or merit any thing for us.

Thirdly, I grant therefore that Christ was God and Man, and that it was needful he should be both.

1. He must be God that must satisfie God; for God was [Page 40] offended; and therefore to make satisfaction, God in our nature satisfieth for our sin: So that here is God, satisfying God; that if the sin be infinite in the object, the satisfaction is infinite in respect of the subject suffering, God in our nature; and although his sufferings were not infinite in duration, (nor was there need they should be, because he satisfied for such sins as should be broken off by repentance; And his end was in suf­fering to satisfie, therefore his sufferings must have an end,) yet his sufferings were unmeasurably great; and what was wanting in the shortnesse, was made up in the sharpnesse of the sufferings, and it was impossible Christ should be held under the sorrows of death; the duration of the prisoner in the Jayle is no part of the debt, but accidentall to it, he lies there but till the debt be paid; Now Christ paid all, so as fully to satisfie the justice of God; and hence there was no need of his eternal suffering. Be­sides, it was needful he should be God, that his obedience might be perfect, and meritorious, to dignifie his obedience, and make it of infinite value, that he might merit and support himself un­der his suffering, and raise up himself again, and performe the rest of the works of the Mediatourship.

And it was needful he should be Man; for as he was God he could not suffer; and that he might, as justice requireth, satisfie in our nature, that our pardon might not be an act of do­minion only, and forgivenesse, but an act of justice and satis­faction.

Fourthly, I willingly grant that Christ did suffer whatsoever ap­pertaines to the substance and essentials of the first death, or the death naturall, consisting in the separation of soul and body; and though the curse doth not require any one particular death, yet that the Lord might shew the hainousnesse of sin, which de­serves the worst death of all, and that the love of Christ might be manifested, and Gods justice declared; God the Fa­ther appointed it, and Christ undertook it, to die the death of the Crosse, a shameful and base death, appropriated to the worst of malefactors,Phil. 2.6, 8. to shew the hatefulnesse of sin, and the great­nesse of Christs humiliation, and love in submitting to it; he humbled himself to the death of the Crosse.

2. I willingly grant Christs suffered and endured most grie­vous [Page 41] torments immediately in his soul, (not by sympathy with the body only, but peculiar to his soul; all that was due to the sins of the Elect, that was consistent with his Godhead and Holiness;Catechismus Romanus. 4. Art. Symb. Aquinas, Part. 3 q. 46. art. 5, 6. the Papists deny not that he suffered inward grief in his soul, and Aquinas that he suffered the greatest sorrow that could be; but I affirme for quantity Christ might, and did in this life endure the paines of hell, (he did not locally descend into the place of the damned,) he did indure the same that was due to us, for substance and kinde, though not in all accidents that belong to it; he suffered and felt that heavy wrath of God due to mans sin; his soul was so struck with horrour, that all faculties for a time left there proper fruction, and did concurre to relieve na­ture in that extremity; he lay under the revenging stroakes of Gods justice due to mans sin; it put him into a bloody sweat in the forethought of it, and made him cry earnestly, If it be possible, let this cup passe; My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? God for a time withdrew the solace and comfort he was wont to finde in him; that sensible refreshing of the light of Gods countenance, which was wont to fill him with satisfa­ctory sweetnesse, was for a time withdrawn, which is a part of the second death, and answers to the pain of losse; yet in all his time the union of the Manhood with the Godhead was un­touched; though there was a withdrawing of the sense and sweetnesse of the favour of God, his righteousnesse and graces were no way diminished; he was most pure in his passion, free from all sin; Christ brought none of this upon himself by his own sin, but was called to this work; and in all this confl [...]ct his faith was unshaken, crying out, My God, even when to his pre­sent sense and feeling he was forsaken.

Fifthly, I willingly grant that Christs death and sufferings was a very valuable compensation for the sin of man; yea, he satis­fied Gods justice to the full, not by divine acceptation, God abated him nothing for the dignity of his person, but he fully satisfied for the substance, what the justice of God could fully inflict; yea, in respect of some circumstances, he suffered more then was due; indeed in respect of the substance of his sufferings, neither, asParker, lib. 3. de discon. li. 51. p. 97. Mr. Parker hath observed, the love of the Father, nor the justice of God could permit more to be imposed, then what was necessary for him to bear as a surety.

Quoad substantiam poenae nihil plus perpessus est Christus, quàm quod per legem debebatur, neque enim vel amor Patris, vel etiam justitia, permittere potuit, plura Filio ut imponerentur, quàm quae illi necessariò, tanquam sponsori ferenda erant.

Quoad circumstantias autem, patientis personam, patiendi cau­sam, p [...]ssionis efficaciam, plus quàm sufficiens satisfactio Christi & à nobis dicitur.

In respect of circumstances, as the person of the sufferer, the cause of suffering, and efficacy of the passion, it was more then the Law required, as he sheweth; forLex non requirebat, ut Deus moreretur neque, ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur; neque re­quirebat mort [...]m talem tantae effi­caciae quae esset, ut non mortem abolere [...] solùm sed etiam vitam in­troduceret, eàmque illâ quam Adamus terresti perdedirat mul­tis nominibus praecellentiorem. the Law did not require that God should die, nor that any should die that had not sinned, nor such a death of such effica­cy, as not only to abolish death, but to bring in life, and that by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam had lost; so then Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the Elect, so as that God neither will, nor can in justice require any thing more at the hand of the surety, nor of the sinner for whom he died by way of satisfaction.

Sixthly, It will not be denied that God may be said to be re­conciled in some sense by the death of Christ as a meritorious cause, by death removing the cause of enmity, and meriting the favour of God for us; for although God loved us from eterni­ty, yet this was amor ordinativus, not collativus; God did bear them good will in time, to make them heires of grace and glo [...]y by Jesus Christ;B [...]ll on the Covenant of Grace, p. 292. and this excludes not, but includes the necessity of Christs satisfaction; but such as God did Elect, he did not love them as already made heires of Grace, by the influ­ence of his love.

For the full understanding of this you must know, that al­though God d [...]d so love the Elect, as to fore-ordaine them unto eternal salvation; yet it was never the will of God that his Elect should for no space of time be children of wrath, that is, subject unto death, and eternall damnation for their sins; but he did decree to permit them to fall in Adam, and to be equally guilty of, and liable to eternal death with others; for which cause the [Page 43] Apostle calls them children of wrath as well as others. Man being created after Gods own Image, free from sin before the fall, was intimately conjoyned to God; God loving and delighting in man, and man loving and delighting in his God; but man lap­sed by voluntary Apostasie from God, there is an avulsion of the creature from God, and an aversion of God from the creature; and by this sin, the Covenant of friendship between God and man is dissolved; so that God who loved man, created by him as his childe, and from eternity willing him good, (for I speak only of the Elect) in justice cannot but hate him now, as corrupted by sin, as a rebell against him; not by any change of affection, but of his outward dispensation; and having inclu­ded him under guilt as a son of Adam, he is equally involved in the wrath due to that sin, which God hath threatened with eternal death, and resolved by an immutable decree, never to pardon it to any without a satisfaction to his offended justice for the breach of his Law, that the truth of his threatning may be fulfilled, and the authority of his Law preserved, and the evil of sin discovered, and Gods exceeding love and mercy in a way mixt with mercy, and justice may be manifested in the sal­vation of his Elect: So that although there be a new relation in the Elect upon their fall in Adam unto God; yet the change is in the creature, and not in God; for as the Schoolmen well ob­serve, these relations which are attributed unto God in time, as a Creatour, Father or Lord, put not any new thing in God; but there is an extrinsecal denomination added to him; so that when the world is created, God who was not a Creatour be­fore, is now a Creatour; thus when sin took hold of the Elect, he that once was a childe of love, is now a childe of wrath, not by any new accident in God, but by a new effect in the creature; so that in this estate, God cannot bestow upon him the good in­tended in election.

For the better understanding of this, that of Aquinas is of great use; God may velle mutationem, where he cannot mutare volun­tatem; God may will a change, though he doth not change his will: Thus in Adam, while he continued a man after Gods I­mage, free from sin, God willed him to be the object of his love and delight; and when he was fallen, to be the subject of [Page 44] his displeasure and anger, in the effects of it, being liable unto his wrath, and eternall death; yet is not here a change in God, but in Adam: Thus God with the same will decreed from eter­nity, to make such a one a vessel of mercy, and yet to permit him to sin, and fall in Adam, and so to remaine a childe of wrath, deserving condemnation, wherein God cannot actually save him, (considering his decree,) without a satisfaction by Christ applied by faith. Here is a change, and a very great one in man, but not in God; a new relation, yet no new immanent act in God. Thus we may understand that of venerable Beda in the 5.Beda in Rom. 5. ad Rom. Deus miro modo quando nos oderat, diligebat; odit in unoquoque nostrûm quod feceramus, amavit quod fecerat: When God did hate us, he wonderfully loved us; he hated that in all of us that we had done, he loved what he had made; that is, as the School­men say, Dilexit humanum genus quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit, odit quantum ad culpam quam homines contraxerunt: He loved mankinde in respect to the nature he had made, or as his creature, and hated him as a sinner. But now through the satisfaction of Christ, God is so farre reconciled, that the cause of enmity is removed; although it was agreed upon between the Father and Christ, as I shall shew without any wrong to Christs satisfaction, that the benefit shall not be enjoyed till faith; yet the cause of enmity is causally taken away by the death of Christ, as Aquinas speaks well in this case,

Aquin. p. 3 qu. 49. Artic. 4. Non dicimur reconciliati, quasi Deus de novo nos amare inciperet, nam aeterno amore nos dilexit, sed quia per hanc reconciliationem sublata est omnis odi causa, tum per ablationem peccati, tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris boni.

Aug. in Joh. Tract. 110.And before him Augustine. Quòd reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Christi, non sic audiatur, non sic accipiatur, quasi ideò nos reconciliaverit illi Filius, ut jam amare inceperit quos oderat, sed jam nos Deo diligenti reconciliati sumus, cum quo propter pecca­tum inimicitias habebamus.

Lombard. l. 3. distin. 19 pag. 596. Lombard also gives in his suffrage in the like manner: Recon­ciliati sumus Deo, ut dit Apostolus, quod non sic intelligendum est, quasi nos ei sic reconciliaverit Christus, ut inceperit amare quos ode­rat, sicut reconciliatur inimicus in [...]ico, ut deinde sint amici qui ante se odorant, sed jam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus, non [Page 45] enem ex quo illi reconciliati sumus per sanguinem Filii, nos coepit di­ligere, sed ante mundum, priusquam nos aliquid essemus; ergo nos diligenti Deo sumus reconciliati? propter peccatum cum eo ha­bebamus inimicitias, & Paulò pòst, reconciliat autem cum offendi­oula hominum tollit ab oculis Dei.

And Calvin concurreth in the same opinion,Calvin. instit. l. 2. c. 16. Num. 2.3. In hunc ferè modum Spiritus sanctus in Scripturis loquitur Deum fuisse homini­bus inimicum, in gratiam Christi morte sunt restituti; hujus gene­ris locutiones (inquit Calvinus) ad sensum nostrum sunt accomoda­tae, ut meliùs intelligamus quàm misera sit, & calamitosa extra Christum nostra conditio.

Hence then we see, that there is a reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ, which imports not a change in Gods will, as if God did then first begin to love, or will well unto us, as if he did hate, and will to damne us before; for then we must ad­mit of a proper change in the will of God, proceeding from an external cause, which is contrary to Scripture, and sound reason: for as Rutherford hath well observed:Ruth. Apollex­ere. p 37. Actus reconciliandi nihil novi ponit in Deo, neque meritum Christi, vel divinam volun­tatem movet, vel Deum ex nolente in volentem, ex odio nos habente, in diligentem, (ut fabulatur Grevinchovius,) transmature potest. Grevinch. pag. 109. 1. Quia Deus est immutabilis. 2. Quia divinae voluntatis cau­sa non magis dari potest quàm ipsius Dei.

But whereas we lay under wrath deserved by sin, Christ hath causatively removed by his death the guilt of sin, and so meri­toriously reconciled us to God; so that God is not only now placabilis by the death of Christ, but placatus; for he was pla­cabilis from eternity, or else he had never given Christ; but now in respect of the satisfaction given, he is placatus thus far, that we lie no more, (that are the Elect) under an indispensable necessity of perishing, which we did before till satisfaction given; and this is the formal effect of Christs death, and this act of reconciliation, which is a transient act done in time, compleat­eth not the action of Election, as Wallaeus seemes to affirme,Wallaerus Cont; Corvinum, c. 25. p. 155. and superaddes no new thing in Gods will, which was not there before; but it removes causatively, and meritoriously, that that was the cause of enmity, which hindred God from being able accor­ding to justice (supposing his Decree) to bestow the good [Page 46] things intended in Election, and this reconciliation (I grant) is plainly held forth in these Scriptures, Rom. 5.10. Isa. 53.10. Col. 1.21. Col. 2.14. 2 Cor. 5.19. 1 Pet. 2.24. John 1.29. but this reconciliation is not our formal justification, as I shall now prove, but virtual only. And therefore I adde,

Seventhly, That this reconciliation wrought by Christ, or re­moval of guilt, causatively by his death and satisfaction, is not properly, and formally our justification: I therefore affirme with Mr Rutherford, Ruther. Trial and Triumph of Faith, p. 162. ‘that this was a paying of a ransome for us, and a legal translation of the punishment of our sins; but it is not justification, nor ever called justification;’ but rather, as he also judiciously hath observed, it is justificationis fundamentum, whose words are these:Ruther. Apol. exer [...]. p. 42. Satisfactio ut à Christo praestita non est justificatio, quia est Dei justificantis fundamentum; And therefore, his death was ever looked upon by Divines, as the procatarctical, or outward moving cause of the transient act of God in justification, which is properly our justification, it is a transient act of God upon Believers, which he never did passe till then; so saith Mr. Rutherford, and therefore Mr. Eyre can­not shelter his opinion under Mr. Rutherfords authority; ‘Sa­tisfaction,Ru her. Trial and Triumph of Faith. p. 62. (saith he) is given indeed by Christ on the Crosse for all our sins before we do believe, and before any justified person, who lived these fifteen hundred years be borne; but alas, that is not justification, but only the meritorious cause of it; and a little after, Justification is a forensical sentence, in time pronounced in the Gospel, and applied unto me now; and never while this instant now, that I believe.’

Now for the further clearing and evidencing this truth, that we are not actually justified untill faith:Joh. 3.15, 16. Mark 16.16. Acts 13.38, 39. Acts 16.31. Rom. 10.2. Phil. 3.9. I shall lay down sun­dry Propositions to make this manifest, and that it is no wrong either to Christ, or the Elect, that this benefit is suspended until faith, besides the clear light of the Scripture, as you may see in the Margin.

First, Therefore there is a twofold payment of a debt, one of the thing altogether the same, which was in the Obligation; another of a thing not altogether the same. That payment which is of the same thing, either by our selves, or our surety, is not refusable by the Creditour; so that if we had paid it, or Christ [Page 47] had been constituted a surety by us to pay it, then God could not have refused it. And therefore Christ being constituted a surety by God, and not by us, and paying not altogether the same, God might have refused the payment, and therefore may also appoint how, in what order and time it shall be accept­ed, whether to a present discharge, or upon a future condition of faith to be performed by us, by the help of his Spirit work­ing this in us. 'Tis true, that Christ being admitted by the cre­ditor, and taken into bond with us, God cannot refuse to ac­cept of Christs death as a satisfaction; yet he might appoint, as you shall see he did, how it shall be accepted, whether abso­lutely, or upon some condition afterward to be performed by us. Here are three things then to be explained and proved:

• 1. That the sufferings of Christ were not altogether the same in the Obligation.
• 2. That therefore 'tis in the power of the Creditour (at whose liberty and mercy it is to accept, or refuse it, antecedently before his acceptation,) to appoint or ordain it to be immediately a­vailable, or to be acceptable upon condition.
• 3. That it was agreed upon between the Father and Son, that it should not be available to discharge the sinner until actu­all faith.

1 Therefore I grant, which Mr Eyre alledgeth out of Mr. Owen, that if he speak in respect of the substance of Christs suffer­ings, there was a samenesse with that in the Obligation in respect of Essence, and equivalency in respect of the adjuncts or at­tendencies; yea, a supereminency of satisfaction and redun­dancy of merit; yet was it not altogether the same in the Ob­ligation.

For first, the Law in the rigour of it doth not admit of a surety, but the delinquent himself is bound to suffer the penalty, that acknowledgeth no commutation of the person, or substitution of one for another; and therefore God by an act of Sovereign­ty did dispense, though not with the substance of the Laws de­mands; (for then we had had forgivenesse without a satisfa­ction, and considering his decree, he could not do it,) but with the manner of execution, which in respect of the Law is called a relaxation; so then God relaxed his Law, to put in the name of a surety, therefore the satisfaction is not altogether the pay­ment [Page 48] of the same debt; for Dum alius solvit, necessariò aliud solvi­tur; and therefore an act of grace must come in by the will and consent of the Lord to whom belonged the infliction of the punishment, that another persons sufferings may be valid to pro­cure a discharge to the guilty person, and that the satisfacti­on was made by another, and not by the party to whom remis­sion is granted, no Protestant will deny.

2. Christ did not bear the same punishment due to us in all ac­cidents.

1. In respect of place, he did not locally discend into the place of the damned. Nor,

2. In respect of time and duration, his sufferings had an end; though they were infinite intensivè, yet not extensivè? in respect of duration, nor did he suffer the losse of Gods Image, nor was he deprived of any measure of grace, nor was he really (but as to present sense and feeling) forsaken, nor did he lose his right to the creatures, nor did his body see corruption; all which are effects of mans sin, and penal effects of it, as I appre­hend. Therefore Christ did not suffer altogether the same, though the sufferings of Christ so farre as were consistent with his Godhead and holinesse, were of the same kinde; and by the dignity of his person, raised to a more then equipollency with ours, so as to merit for us eternal life. Quid enim Majestas tan­ta, par ipsi Patri, poenis suis non commeribitur Cyrillus Alex. de fide ad Re­gin., Cyrillus, A­lexandrinus; and it conduced to a compensation in those suffer­ings, which were unworthy the dignity of his person.

3. Though Christ were obliged to the same punishment, yet not altogether with the same obligation; for his Obligation was arbitrary and voluntary; not arising from the guilt of inherent sin, but by way of vadimony, and suc [...]ption; our guilt or ob­ligation was intrinsecally from the desert of inherent sin; Christ's was only an obnoxiousnesse unto punishment from the imputa­tion of sin, ours from a desert of sin, called reatus culpae; which guilt is inseparable from sinne, which draweth reatus poe­tus along with it, Christ was reatus poenae, not culpae.

4. Christs sufferings was to be a valuable compensation, not only for our breach of the Law, but for our non-suffering, and therefore is not altogether the same.

The second thing to be cleared, is this, that it being not the [Page 49] same, therefore it requires some act of grace in the Creditour to accept it for a discharge unto the guilty person (and herein undoubtedly the sinner hath no wrong, for it is mercy in God to accept it; the Law requires his personal sufferings, and there is no promise made to any, that they shall have benefit by Christs death, but only to Believers.)

And this cannot be denied with any shew of reason, for such a payment is refusable, which is not altogether the same; and therefore unlesse the will and consent of him to whom the infli­ction of the punishment belongeth, it cannot procure a dis­charge to the guilty person; for the offending sinner is the proper subject of suffering, and the Law threatneth the offender, and the surety is not the offender; and none but he that had power to make the Law, can dispense with any thing in the Law; therefore that the Law may be dispensed with, in respect of the manner of execution, by transferring the punishment upon another, and that this may be accepted as a full satisfaction for the offender, as if he had in person suffered, this must be an act of grace in the Law-giver, receding from his own right; and therefore might constitute and ordain, how and in what manner it shall be ac­cepted, and none that I know will deny it an act of speciall grace in God to accept of the sufferings of Christ for us, to free us from our personal sufferings; and therefore I passe from that unto the third thing.

3dly, That it was the will of Christ in making satisfaction, and of God in admitting of this satisfaction, that it should not pro­cure pardon of sin presently from the time of Christs passion; but when man is turned unto God by faith, seeking and humbly intreating for pardon. Now to manifest this, we must premise:

1. That it was an act of special grace, not only to us, but to Christ himself, that should be constituted a Mediatour of a New Covenant between God and us, by vertue of whose media­tion and sufferings we should be forgiven, and made heirs of e­ternall life; Christ as he is the second person in the Trinity, in respect of his Godhead, is equall with the Father, and so not subject to any preordination, or predestination as an act of [Page 50] grace; but Christ considered as God-man in respect of his Me­diatorship, is a servant of God, and so subject to Predestina­tion; and Gods singular grace in his Election to this office, is as much seen as in our Election unto life; for the manhood could never deserve to be united personally to the Sonne of God; and thus it was a great honour put upon Christ,Heb. 5 5. when he was put in­to the Priestly Office to make atonement for us.

2. It was at the commandment of grace he made satisfaction, it was an act of free grace to us, and Christ as Mediator was a servant of God,Isa. 42.1. John 10.18. and wholly at the will of the Lord in this work; at his commandment he laid down his life, and at his will and pleasure the benefit of his death is extended to particular per­sons, and denied to others; therefore Christ saith, Power is gi­ven him over all flesh, John 17.2. to give eternal life (but it is with restricti­on) only to as many as the Father had given him. Now the suf­ferings of Christ were of sufficient value to redeem the whole world; but yet it is available by Gods eternal will only for the Elect; and if it be no wrong to the sufferings of Christ to be limi­ted by the will of God to the Elect only, and Christ submitteth to it, why should it be thought any injury to Christs sufferings, that at the will and pleasure of God the very Elect should not partake of it untill faith, in that order that he hath ap­pointed?

3. It is an act of grace that the sufferings of Christ, though in themselves they be adequately proportionable to the justice of God, should be accepted for us; therefore God may at his plea­sure appoint the manner how, whether absolutely and immedi­ately, or upon a future condition? For, as Scotus saith well, Meritum Christi tantum bonum est nobis, Scotus, lib. 3. dist. 19. qu. vind. p. 74. pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo: The value of Christs merits is to be accounted to us, only so farre as God accepteth it; and therefore to that which Mr. Eyre and his adherents urge, that satisfaction was given, and accepted.

I answer, by distinguishing upon acceptance; This may be taken in a two fold sense, either in respect of the surety Christ, and the price paid; or in respect to the sinner, and the actuall application of it.

1. In respect to Christ, and the value of his sufferings, it [Page 51] was a full satisfaction, that God neither can (having admitted Christ a surety) require more at the hands of Christ, nor any thing else of the sinner by way of satisfaction to his justice; but he never accepted it in respect of the sinner to effect his freedome and present discharge, without some act of his intervening to give him interest in this satisfaction. Nor do I judge faith to be a moving cause, or organical instrument either of Christs satisfacti­on, or of Gods acceptation of it for us; Faith doth not make Christs satisfaction to be meritorious; Faith is not the condition of Christs acquiring pardon, but of the application of pardon; the dignity and worth of Christs merits and satisfaction, arise from the dignity of his person; nor is faith the moving cause of Gods will to accept of Christs satisfaction for us, that ariseth from Gods will of purpose ordaining it for us. And therefore Mr. Rutherford speaks appositely,Ruth. Ap [...]. p. 42. Nos credendo non efficimus vel [...], ut Deus Christi mortem pro peccatis n [...]stris acceptet, neque ulla causalitas externa movere potest Dei volunta­tem.

4. It is of great consequence toward the clearing of this, that the death of Christ doth not procure an immediate discharge to the sinner, to consider that the death of Christ is not a naturall and physical cause of removing and taking away sin; for then the effect must immediately follow; but it is a meritorious cause, which is in the number of morall causes; and here the rule is not true, Positâ causâ ponitur effectus; for here the effect is at the li­berty of the persons moved thereby: and hence sometime the effects of morall causes precede the cause, as for the death of Christ God pardoned the sins of such as died in the faith long before Christ was borne; and sometime it followes a long time after, at the agreement and liberty of the persons that are per­swaded thereby to do any thing.

5. Christ by his death did not absolutely purchase reconcilia­tion, and an actual discharge from the guilt of sin for any, whe­ther they believe or not believe; for then faith were not necessa­ry to salvation; but at the most, to consolation; and finall unbe­lief would condemne none of those for whom Christ died; but the Scripture saith, He that believeth not, shall be damned; and,Mark. 16.16. John 8.24. If you believe not, ye shall die in your sins; and it makes faith [Page 52] necessary to salvation; hence when the Jaylor said, What must I do to be saved? Acts 16.3 [...]. 1 Pet. 1.9. Paul and Silas answered, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved. And salvation is expressely said to be the end of faith; when therefore we say, that Christ died absolutely, we must know that the word absolutely may be taken two wayes.

1. As it is opposed to an antecedent condition to be brought by us by the power of our own free-will, so that upon this shall depend the fruits of Christs death. Or,

2. Absolutely may be taken as opposed to any prerequisite condition ordained by God as a certain order and meanes to ob­tain the fruit of Christs death, which condition is the fruit, and effect of Christs death, and in this latter sense, the death of Christ was not an absolute purchase of reconciliation; 'tis true, the Arminians hold that Christ hath purchased pardon for us upon condition of believing, which believing they make not a fruit of Christs death, but of their own free-will, and thus they make Christ to open a door of hope for us; but it's possible that no man may enter in and be saved, and thus by them we have only a salvability by Christ, but no certainty of salvation; but we affirme no such matter, and say, that Christ satisfied Gods justice, so that God is not placabilis, but placatus, not appeas­able, but appeased; and God is now reconciled, and will give pardon, but in that order and method himself hath appointed, which is faith; which faith God hath predestinated us unto that shal be saved, & Christ hath purchased it for us as well as remission of sins, and therefore it shall infallibly be wrought, that there may be an actual application of Christs death unto justification; now in this sense the death of Christ is not absolute, so as to ex­clude any condition, and qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ to apply his death.Johan. Cam. opus misc. p. 5.32 col. 2. And to this purpose learned Camero hath expressed himself; A Christo satisfactio exigi non potuit nî Deus eum considerâsset ut eorum caput pro quibus satisfecit, fructus ergo satisfactionis ad eos solos redire potuit, qui membra forent hu­jus corporis, ii autem sunt soli fideles: credo igitur Christum pr [...] me satisfecisse, quia verè satisfecit, sed satisfactionem illam deo novi mihi esse salutiferam, quia mihi fidei meae sum consciu; Neque tamen fructum satisfactionis ab ipsa satisfactione divello, Christus enim pro te satisfecit, sed eâ lege si tu id factum credas, ut si cap­tivum [Page 53] redimerem pretio numerato, ìta tamen ut nî ille se redemptum agnoscat meo beneficio habeatur pro non redempto. Et paulò post, pag. 534. col. 1. sect. 4. Illud nempe est quod dixi, pro nemine Christum [...] satisfecisse, verùm hàc lege additâ, ut qui na­turà sumus è mundo, mundo exempti verá fide Christo inseramur. That he was no Arminian, is evident to all that have read him. And a little after in the 2. Col. p. 534. he answereth an Objection. Sed ais in omni satisfactione tria tantùm requiri. 1. Ʋt numeretur summa quae contractum aes exaequet. 2. Ʋt numeretur creditori. 3. Ʋt numeretur ejus nomine, qui eam debebat. Id quidem verum est quoties creditor non id praecipuè spectat in satisfactione, ut cujus nomine satisfactum est, is beneficium agnoscat. Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est, ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris muni­ficentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur, aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine, sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debi­tor beneficium agnoverit.

And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers;John 3.16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish. And in Rom. 3.25.Rom. 3.25. John 6.40. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. And, This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Sonne, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life. And,Mark. 16.16. Whosoever be­lieveth not, shall be damned; nay, is condemned already, John 3.18, 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him.

Now that is a superficiall, and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this, Pag. 135. that such places as these are, do shew only who have th [...] fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ, to wit, they that believe; but the true scope of these places is to shew, not only who shall be saved, and have the benefit of Christs death, to whom this priviledge belongs; but to shew when, and how Christs death became effectual, namely up­on, and by believing; so that Christs death it self is not avail­able unto salvation, without faith to apply it. And out of his own Concessions I argue against him: If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death, then while they re­main unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them, or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges; [Page 54] But they are communicable, both to such as believe, and such as believe not,Mr. Eyre, ch. 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr, Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture; and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge, Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true, and the reason he addeth is, because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith, and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification; But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation, that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved, and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ, attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification; for works of sanctification declare this. Thus the Apostle makes it an evi­dence of a person in Christ, to whom there is no condemnation, that He walkes not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit; and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body, Rom. 8.1, 13. 1 John 3.14. ye shall live. By this we know, that we are passed from death to life, because we love the Brethren.

Mr. Eyre, Vind. p. 135.And in the same place he objecteth, that the Apostle doth not say, Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing. But I answer, Though this is no where expressely spoken, yet it is evidently implied, and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost: For when Christ saith, That unlesse they believe, that they shall die in their sins; and he that believeth not, shall be damned; is not this equi­valent to this Proposition, That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing? 2 Cor. 13.5. And doth he not bid the Corinthians, Examine themselves, whether they be in the faith: Prove your own selves, know ye not that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? where though I think the word [...], doeth not signifie reprobates, as opposed to the Elect, yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified. And whereas he saith, that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son, that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe, he will yield the cause; let him but stand to his word, and the Controversie will soon be at an end.

For the making good of this over and above what is written, I premise,

[Page 55]1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Co­venant passed between the Father and the Son, about reconci­ling the Elect believers by the death of Christ; for that is evident from many Scriptures, Isa. 42.6. Gal. 3.16. And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Me­diatour, are expressely mentioned, Heb. 1.5, 6. Acts 10.38. Eph. 1.22. Isa. 11.12. Isa. 49.18. Isa. 53.10, 11. Acts 2.27. and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it; but the question is not, whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son? but, whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe?

2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words; and I judge him so rational, that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures, he will acknowledge it as au­thentick as a literal expression.

3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre, that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will, and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concern­ing the time and manner of our reconciliation with God; so that what the Father willed, the Son willed, and vice versâ. And so I joyne with him, and argue:

1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ, or his Cove­nant with him about his death, and the effects of it, did men­tion faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied; then there was such an agreement, that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith: But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death, made mention of faith for the application of it: Ergo. The con­sequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion; for what God would do upon Christs death he promised, and more then he promised Christ could not, nor did expect; for in all this work of dying, he was a servant of God, subject to his good pleasure; Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do, and Christ could expect no more.

And the assumption I prove from Isa. 53.10, 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth, a Covenant made with Christ, pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, [Page 56] he shall prolong his dayes, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. He shall see of the travel of his soul, and be satisfied: By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many. These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father, with whose words the Prophet began, as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English Annotations, and they clearly hold forth the effect and fruit of Christs passion; where observe a plain pro­mise to Christ, or Covenant with him about dying, and mak­ing his soul an offering for sin, When thou shalt make his soul an offering, or as the Hebrew, if his soul, or when his soul shall make it selfe an offering; for the second Person Masculine, and the third Foeminine are in letters, and sound the same; so I take it the speach of the Father (introduced by the Prophet,) speak­ing unto Christ, that when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin, then he promiseth he shall see his seed, that is, his issue and posterity that should be borne to him as an effect of this, which words do not import, that all his issue and posterity should be an immediate effect of it; but he should see it, he should live and survive to see it; after his resurrection he should die no more, but live for ever, and see the fruit of his death; The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, that is, he shall daily see souls brought to salvation as a fruit of his death: He shall see of the travel of his soul, and be satisfied. As a woman when her tra­vel is past, is filled with joy to behold the fruit of her wombe; so Christ should be satisfied to see a numerous issue of faithful soules begotten to God by his death. And what that satisfa­ction is in particular, he tells him it shall be the justification of many for whom he died, and then he tells him how they shall be justified; He saith, it shall be byNotitiâ sui. his knowledge, or the knowledge of him; not his own knowledge taken subjectively, the knowledge that he hath of God,Vide English Annot. or of them; but his know­ledge taken objectively, that is, the knowledge whereby they know him; and this is not a bare knowledge of Christ whereby we are justified, for the devils themselves both know and ac­knowledge him; but by knowledge is meant faith, the antece­dent put for the consequent, because the knowledge of him is the ground of trust. I shall not need to prove that knowledge is put for faith.John 17.3. John 4.42. And the words that follow are a reason, for [Page 57] he shall bear their iniquities; though in the Hebrew the word is copulative, yet it is often used as a cause. And if this be granted, it renders a reason why he should justifie them, because he did bear their sins; where the persons are described, whom he should justifie, not all promiscuously, but Believers, whose sins he un­dertook to discharge; for he did bear the sinnes of none but Be­lievers.

Now let Mr. Eyre tell us why God speaking to Christ of our justification by him, should say that Christ should justifie us by his knowledge, or by faith in him.

1. His death alone antecedently to faith, did justifie those whose iniquities he did bear; unlesse it were to declare his will that his death should be effectually applied only by faith, and that none should have immediate benefit, but expect it by faith.

2. That that was Gods intention in giving Christ, was the in­tention of Christ in dying; But God in giving Christ, intended not the benefits of Christs death unto any untill faith; Therefore Christ died not to purchase immediate forgivenesse unto any untill faith, and by consequence there was a mutual agreement. The Major is beyond all contradict on, because of the unity of heart and will between Christ and God; therefore he intended not his death for any, nor in any other way then God intend­ed it.

The Minor is written as with a Sun-beam in Scripture,John 3.14, 15, 16. John 3.14, 15, 16. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse: Even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever belie­veth in him should not perish, but have eternall life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son: that whoso­ever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In which words you have a threefold cause of mans salva­tion.

• 1. The principal, Gods love, ver. 16.
• 2. The meritorious, Christ death.
• 3. The instrumental, our faith.

Secondly, You have a comparison between Christ and his Type, in two things,

1. That as the Serpent must be lifted up for a meanes of heal­ing, [Page 58] or else it could not heal, and none would look to it; so there was a necessity of Christs being lifted up upon the Crosse, God must deliver him up to death, and he must be considered as dying; or else there is no salvation by him.

2. The end, that such as did look to it, might be healed of the stingings of the fiery Serpent; so this was the end of Christ dying, that whosoever believe, should not perish. Now, as the Scripture sheweth, those stingings were deadly, and none were healed but such as looked to the brazen Serpent; so are the stingings of sin deadly, and none are healed by Christ, but such as believe. Now, as Mr. Woodbridge observes, they were not first healed, and then did look up to see what healed them; but they did first look, and then were healed: so we have nor first everlasting life given us, and then we believe; but first we believe, and then we have e­verlasting life.

Now to this Mr. Eyre answers nothing, but denies it was the in­tent of the Holy Ghost to shew in what order we are justified in the sight of God; but in so doing, he doth not only senselessely beg the question, but doth overthrow that wherein the truth and verity of the type consisted: for as the brazen Serpent, though endued with a healing vertue, yet it healed none till he did look; so, though Christ as dying be sufficiently able to save, yet saveth not any till he look to him by faith, and in so doing doth de­stroy that that was the main end of God in giving Christ, and of Christ in dying, that upon believing we should be saved.

And therefore I come to the third thing considerable, and that is Gods end in giving Christ, and Christs end in dying, both these are expressed in the same words, the Son was lifted up, that whosoever believeth, &c. and Gods end was, that whosoever believeth, &c. where the verity of the major is confirmed, that they had the same end.

Now the Minor is no lesse evident; for if Gods end in giving Christ to die for us, and Christs in dying were to limit the bene­fit only to Believers, then it followes by undeniable consequence, that untill faith none are actually justified by Christs death, other­wise the benefit of Christs death is equally extended to Believers, and unbelievers; and if he saith, faith is only a consequent con­dition, and not antecedent, then he must corrupt the Text, and [Page 59] alter the sense of the Holy Ghost, and say, that God gave Christ to give eternall life, and Christ was lifted up to purchase eter­nall life, that they for whom he was so given, and so died, might believe; and thus eternal life must be antecedent, and the cause of faith, and not faith antecedent or any cause of eternall life.

And therefore as Gregory Nazianzen answered to one that af­firmed,Gregorius Nazianzenus, Epist. ad Cle­don. Dialog. Deum potuisse sine mente hominem servare, potuit etiam utique sine carne, voluntate solà, sicut & alia omnia quae effecit, & effecit corporaliter: tolle ergo unà cum mente & carnem quoque, ut omni ex parte perfecta sit amentia tua: So may I say to Mr. Eyre, who affirmeth that we are justified without faith; God might have done it, and without the sufferings of Christ, had he so de­creed it; take away therefore the death and satisfaction of Christ, with Socinus, (as your doctrine of eternall justification doth, as shall in its place be made evident) and thus you shall declare your self to be perfectly mad.

A third argument is taken from Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; whence I argue, The agreement between the Father and the Son, was suitable to Gods eternal decree; for Christ cannot be a propitia­tion for sins otherwise then God hath ordained him: If God in his decree hath ordained Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood only, then it was their agreement Christs death should not be available until faith; But God in his decree hath or­dain'd Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. The consequence of the major is evident, because their agreement must be suitable to this decree. I believe there is scarce a man of that face and forehead that will deny the Assumption, they are the words of the Apostle. Nor let Mr. Eyre here wilfully mistake, as if we affirmed that faith made Christs death of a propitiatory nature, as if it received its value and worth from faith, this were ridiculous to make the instrumentall cause a meritori­ous cause; but it makes Christs death to be peculiarly appropria­ted by God, as a propitiation for him in particular that believeth, and never till then.

A fourth Argement is this, If Christ himself cannot save an unbeliever so remaining, then it was the will of God the Father [Page 60] and of Christ, that his death should nor be available before fairh; But Christ himself cannot save an unbeliever so remaining; There­fore it was the will of the Father and the Sonne that his death should not actually save until faith. The consequence is as im­moveable as the earth; for God the Father, and Christ the Me­diatour did not will that which was impossible for Christ to do, therefore they did not will that antecedently to faith, an unbe­believer should be justified, and by consequence that the benefit of Christs death should not be enjoyed before faith. The Minor is proved from Rom. 11.23. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graffe them in again. Where the Apostle speaking of the hope there is of cal­ling the Jewes again that were cast off for unbelief, from being any members of the visible Church, and so from being members of Christs body, and from all present hope of salvation; sheweth, that though their case be seemingly desperate, yet it is possible for them to be saved, by an argument drawn from the power of God, God is able to graffe them in again; yet he limiteth this abso­lute power of God, that this is possible, If they abide not in unbelief, (where though it be true, God is able to remove their unbelief, & to give faith, yet so long as they abide in unbelief, they cannot be graf­fed in again, and so saved; yea, the very power of God is here limited from saving, (to wit, by his own immutable will) not to save an unbeliever, and an unbelievers wilful rejecting of the grace God offereth;Mark 6.5. compared with Matth. 13.48. and thus in Mark 6.5. Christ in his own countrey could do no mighty work there, because of their unbelief; their unbelief was so great, that Christ marvelled at it, and was in a manner hindred. Calvin upon the place saith, Mar­cus negans Christum potuisse, eorum culpam amplificat à quibus im­pedita fuit ejus bonitas. Nam certè increduli, quantum in se est, Dei manum suâ contumaciâ constringunt; non quòd Deus quasi inferior vincatur, sed quia illi non permittant virtutem suam exequi: Mark denying that Christ could do any mighty work there, am­plifies their sinne by whom his goodnesse was hindred. For certainly the unbelievers, as much as in them lieth, do binde the hands of God by their contumacy; not as if God being in­feriour in power is overcome, but because they will not permit his power to be executed. And truly God hath declared his [Page 61] immutable purpose in the Gospel, that whosoever believeth not shall be damned; hence Christ cannot save an unbeliever so re­maining; therefore untill faith this benefit of Christs death is not obtained.

[...] The whole energy and efficacy of Christs merit in respect of influx and derivation upon others, depends wholly upon the will of God ordaining and accepting it, which appeares if you consider it in reference to the Elect and Reprobate; for why is it effectual unto one, and not the other? it is the will of God only that makes the difference, because God hath ordained it for the E­lect, and accordingly will give faith to apply it, & not to the other.

Now my fifth Argument shall be by retortion of Mr. Eyre's first argument against Mr. Woodbridge, There is no such Covenant doth appear; Ergo, there is no such thing. This hath been accounted a good argument amongst Christians.

I may draw the like argument from Scripture negatively thus, It is no where written that God accepted the death of Christ for unbelievers, that they should be justified antecedently unto faith; Ergo there was no such will in God, and consequently not in Christ. As for those Scriptures which Mr. Eyre brings, and sets them upon the rack, to force them to give evidence to his cause; the Reader may expect their answer in the Aanaskeuastical part of this discourse, where it properly belongs.

6. God the Father and the Son intended the benefit of Christs death only for the members of Christ; and till they be the mem­bers of his mystical body, they cannot be partakers of the bene­fit of his death, and have communion with him in it; for as none partake in Adams sinne that were not in him by a natural union, so none but such as are in Christ by spiritual and supernatural u­nion can be partakers of his sufferings and satisfaction; but none are members of Christs mystical body untill faith; therefore un­till faith it was the will of the Father and the Sonne, that none should partake in the benefits of his death. This argument shall be more fully vindicated ere long from the objection Mr. Eyre made against it in our discourse.

7. If Christ in his intercession, (which is the best Index and Interpreter of his minde, and intention in his death) limits and restraines the benefits of his intercession to Beleevers, then it was [Page 62] his minde and intention in his death to limit the benefits thereof unto Believers; because Christs intention of the benefits of his death, and the fruit of his intercession are of equall latitude, and by consequence what was his minde, was the Fathers minde; for Christ and his Father are one, and have the same will; but Christ limits the benefits of his intercession unto Beleevers, as we may see in John 17.20. Christ prayes for them that shall believe in him;John 17.20. Heb. 7.25. nor do these places only declare who shall have the benefit of Christs intercession; but how, and when it shall be obtained; by faith, by coming unto Christ; for if they did obtain it before faith immediately from his death, what need were there of Christs intercession for that which they did already enjoy? From whence I argue,

8. That that destroyes the end and use of Christs intercession, cannot be agreeable to Scripture. But to make Christs death to justifie us actually and immediately, this destroyes the end of his intercession; for Christ is now in heaven an Advocate for sin, that it might be pardoned to them that believe: so that Christ in his death took it away meritoriously, and now he is in hea­ven to intercede for all that by faith seek for the benefits of his death, that it may be formally applied.

Yea, the children of God though they fall not from the state of justification by new sins, they lose not their right to heaven, yet they lose their aptitude for heaven, and by every new sin they contract a new guilt, and without a new remission of the sins committed they cannot be saved; and hence Christ is a dai­ly Advocate to intercede for us, as St. John saith, My little children, 1 John 2.1. if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. I might adde to these many m [...]re, but these are sufficient to demonstrate this truth, and will prove a burdensome stone to Mr. Eyre, if he endeavour to contrad [...]ct them.

And as for those Arguments which he, Chap. 14. useth to prove the actuall and immediate reconciliation of the Elect be­fore faith, they have all the same unhappinesse to fall, like ar­rowes, farre short of the mark intended, and have most of them the same common fate to be guilty of a miserable non sequitur, as shall in my reply to them in its proper place appear.

Now the next thing to be superadded for a full vindication of this truth, is, that this suspending the benefits of Christs death until faith, is no way derogatory to the atonement made by Christs death, which may as easily be proved, as that Pilate was guilty of Christs blood.

And I prove it thus, 1. If there were such an agreement, as the arguments above declare, then what wrong is it to the atone­ment made by Christs death, that the effect of it should not be enjoyed untill faith, when as it was the mutuall agreement between the Father and the Son to have it so? it was his will to have it so, and volenti non fit injuria, there is no injury to him that is willing.

2. If the death of Christ were in value a sufficient ransome for the whole world, the very Reprobates not excepted, and yet without injury and wrong to Christs satisfaction, it is by the will of God ordaining, and so accepting it to be only effectual for the Elect, which comparatively in respect of the Reprohates is a small number; why shall it be judged a wrong to Christs satisfaction, that the benefit of it for whom it is intended, should be for a time suspended, for gracious and good ends at the will of the Father, to make them see what they are, and deserve, and what need they have of Christ, and to raise up their desires after him, and to increase their love unto God for Christ, and also for the honour of the Lord and his Christ; that though he ju­stifie the ungodly, yet that he doth not justifie them so remaining, that his enmity and hatred against sin may the more appear, and that wicked men might not think God a justifier of the wicked in their abominations, which is contrary to the purity of his na­ture and justice to do: why should this be thought more inju­rious to Christs satisfaction, then a peremptory excluding of all the race of the Reprobates from salvation by his death?

But, 3. If notwithstanding the suspending the benefits of Christs death untill faith, the death of Christ be no lesse satisfa­ctory to divine justice, and the intrinsecal worth and value of his merits no whit lessened, and the efficacy, and certainty of the effects of Christs death be no lesse established by our Doctrine, then if the effect did immediately follow, then this is no impair­ing [Page 64] of the atonement made by his death; but the premises are true, which I evidence thus:

1. We willingly grant that the death of Christ was a full and compleat satisfaction to divine justice, and a valuable compen­sation for the sins of those that shall be saved; and God did not accept lesse at the hands of Christ, then was due to our sins; but he made satisfaction, ad ultimum quadrantem, to the last farthing; the justice of God can require no more, either at his hands, or at the hands of those for whom he suffered by way of satisfaction; and hence in his resurrection he gave him a publick acquittance, and sent his Angel to roll away the stone from the Sepulchre, as a publick Officer to testifie his acquitting him from the debt of our sins, and so he sets him at liberty, and brings him out of prison.

2. The intrinsecall value and worth of Christs merits is no way diminished: Christ did not compound with the Father, as broken debtors with the creditour, making him to take lesse then was due; nay, as we have shewed in some respect (if you consi­der the dignity of the person) there was more laid down then the Law required, though in regard of the substance of the punish­ment it was that which the Law required, and the justice of God, and the love of the Father could require no more; the pro­rogation or deferring the actuall enjoyment of the thing pur­chased by that satisfaction, ariseth not from any impotency or de­fect in Christs sufferings, but from the liberty of Gods will, who in mercy accepts of that which a surety hath done for us, which in it self was refusable, till by an act of grace it was admitted as available for us; but in that time onely that the Father should appoint, whose will Christ as a Mediatour, and Servant was ob­liged to obey.

3. The death of Christ is no lesse efficacious, and certain in the effects of it, then if an immediate participation of it were granted; the efficaciousnesse of Christs death is not to be valued by the time of application (it being a moral cause, and not a phy­sical, or natural cause of justification, but by the powerfulnesse of the impetration, and the certainty of application,) now we grant that it hath by way of merit procured reconciliation; and hence our deliverance is called redemption,Rom. 3.24. which was made [Page 65] by the payment of a full price; now the price being paid for the Elect, the effect shall follow in the time appointed;Gal. 3.13. Eph. 1.7. Heb. 9.12. [...] P [...]t. [...].18.19. 1 Cor. 6.2 [...]. hence we grant, that there shall be a certain application o [...] the benefits of Christs death to all the persons for whom it was intended, though they have not actuall possession, and that leads me to the last particular, ‘that Mr. Eyre layes to the charge of this Do­ctrine, that it is disconsolatory to the souls of men, in laying the weight of their salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing.’ To which calumny I might returne no other answer then the Senate of Rome is reported to have given to a certain O­ration made by Julian the Apostate to the dishonour of Constan­tine, and repeated before them,Ames. Coro. praefa ad eccles. belgicas. Modestiam majorem optamus Au­thori, we wish more modesty to the Author. But that I may for ever silence this objection, I reply that Mr. Eyre cannot but know, that the Orthodox that maintain Justification by Faith, do yet utterly disclaime faith as a condition, either in an Arminian or a Popish sense.

1. The Arminians hold that Christ died indefinitely for all without distinction, and that he died no more for Peter then for Judas; and that he paid a sufficient satisfaction for all, so that God may now freely remit the sins of all.

2. They maintain a potestative, or voluntary condition, which they borrow from the Jurists, whereby, it being left free to their own will, whether they will believe or not; the effect of Christs death is rendred uncertain, whether they shall be saved or not, and so they affirme all to be redeemed; so as that it is possible none may be saved; they hold as it were a potential reconcilia­tion, which is by the act of faith to be compleated, which faith they affirme not to be the effect of Christs death, but of their own free will. So the Remonstrants, Nihil ineptius, Rem. Apol c. 8. p. 95. nihil vani­us, quàm fidem merito Christi tribuere; si enim Christus meritus est fidem, tum fides conditio esse non poterit: They say, Nothing is more foolish, nothing more vain then to ascribe faith to the merit of Christ; for if Christ hath merited faith, then it cannot be a condition; and they laugh at it as a ridiculous conceit,Rem. Apol. c. 9. p. 105. that God should work the condition which he prescribeth. Their words are, Anne conditionem quis seriò, & sapienter praescribet alteri sub pro­misso praemii, & poenae gravissimae comminatione, qui cam in eo cui [Page 66] praescribit efficere vult, haec actio tota ludicra, & vix scenâ digna est. And this Mr. Eyre takes notice of as the Remonstrants opi­nion, pag. 145. where he reciteth the same passages.

2. The Papists make faith a meritorious condition, which ju­stificeth us, per modum causae efficientis & meritoriae, as a proper effi­cient and meritorious cause; this is the Doctrine of the Papists, as Bellar. Bellar. Lib. pr. de justifica c. 17 setteth himself to prove in his 17. Chap. Libr. pr. de ju­stificatione.

Now we utterly disclaime faith to be a condition in either of these senses; we say, that Christ died only sufficienter for the Reprobate, but efficiently for the Elect; Christ did not die in­definitely, and indis criminatim alike for all, but he died effe­ctually for Peter, and not for Judas; and whereas we make faith the condition of the Covenant, without which the benefits of the death of Christ is not applied to us, we mean not in an Ar­minian (much lesse in a Popish) sense, that faith is an uncertain condition left to the power or freedome of our will; but we con­stantly affirme, that God hath infallibly ordained such unto faith as shall be saved,Acts 13.48. John 6.37. Master Eyre, p. 144. sect. 9. and Christ hath merited this grace of Faith for us, which Mr. Eyre is pleased without all charity to affirme, that his adversaries cannot mean faith a condition in this sense, as that which God will bestow, and is the fruit of Christs death. And he saith, Mr. Woodbridge denies it to be a fruit of the Covenant, and well he might, as it is a Covenant made with us; for it is an absolute promise made by God as a fruit of his Election, and Christs redemption, that he will work this faith whereby we shall be brought into Covenant with him; for when God promiseth to write his Laws in their mindes, in so promising he promiseth faith,Jer. 31.38. Heb. 8.10. and then addeth, And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.

And we affirme, as Christ hath merited this grace for us, so he is become a surety of the Covenant, to see all that God re­quires on our part be performed; and hence as a head he will by his Spirit in due time infallibly, and efficaciously work this faith, and so become a Saviour, not only by his merit, but by efficiency, actually applying the fruit of his death. And this he will irresisti­bly work,Eph. 1.18. putting forth the same Almighty power that was put forth in raising himself from the dead; so that we do not, as Mr. [Page 67] Eyre falsly affirmeth (which I believe he was not ignorant of) lay the whole weight of our salvation upon an uncertain condition of our own performing; we make faith to be Gods gift, though it be our act. And we make the salvation of the Elect as sure as himself, and therefore our doctrine is no way disconsolatory to the soules of any; only we do not strengthen the hands of the wicked, making them to refuse to returne, by promising them life as he doth,Ezek. 13.22, 23. by telling them of their eternal justification, and of their being actually reconciled from the time of Christs death;Isa. 48.22. for we know of no comfort belonging to the wicked, while unregenerate; for, There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked; but so are all unregenerate persons Ante­cedently to their faith.

And for a further clearing of my minde in this particular, I adde, that if by uncertain Mr. Eyre mean, as oftentimes the word is so taken, for that which in its own nature is contingent, in respect of the second cause; because what is contingent usually among men, is uncertain, and not in respect of God to whom by his predeterminating will, even contingent things come to passe necessarily, though they come to passe contingently in re­spect to us; I deny not but in this sense it may be called uncer­tain, or contingent, and this is no more then what is unani­mously acknowledged by the Orthodox, and that no way hin­ders the salvation of the Elect.

And by this time I hope the Reader plainly seeth this truth of Christ, that the very Elect are without Christ, and without hope in the world, as the Apostle affirmeth, untill faith; that they have no actuall right or interest in the death of Christ until faith; and so as to their present estate, there is no difference between them and Reprobates, being children of wrath, as well as others; this is that which the tender eares of Mr. Eyre cannot bear; but I believe it sounds not so harsh in the ears of a judicious Reader, as being an undoubted truth of God; but let it be compared with that filthy and dirty opinion of Mr. Eyre, more beseeming the Gnosticks of old, or the present Ranters of this age, then a sober Christian, which is this,Master Eyre, page 61. ‘That the Elect while they are unrege­nerate, while they lie like swine wallowing in the mi [...]e of sinne, antecedently to faith are justified; and so though Infidels, and wicked, yet divine justice cannot charge upon them any of their [Page 68] sins, nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve; but contrarily he beholdeth them as perfectly righte­ous, and accordingly deales with them as such, who have no sin at all in his sight.’ And I doubt not but the naming of his will vin­dicate mine, and render his justly abhorred to an utter nauseating; saying, Durus est hic sermo, who can bear it? And those mon­strous absurdities which he chargeth our Doctrine with, I doubt not but the intelligent Reader seeth, that they are as unjustly fa­thered upon us, as his deformed errour is by himself stiled (with the same likenesse of truth) to have the complexion of a saving truth.

CHAP. II. Containing a Vindication of my Argument drawn from the Parallel between the first and the se­cond Adam, shewing that as no man is ly­able to condemnation by the first Adam, but such as are in him by natural generation, de­scending from him; so no man is freed from condemnation, till they be in Christ by super­natural and spiritual regeneration.

AGainst this Errour of the Antecedency of Justification to Faith, I used in my Serm. at N. Sarum this Medium. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternal death, but he that is a member of him by natu­rall generation; so Christ freeth no man from condemnation, justifieth, and reconcileth no man till he be a member of him by supernatural generation; But this is not before faith, John 1.12. To as many as received him, to them gave he power; [...], liberty, right, power, priviledge, or prerogative, to become the sons of God, even to as many as be­lieved on his Name: Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Therefore no man [Page 70] stands reconciled before God, though Elect persons, till by faith they are incorporated into Christ, and have this priviledge to be the children of God.

Now let us see what Mr. Eyre replieth to this, he saith that this maketh much against me:Mr. Eyre, p. 6. for, saith he, "If the righteous­nesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto justification, in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation, as the Apostle sheweth, it doth, Rom. 5. then it must follow that the righteousnesse of Christ was reckoned, or imputed to the Elect be­fore they had a being, and then much more before they do believe in him; for Adams sin, it is evident that it came upon all men to con­demnation before they had a being: For by the first transgression, (sayes the Apostle, ver. 12.) sin entred into the world, and more plainly, death passed upon all men. The reason followes, because in him, or in his loyns all have sinned: so Mr. Eyre.

For answer whereunto, I shall premise this, that I did not af­firme that we are no way guilty of Adams sin before we have a being: For I willingly grant that of Augustine, Adam erat nos omnes, omnes e­ramus ille unus Adam; certum manif stù (que) est alia esse propria cuique peccata, in quibus hi tantum peccant, quorum peccata sunt, aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccave­runt, quando o­mnes ille unus homo fuerunt, Aug. de peccat. merit. & Re­mist. l. 1. c. 10. Adam erat nos omnes, omnes eramus ille unus Adam, certum manifestúmque est alia esse propria, &c. Adam was as it were we all, we were all that one Adam; it is most certain and manifest, that some sins are proper to every one in which they only sinned, whose sins they were; this one sin is another in which all have sinned, seeing all were that one man; and it is a general received truth among the Orthodox, that there was an inexistence, or being of all men in Adam. And therefore I willingly grant that we did no lesse sin in Adam, then Levi paid tithes in Abraham, Heb. 7.6. because as he was in the loynes of Abraham when Melchisedech met him, so were we all in the loynes of Adam; and when I said that no man is guilty by the first Adam of eternall death, but he that is a member of him by natural generation; I intended nothing but to shew, that we are not guilty of Adams sin, so as to be actually and formally sinners, (though virtually we are untill we be in him by naturall generation, and so actually members;) and so I grant, we are virtually justified from the death of Christ, not formally.

And, 2. I intended to shew, that as Adams sin is not ours, but as we are in him; so Christs righteousnesse is not ours, unlesse [Page 71] united to him; this premised, I shall now reply to Mr. Eyre's Objection, That I apprehend in his answer a double Errour:

1. He takes that for granted, which will not be yielded, that the Apostle saith, We were formally constituted sinners by the dis­obedience of Adam, as we are by his opinion formally, not only virtually justified at the death of Christ,Vide Mr. Eyre, page 68. so he expresseth his mean­ing, p. 68. and herein he is contrary to all Orthodox Antiquity; Learned Wotton doth deny it in expresse termes in his answer to Hemingius his Argument, whose words are these,Wotton de Re­con. pecc. par. 2. l. 1. c. 9. p. 148. Primam pro­positionem nego, quia sumit pro concesso, Apostolum dicere nos Ada­mi inobedientiâ formaliter factos esse peccatores, quod parùm liquet, certè alia fuit antiquorum Theologorum sententia; and reciteth for that end, Chrysost. Theophilact. Pacianus, Anselm, Haymo, Hugo Aeterianus, OEcumenius, Calvin. Who so please to read them, may finde them in the fore-cited place of Wotton. We therefore affirme, that although Adams sin was not altogether another mans, but in some sense ours, because we were seminally in him, that were virtually sinners in him; and that act of his in eating the forbidden fruit, was as truly ours, though not so compleat­ly, and perfectly as his, for we are not formally constituted sin­ners, till we are actually members of him by natural gene­ration.

2. A second Errour I conceive him guilty of, is, in that he saith, That the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification, in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation, (and it's so much the worse that he will father it upon the Apostle, which he no way intended in that place,) that as Adams sin came upon men to condemnation be­fore they had a being, that so the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed to the Elect before they had a being; To which I answer, that it is a manifest untruth, for the sin of Adam descends upon us, not only by imputation, but by propagation, so doth not the righteousnesse of Christ, that is ours only by imputation. The sin of Adam becomes ours by vertue of a natural union, in whom we are seminally antecedently to our birth; but Christs righteousnesse becometh ours by spirituall and supernatural uni­on, to whom we are strangers, and alienated from him by na­ture; [Page 72] we are virtually united to Adam, because we had existence in him as in our first Parent before we had a being; but we were actually sinners wh [...]n we had an actuall being, because we had a compl a [...] being out of our cause: but we are not actually united to Christ before faith;Wotton de R [...] ­con pecc. par. 2. l. 2. c. 2 [...] p. 210 Hence learned Wotton in answer to this Obj [...]ction, saith, Nos unum fuisse cum Adamo, & credentes unum esse cum Christo, & si utrumque verè dici possit, tamen alio, atque alio modo haec vera ess [...] intelliguntur, unum suimus cum Adamo originaliter; & (liceat enim his verbis uti) seminaliter, ut arbor ejúsque omnes rami in glande, aut alio quovis semine inesse dicuntur, hác ratione fit ut non minùs verè in Adamo peccâsse, quàm Levi apud Apostolum, Heb. 7.9. decimatus esse in Abra­hamo affirmatur; jam verò longè alio modo in Christo esse cense­mur, non naturâ, aut proprie, sed improprie, & per similitudinem quandam. Praeterea semper ex quo creatus est Adamus, unum cum illo, & in illo fuisse deprehendimur, ut cum illo etiam quodam mo­do peccare potuerimus. Quod de nostrâ cum Christo conjunctione, sive unione affi mari non p [...]test; uniri enim nos Christo, & cum illo conjungi oportet, priusquam unum esse cum illo possimus existi­mari; wh ch for the Readers sake I will English: Although it may be truly said, that we were one with Adam, and believers are one with Christ; yet this is to be understood in a different manner; we were one with Adam, and in him naturally, ori­ginally, and (let it be lawful to use these words) seminally, as a tree and all his branches are said to be in the [...], or in any other seed. By this reason it comes to passe, that we know that we sinned no lesse in Adam, then Levi by the Apostle is said, Heb. 7.9. to have paid tithes in Abraham: But now we are reputed to be in Christ in a farre different manner, not by nature, or pro­perly, but improperly, and by a certain similitude. Moreover, from the time that Adam was created, we were alwayes one with him, and in him, that with him we may be said after a sort to have sinned; which cannot be affirmed concerning our conjunction with, or union to Christ; for it behoveth us to be joyned and united to Christ, before we can be esteemed to be one with him; and he addes, Quare tum primùm in Christo esse incipimus, quum in illum credimus; Wherefore we then first be­gin to be in Christ, when we believe in him.

And let me adde that, there are many different considerations, and circumstances between the bringing in of salvation by the one, and condemnation by the other; and the Apostle giveth instance in Rom. 5.15, 16. And besides these there are many other. I shall think fit to adde but one,Vide John Goodwin, Treat. Justifica. part 2. pag. 17. taken nootice of by Master John Goodwin in his Treatise of Justification, and in h [...]s words: The sin of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world, was as well the act of all his posterity as his own; in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam; but the obedience by which Christ brought salvation in­to the world, can with no propriety of speech, nor with any consist­ence with truth, be said to have been theirs, or performed by them who are saved by it; so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves, then if they had not been saved at all: It is said indeed, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe, 2 Cor. 5.19. but it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it self to God. Let no man blame me for his authority, fas est & ab hoste doceri. And the ground of Mr. Eyre's mistake (if it be not wilfull) is, that he thinks the A­postle doth compare the disobedience of Adam, and the obedi­ence of Christ, as causes of the same kinde, which produce their effects after the same manner, which was not the intent of the Apostle; but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious un­to Justification to them that are his, one with him, then the sin of Adam was to condemnation, to them that were in him; but not to shew that we were in Christ as we are inC [...]nfertur autem A la nus cum Christo tum in re simili, cùm in contrariâ; si­wiles enim sunt in eo quòd uter­que quod suum est cum suis communicat, sed in eo planè dissimiles quòd ille pecatum in suos naturâ de­rivat ad mor­tem, Christus ve­rò suam justiti­am cum suis communicat per gratiam ad vi­tam, Beza large Ann. on Rom. 5.12. Wotton de re­con peccat. par. 2. l. 1. c. 9 p. 149 Adam, that as we were in Adam antecedently to our being, that so the E­lect are in Christ antecedently to their birth and faith; for, as in the next Argument that I shall vindicate, I shall shew that we are not united to Christ until faith. And the very same answer doth Wotton give to Hemingius, whose words are these: Quod ad assumptionem attinet, sumet ille pro concesso, Apostolum Adami inobedientiam tanquam ejusdem generis causas comparare, quae eo­dem plane modo effecta sua producant. At verò id potiùs agere vi­detur Apostolus, ut Christi obedientiam non minùs ad justificationem valere quàm Adami in obedientiam ad condemnationem, imò Christi justitiam majorem habere vim ad justificandas homines quàm Adami peccatum ad nos condemnandos; which because it is [Page 74] the same in effect with mine, I shall spare to English.

The next words of Mr. Eyre relating to this businesse, are these, Now as in Adam the [...], that is, all that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a being, by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them: so in Christ the [...] all that shall be saved were constituted righteous. Besides the former errours it is guilty of, I finde a double violence offered to the sa­cred Text.

First, in that he limiteth the [...], the all that sinned in A­dam, to them that shall perish; as if the Reprobates only sinned in Adam, and not the Elect, and as if they were not in the same sin and condemnation; which it may be he doth, because he is of his brethrens minde, the rest of the Antinomians, who affirm­ing that they are justified from eternity, and so God seeth no sin in them; and he himself saith, pag. 61. That the Divine Justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins, nor inflict upon them the least punishment which their sins deserve: But contrarily he beholdeth them as persons perfectly righteous, and accordingly dealeth with them as uch who have no sin at all in his sight. And yet this man is offended to be called an Antinomian, though he is not ashamed to be one; but against this grosse conceit, be­cause it is sufficiently confuted by others, I will say no more, but alledge two Scripture-test [...]monies;1 Joh. 1 last ver. The first is in the 1 John 1. the last vers. After the Apostle had said, that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin; ch. 2.1. yet he saith, If any man say, we have not sinned, he maketh God a liar, and his Word is not in us. And in the second Chap. ver. 1. for the sins of the justified he is an Ad­vocate to procure pardon;1 Cor. 11.30 My little children, if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. The other is that of the believing Corinthians, For this cause many are sick &c. Nor will the Antithesis bear him out, for the A­postle doth not compare the Elect with the Reprobates, but all that sinned in Adam, (which is all mankinde) with all that shall be saved by Christ.

A second violence offered to the Scripture (such men are fit to make their own Creed) is, in that he saith that the [...], all that shall be saved, were constituted righteous; the Text saith no such matter, but [...], not [...], [...] [Page 75] that shall be made righteous, not were made righteou, which if Mr. Eyre might have done the office of a Gamaliel to the Apostle, he would have counselled him to say, were made righteous; & if Mr. Eyre's opinion of an actual justification, from the time of Christs death be true, he ought to have said, were made righteous; but the Apostle saith they shall be made righteous: No wonder if he misrepresent what I said, when he makes so bold with the A­postle and sacred Text; and here let me returne that most justly upon Mr. Eyre, which he saith to Mr Woodbridge, Vide Mr Eyre, p. 10. This is not to interpret Scripture, but to deny it; such a liberty to alter tenses, and formes of speech at our pleasure, will but justifie the se [...]uits blasphemy, that the Scriptures are but a leaden rule, and a nose of wax, which may be turned into any forme; Turpe est doctori cùm culpa redurguet ipsum

But now it is observable in this diversity, that the Apostle saith, not many were made righteous;Hosius lib 3. de Auth Scrip. &c. As in Adam many were made sinners, but many shall be made righteous; by this it is ob­servable, that the Apostle doth contradict what Mr. Eyre hath affirmed, that the righteousnesse of Christ came upon the Elect in the same manner antecedently to their birth, as the sinne of Adam came upon all to condemnation antecedently to their be­ing. And the reason of this diversity is, because the Apostle had respect to all those Elect who have not yet believed, either because as yet they were not in being; and those that were in being, were not all as yet called. And truly this is a very great difference between the manner of communicating Christs righte­ousnesse, and Adams sin; for we being semin [...]lly in Adam, Vide Downh. Cov. of Grace, p. 296. and ha­ving a natural relation to him, sinned in him, as being in [...] [...]oynes; and hence we were as truly sinners in him, though not as com­pleatly, and formally sinful as he. And by generation the sin of Adam is actually communicated to all his posterity, and to all alike, (because we were all alike in him.) When they actually exist, and no sooner are they partakers of the human nature, but they are formally constituted sinners, and partake i [...] [...]is sin. But now it is a manifest errour to think that we are all thus seminally in Christ, and have any such union with him [...]n [...]ecedently to faith, as shall be made hereafter more evident, or that the com­munity of his person is equivalent to such an un [...]on; and there­fore [Page 76] the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ is not communi­cated to all from the time of their participation in the humane nature, (as for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration, and the fuller answer to that I referre, till I shall speak to his Ar­gument drawn from them.) We are not then in our generati­on, much lesse before, made partakers of Christs righteousnesse, but in our regeneration, when faith is ingenerated by the Holy Ghost in our souls.

Hence then, that we should not dream of being borne just, as we are borne sinners, which indeed were a contradiction to imagine, that we should be borne both just and sinfull under the guilt of sin at the same time, and that we should not neglect the grace of justification, as though we had it already, and brought it into the world with us, as we brought sin in; The Apostle speaks of it in the future tense, to signifie that we are not immediately constituted righteous, but must expect this benefit in our effe­ctuall vocation, when we are brought to faith; for, Whom he predestinated, them he calleth; and whom he calleth, them he justifieth, and no other, and properly never till then; and to this pur­pose,Dr. Downham, Cov. of Grace, p. 296. Reverend Dr. Downam expresseth himself in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. And hence we see there is not the same reason for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to all the Elect before their birth or faith, that there is for the im­putation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a be­ing, because (as Mr. Burges hath observed) the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way;Mr. Burg. of Justific. p. 180, 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way. This I acknowledge for truth; let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it.

Mr. Eyre, p. 7. [Mr. Eyre saith, This reason is of no validity to him, for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation, for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated. And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams, because they de­scend as naturally from their immediate parents, as they do from A­dam: So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way, i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him, as a common person in behalf of all his po­sterity, [Page 77] and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience de­scend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ, as a common person in their behalf; and therefore un­lesse they can shew a proviso, or restriction in the second Covenant, more then in the first, why life should not fl [...]w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience, as death did from Adams disobedience, the Arguments will stand in fore.

But this answer is of far lesse validity, and implies much un­soundnesse, as I shall evidently demonstrate; for the right un­derstanding of this, we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience.

2. Whether this become ours by imputation, propagation, or by both.

First, then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience, which was Adams sin, and is made ours, with the effects of it: Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act, it was more Gods then his act, in respect of the substance of the action; for, In him we live, and move, and have our being; and did not he uphold us, and concurre with us by his natural concourse, we could put forth no action; and thus farre in genere entis it was good; but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act, as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat, so it was evil in generis moris, and from Adam as from the principal cause, by the abuse of his free will, and a double effect, or guilt attended this offence:

1. Reatus culpae, the inward guilt of sin, or desert of damnati­on, which is an inseparable adjunct, and consequent of sinne.

2. There is Reatus redundans in personam, or reatus poenae, which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath, which is separable from it. This is a consequent of sin, by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin, in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin, it is good, and God may separate this from sin.

Now Adam when he committed this sin, did sustaine a double person.

1. His own.

2. The person of all his posterity, whom he did as a common [Page 78] person represent, hence his sin had a double respect.

1. To himself, and so his sin was his personal and actual trans­gression, and so it was peccatum originans properly, and not pec­catum originale; it was the first well-spring, and head, or foun­tain of sin, and of all the effects of it; not properly that which we call original sin, which is the hereditary corruption of our nature.

2. It had respect unto his whole posterity, which were in his loynes,Heb. 7.8, 9. whereby all sinned in him, as Levi paid tithes in Abra­ham, and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde, actu­ally by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation, in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of man­kinde, considered in Adam.

Now the question is, whether this sin of Adam (for if we en­quire of originall sin, it is without all controversie derived to us by generation, and natural propagation,) the question is, whether this sin, together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death, in whom they all sinned, whether this be ours by imputation, or by propagation? To which I answer, that it is not only ours by imputation, and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person, in the behalf of all his posterity; but it is partly ours by this imputation of God, by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us; and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union be­tween us and Adam. That relation we stood in unto him, being in him as the common root of all mankinde; and without this union or relation, God neither did, nor could in justice impute this sin, (as farre as I yet can understand,) it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us. Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument, That Nullâ ratione concedi po­test, August. Tom. 7, de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit, imputet aliena, that is, that it can by no reason be granted, that God who forgiveth us our own sins, should impute anothers to us: Saith, Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae, non imputat peccatum omnino alienum, sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum, quia etiam ip­si in Adamo peccaverunt; Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat: Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat. orig. p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex [Page 79] ipso futuri erant, per ipsius semen, erant unus homo; vita enim, & anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat. God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam, doth not impute that which is altogether another mans, but their owne sinne, because they sinned in Adam; for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone: Therefore all men that were to de­scend from him by his seed, were one man; for then the life, and soul of that one man, contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage.

And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius, which was this,Zanch. Tom. 4. li [...]. de peccat. orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ, verùm etiam justitià, quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad pecca­tum, & condemnationem: That it cannot consist with the cle­mency and justice of God, that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin & condemnation. To which he answereth. Respondeo, pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret, sed im­putat illud quod & ipsorum est, hoc est, totius naturae; in ipso enim A­damo omne [...] peccaverunt. That is, It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice, if he should impute that that is purely ano­thers sin; but he imputeth that which is their own, that is, the sin of the whole nature.

Now I take this as an errour of great consequence that Master Eyre saith, that we are not sinners by Adam, or that the issues of Adams sin came not upon his posterity by propagation but by vertue of the Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of his posterity, for many reasons.

1. Because he maketh Adams sin only to be ours by imputati­on, or an act of pure and absolute Sovereignty, and Preroga­tive, and no way an act of justice, when as it is a mixt act; not only an act of Prerogative and Sovereignty in ordaining Adam to be a common person, and so his sin to be the sin of the whole nature; for God could have ordered it so, had it been his plea­sure, that this sin should only have been personal, as his other sins after the fall are. But it is an act of justice also, for death is inflicted as a punishment upon all, which is an act of justice. The reason followes in the fifth of the Romans, Because in him [Page 80] all have sinned, so that death is the wages of that sin, because it is our sin, all sinned in him; and it is not only Adams sin, but their own sin by vertue of their relation to him, being in his loynes. And to make the bare and strict imputation of another mans sin, (which is no way ours, but by imputation, the sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement, and punishment of condemning all mankinde to eternall death, which is one of the most weighty acts of Gods judgement, that was ever exe­cuted in the world, is to represent God, not so much as a just Judge, as one that delighteth in the death of his creature, in the blood and ruine of his creature,) when as he pro­fesseth that as he doth live, he hath no delight in the death of a sinner, much lesse of a creature, that were not a sinner, if it were not for his imputation. And although I doubt not but God may as an act of Sovereignty, adjudge an innocent creature unto pain and misery, if it were his will; and that it would less reflect upon God to say he dit it, because it was his absolute plea­sure, then to pretend or conceive that the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin was the cause of it; yet I have no warrant to say that ever God did, or will do such an act to make the crea­ture miserable, meerly to shew his Sovereignty. And what is there in the imputation of Adams sin, if this imputation be grounded upon his will, and not that naturall union and relation between Adam and his posterity, to free it from such an act of pure So­vereignty; therefore I look upon it as an act of justice, as well as prerogative, the equity of which act lieth much in the relation of Adam and his posterity to one another.

2. I urge, as before I hinted, If death entred by sin, then Gods imputation is not the onely cause of it; But it entred by sin, as the Apostle saith, Death passed upon all, inasmuch as all have sinned.

3. Then Adam was only the occasion of our sin, but God the Authour; for if Adam had sinned, if God had not imputed it, we had not been sinners; But this is an insufferable blas­phemy to make God the Author of sinne; Therefore Gods imputing it, is an act of justice, and not of Sove­reignty only.

4. This overthrowes the community of his person, for if it [Page 81] be meerly an act of his will, he might have done this though A­dam had not been a publick person.

5. This ascribeth to God a fallible judgement in esteeming him a sinner that is innocent, and is not a sinner but by his imputa­tion.

6. This ascribeth injustice to God, to impute sin to him that is no sinner, but by his imputation, which the sinner would be de­livered from, and consents not to it, as the regenerate that be­waile it, and earnestly desire to be delivered from it.

7. The very necessity that there was for Christ to be borne of a Virgin, conceived of the Holy Ghost, to prevent his being a sinner, confutes this conceit; for if Adams sinne be ours only by imputation, let but God not impute Adams sin to Christ, and he intended not so miraculously to be borne, for it behoved him to be like us in all things; and why not by the help of man to be borne, if Adams sin be ours by imputation only, and not by propagation also? Thus you see how many errours Mr. Eyre is driven unto, to hold and maintaine one. Nor are his reasons of any weight that he produceth to prove, that the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natu­ral propagation, for then his sin should not be imputed untill they are actually propagated; if he meant of an actual and formall imputation of sin, it is granted that sin is not so imputed till an actuall being. For the understanding of this, we must know what imputation of sin is; it implieth either an estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner, or an adjudication of pu­nishment for that sin, or the execution of that punishment; now look, in what manner we are sinners, in that manner is the impu­tation, for Gods judgement must be according to truth; now as we are but seminally, potentially and virtually sinners, be­cause we had but a virtual existence in Adam, (for it is a known rule, and of approved verity, Operatio rei consequitur esse rei, The acts and operations of things still follow the being of things, and are suitable and proportionable thereunto,) so we are reputed by God only virtually sinful in Adam, and so not actual sinners, nor so reputed by God, nor formally obliged to punishment; nor any punishment actually, or formally to be inflicted, till we have an actuall existence; hence by vertue of that Covenant [Page 82] made with Adam, we are not actually and formally constituted sinners till we are actuall members, and so his argument will re­turn upon himself. For if the righteousness of Christ come upon us in the same manner to Justification, as Adams sin to condemnati­on, then as we are not actually sinners, till we have an actual being; so neither are we actually justified, till we be actuall members of Christ by faith.

His second Reason halteth right down, and is pittifully incon­sequent, for it doth no way follow, that if the sinne of Adam be ours by propagation, that therefore the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity, as much as Adams, because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents, as from Adam; but rather the consequence should be, Therefore our next parents do as truly transmit and propagate that sin, as Adam to their children; and this is true, and will advantage your cause nothing, nor hinder ours; but it followes not that their perso­nall sins should be imputed, as was Adams first sin: For if no more of Adams sins be imputed then that first transgression, why should the sins of any other parents be imputed? And the rea­son is not alike, for none but Adam could be a publick person re­presenting all mankinde; and that sin was not only personal, and proper to Adam, but common to the whole nature, and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person. For it is a mixt act in God, when he doth impute Adams sin, partly arising from his Sovereignty, and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation, although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are, and may be im­puted to the children. And whereas he saith, Unlesse they can shew any proviso, or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first, why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect, as death did from Adams disobedience, the Argument will stand in force.

I answer, here needs no other proviso, or restriction, but on­ly to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way, as we are in Adam; and therefore the benefits of his death cannot imme­diately follow our birth, or be antecedent to it, but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ; and the parallel holds [Page 83] firme; for as in Adam we all virtually sinned, and so were vir­tually condemned; so we grant, Christ hath meritoriously re­deemed us, and we are virtually justified in him; and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity, till they have an actuall being, and are actually members of Adam; so are not we actually justified, till we be actual members of Christ by faith. As for the Logical Axiom, Non entis nulla sunt accidentia, it was used in my next Argument, and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place.

CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ, shewing that where there is no union, there can be no communion; his unjust charge refuted, and the nature of our union with Christ fur­ther declared.

MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence, was drawn from our union to Christ. Where there is no union, there can be no communion, for union is the ground of all communion, which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world; and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union; But we are not united unto Christ untill faith; Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification. And in the further prosecuting of the Argument, I shewed that this union is such a union, whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ; therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united, and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man, and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union, it must require our existence; [Page 85] for an accident cannot subsist without its subject, becauseWhere I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio qu [...] tenus opponit. sub stantiae, ne strictè pro om [...] quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio. Acci­dentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse, and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it; for, Non entis nullae sunt affectiones, and that this union was the formal effect of faith.

Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument.

First, he saith, that I called our union with Christ a perso­nall union, which seems to fav ur that absurd notion, that a Be­liever loseth not only his own proper life, but his personali [...]y al­so, and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God. I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word; —and his shamelesse dealing in this respect, is the more injuriously evident, in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses, that I neither said nor did own any such thing; but did decla [...]e that I said and meant that it was such a union, whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever; yet is he a man of that face and fore-head, to print and declare that to the world, which he hath God, Angels and men, if not his own conscience, to witnesse against him; but this he hath done to render me o­dious to the world; the Lord forgive him, and let him see the evil of these, and the like slanders against me and others of his bre­thren that differ from him. And let him now know, that I utter­ly abhor that Familistical notion, that there should be an hypo­staticall union between Christ and a Believer, for Christ is one person, and a Believer another, Apage Theologiam hanc erco rele­gandam. I forced my self publickly to oppose it, as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon, and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Do­ctor doth condemne,Dr. Chambers. that a Believer, loseth not only his own proper life, but his personality also, and is taken up into the person, into the nature and person of the Son of God, I desire no better Umpire to determine.

I affirme, that the union made between us and Christ by faith, is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ; What is here that savours of such a notion? yea,Mr. Hooker, Souls union. pag 7, 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me? Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise, called the Soules [Page 86] Exaltation, and in the Sermon called the Souls Ʋnion with Christ, expressing what this union is, and how it is made by faith, hath this passage; he saith, It is a totall union, the whole nature of a Saviour, and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together; and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church, not only according as he is God, but as he is God and man; and a Believer is a member, not only according to his body, but ac­cording to his body and soul; whole Christ being the Head, and the whole Believer being a Member; therefore a whole Christ, and a whole believer must be joyned together.

Perkins, 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20. p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78. The whole per­son of every faithful man is verily conjoyn­ed with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man.And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins; Of this conjunction, saith he, two things may be noted.

The first, that it is a substantial union, in that the person of him that believeth, is united to the person of Christ; but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith; Because, saith he, they are given to Christ, and Christ to them, and are said to be in him, that they are called his sheep, children, before they believe, which savours of this notion more then mine, making them one person in Christ before they had a being; sure then their personality by him is swallowed up in the person of the Son of God, if he can finde them being, ex­isting, and actually justified as one person with him, before they have either being or faith.

He saith that this is called a mystical and spiritual union, because it is secret, and invisible, apprehended by faith, and not by sense and reason; surely this is not only apprehended by faith, but it is made, and is a formal effect of faith; the Spirit worketh this faith, by which we are united to Christ. And it hath hitherto been the unanimous Doctrine of all our Divines, that this mysti­cal union is made by faith, which Mr. Eyre opposeth, and will have it to be antecedent to it.

I will instance in a few. Mr. Reynolds in his Sermon upon the Life of Christ, pag. 450. saith, Consider further the formall ef­fects of faith, which is to unite a man unto Christ; by meanes of which union, Christ and we are one body; and being thus united, the death and merit of Christ is ours. So, pag. 478. Consider faith in its inherent properties, so it is not more noble then the rest, (that is, then other graces) but consider it as an instrument appointed by God [Page 87] for the most noble offices; so it is the most superlative, and excellent grace.

The first of these offices, (saith he) is to unite to Christ, and give possession of him; the Apostle prayes for the Ephesians,Eph. 3.17. that Christ may dwell in their hearts by faith. And a little after, This union to, and communion with Christ, is on our part the work of faith, which is as it were the spiritual joynt and ligament by which Christ and a Christian are coupled. John 14.19. In one place (saith he) We are said to live by Christ, Because I live, ye shall live also, in another by faith: How, by both? by Christ as the Fountain, by Faith as the Pipe, conveigh­ing water to us from the fountaine; by Christ as the Foundation, by Faith as the Cement; and in answer to an Objection, pag. 479.Mr. Reynolds Life of Christ. do not other graces joyne a man to Christ as well as Faith? Ʋnion is the proper effect of love, therefore we are one as well by loving him, as by believing in him. To this (saith he) I answer, Love makes a moral union in affections, but Faith makes a mysticall uni­on; and a little after, pag. 480. Between Gods love and ours comes faith to make us one with Christ.

And then the second Office of Faith, (he saith) is to justifie, in the same place. So Mr. Shepherd in his Sound Believer, pag. 111. Look as disunion is the disjunction or separation of divers things one from another; so union is the conjunction, or joyning of them toge­ther that were before severed: Hence that act of the Spirit in u­niting us to Christ, can be nothing else but the bringing back the soul unto Christ, or the conjunction of the soul unto Christ, and into Christ, by bringing it back to him, that before lay like a dry bone separated from him. Thus, 1 Cor 6. [...]7. He that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit with him;John 6.35. the Spirit therefore brings us to the Lord Christ, and so we are in him. Now the coming of the soul to Christ, Heb. 3.12. what is it but Faith? our union therefore is by Faith, not without it; for by it, we that were once separated from him by sin, John 6 37. and espe­cially by unbelief, are now come, not only unto him, as unto the loadstone, but (which is most near) into him, and so grow one with him, &c. I speak not this as if we were united to Christ with­out the Spirit on his part, for the conjunction of things severed must be mutuall, if it be firme; I only shew that we are not u­nited before faith by the Spirit unto Christ, but that we are by faith (wrought by the Spirit, whereby on our part we are first [Page 88] conjoyned unto him; and then on his part he by the person of his Spirit,Perkins 1 Vol. Chap. 36 or­der and causes of damnation. pag. 78. is most wonderfully united to us: So Mr. Perkins after he had shewed that the whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ, God and man; he saith, the manner of their union is this, A faithful man first of all, and immediately, &c. The bond of this union is this; this union is made by the Spirit of God applying Christ unto us, and on our parts by faith receiving Christ Jesus offered to us. And for this cause it is termed a spirituall union; So page 299. in his Exposition of the Creed, shewing that the mystical union makes us one with Christ, and this is by the Spi­rit; he saith, Hence the bond of this conjunction is one, and the same Spirit descending from Christ the Head to all his Mem­bers, creating also in them the instrument of faith, whereby they apprehend Christ,Perkins 2 Vol. in his Ep st. Gal. 3.27. pag. 265. and make him their own. So Mr. Perkins in his second Vol. propounds this Question, How are all Believers made one with Christ? (Where he makes them only, and never till then subjects of this union.) Answ. By a Donation on Gods part, whereby Christ is given unto us, and by a receiving on our part; and a little after addeth, that faith is our hand to receive Christ, and this receiving is done by a supernatural act of the minde, whereby we believe Christ with his benefits to be ours.

And to this purpose Amesius in his Medulla Theolo. Receptio Christi est quà Christus oblatus homini conjungitur, Amesius in Me­dulla Theo. cap. 26. de voca. Num. 17.18. l. 1. p. 118. 2 Cor. 5.17. Gal 3.27. & homo Chri­sto, Joh 6.56. In me manet, & ego in eo.

Hujus conjunctionis respectu nos dicimur esse in Christo, & in­duisse Christum, & inhabitari à Christo, Ephes. 3.17, &c. & Num. 26 Receptio activa est elicitus actus fidei quâ vocatus jam totus in Christum recumbit, ut suum Servatorem, & per Christum in De­um. The receiving of Christ is that whereby Christ offered, is united to man, and man to Christ; He abideth in me, and I in him, John 6.56. Joh. 6.56. In respect of this conjunction we are said to be in Christ, to put on Christ, and Christ to dwell in our hearts; this active receiving of Christ is an elicite act of faith, whereby he that is called, doth now wholly rely on Christ as his Saviour, and by Christ on God.John 3.15, 16. I may spare paines of relating any more testimonies of such a known truth; and yet Mr. Eyre will have this mystical union to be apprehended, not made by faith.

Secondly, Mr. Eyre excepteth against it as propounded uni­versally, that there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe.

1. They are his own words, not mine, for there is a unity of natures in which they agree, and a certain relative respect or u­nion, very improperly so called, between Christ and his Elect; but a mystical union I know none till faith; and were there any real union before, yet Mr. Eyre might have known that rule, Analogum quando per se positum stat pro famosiori Analogato, and so it ought to have been taken for this famous union, or implan­tation by faith.

Thirdly, He acknowledgeth, that That conjugal union between them, which consists in the mutuall consent of parties, is not before faith. And is not this to yield the cause?Eph. 5.23, 32. is not this the mystical union spoken of in Scripture, and so called in relation to the si­militude it beareth to the marriage-union? and is there any more mystical unions then one? and that made by faith; hath the wife any right or property to the body, name, goods of the man till she be married to her husband? So till this conjugal marriage-union between Christ and a Believer, he hath no actual right, or property to the Body, Name, Goods and Purchases of Christ.

Fourthly, And yet he addeth, There is a true and real union, that by means thereof their sins do become Christs, and Christs righte­ousnesse is made theirs. Shall we not need any more proof of this but your bare word? where is it written there is such a union be­fore faith? by whom is it besides your self so called? and by what name is that union distinguished from the mystical union by faith?

But let us hear this proof; God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ to be as it were one heap or lumpe, one vine, one bo­dy or spirituall corporation, wherein Christ is the Head, and they the Members; Christ the Root, and they the Branches; Christ the first fruits, and they the residue of the heap; in respect of this union, it is that they are said to be given unto Christ, and Christ to them, to be in Christ, Ephes. 1. That they are called his sheep, his seed, his children, his brethren before they are Believers; and by vertue of this union it is, that the obedience and satisfaction of Christ de­scends particularly to them, and not the rest of mankinde. Oh rare [Page 90] invention! Oh mysterious union hidden from all ages, but now revealed and discovered by Mr. William Eyre, a discovery as far excelling that of Columbus, as heaven exceeds earth! This is such a mystical union, as that it is not only not to be apprehend­ed by sense and reason, (because against both) but not to be comprehended by faith neither, because it is no where written; but let us weigh the strength of his words, which carry this sense, Because God from everlasting constituted, and ordained Christ to be a Head, and Believers to be Members; therefore there was such a union from eternity. As good consequence as this, your Book is in print, therefore it is all true. But I take this to be a grosse errour, that the Elect and Christ were united from eternity: For,

1. Gods decree ordaining Christ to be a Head, is terminus di­minuens, and doth not signifie that Christ was actually a Head, having members united to him; but it signifies Gods purpose what he did decree to be done in time, and it is the continuall panalogizing of Mr. Eyre, and the Antinomians, to confound the decree, and the execution of the decree; God decreed to send Christ into the world, was he therefore actually sent? No, not till the fulnesse of time came; Gods decree ordaining Christ to be a Head, and they to be Members, doth not actually consti­tute Christ a Head, and they his Members.

2. That that is not, cannot be united; for union requires ne­cessarily the pre-existence of the persons or things united; But now Believers did not exist, much lesse exist as Believers from e­ternity, Christ had not a mystical body from etern [...]ty; There­fore he was not a Head from eternity.

3. This union to Christ is reciprocal, whereby Christ is u­nited to a Believer, and a Believer to Christ, and requires li­gaments, and bonds to make this union; the Sp [...]rit on Christs part, Faith on ours: But they that exist not, are not subjects capable of receiving the Spirit, or of Faith, without which this union cannot be made.

4. The Scripture no where speaks of an eternall union, there­fore there was no such union; and as he telleth us, We must par­don him if he believe not our unwritten verities A [...]d he must pardon us if we believe not his written vani­ties.. And therefore [Page 91] when it is said, that God chose us in Christ, Ephes. 1. This is not to be understood, as if we were then existing, and had a being in Christ; but it shewes the way and order how God would save us; he ordained to save us in and through Christ, and for his sake; not that Christs merits were the cause quoad actum eligen­tis, (in respect of the act of Election) but quoad terminum sive salutem ad quam eligimur; but in respect of the end, or salvati­on unto which we are elected or ordained. And so Dr. Twisse, a man of eminent worth and accurate judgement in his Vindiciae. Interca non dicimus Chri­stum in negotie Electionis ba­bere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs e­ligentis, sed duntaxat respe­ctutermini, salu­tis videlicet aut vitae aeternae ad quam eligimur. Nam Deum eli­gere nos in Chri­sto ad vitam ae­ternam, nihil a­liud est qu [...]m Deum constitu­isse nos ad obti­nendam salutem per Jesum Chri­stum. Doctor Twist. Vind. l. 2. di­gress. 10. sect 2. pag. 74. c. 1. Perinde est ac si dixisset, elegit nos ad salutem, &c. Ibid. In the mean while we do not say that Christ in the businesse of Ele­ction, hath the consideration of a meritorious cause in respect of the act of God choosing, but only in respect of the terme or end, to wit, of the salvation or life eternal unto which we are chosen: for that God should choose us unto life eternal in Christ, is nothing else then that God hath ordained us to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ; and as he addeth, Perinde est, &c. Even as if he should have said, He hath chosen us to obtain salvation by Christ: Hither also appertaineth the next verse, wherein is taught that God predestinated us, that we should be his sons by Christ Jesus, implanted into Christ by faith; Hinc enim nos filios Dei fieri profitetur Apostolus, Gal. 3.26. Omnes est is filii Dei per fidem in Christo Jesu. For from hence the Apostle professeth, that we are made the Sons of God, Gal. 3.26. Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, and therefore are not sons antecedently to faith, as Mr. Eyre would have it; for though we are so called, this is to be understood consequenter, and not antecedenter, because they shall be made such; and whereas the Scripture saith, he died for enemies, and the un­godly; therefore in these places, where they are called his sheep, children, his brethren, before faith, this is to limit, and restrain the death of Christ to such as shall be so made, not that they are so de facto already, but are so called in respect of cer­tainty, and what they shall be. But to returne to that of Master Eyre, that God hath chosen us in Christ, as if we then existed in him; Let the Reader observe how unhappily he joyneth with Arminius, who seemeth such an enemy to him, Arminius Exam. p. 3 [...]. saith, Apostolus ait nos in Christo electos esse, The Apostle saith, we are elected in Christ; And as something is put out of the Text by Arminius, so something is put in; God chose us before the [Page 92] world in Christ our Head, this Arminius plainly asserts, Exam. p. 158. and accordingly Mr. Eyre saith, God constituted from everlasting Christ a Head, and (saith he) in this respect we are chosen in Christ, that is, as in a Head; the Text saith no such matter; and as Arminius leaves out those words, that we should be holy, by which meanes the sense of our being in Christ is made obscure, which if added, would make it plain in what sense these words [in Christ] should be taken, that is, these words shew to what we were chosen, to wit, to obtaine holinesse; and how; to wit, in Christ, that is, for Christs sake, like as it is said, vers. 3. God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus, that is, for Christs sake: So Dr. Twisse in his answer to Mr. Cotton upon these words of his, that he saith, God chose us before the world in Christ our Head, p. 9. where, because it's very material to this passage, I shall recite what he further saith: Mark (I pray you) saith he, speaking to Master Cotton of Arminius, how he works upon each; to be elect in Christ, is with him to be elect being in Christ, for nos in Christo with him, is nos existentes in Christo, and seeing we are not in Christ but by faith, (where let the Reader observe the Doctors judgement, that we are not in Christ but by faith, which is con­tradictory to Mr. Eyre,) Hereupon he maketh the object of Election to be fideles, the faithful, or in Christum credentes, such as believe in Christ.

We answer first, we may take as great liberty to interpret it for explication sake, by supplying a participle of the future tense thus, Elegit nos futuros in Christo, He chose us hereafter to be in Christ, (like as it followes) who hath predestinated us to be a­dopted. Now we are adopted by faith, Gal. 3.26.) as he takes liberty to supplie a participle of the present tense; especially considering that when we were Elect, to wit before the foun­dation of the world, we were not at all, and consequently not fideles, Believers.

Secondly, we answer, that the compleat sentence considered at full, doth manifest in what sense this phrase [in Christ] is taken. He chose us in Christ, that we should be holy; this shewes to what we were chosen, to wit, to obtain holinesse; and how? to wit, [in Christ]; that is, for Christs sake; like as [Page 93] ver. 3. 'tis laid, God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus, that is, for Christ his sake; and like as 1 Thes. 5.9. 'tis said, God hath ordained us to obtain sal­vation through Jesus Christ; so here in conformable exposition,1 Thess. 5 9, when it is said, God hath chosen us in Christ, that we should be holy, a fair meaning may be this, God hath ordained us to obtaine ho­linesse through Christ Jesus.

To this I will super-adde the testimony of Dr. Twisse, and the rather, because you alledge him for your defence in the Do­ctrine of eternal Justification. Christus (fateor) caput est E­lectorum, & praedestinatorum, sed non formaliter consideratorum. Neque enim praedestinati quà praedestinati, sunt membra corporis Christi, sed potius futuri sunt membra ejus, nam quod est mem­brum Christi procul dubio existit. Neque enim membrum Christi, est terminus diminuens existentiam, at praedestinati quà praedestinati non existunt, nam predestinatio fuit ab aeterno, sed praedestinati non extiterunt simpliciter ab eterno, hodie multi sunt Electi, qui procul dubio adhuc non nascuntur. Rursus unio illa per quam fi­mus ejus membra fit per fidem, Ergo quotquot Christi membra sunt oportet esse fideles, at non omnes praedestinati ex qùo primùm praede­stinati sunt èvestigio fideles evadunt. Adhaec, cùm caput non po­tiùs fiat aliquorum quàm illi aliqui fiant membra corporis ejus, se­quitur Christum non ab aeterno fuisse caput, cùm non ab aeterno cor­pus habuerit mysticum, aut membra cujus ratione propriè dicitur caput Ecclesiae suae. Membra verò corporis cùm fiant per vocatio­nem, unde dicitur [...], ídque per vocationem efficacem; & consequenter per fidem, apparet Christum non priùs dici posse caput quàm sint aliqui, qui credant in ipsum; loquor de Christo Mediato­re, & Redemptore. Dr. Twisse, Vind. li. b 2. digress. 10. page 74. Col. 2.

I confesse Christ is the Head of the Elect and predestinate, but not formally considered: For neither the predestinate as pre­destinate, are members of Christs body, but rather shall be members of it; for, what is a member of Christ, without all doubt existeth: For neither is a member of Christ a term dimi­nishing existence; But the predestinate as predestinate do not exist, for predestination was from eternity; but the predesti­nate do not simply exist from eternity. This day there are ma­ny [Page 94] that are Elect, which undoubtedly are not yet borne.

Again, that union by which we are made his members, is made by faith; therefore it is needful, that all that are his mem­bers should be Believers; but all the predestinate do not prove Beli vers as soon as they are predestinate. Moreover, seeing a Head cannot sooner be a Head of any then they can be members of his body; it followeth that Christ was not a Head from e­ternity, because he was not a mysticall body from eternity, or members, in which respect he may properly be called the Head of his Church. But seeing they are made members of his body by calling, from whence it is called the Chu ch, and that by ef­fectual vocation, and consequently by faith; it appeareth that Christ cannot first be called a Head before there are some who believe in him, I speak of Christ the Mediatour and Re­deemer.

Now, 1. That we were not united unto Christ at the time of his passion, when our sins were laid upon him as our surety.

And, 2. That we are not united antecedently to our faith, I prove by these ensuing reasons.

Although it be willingly acknowledged that Christ was a com­mon person in his death, and a surety for all the Elect, and what he did was for them; yet this constitutes not the mystical union between Christ and us; this only rendred him capable of ha­ving our sins imputed to h [...]m, and served to lay a foundation for our partaking in his righteousnesse, when we should be im­planted into him by mysticall union through faith.

1. Christ is united to us, as he is a Head, and we his members; but the consideration of Christ as dying for us,Ratio capitis non est ratio causae merito­riae, Dr. Twiss. in answ. to Mr. Cotton. p. 10. and so becom­ing a meritorious cause of our salvation, is different from the con­sideration of Christ as a Head; for in his death as he is our Me­diatour, purchasing salvation by the merit of it; he is an effici­ent moral cause of salvation, and in this channel runnes the me­ritorious cause; but Christ as he is a Head, is an efficient phy­sicall and naturall cause of salvation, and thus only he is a Head by actual pouring out his Spirit upon the Elect in the ap­pointed time for their conversion, whereby they are brought to faith, and so united to Christ. Now the moral cause may exist long before the effect follow, and therefore doth not necessa­rily require the existence of the subject, but the efficient natu­ral [Page 95] cause hath its effect immediately following, a [...]d therefore when Christ will as a Head unite any to him, (the person must exist; for that that is not, cannot be united;) and then as the Head diffuseth nerves to the several members, and conveighs a­nimal spirits, by which the members are quickened, and live; so Christ conveigheth his Spirit into their hearts to work faith, by which they are united to Christ, and so partake of righteousnesse and spiritual life from Christ.

2. To make a mysticall union between Christ and the Elect before their birth, or faith, be it when it will, whether from e­ternity or Christs death,Mr. Eyre, p. 8. will necessarily establish that Familisti­call notion, that Mr. Eyre fasteneth upon us, That the persona­lity of a Believer, or Elect person, is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God; for it makes them and Christ to be but one person; for as yet they have no being; therefore if they be, they must be in him, and subsist in his person, and so this childe is fairely laid at his own door, that he would father up­on us: but we say no such thing; for this union being by faith, and not till we exist, Christ is one person, Peter another, Paul a third, and so as many distinct persons as are mystically united.

3. If they were truly in Christ before their personall being and union to Christ by faith, then they and Christ being but one p [...]r­son, all and the singular parts of Christs obedience and suf­ferings, together with all, and singular the effect, thereof, and benefits may be attributed to them; because they being one with him personally, are said to do it in him, as we that were all one in Adam, united to him by a natural union, tanquam in rad [...]ce humani generis, as in the root and common parent of all man­kinde are said to do what Adam did; but all and every part of Christs obedience and sufferings, with all the singular eff [...]cts and benefits cannot be attributed to any sinner believing in him; for of whom with any shew of truth; and without horrible blas­phemy may it be said that ‘He gave himself for us an offering, and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour unto God?Eph 5.2. That by the eternall Spirit of God he offered up himself without spot to God? that the chastisement of our peace was upon him,H [...]b 9 14. Isa. 53.5. and that by his stripes we are healed?’ For this can agree to none [Page 96] but Christ personally,Isa. 63.3. not mystically considered. And Christ is said to tread the Wine-presse of his Fathers anger alone; but if they were then truly in him, then all the Elect of God did tread this Wine-presse with him, and mysticall Christ was cru­cified, not Christ alone that was the Son of God. And there­fore we see most absurdly,Mr. Eyre, p. 9. that Mr. Eyre applies that to Christ mystically considered, which is peculiar personally to Christ the Son of God,Matth 3.17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; What if this were spoken to Christ as a publick Person and Me­diatour for the Elect, doth it therefore follow it was meant of Christ mysticall? certainly the consequence will never be grant­ed upon his bare word.

4. If we were in Christ when he died and suffered for us an­tecedently to our birth, so as to be mystically united, having no subsistence but in the person of the Mediatour, then we were punished in him, and gave satisfaction in him, and so no place is left for pardon of sin in our justification; for if we were pu­nished in Christ, and suffered in him, then what place is left for pardon? for pardon and punishment are contrary; He that suffereth the full weight of punishment is not pardoned, and to this purpose Polanus in his Comment. upon the 9th. Dani. the 8th. Quest. Polanus in Dan. c. 9. ver. 24. quaest. 8. Neutiquam propriè loquendo sumus puniti in Christo, cùm Scriptura disertè doceat nos esse justificatos in Christo; quòd si su­mus in Christo justificati, & absoluti, non igitur damnati, & pu­niti, Ephes. 1. v. 6. Ait Paulus de Deo nos gratìs sibi acceptos fe­cit in illo dilecto, nos ergò Deus non punivit, sed omnium nostrum poenam Christo imp [...]suit, Isa. 53 6. sicut dicitur, Isa. 53. v. 6. Jehova facit ut incurrat in eum iniquitas omniûm nostrûm. Christus torcular calcavit solus, nos non calcavimus. Neque vero idem est nos esse punitos in Christo, & Christum esse punitum pro nobis, seu nostro loco. Nam si Christus est punitus nostro loco, sequitur nos non esse punitos, sed poenam nobis esse remissam: & quid quaeso est aliud remissio peccatorum, quàm condonatio, & culpae, & poenae? Quo­modo igitur haec consentient Deum nobis remisisse peccata, & ta­men punivisse nos propter eadem? Proinde sic ex Scriptura statuen­dum, Deum Christo paenam nostrorum peccatorum imposuisse, ut nobis illam remitteret: proprio filio suo non pepercisse ut nobis par­ceret. If any man object that Polanus doth not absolutely deny [Page 97] that we were punished in Christ, but that we cannot properly be said to be punished in him.

I answer, Nor do I absolutely deny it, if that Doctrine, that we were punished in Christ be understood in respect of imputa­tion, (to wit) that God for the merit of Christs passion forgiveth our sins upon believing, as if we had suffered and made satisfa­ction, I willingly grant it, but then we were not in him as one person making satisfaction; for the person of him that suffered for us, is distinguished from them for whom he suffered, and by Mr. Eyre's opinion that we were really one in him, and with him before our birth, and faith can be understood no other way, as I conceive.

5. That to make us to be one with Christ antecedently to our birth when he suffered for us, destroyes the ground of imputati­on of Christs righteousnesse; for those which were truly in Christ in all his obedience and sufferings, to them that obedience and sufferings cannot be made over by imputation; for what need is there of imputation, or what place is left for it, when those to whom it should be imputed, because of their union with Christ, did themselves performe it? wherefore, either there was no such union, or that imputation must be denied. But the obedience and sufferings of Christ are evidently by Scripture de­clared to be ours by imputation:Rom. 4.5. Hence our faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousnesse; And Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him; we are made righteousnesse, as he was made sin, that was by im­putation, therefore we were made righteous by imputation;2 Cor. 5.21. hence that union Mr. Eyre contends for, I cannot say, mole ruit suâ, but for want of weight falls to the ground.

The next thing that we have undertaken to prove is, that there is not any mystical union between Christ and us inte­cedently to faith, which I demonstrate from Scripture-grounds thus:

First, if Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they may believe, and that (believing) they may be united to him, then before faith, such (for whom Christ died) are not united to him; But Christ prayeth for those for whom he died, that they might believe, and that (believing) they might be one with him. [Page 98] The consequence of the Major is as evident as reason can make it, unlesse we make Christ to pray in vaine, to pray for that which was already done; if therefore they were not one in Christ, and the Father as the Father was in Christ, and Christ in the Father before, as this prayer intimates they were not, then this union was not antecedent to faith. The Minor are the words of Christ, John 17.20, 21. and need not a graine of allowance; Christ in this place prayes for those for whom he was to die, that after his death they might believe; the instrumentall cause of that faith, is set down to be the word of the Apostles; the fi­nall cause of that believing, is, that they might be one, that is, that they might be as members of the same body by faith, near­ly united to one another; the manner how is declared by the near conjunction between the Father and Christ.

Secondly, he prayes not only that they may be one, or at unity among themselves,Diodat in Le­cum. 171. John 21. but also that they may be one in us; that is, as Diodat upon the place, in the communion of the Holy Ghost, by which they may be mystically united to me, and by me to thee, (and truly this latter union to Christ is the ground of the former, of being united to one another;) now if they were mystically united before, this would make Christ either ignorant of this union, or his prayer to be in vain, to pray for that that was done long before from eternity, (as Mr. Eyre saith,) but either of these were fearful impiety to imagine, therefore this union is not till faith.

A second Argument I frame from the same place is this: They that are not really united as members of the invisible Church to the rest of the members, and mysticall body of Christ, are not united to Christ; But before faith, no man is a true member of the invisible Church, and so united to the rest of the members of the mystical body; Therefore not to Christ. The Major will not be denied by any, but such as are baptized into a spirit of errour; the Reason is plaine, because the union between the members is a fruit of our union to the same Head; but no man is united to the company of Believers to have a true fellowship and union with them, but a true Believer; For what communion hath a Believer with an Infide? and Christ prayes that they might be­lieve, that they might be one, that is, that they might be mu­tually [Page 99] united, as by one faith, as members one of another, and the same body: So Piscator upon the place,Pisca. in [...]oc 17. Job. 21. in Anal. Ʋt per unam fidem in­ter se devincti, tanquam membra unius corporis, cujus caput est Christus, mutuo amore sese complectantur, That being knit toge­ther by one faith, as members of one body, whereof Christ is Head, they may with a mutuall love embrace each other; now a true communion of love cannot be between true Believers, and those that are yet unbelievers, therefore neither between them and Christ. And hence I argue,

3. Christ and Belial are not united: Every unbeliever is a son of Belial: Therefore they are not united.2 Cor. 6.15. The word Belial is as much as [...], an uncalled man, nequàm, a very wicked man, a man that will profit none, but is hurtful to all, in Hebr. [...]; the Hebricians agree not from whence it is derived; but the sig­nification given is either a man that will profit none, or good for nothing, or one that will be subject to no yoke; I deny not but Interpreters do think many of them, that Satan is in this place understood, and Beza saith, it very well agrees to him, though he take it for a wicked man; and Bullinger and Calvin take it for the Devil, the head of all wicked men: but I see not why it may not be taken here for a wicked man, and not for Satan; for it's ordinary in Scripture by this word to understand very wicked men; so in Deuteronomy it's taken for an Idolater,Deut. 13.13. and of such is the Apostles discoursing here, that Believers should have no communion with Idolaters; and so Elies sons being very wicked,1 Sam. 2.12. are called sons of Belial. And it's very agreeable to the scope; for in the verse before, he exhorteth them not to be unequally yoaked together with unbelievers; he blames them for having too much familiarity with Heathens, whether in marriages, or in their feasts, eating things sacrificed to Idols; he would not have them draw in the same yoke, by which Metaphor he would disswade them from keeping company with them, and so partak­ing with them in their sins. His Argument is drawn à contrario, Your condition and profession is as contrary to theirs, as righte­ousnesse is to unrighteousnesse, as light and darknesse; and there­fore as there is no fellowship between righteousnesse and un­righteousnesse, between light and darknesse, so neither should there be between you and them; yea, Christ hath no communi­on [Page 100] with Belial, and you should be like Christ; Christ and the devil can as well agree, as a Christian and a wicked man; a Chri­stian is called by the same name, and should be as Christ in the world: Now as Christ hath no communion with Belial, whe­ther you take it for the Devil, or a wicked man, is all one; There­fore neither should you.

Now then, if Christ and a wicked man have no communion, then have they no union: But they have no communion; who will make such a swine the member of Christ?1 Cor. 6.15. Shall I take the mem­ber of Christ, and make it the member of an harlot? God forbid. And with the like abhorrency would Paul hear of making a member of an harlot a member of Christ, a son of Belial a mem­ber of Christ:1 Cor. 6.11. But such is every unbeliever, (though elect;) the Apostle tells the Corinthians, they were Idolaters, Fornicators, such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God.1 Cor. 6.17.

4. He that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit; But an unbelie­ver and Christ, is not one Spirit: Therefore they are not joyned. The Proposition is expressely written, and the Minor is evident, because an unbeliever is one that walketh according to the Prince of the power of the aire, Eph. 2.2. the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, or unbelief; for so it signifies rather then disobedi­ence, it signifies imperswasibility, and contumacy in not be­lieving.

5. He that is none of Christs, is not joyned to Christ; An un­believer is none of Christs, (in respect of incorporation.) The proposition shineth brighter then the Sun at noon-day. The As­sumption is proved from Rom. 8. He that hath not the Spirit of Christ, is none of Christs: But an unbeliever hath not the Spirit of Christ; Surely the Spirit of Christ is a holy sanctifying Spi­rit, and will not dwell in such an unclean stie, as the heart of an unbeliever.

6. He that hath no fellowship with God, hath no union with Christ: But an unbeliever hath no fellowship with God. The Ma­jor will admit of no contradiction, the Assumption I prove from the first Epistle of John, ch. 1.6 He that saith he hath fellowship with God, and walketh in darknesse, is a liar, and doeth not the truth; an unbeliever walks in darknesse, practising the unfruitful works of darknesse; he will contradict common sense and experience that denieth this.

[Page 101]7. He that is in Christ, is a new creature:2 Cor. 5.17. But an unbeliever is not a new creature: Therefore he is not in Christ. There is none but an Atheist can cast a stone at either of these Proposi­tions.

8. Where there is perfect resistance, there is no union; But between Christ and the heart of an unbeliever there is perfect resistance; Therefore there is no union between Christ and him, Christ will not be united to an unbeliever; hence he brings all the Elect to faith; nay, it were dishonourable to Christ to be joyn­ed to an actuall unbeliever; the mysticall body of Christ would be a monstrous, het erogeneous body, if it consisted of Believers, and Infidels; and an unbeliever resists the grace and Spirit of Christ, seeking to draw him to faith, as Stephen told the Jewes, They were a stiffe-necked people, they did alwayes resist the Holy Ghost; so is it true of every unbeliever:Rom 8.7. The carnal minde is enmity against God, it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be. By this time I doubt not but the Reader seeth how I have more then enough confirmed this truth, That without faith there is no union to Christ, and that Mr. Eyre's opinion runs crosse to the very vein of the Gospel. I will only adde a te­stimony or two more.

Beza setteth his seale to this truth, Sed hoe demùm sciendum, nos per fidem Christo ipso uniti, Spiritûs Sancti vinculo, Beza in his large An upon G [...]l. 4.28. ut bonorum ipsius fiamus participes, ut omnes fideles hàc ratione sint unus Chri­stus mysticus, ut loquitur etiam Apostolus, 1 Cor. 12.12. Beza in his large Ann. upon Gal. 4.28. But this finally we must know that we through faith by the bond of the Spirit are united to Christ, that we may be partakers of all the good in him, that all Believers by this means may be one mystical Christ.

So Learned Calvin, Calv. in Rom. 8.4. Suam justitiam nullis communnicat Chri­stus, nisi quos Spiritûs sui vinculo sibi conjungit: Christ commu­nicateth his righteousnesse to none, but such as he unites to him­self by the bond of his Spirit.

Davenant also consenteth with us. Absque fide, D [...]venant, De m rte Christi, pag 60. sive ante fi­dem nulla nobis actualis conjunctio cum Christo, ac proindè ex me­rito mortis ejus nulla remissio peccaetorum, nulla justificatio, nulla cum Deo Patre reconciliatio: Without faith, or before faith we have no actuall conjunction with Christ, and therefore from the [Page 102] merit of his death there is no remission of sins, no justification, no reconciliation with God the Father.

So Zanchy: Ait, & ponent sibi caput, non autem ponetur; Do­cet ergò etsi Pater ille, Zanch. Tom. 5. in Commen. in Hoseam, cap. 1. pag. 28. est qui caput hoc dedit Ecclesiae, & singulis Ecclesiae membris, ut est, Ephes. 1. nemini tamen caput esse posse, nisi quis illud propriae voluntatis assensu (de adultis loquor) sibi ip­se ponat. Sibi etiam quisque hoc caput verè & coram Deo ponit, cùm illud sibi à Patre in Evangelio oblatum, fide suâ, & propriae volun­tatis assensu suscipit, amplectitur, &c.

Ʋt enim uniamur huic capiti Christo, spiritus propriae fidei per sese omnibus (etiam ipsis parvulis) pernecessarius est; Justus enim ex solâ suâ fide vivet, non alienâ, sicut nec quis doctus est alienâ, sed suâ, quae in ipso est Doctrinâ: He saith, and they shall appoint them­selves one head,Ephes. 1.22. not shall be appointed; he teacheth therefore, that although the Father be he, who hath given this Head to the Church, and to the singular members of the Church, as it is, E­phesians the first; yet notwithstanding he can be a Head to none, unlesse to him who by the assent of his own will (I speak of them that are of age) appoint him a head to himself. Every man also doth appoint this Head to himself truly, and that before God, when he doth receive, and embrace by his own faith and proper assent that Head offered to him by the Father in the Gospel.

For that we may be united to this Christ as a Head, the spirit of every mans own faith is very necessary to all, even to Infants; For the just shall live by his own faith, and not by anothers; as nei­ther any man is learned by anothers learning, but by that learn­ing which is in himself.

So also I will adde one Testimony more from Zanchy, because Mr. Eyre shelters his opinion of justification from the time of Christs death under Zanchies authority.John 6.56. Zanch. De tri­bus Elo. l. 40. cap. 3. p. 106. Tom. 1. Qui edit meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in eo; Alludit ad illam incorporationem, quae fit inter edentem, & bibentem, & in­ter cibos comestos: cibus extra nos manens, minimè nos nutrit, cibus sumptus, dum in nobis manet, nutrit & vivificat, &c. Idem contingit nobis cum Christo, extra nos positus, non alit, à nobis sum­ptus, nutrit, & vitam adfert, atque conservat; He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleeh in me, and I in him. Up-which words Zanchy saith, He alludeth to that incorporation [Page 103] which is made between the eater and the drinker, and between the meat eaten, meat without us doth not nourish us, but in­wardly taken; while it abideth in us, it nourisheth and quicken­eth us. The same happeneth to us with Christ, Christ without us (that is, not united.) doth not nourish us; but taken by us, it nourisheth, and bringeth, and preserveth life. Where you see, Zanchy maketh Christ not to justifie, and save us while we are disunited; but when applied and united by faith, then he sa­veth us.

I will end all with CAMERO, Si quis ergo propriè loqui velit, dicet Christum pro solis credentibus satisfecisse, Johan. Camero in opus [...]. Mise. p. 531. col. 1. ii enim soli membra illius sunt. Sicuti ergò Adam suos tantum peccato infecit, ita Christus peccatum in suis tantùm abolevit, Christi verò membrum non est ullus, qui in Christum non credit: Audi quid dicam, fi­des te facit Christi membrum, at fides illa te non servàsset nisi Christus pro te satisfecisset: If any man therefore will speak properly, he will say, that Christ satisfied only for Believers, for they only are his members. Therefore even as Adam infect­ed only his own with sin, so Christ hath abolished sin only in his; but no man is a member of Christ, but he that beleiveth. Hear thou what I shall say, faith maketh thee a member of Christ, but that faith would not save thee, unlesse Christ had satisfied for thee.

To what hath been spoken, I shall superadde some conside­rations about this union to Christ, taken from the several simi­litudes, under which this union is set forth in Scripture.

First, It is compared to the Marriage-union; Now as before marriage, the wife hath no right nor title to the name, body, goods of the husband; so before faith, the soul hath nor that right to Christ, his Body, Name, Goods, Purchases: Therefore this union is not made till faith, and in this Mr, Eyre yields the cause, that the conjugal union is not till faith.

Secondly, It is expressed by a body consisting of divers mem­bers; Now,Rom. 12.4, 5. as no member is a true and living member of the bo­dy, but that which by nearnesse, and vital ligatures is united to the head, from whence every member receives strength, and [Page 104] sensation;1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Eph. 1.22, 23. so no man is a living member of Christs body, untill by faith on his part, and by the Spirit as by vital ligatures he is bound and united to Christ, whereby he receives the life of ju­stification and santificaction, and lives by a life derived from Christ as the Head; but no man but a Believer is thus united as an integral part of this body.

Thirdly, It's compared to a building or house, whose stones are closely cemented together, and do all lie directly and per­pendicularly upon the foundation:Eph. 2.2 [...], 21. Now as a stone in the quar­ry is not united in the building, till it be hewen, and squared, and then by the hand of some Architect laid directly, and evenly up­on the foundation; so a man in his natural estate, till he be drawn out of this condition by the Spirit of God,1 Tim. 3.15. and hewed and squared out of the Spirit of bondage, and by the same hand of the Spirit, as the chief Master-builder brought to faith,1 Pe [...]. 2.5. and built upon the foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself be­ing the chief corner-stone, he is not a lively stone in this building; this is done by the work of the Spirit, an unbeliever hath not the Spirit dwelling in him.

Fourthly, it is compared to an ingrafture of a branch in a tree: Now a branch may be in a stock two wayes.

1. By contiguity, or continuity, or corporal adherency to the stock, and so every branch that is dead may be in the tree, but these partake not of the juyce, and nourishmnt of the stock, and such branches the husbandman will cut off, and cast into the fire.

2. A branch is in the tree by a reall participation of the sap, and influences of the root; Thus a man may be in Christ two wayes:

1. By external profession of faith, (for that which maketh us to be in Christ, any kinde of way is faith;) now if our faith be a dead faith, such as makes us come to Christ to shelter us from the fire only, and it derive not spiritual life and sanctification from Christ; this man is a dead branch, which the Father will cut off, and cast into the fire, if it so abide; and untill a true faith, such as is peculiar to the Elect, all are but dead branches; yea, [Page 105] the very Elect themselves, untill effectual vocation, and were never truly in him.

But, 2. There is a living, operative, precious, unfeigned faith, which so unites the soul to Christ, that now it partaketh of the power of his death; it is crucified with him, and dies to sinne, and yet also it lives, and is partaker of the quickening Spirit and power of Christs Resurrection, whereby it lives, and the life it lives in the flesh, it lives by the faith of the Son of God,Gal. 2. [...]0. and it lives unto God as its end, as well as from God as the principle of its life; this is the true branch, that partaketh of the sap and influence of the Root Christ Jesus unto a heavenly life; and none are such branches, but such as are truly cut off from the stock of Nature, and ingraffed by faith into Christ.

That which Mr. Eyre addeth in the Margin by way of Com­ment upon Heb. 2.11. He that sanctifieth, Mr. Eyre, vind. pag. 8. and they that are sanctified, are all of one, [...], whereunto saith he, some do make [...], others [...] to be the substantive, and referres his Reader to Junius his Parallels, lib. 3. This is brought to prove our union before faith, and therefore he (saith) [...] is the substantive made so by some, but I believe none can be produced; as for Junius, he saith no such matter, but saith it must be taken either in the Masculine gender, and relate to [...], as the substantive; they are of one father, or [...] in the Neuter, and so it signifies they are of one common Lump, or Masse, agreeing in the community of nature; and indeed this is most agreeable to the Scope of the place; for as he had shewed, ver. 10. that it was convenient for Gods justice, that our Me­diatour should by his death satisfie Gods justice; in the 11th. ver. he sheweth how he could die, and how it could be accepted in our stead; he answereth, because he was one indued with the same nature; for He that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are of one; that is, all of one common Father, as Adam, or are of one and the same nature and substance; and what is this to prove a mystical union before faith? and it is observable, that he maketh those that are the sons to be brought to glory, such as are sanctified, and Christ is not ashamed to call these Brethren; but as for unbelievers that are not sanctified, Christ will never call [Page 106] them Brethren; and such as he calleth sons, he doth not intend to call them so antecedently to their faith, but only to shew who shall be brought to glory by his death, and that is only sonnes. And by Mr. Eyre's leave, it is wholly excentrical to this place to compare Christ to the first-fruits, and those for whom he died to the residue of the heap, as he doth in quoting that place.

Mr. Eyre, p. 8.That which he presupposeth likewise, that by vertue of this eternal union, the sins of the Elect do become Christs, and Christs righteousnesse becomes theirs, will seem not only a Pa­radox, but little better then blasphemy if throughly examined, for the humane nature of Christ was not existent from eternity, and to what end should their sins be imputed to the Divine Na­ture? (who can bear the thought of it without trembling?) And surely at our union with Christ, our sins become Christs, as well as his righteousnesse becomes ours; yea, before, when he was actu­ally a surety for us, but not from eternity.

He addeth, that by vertue of this union that they are said to be given to Christ, and Christ to them.

Page 8.I answer, that when the Elect are said to be given to Christ, that is, that he should die in particular for them; this includes not any actuall Donation of them to Christ by mystical implan­tantation, but it signifies Gods ordination, and constitution whereby he did ordaine, that the benefits of Christs death should be for them, though not to be applied to them from the time of this ordination; and this may very well stand, and yet they not united untill faith.

In the next place, I shall take notice of Mr. Eyre's slight answer to the Reverend Mr. Conant since deceased, who as Moderator in our first Conference, proposed the Objection drawn from Rom. 16.7.Rom. 16.7. where Paul speaking of Andronicus and Junia, saith, they were in Christ before me; but if this union be eternal, or antecedent to our birth and faith, one cannot be in Christ before another. He saith, he returned no answer, and the truth is, he can returne no solid answer. And though he now insult since the decease of this Reverend Servant of Christ, and saith, he passed it over, because there was little difficulty in it; yet when he was living, he was no more able to stand against him in an Argument, then Dagon before the Arke, then Stephens adver­saries [Page 107] who could not resist the Spirit by which he spake. But let us consider the force of his Answer.

It is evident (saith he) the Apostle speaketh not there of their spi­ritual union with Christ, which is invisible to man, for God onely knoweth who are hi [...]; but of such a being in Christ as is by external profession, and Church-communion, in respect of which the whole visible Church is called Christ, 1 Cor. 12.12. And hypocrites as well as the Elect are said to be in Christ, and to be branches in him. And thus it is acknowledged, that one is in Christ before ano­ther, according as they are called and converted, whether really or in appearance: It doth not follow that union to Christ is successive, or that it is an act done in time depending upon conditions performed by men.

His first Answer is, This is not meant of spiritual union with Christ; his reason is, because that is invisible to man.

First, This is over-boldly asserted, that he saith, it is evident that this is not meant of spiritual union with Christ, when there is nothing said but what may rather evidence the contrary.

1. Either this was a true union, or they were but hypocrites; but it is too much rashnesse to say they were hypocrites.

2. They were such as were of note among the Apostles, chief Evangelists; I think (at least in the judgement of charity,) they should be such as were truly in Christ.

3. The Apostle indued with a great Spirit of discerning, judged them so; he saith, they were in Christ, therefore we should judge it really.

4. 'Tis such an union and in-being in Christ, as Paul himself af­terward had; but his union was real, he meant and understood a real union in respect of himself, and what he affirmes of him­self, he saith the same of them, and that they had this priviledge to be in Christ before him.

5. This was no such great priviledge, for the pen of an Apostle to commend them far above himself; if he thought only it was an union in profession, in shew only, and not in truth.

Secondly, That which leads him to judge it was not a real spiritual union with Christ, is, because this was invisible to man; because, saith he, God onely knowes who are his.

But, 1. Might he not here well exempt the Apostles, who [Page 108] were by an extraordinary gift indued with a Spirit of discerning, and especially were they guided in their Epistles written for a rule of life, whereof this is a part.

2. Let it be granted for a truth, that no man can know infalli­bly the Election, or regeneration of another, but by special Re­velation; then no man can absolutely say of such, who live holily in respect of conversation, whose actions are materially good, and nothing appearing to the contrary, but that they are in Christ really; none can say they are not in him really, there­fore an [...], or suspense of judgement had been better, then for him to say rashly, it is evident the Apostle speakes not of spi­rituall union with Christ, when he saith, these that were of chief note among the Apostles, were in Christ, and nothing appear­ing to the contrary. Malem Corberum metueret quàm haec inconsideratè diceret.

3. Doth not the Apostle judge of Apelles as a real Chri­stian a little after, when he saith, he was approved in Christ; and of Rusus, that he was chosen in the Lord? in the 12th. vers. and was he guided by Revelation there, and not here? did not he elsewhere say of the Thessalonians, that he knew their Electi­on,1 Thes. 1.4. speaking of them as of the better part, because it is more then probable; where God will have his Word preached, there he hath some people; and St. John writing to a religious Lady, stiles her Elect, because he had seen her and her children walk in the truth; and if these persons were not known to be such by Re­velation, yet had they strong ground for a judgement of charity; and why we should not look upon the union spoken of as reall or spiritual between them and Christ, I am yet to seek for a Reason.

But further he saith, this is meant of a being in Christ by ex­ternal profession, and Church-communion: but can he or any other say it is meant of no more?

2. From hence I gather, faith gives a real implantation; for if an hypocritical faith will give a man an external denomination of being in Christ, it is in the resemblance it hath to true faith, and true faith must do more, or else an hypocrites faith were as good as the faith of an Elect person: Yea,

3. Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth that one is in Christ before ano­ther, [Page 109] as he is called and converted really, or in appearance; if really converted, then really in Christ, then let us take it for granted, that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ really before Paul, then Paul was not in Christ; for if he were really in Christ, this cannot be true that they were really in Christ before him, for he was in Christ, and that really (according to Master Eyre) from eternity.

But I desire Mr. Eyre to let us see the Scriptures, and hear his grounds for a twofold union to Christ, and both real unions, one from eternity, the other at conversion or faith, and if he prove it, ‘—Erit mihi magnus Apollo.’

In the last place I shall now take notice of what he saith to that Logical Axiome, Non entis nulla sunt accidentia, in his Book pag. 7. where I desire the Reader to observe his mistake, for I applied it to union with Christ, he to the imputed righteous­nesse of Christ. I said that union with Christ, is a thing acci­dentall to man, and that being an accident, requires that the subject united, of whom this is denominated that he is united to Christ, must be existent, because an accident cannot subsist with­out its subject; whether it be an accident by inhesion, or adhesi­on, both subsist dependently, and without the subject they sub­sist not; concerning union, he objecteth nothing from this Axi­ome, therefore I will hear what he saith concerning imputed righteousnesse.

Object. He saith, It doth not follow that Christs righteousnesse cannot be imputed to us, before we have an actual created being, be­cause accidents cannot subsist without their subjects: For as much as imputed righteousnesse is not an accident inherent in us, and consequently doth not require our existence; Christ is the subject of this righteousnesse, and the imputation of it is an act of God.

Answ. What if imputed righteousnesse be not an accident inherent, but an act of God; yet in relation to us, it is an acci­dent by extrinsecall denomination; and when it is imputed to us, it is terminated upon us, and we are denominated, and constituted righteous by it, and therefore it requires as much our existence, as if it were an inherent accident; for can he be made righteous and truly denominated so, that is not a man, nor any thing in re­rum [Page 110] naturâ? can any thing be predicated truly of that which is not? can Paul be said to be learned, before he had a being? Surely this Axiome, Non entis nullae sunt affectiones, will be an un­shaken truth when you and I shall cease to speak for it, or against it. I have spoken to the Logick of it, and Mr. Baxter to the Divinity of it; and who ever read it, will finde it to be (as he hath justly stiled it) a very odde passage: only this I shall adde; We are speaking of imputed righteousnesse, and he saith, Christ is the subject of it, if he mean of the righteousnesse imputed, he saith true; but if of the righteousnesse as imputed, it is a very odde passage indeed; for what need that to be imputed to Christ, which is subjectively inherent in him already; but take this righte­ousnesse as imputed, and so we are the subjects recipient of it, or the objects upon whom it is terminated, and therefore it neces­sarily requires our existence. Now to justifie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to us before we have a being, he urgeth that of the Apostle, Rom. 4.17. that God calleth things that are not, as though they were: to this I shall give that answer which Davenant de morte Christi,Davenant de morte Christi. pag. 61. pag. 61. puts into my mouth: Quanquam Deo quidem tanquam jam facta sint, quae ille ut fiaent ab omni aeternitate disposuit, nobis tamen non aliter accipienda sunt, nisi secundùm modum illum dispensationis, quo ab aeterno decreta, & in tempore complenda nobis & in actum perducenda sunt: Although truly to God those things are as if they were now done, (because nothing is past, present, and to come with him,) which he hath decreed that they should be, and ordained them from all eterni­ty; yet to us they are not otherwise to be taken, then accord­ing to that manner of dispensation, wherein they were decreed and in time to be fulfilled to us, and to be brought into act.

Mr Eyre objecteth further that the righteousnesse of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarchs before it was wrought, and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed; so I see no inconvenience to say that Christs righteousnesse is by God im­puted to the Elect before they have a being.

To which I answer, there is not the like reason; for both the righteousnesse of Christ, and the sins of the Elect are both moral causes of their effects, which work according to the will and pleasure of him that is moved thereby; hence God the Father is [Page 111] moved to give pardon to such as believe, as an effect of Christs death, and it is at the will of God when to give it, therefore the effect sometimes goes before the cause; as if a man promise to give a man five shillings for going so farre upon his errand, the man may give it before he hath taken a step, though he give it only for that reason, here the effect goeth before the cause; and thus he gave pardon to such as did believe in Christ before his death. Sometimes it followes after it, and not immediately al­wayes; thus God pardoneth us that believe, since the death of Christ, and that not from the time of Christs death, but it may be long after upon believing, and so our sins were a moral cause of punishment; God might impute this to Christ before they are committed by us; for a morall cause will admit of the effect to go before it self, that is the cause of it, and both the Patriarchs to whom Christs righteousnesse was imputed, and Christ to whom our sins were imputed, were existent; and the merit of the one, and demerit of the other may be communicated at the will of God moved thereby, because there are subjects capable of this imputation; but now Christs righteousnesse which is imputed to us, cannot be imputed, for want of a subject to whom it may be imputed; for how can that which is not, be made righteous? and it is the will of God it should be imputed to none but Believers; hence then till faith, this benefit is not enjoyed.

Thus have I vindicated my second argument, and for the third which he objecteth against, That God made a Covenant with Christ, that the Elect should have no benefit by his death, till they believe, I have defended and confirmed that already sufficiently. As for this Argument which he brought for the Ne­gative, drawn from Matth. 3.17. This is my well beloved Sonne, in whom I am well pleased; I hope I have given a satisfactory an­swer to it already, and it is answer enough to deny his Assumpti­on, as I then did, that this voice, This is my well beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, was not terminated or spoken to Christ mysticall, but to Christ personal, yet as a publick person and Mediatour. And to make Christ mystical, and Christ the Me­diatour the same, is unheard of Divinity; nor doth it speak him any great Gamaliel in Theology that affirmeth it. As for the scan­dall he raiseth upon me, that I compared my self to Christ, and [Page 112] him to Judas, and used him uncivilly in language; I deny it, and have many to bear witnesse of me to the contrary; and for the answer to it, I referre the Reader to the Epistle to the Read­er: And I now shall addresse my self to some short answer to his Book, and as by the grace of Christ I have not hitherto (my conscience bearing me witnesse in the Holy Ghost) written any thing which I knew, or suspected as unsound, so I trust I shall not erre, or handle this subject deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commend my self to every mans conscience, as in the sight of God, to whom I commend thee, Religious Reader, and to the Word of his grace, who is able to build thee up, and give thee an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ.

CHAP. IV. Shewing four material differences between us, and M. Eyre, wherein he hath departed from the Orthodox faith, concerning the Doctrine of free Justification of a sinner through Faith in Christ, reduced unto four several Questions, which are in this Chapter clearly stated.

THE Doctrine of Justification through Faith in Christ, is deservedly stiled Doctrina stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae, and therefore the differences amongst Christians in this point, are not of so small concernment, as Curcellaeus judgeth, that they ought not to breed a Controversie, for it is a fundamental Article of our Christian Religion; yea, all Reli­gion lives, or dies with it, nothing concernes the glory of God more, the honour of Christ, or the comfort of a Christian, and such goates as shall soile with their feet these waters,Ezek. 34.18. or with the Philistines throw dirt into this well, do at once strike at the glory of God, the honour of Christ, the peace and safety of the world; and being commanded to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints, let not the world wonder, that I who am by Mr. Eyre represented as Heterodox in this point, stand up both to defend it, and my self against those errours, wherewith he hath darkened and obscured this blessed truth, and [Page 114] endeavoured to render me and his Brethren that dissent from him, as those that have overthrown the freenesse of Gods grace, in making Justification the effect of Faith, and Faith the condi­tion of the Covenant of Grace. The matters in controversie depending between us may be reduced to four Heads, or unto four severall Questions.

1. Whether Justification be an immanent, or a transient act? whether it be from eternity, or a transient act of God done in time?

2. Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died, be actually justified, and reconciled to God antecedently, not onely to their faith, but to their birth?

3. Whether a Believer be justified by faith instrumentally? and when the Scripture saith, we are justified by faith, whether this is understood only tropically, by taking faith for the ob­ject, Christ? or whether it be taken subjectively for the act with connotation to the object?

4. Whether faith be the condition of the Covenant of Grace, God hath made with us?

For the first Question, Whether Justification be an immanent or transient act? whether we be justified from eternity, or whether it be a transient act of God done in time? Here are three termes to be explicated.

• 1. What Justification is?
• 2. What an immanent act is?
• 3. What is meant by a transient act?

1. Then by all the Orthodox it is unanimously affirmed, that the word justifie, or justification, is not to be taken in this question, sensu Pontificio, as the Papists take it, that is, sensu Physico, in a physical sense, as if to justifie signified to make just by infusion of an inherent righteousnesse, as Bellarmine and his confederates take it; for till Etymologies have gotten the supremacy above the Scriptures, as the Pope above the Kings of the Earth; and so long as the written Word is acknowledged the only Touchstone of di­vine Truth, and that Christs righteousnesse, and our works cannot be admitted as corrivals, that sense must no way be acknowledged and received in this dispute; yet let this be observed against this new Doctrine of Infidels Justification in the state of their un­regeneracy; [Page 115] (though they remain adulterers, murtherers, par­ricides; yet if Elect, say they, they are justified even then, when they are in the snare of the Devil,2 Tim. 2.26. Eph. 2.2. led captive by him at his will and pleasure. Though they walk according to the course of the world, the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedi­ence: for, Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth he is well pleased with the unregenerate, though not with their unregeneracy. That GOD when he justifieth a man through the righteousnesse of Christ im­puted, doth at the same time begin to justifie him physically, he doth infuse an habituall and an inherent righteousnesse of Sancti­fication; for God justifieth none, whom he doth not sanctifie at the same time.

Secondly, Justification may be taken sensu forensi, in a juri­dical or judiciary sense, as in Rom. 8 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? it is God that justifieth, Prov. 17.35. He that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the just, they both are an abomination to the Lord. And so it is opposed to accusation, or condemnation, and thus it is an act of God judicially decla­ring a Believer to be innocent or righteous, and acquitting him from all blame and punishment. I need not spend time to open this, it is sufficiently done already by ourJustificatio est sententia Dei gratiosa, quā propter Chri­stum fide appre­hensum absolvit fidelem à pecca­to & morte, & justum reputat ad vitam. Ames. Medul. ch. 27. sect. 6. Divines against the Pa­pists; Justification therefore is a gracious sentence of God the Fa­ther, wherby for Christs sake apprehended by faith, he doth ab­solve a sinner from sin and death, and doth esteem him righteous unto eternal life. It is a sentence pronounced, as the use of the word declares, which makes not a natural, but a moral change in the person justified; for it is not as Aquinas and his followers imagine, a physicall motion by a real transmutation from a state of unrighteousnesse to a state of righteousnesse; so as that the terme from which this motion is, should be sin, the terme unto which it tends, and ends in, should be inherent righteousnesse, as if it stood partly in remission, and partly in infusion of righteous­nesse: What act this is, I will declare by and by; or let me describe it thus with Mr. Hooker, It is an act of God the Father upon the Believer, whereby the debt and sins of a Believer are charged upon the Lord Jesus, and by the merits and satisfaction of Christ imputed, he is accounted just, and so is acquitted before God as righteous.

First, It is an act of God the Father, a judicial act acquitting and absolving the sinner, and an act of God the Father, (not to exclude the Son and Holy Ghost;) for Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, The works of the Trinity terminated upon the creature, are communicable to all three persons. For the Son and Holy Ghost were offended by mans sin, as well as the Fa­ther, being one and the same God with the Father; but it is cal­led an act of the Father, and rightly applied to him, because of that old and known rule among Divines, Wheresoever we finde the Name of God put in opposition to Jesus Christ, it must not be understood essentially, but personally: Hence when it's said, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their sins, and that God sent forth him, to wit Christ, a propi­tiation through faith in his blood, it must be understood of God the Father; and so, John 3.16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, &c. And plainly Christ saith, Father, forgive them, &c. And Christ is an Advocate with the Father, 1 John 1.2. Now it is applied to the Father, because the sin of Adam was directly against the Fathers work, for Ʋt res se habent ad esse, ita ad operari, every thing doth work according to its being. Now the Father being the first person in the Trinity, he works in order first, and hence Creation is attributed to the Father, and Redemption at­tributed to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Spirit. Now Adams sinne was directly against the Fathers work, for his work appeared in Adams Creation after the Image of God; therefore the Father being principally offended, forgives.

Secondly, It is an act of God the Father upon the Believer, therefore it was not an immanent, but is a transient act done in time; for a man is not a man, much lesse a Believer from eter­nity; and what this act is, I shall here a little explain.

It is some act of God done upon believing, and never till then, for although we acknowledge no new imm [...]nent act in God, which cannot be admitted without a change in God, with whom there can be no variablenesse, nor the least shadow of turning; yet a transient act may be safely acknowledged, which leaves a change upon the creature, and not in God.

And here I willingly acknowledge we are all much in the dark, [Page 117] not being able to understand how God doth act or work, and therefore would not over-confidently assert how he doth it, or what that transient act is; but when God worketh faith, I am sure there is a morall change wrought in the sinner; there is not only a new relation put upon the sinner, but a reall righteous­nesse is imputed; yea, a physical change is wrought at the same time, for all grace habitually is infused together with faith,

And I willingly acknowledge this transient act of God doth presuppose an immanent act in God, for he worketh nothing upon the creature, but what he first purposed in himself to act; and God doth upon believing actually remit sins, and accept as righteous the person that believeth, which termes of remitting sin, not imputing it, or imputing righteousnesse, though they sound as immanent acts, yet are to be sensed as transient, because done in time, and leaving a reall change upon the creature, and it is utterly impossible that any new act of understanding, or will should be in God, unlesse therefore with Vorstius we assert the mutability of God, which is horrible blasphemy to imagine, we cannot acknowledge any new immanent act in him. And the truth is; we must with sobriety sit down, and count it know­ledge enough to know what is written, and be contented that an infinite God should do something▪ which our finite under­standings cannot comprehend; for if he shall act or do nothing, but we must know how it is done, and why, this is to make God finite and not infinite. And to give in the utmost of my thoughts in this, I conceive the case is in this transient act of forgive­nesse, as in the creation of the world; God did do that which he did not do before, but he did not then begin to have a will to create; but he willed from eternity that the world should exist in time, as an effect of that will it was made, whether by an exe­cutive power distinct from that will, I dare not determine; but made it was, and was not from eternity, and here is a new rela­tion unto God, he is a Creatour that before was not, this is but a relative respect, and an extrinsecal denomination, and there is no intrinsecall mutation in God, but a great change is wrought; for that that was not, now is.

So when God forgiveth a sinner upon believing, God doth do that which he did not do before; he doth not begin upon be­liev ng [Page 118] to have a will to pardon him, but he willed from eterni­ty to give him faith, and forgivenesse of sins upon believing; now in time the sinner elected is brought to faith, and the sinner is actually and formally discharged, according to the tenor of the New Covenant, for the righteousnesse of Christ apprehend­ed and applied by faith, not by any new act of Gods will; I dare not determine, but pardoned he is, and justified he is, his state is truly changed, and that coram Deo, in the sight of God, and a new relative relation there is in God to this person, as a Fa­ther; a great change wrought in the sinner, but none at all in God; and the Believer is the subject, upon whom this act of God pas­seth,Acts 13.39. Acts 16.31. Rom. 4.24. John 8.24. John 3.36, 16. John 17.20. he is the adequate subject of it; for all Believers are thus justified, and none but Believers. God did not will that our sins should be immediately forgiven, but mediately by faith, as in John 3.16. Gods end in giving Christ, was that only. Believers should have benefit by his death; and John 17.20. Christ pray­eth for them that believe on him; and surely he had the same intentions in his death that he had in his intercession. And I added that the sinnes of Believeres were laid upon Christ; thus Christ was made sin for us,2 Cor. 5.21. Isa. 53.16. that knew no sin, and the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all, and by the merits and satisfacti­on of Christ imputed we are accounted just, and so are acquitted before God as righteous: Hence God is said to be in Christ re­conciling the world to himself, not imputing their transgressions to them,2 Cor. 5. and we are said to be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus,Rom. 3.24, 25. 1 Cor. 1.30. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood: And, Christ is made to us righteousnesse, wisdome, sanctification, and redemption.

I shall now come to enquire what is meant by an immanent act, and whether Justification were from eternity, and what is meant by a transient act.

First, Then by an immanent act, I understand such an act, as is terminated in agente, in the agent, and not in any thing with­out it. There are some actions which do remain in God, and are terminated in himself, being confined in his own breast, with­in the compasse of his own understanding and will; not but that they may have an external object, but nothing in these immanent [Page 119] acts hath any thing without them for the subject or terme.

As for example, a man may purpose and intend to do some­thing in his minde and heart, as to relieve a poor mans wants; this thought and purpose of heart is an immanent action, and so long as it remaines in his minde and breast, and he reveal it not, and do not yet act accordingly, this is yet an immanent action, and the poor man is not yet actually the better for it; but if he declare his minde, and doth practise what he intended, here is a transient act, for now he doth outwardly expresse and per­forme what he did inwardly purpose: Now the poor man is comforted, and his wants actually relieved; Let us referre this to God, there are some Cabinet, secret thoughts, and purposes in God from eternity, about justifying a sinner through the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended and applied by faith, which Christ God will prepare and give to procure a sufficient righte­ousnesse, and will also give faith to the sinner, to believe on Christ for salvation; Such thoughts as these are, were in the minde of God from eternity; these thoughts were immanent acts in God, and work no present change upon the sinner, who had no being from eternity; and untill God do actually declare, and fulfill the thoughts of his heart, the sinner is not justified, but only God really intends it.

Secondly, There are actions in God which passe from God upon the creature, and do work a change and alteration upon the creature, and these we call transient actions; when therefore God doth not only declare by his Gospel, what his thoughts were to his Elect in pardoning them through faith in Christ, but doth in time give Christ for them, and them to Christ, by draw­ing their hearts unto Christs by faith; now God actually per­formes the thoughts of his heart, and as he intended upon be­lieving to justifie them for Christs sake, so now as soon as he hath brought them to faith, he doth actually forgive them all their sins, justifie their persons, and accept them as righteous in Christ. Now of this sort are all Gods actions that relate to man, except Predestination, which is an immanent act of God; and all the rest; Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, are transient acts of God: for all these imply a positive change in [Page 120] the creature, and do put something, either physically, or mo­rally into the justified, adopted, sanctified, &c. But concerning Predestination, Tritum est in Scholis, eam nihil ponere in Praedestina­to; It is generally received by the Schoolmen, that Predestina­tion puts nothing into the predestinate, or makes no present change (indeed virtually it is the cause of all those transient acti­ons that are done in time). AndAquin. p. 1. q. 13. artic. 2. c. Aquinas gives a reason of it; Quia Praedestinatio est pars Providentiae, Providentia verò non est in rebus provisis, sed est quaedam ratio in intellectu provisoris; Be­cause Predestination is a part of Divine Providence: Now Pro­vidence is not in the things foreseen, or provided for; but is a certain purpose, or counsel in the understanding of the foreseer. And hence all our Divines are wont cautelously to distinguish be­tween the decree and the execution of the decree; they grant the Decree hath no cause but the free will and wise prudence of God; but the Execution of the Decree depends upon faith, be­cause Pardon, Reconciliation, is granted to none but Be­lievers.

Let me adde in the third place, that an immanent action is from eternity, and is the same with Gods Essence; for whatsoe­ver is in God, is God, but a transient action is the same with the effect produced: Hence Gods Decrees are, as Mr. Burgesse Mr. Burgesse, Justifi. p. 168. rightly observes, the same with his nature; for an act of Gods un­derstanding or will, is not any thing distinct from his under­standing or will, but the very same with it.Scheib. Met, l. 2. ca. 3. De Deo. p. 137. Actus vitales Dei, ut est ejus intellectio, & volitio, habent ibi realem identita­tem ad essentiam divinam; All vital actions in God, as his un­derstanding and will are, have a reall identity, or samenesse with his Divine Essence, for otherwise the simplicity of Gods nature would be overthrown: therefore though we may conceive di­stinctly of them, yet they are not really distinguished in God. But now in transient actions it is otherwise, for they are the same with the effect produced;Mr. Eyre will have it to be an immanent acti­on done from e­ternity, not a transient act done in timo. Gods transient act in creating, is Creation, and in justifying, is Justification. By this that hath been said, it appeareth that Justification is a transient, not an immanent action. For though I deny not that God did from eternity, with an absolute, fixed, and immutable will, purpose [Page 121] in time to justifie his people through faith in Christ, which faith he will also give, and Christ did merit; and if this will satisfie Mr. Eyre, as he saith it will, if he be not a Reuben, as unstable as water, and fall from his word, the controversie is at an end.]

Yet this is not Justification, no more then Gods purpose to san­ctifie is Sanctification, as shall be made to appear in its place; Justification leaveth a positive change upon the person justified, He is thereby passed from death to life, from a state of hatred in­to a state of love and friendship; but an immanent act leaveth no such change, nor do I mean with Aquinas and the Papists, a physi­call change; as when the Lord makes a wicked man, a holy man; an unclean man, a chaste man; a passionate man, a meek man; this is a naturall change, and is the work of Sanctification; but it is a relative and morall change. Take a man that is in prison for some capitall offence, and also exceeding sick, a double change may be wrought upon this man: First, let his offence be forgi­ven, and he set at liberty, he is now a free man, acquitted, and set at liberty, that before was in bond, a dead man; here is a rela­tive change, but he may be as sick still as he was, when in prison; let the Physician come and heal his distemper, here is a cure wrought, his health restored, this is a natural, physical change; so it is here upon Justification, there is a relative change wrought; We that were debtors to the Law, and liable to death and con­demnation, our sin through faith in Christ is pardoned, now we are acquitted and set free from condemnation, here is a change of our estate; but then also by Sanctification the Lord heales our natures. Now Justification is a transient act of God in time up­on the Believer, acquitting him for Christs sake from the guilt of sin, and through his righteousnesse imputed, he is accepted unto life eternall.

The second Question is, Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died, be actually reconciled, and justified from the time of Christs death, antecedently not only to their faith, but their birth also?

1. It is not denied upon neither hand, that the Elect are the persons, and the only persons for whom Christ intentionally and effectually died.

[Page 122]2. It is not denied that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of salvation, and that a full satisfaction was made thereby to the justice of God for the sins of the Elect.

3. It is acknowledged that Christ in his death was a common person, making satisfaction for the Elect, and such as shall believe; and by vertue of Christs death they shall infallibly be brought to faith, and that God hath thus farre accepted of this satisfaction, as that he neither will, nor can require any thing more at the hand of the sinner by way of satisfaction, nor at the hands of Christ, and that in regard of the price paid we are re­deemed.

4. It will not be denied but that by the death of Christ God may now freely give us the pardon of sins, which without the satisfaction of Christ, supposing his eternal decree not to pardon us without a satisfaction, he could not do.

5. We deny not but Christs Resurrection from the dead, was a manifest signe, that the full price of redemption was paid, and that God gave him a publick discharge from the guilt of our sins, and that he rose again as a publick person for our justification, that we may be said virtually to die, and suffer, and rise with him, and virtually to be justified in his justification. But it is denied by us, and affirmed by Mr. Eyre, that we stand actually justified, and reconciled to God from the time of Christs death antecedently to our faith and birth, and that it was the will of the Lord to give us a present discharge from the time of Christs death, but God hath limited the benefit of this untill faith: So that no person in the state of unbelief and unregeneracy, is a subject of Justifica­tion; this we affirme, and Mr. Eyre denies, who will have all the Elect, though Infidels, and in their unregenerate estate, under the power and dominion of sin to be actually justified.

The third question is, Whether a believer be justified by faith instrumentally? and when the Scripture saith, we are justified by faith, whether this be understood tropically by taking faith for the object Christ, excluding the act, or whether it be taken pro­perly for the act with connotation of the Object.

Now here first it is agreed upon all hands, by Pretestants and Pàpists, Orthodox and Socinians, Antinomians, Remonstrants and [Page 123] Contraremonstrants, that it is plainly ass [...]rted in Scripture, that we are justified by faith. It cannot be denied, because it is sylla­bically written, the only contention is about the sense. I would there were more contending for the Grace, then for the right understanding of the Word.

1. Then to believe signifies an act of the understanding, yield­ing assent unto Divine Testimony; but because the willAmes. Med. cap. 3. Num. 2 [...] con­sequently is moved by that assent, to embrace the good assented unto, and offered in the Gospel, therfore faith that is truly saving and justifying, consisteth in both faculties; therefore we reject their opinion, that will have it to be onely an act of the under­standing, yielding a trueWotton, De reconci. lib. 1. par. 1. c. 13. n. 1. p. 78. assent to Divine Testimony upon the authority of the Revealer; though this be necessary to salvation, this comprehendeth not the whole nature of justifying faith, which is seated in the heart; for with the heart man believeth un­to salvation.

Nor, 2. Can we rest in their opinion who define it by assu­rance, and say, it is an assurance grounded upon Divine Promi­ses, that Christ died for us in particular, and that our sins are forgiven. For this assurance is a consequent of faith, and Justfi­cation, and anProprium ob­jectum fidei ju­stificantis est Christus vel mi­scricordia De [...] in Christo, non propositio sive Axioma, Ames. Bell. Ener. Tom. 4. Lib. 5. Cap. 2. Sect. 22. Axiome or Proposition is not the object of faith, but Christ; and it is a relying upon Christ for pardon, not a believing that I am already pardoned; it is therefore aFider est acquiescentia cordis in Deo tanquam in authore vitae vel salutis aeternae, ut per illum ab omni malo liberemur & omne bonum consequamur. Ames. Medul. c. 3. num. 1. fiducial act or recumbency upon God in Christ for pardon.

3. It is questioned,Ames. Medull. c 27. de justi­ficat. n. 15, 16. whether Faith in the point of Justification of a sinner, be to be taken tropically, or properly? Master Eyre will have it to be taken tropically only, and in a figurative sense; for the obedience of Jesus Christ, and his righteousnesse, by ex­cluding faith; so that by faith with him is as much as by Christ, or by the righteousnesse of Christ. To which I answer, that we deny not but faith is to be taken metonymicaly, when we speak of the matter of our righteousnesse, for which we are justified; and in this sense we are not justified by faith, that is, the grace of [Page 124] faith, as the matter of our righteousnesse, for it is no where said that we are justified for our faith, [...], though it be often said we are justified [...], by our faith, tanquam per organum, as an instrument, of which by and by. And there­fore our Divines do acknowledge, we are justified by faith ob­jectively taken; but to take faith altogether for Christ, and to deny it as an instrument of applying Christs righteousnesse, was never the meaning of our Divines, and it were altogether irra­tional to imagine, as if by faith were meant Christ, excluding faith from Justification; for as it is an instrumental cause, which our Divines unanimously acknowledge, it is taken subjectively for the act and grace of faith it self; And thusAmes. Med. Theol. cap. 27. sect. 14. Ames saith, Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum, non absolutè consideratum, quo sensu Christus est causa ipsius vocationis, sed propter Christum fide apprehensum: This Justification for Christ is not for Christ absolutely considered, in which sense Christ is the cause also of vocation, but for Christ apprehended by faith; so that Christ alone absolutely considered doth not justifie.Musc. Loc. Com v. Artic. in quo justifice mur. So Musculus ex­pressely, Quaerendum est hoc loco quo medio justificemur, Deóque reconciliemur. Est autem duplex medium in hâc causâ, unum in quo justificamur, alterum per quod justificationis hujus gratiam ap­prehend [...]mus; utrumque necessarium est, neutrum enim sine altero justificat: We must seek in this place by what meanes we are ju­stified and reconciled to God. But here is a double meanes in this cause, one in whom we are justified, another by which we receive this grace of Justification; both are necessary, neither justifieth without the other. Musc. in loc. Com. de justifi. Artic. in quo justificemur. And soCalvin, Inst. l. 3. 11. num. 7. Calvin calls it the instrumental cause of Justification. Sciendum est esse causam instrumentalem duntaxat, instrumentum scilicet percipiendae justitiae quâ justificamur: We must know therefore it is only an instrumentall cause, to wit, an instrument of receiving that righteousnesse by which we are justified. It were endlesse to reckon up all that give in their suffrageWillet. in Sy­nopsi, Art. 6. De fide, p. 982. for this in­strumentality of faith for Justification; only I shall adde one Author more, Mr. Rutherford in his Apologetical Exercitations, because Mr. Eyre alledgeth him in defence of his opinion, that he saith,Perkins Re­formed Cath. Differ. 2. We say otherwise, faith justifieth, because it is a supernatural in­strument, &c. p. 5 0 vol. 1. Chemnit. & Bucan. & Ursin. & Scheib. Met. de causa, c. 22. Titu. 784. that fides non est organica causa divinae satisfactionis, &c. which is true and rightly alledged; yet he saith to the act of ju­stifying, [Page 125] Subordinatur fides tanquam organica causa, Ruth. Apol. Exe [...]. p. 37. and more to this purpose, pag. 51, 52. And faith is an instrument, because it hath the properties of an instrument, prima est, ut subsit alicui.

And the first is, that it be subservient to the superiour agent, by whom it is directed; thus it is an instrument wrought by God, the pcincipal efficient cause of Justification, and is subservient to his act of justifying us, and directed by him to this end.

Secondly, That it hath an influx into the effect of the principal agent by a proper causality, and that is by receiving Christ offe­red. I see no danger in making it such an instrument; for we are not said to justifie our selves, because this grace is wrought of God. And what if man be causa secunda, Ep [...]es. 2.8. yet is he not therefore a second cause between God and the action, for God doth im­mediately work it, and man is purely passive in respect of the habit; and although we might answer, that the act of receiving is equivalent to a suffering, being a renouncing of all our owne righteousnesse, and so acknowledge it as a passive instrument only, yet for my part I look upon it as a lively active instrument of Justification, asBall, Cove­nant of Grace. pag. 19. Mr. Ball doth, which is amongst the number of true causes, and that it is not only causa sine qua non, a cause with­out which the thing is not done, which indeed is no cause at all, for that is only present in the action, and doth nothing therein; but as the eye is, as Mr. Ball observeth, an active instrument for sight, and the eare for hearing, so is faith for justifying: If it be de­manded, whose instrument it is; it is the instrument of the soul, wrought by the Holy Ghost, and is the free gift of God.

Nor do I fear hereby to be made the Authour of our Justifica­tion, or to be made injurious to God or Christ, seeing faith is wholly Gods work, though our act, and it hath this place and office of receiving Christ unto Justification by the appointment of God himself;Eph. 2, 8, and upon this account alone the Apostle ac­knowledgeth, though we be saved by faith, yet it is no lesse of free grace, because, it is the gift of God.

The fourth and last Question is, Whether Faith be the condi­tion of the Covenant of Grace?

1. Here we must enquire; what is the Covenant of Grace?

[Page 126]2. In what sense Faith is the condition of the Covenant?

First, What is the Covenant of Grace?

The Covenant of Grace, is that free gracious Covenant of re­conciliation, which God of his meer mercy in Jesus Christ made with man fallen into sin and misery, wherein he hath promised pardon of sin, and eternall happinesse by Christ, upon conditi­on that heMark. 16.15, 16. John 3.16. Rom. 10.6, 9, 10. Gal. 3.11. believe in Christ, promising also to give unto all those that areActs 13.48. John 6.44. ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit to inable them to believe, and so He will be their God, and they shall be his people.

The Covenant of grace under the Old and New Testament, is for substance one and the same under various dispensations.Gal 3.16, 17. The distance between God and man is so great; that although the reasonable creature do owe obedience to his Creator, yet he could never have God obliged to him to give him fruition of himself, and eternal happinesse, but by some voluntary act of condescension on Gods part, which is expressed by way of Co­venant; there is not therefore a mutual obligation of debt be­tween God and man, for that is founded on equality; but there is no such equality between God and the creature, much lesse be­tween God and the sinner; it is therefore a free Covenant that God maketh with man, and of his abundant rich grace in Christ. The Author of this Covenant is God, our merciful Father in Christ-Jesut; the impulsive moving cause from within, was his own free love; the outward moving cause was mans misery, and Christs merits:Ezek. 16.6. When I passed by thee, I saw thee polluted in thy own blood, I said unto thee, live. The fall of man was the occa­sion of this Covenant; God permitted man to fall, that he might shew the abundant riches of his mercy in our redemption. For mercy might have freed us from misery by preventing our fall; but the exceeding abundance of Gods rich mercy, is more seen in recovering us out of the misery into which we were fallen. And the grace of God was much seen in the time of giving this Covenant at the very fall, before judgement was given upon the delinquents, that they might not be swallowed up with wrath, and before Satan had made too great a waste upon the creation, and especially upon man drawn by his temptation into condem­nation with himself.

This Covenant was made with Christ,Vide The Assemb. larger Catechisme. and in him with all that believe; for since God and man were separated by sin, there was no Covenant could passe between them,With Christ personal, that is, considered as a publick per­son; but not with Christ my­stically consi­dered. but in and through a Mediatour reconciling both parties: The first Covenant was a Covenant of friendship, the friendship between God and man was broken off by sin, this is a Covenant of reconciliation: There is no reconciliation to God but by Christ, therefore this Cove­nant was made in Christ, and for the sake of Christ with us; so that there are three parties contracting. 1. God the party of­fended. 2. Man the party offending. 3. Christ the Mediator between both. The Scripture saith,Gal. 3.16. The promise (or Covenant) was made to Abraham and his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. This Christ was not Christ mystical, as Beza, Piscator, and many ex­pound it, as Mr. Rutherford hath well observed; but Christ perso­nall. The reason which they alledge is, because if it be meant of Christ personally considered, so it would not agree with the scope of Paul, who proveth that life eternal is promised to all Believers. 2. It would follow say, they, that life eternal is given to Christ only. But with their leave, saithRuth. Trial and Triumph of Faith, Serm. 7. pag 5 [...]. Mr. Rutherford, this is not sure; for the truth is, the promise is not made to Christs person singly considered, nor to Christ mystical: For, 1. The promise is made to Christ, in whom the Covenant was confirm­ed, vers. 17. 2. In whom the Nations were blessed, vers. 14.3. In whom we receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith, vers. 15. Who was made a curse for us, ver. 13. Now, not any of these can agree to Christ mystical; Christ mysticall did not confirme the Covenant, nor give the Spirit, nor was he made a curse: but Christ Mediatour is he to whom the promises are made, and in him to all his heirs and kindred, not simply in his person, but as a publick person, and Mediatour; and upon believing we are truly in him, and so Abrahams seed, and so heires according to the promise. And here it will be good to con­sider the relations of Christ to this Covenant: 1.Heb. 8.6. As he is the middle person between contrary parties, he is the Mediator of the Covenant. 2. As he dealeth between both parties,Mal. 3.1. Heb. 7.22. he is inter­nuncius, the Messenger of the Covenant. 3. As he undertaketh for the parties at variance, he is the surety of the Covenant. [Page 128] And,Heb. 9.16, 17, Isa. 55.4. Rev. 1.5. 4. As he signeth the Covenant, and confirmeth it with his blood, he is the Testatour of the Covenant. 5. As he saw, and heard, and testifieth all that the Father hath promised to belie­vers, he is the witnesse of the Covenant.

Now as the Covenant was made with Christ in the behalf of the Elect, yet it followeth not they were in Covenant before they believe, for God Covenanted with Christ to be their God that shall believe in him; hence untill we believe, we are not actu­ally in Covenant with God; and Christ contracted with the Fa­ther, not only to die for us, but to bring us to faith; he is a surety to see the condition of the Covenant performed on our part; and therefore we must be brought to faith before God is properly said to be in Covenant with us, and faith then is the condition of the Covenant in reference unto us.

Now in what sense faith is the condition of the Covenant, I shall here explaine.

First, Faith is not the condition of the Covenant in a Popish sense, as if by the performing this condition of believing we did merit, and earn eternal life, and salvation were the wages of faith, and God ex debito bound to give it.

Secondly, Faith is not an Antecedaneous condition,Dicunt nostri fidem non esse conditionemmo ventem Dei vo­luntatem, & ta­men salutem no­stram esse con­ditionatam quod est verissimum; nam Deus non vult nobis aliam vitam quàm quae antecedanem habet fidem, & tamen nullo modo movetur Dei voluntas à fide nostrâ. Ruth. Apol. Exerc. p. 3 [...]4. moving God to give Christ to redeem us, and to propound the Gospel to us, as if God did not, or could not propound the Covenant of Grace to us, nor offer the Covenant to us till we believe; the price of redemption was paid without any condition that it should be paid, though not without a condition for the applicati­on of it.

Thirdly, We do not understand faith a condition in an Armi­nian sense; for such a condition by way of contract and bargaine, by a free voluntary act of our own, performed by the power of free-will, withour the predeterminating and assisting grace of Christ, by vertue of which God is oblidged to save us, and give us the benefits of the Covenant. We take it not in such a juridi­call sense, as the Jurists do, for a condition in a strict proper sense, upon which the benefits of the Covenant depend; nor do [Page 129] we take it in that manner, as the first Covenant did, that as our workes personally performed by us in obedience to the whole Law, were the condition of the Covenant, and the matter of our righteousnesse, that so the Tò credere, or act of believing performed by us, should stand instead of the righteousnesse of the Law, in whole as the Arminians, and in part as the Papists.

But we take faith for a condition in this sense, for an Evangeli­call qualification wrought in us by the grace of Christ, without which we are not justified nor saved, and shall not enjoy the be­nefits and blessings of the new Covenant, as a cause of life, not efficiently, as works in the old Covenant, but instrumentally by applying by Gods order and constitution Christ and his bene­fits to the Believer: And thus the Scripture saith, He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned, and that the wrath of God abideth on him There it was, and there it shall rest, till by faith it be removed.; works are required as con­ditions of those that shall be saved, but faith is a condition of Justification. And because this faith is freely given, salvation is no lesse of free grace, then if this condition were not required; nor is it absurd that the same thing should be freely promised of God, and yet required as a duty of us; 'tis we are bound to be­lieve and repent, and yet faith is Gods gift, and Christ is exalt­ed as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his people for remission of sins.

CHAP. V. Containing a brief description of M. Eyre's opini­on, shewing wherein he departeth from the Or­thodox faith, together with a brief Synopsis of the several errors, unsound opinions, and selfe-contradictions, that he hath intangled himselfe in, in the defending of his errour of eternall Justification.

HE is an unfit man to establish another in the truth, who himself is l ke a Reed shaken with the winde, inconstant to himself,Vide Mr. Eyre, pag 62. as well as disagreeing from the truth; such in this Chapter shall the Reader finde Mr Eyre, (so farre as re­lates to his Book) I trust in Christ to manifest; and therefore let the judici­ous Reader observe and judge. Now for his opinion, as farre as I can gather from his Book, I conceive it to be this:

First, He saith that Justification in Scripture is taken variously, pro volitione Divinâ, & pro re volità.

1. For the will of God not to punish, or impute sinne unto his people: And,

2. For the effect of Gods will, to wit, his not punishing, or his [Page 131] setting of them free from the curse of the Law; that is, Justification is taken by him actively, for Gods eternal will not to punish, and passively for the effect of that will, as it is terminated upon the E­lect, or Believer. And he saith, that he looks upon Dr Twisse's judgment as most accurate, who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish. Wherein first let the Reader observe his departing from the received judgement of all Orthodox Divines, except three or four, in making Gods e­ternal will to be that wherein the Essence of Justification consists; it is well known that unanimously they agree, that Justification is not an immanent, but a transient act done in time: And the Scripture no where calleth Gods eternal will Justification; and if the essence and quiddity of Justification consist in this, it is mar­vell the Scripture should never call it so; and so often as the Scripture speaks of Justification, should speak of it in an improper sense, passively taken, as terminated upon us. Besides, the will of God not to punish, is but terminus diminuens, a decree, or will not to punish in time. Besides, this is not the whole of Justifi­cation, for it is a will, not to punish according to the tenor of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace, which requireth faith. But I shall argue against this in a more proper place.

Now if we take it thus, as Mr. Eyre will have it, his opinion is this:

Justification is an eternall immanent act, or will in God not to punish, and impute sin unto his people, antecedently not on­ly to their birth and faith, but to the death of Christ; nor is the death of Christ the cause of this Justification, (though with him Justification thus taken, is most accurate, and properly taken,) and so he maketh Christ no cause of the act of Justification, for he will acknowledge no other transient act, and immanent there is none.

1. And this act is not purely Page 67. negative, as the non-imputation of sin to a stone, but privative, being the non-imputation of a sin realiter futuri inesse, which how Scholastically it is spoken? (be­ing a privative act of a privation in a positive decree of God, when neither the subject nor the sin are in being; and as if sin were debitum inesse, that that ought to be in us, for privation is pro­perly understood of these.

[Page 132]2. And this non-imputation is actual, though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being; [a will not to impute it hereafter, may be actual, but to call that an actuall non-imputation, is im­properly spoken.

3. This act of justifying is compleat in it self, for God by his e­ternal and unchangeable will not imputing sin to his Elect, none can im­pute it, &c. Here is a compleat Justification then without a sa­tisfaction, for which Socinus will give him the right hand of fellowship, and many thanks for a gratuity.

And yet he addeth, that this renders not the death of Christ use­lesse, surely as to this act it is uselesseAnd Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other act of Justification.; and if it be the merito­rious cause of the effects of this Justification, how was that Justifi­cation compleat, whose effects could not be obtained without the death of the Son of God? Where let the Reader observe also, that he maketh Christ no more the cause of Justification, then of Election, for he addeth by way of similitude, As the love of God is compleat in it self, but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effectt of it; Pag. 67. and so Pag. 66. As electing love precede, &c. so this act of justifying is compleat in it self, but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of it.

Moreover he saith, That the Lord did not impute sin to his peo­ple, when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins, when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant, Page 64. that his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins should deserve. Surely the Lord must then by Mr. Eyre impute it to Christ, and so Christ was man, and a sinner from eternity, and crucified from eternity, and all this in Gods minde, and there Judas and Pilate, and those that murdered Christ did exist too, and what will not this bring in? AndMr. Eyre, p. 8. the ground of this is, that he conceives God constituting, and ordaining Christ a Head, and the Elect his Members, they were by this mystically implanted before they were borne, even from e­ternity.

And Justification thus taken, (saith he) makes no change in God, nor yet if it be acknowledged a transient act,Mr. Eyre, p. 65. would it make a change in him, it would adde a relative respect, and an extrin­secall denomination; and so in making it an immanent act, there must be a new relation of the person justified to God; but he ad­deth, it maketh a great change, if you take it for the delivery of [Page 133] the sinner from the curse of the Law. Surely he that is not, is not capable of an actual change, which you must hold, or your justification is not compleat, because the deliverance is not a pre­sent deliverance.

Secondiy, Let us come to his passive Justification: If Ju­stification (saith he) be taken as most commonly it is, for the thing willed by this immanent act of his, to wit, our discharge from the Law, and deliverance from punishment; so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Christ.

And thus by his death he obtained in behalf of the Elect, not a remote possible conditional reconciliation, but an actual and imme­diate reconciliation. Where he ascribeth a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ in respect of the deliverance, but not in re­spect of any act of Gods deliverance, as if we could be just [...]fied, and none to justifie; for in the same place he denieth Christs death to be the cause of Gods will not to punish, (and that just­ly) and yet he will not acknowledge another act, as we do, a transient act of God, whereof Christs death is the cause, and yet some act he must finde out, or we cannot be justified.

Now his opinion from hence is this, That Christ at his death standing as a common person, and representing all the Elect who were mystically united to him, he by his death gave full satisfaction to divine justice, by which they satisfied in him, and in his Resurre­ction receiving a publick discharge for himself and them, and they are now actually and formally reconciled and in favour with God, even while they remaine unregenerate persons.

Wherein in two things he differs from us, and departs from the truth.

1. In holding a mystical union between Christ and the Elect before faith.

2. In that he saith that from the time of Christs death all the Elect are actually reconconciled, both these I have already dis­proved in the Vindication of my Sermon, but shall adde some arguments in its place against the latter.

Thirdly, When it's said we are justified by faith, he taketh it altogether objectively; He saith, Faith is taken objectively, for Christ and his righteousnesse justifieth in the sight of God; if taken for the act, it only evidenceth justification, page 76. as [Page 134] if by faith were meant Christ, excluding faith from any hand in Justification, which if it were the Apostles meaning, he might have put in the Name Christ, and left out Faith, and his mean­ing had been more plaine, which in this weighty controversie of Justification, (though the Trope be more elegant) had been more needful: And in many places where he speaketh of Justificati­on, he expressely setteth down Christ as the object of our faith, and yet addeth faith, as that grace by which this object is appre­hended.

Let us take that place in Gal. 2.15, 16. We who are Jewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 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 might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the wo ks of the Law. Here the Apo­stles Scope is to shew, that the believing Jewes (into which num­ber he puts himself, and Peter and Barnabas,) seeing that they could not be justified by the Law, did for this end that they might be justified, believe on Christ, that they might be justified by the faith of Christ, where he makes Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith, and the matter of their Justification; and he expresseth how Christs become theirs by faith, and it were a senselesse interpretation to take Faith for Christ, and not for the Grace of Faith; as if the meaning should be, that they were justified by the Christ of Christ, where he must exclude Christ or Faith, for one is redundant; nor doth the Apostle mean this of a declarative Justification, for then there is no reason nor tru [...]h in it; for to say, that the workes of the Law may not evidence our Justification, these being as able to declare it as faith, as it is said, Little children, let no man deceive y u: he that doth righte­ousnesse, 1 John 3.7. is righteous; that is, is declared thereby to be righte­ous. Besides, to make Paul to say, that they believed that they might be justified, that is, that they may know by believing that they had been justified before, had been to make the Apostle reason at a very low ebbe, as if the doing a thing for a certaine end, were a certain means to assure that the end hath been ob­tained already. Besides, it destroyes the Scope of the Apostles Argument, in reproving Peter for his dissimulation; building up that in his Practice, which in his Doctrine he did destroy; the [Page 135] Jewes thought the observation of the Law necessary to salvati­on, and hence made conscience of keeping company with Gen­tiles, and eating things forbidden by the Law; but Peter and the rest of the Apostles knew, that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, and therefore did renounce hopes of salva­tion by that, and believe in Christ for Justification, and this he taught; And when he came to Antioch, before certain Jewes came down from James, he used his Christian liberty, and did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come down, he withdrew himself; he separates from the Gentiles, by which practice he did as it were teach a neccessity of keeping the Law as necessary to salvation: Now Paul blames his practice, that when he knew a man is not justified by the Law, but by faith in Christ, he did yet in practice hold up the necessity of the observation of the Law; so that the Apostle is not speaking how a man may know his salvation, but how salvation is obtained. So the Apostle speaking of the righteousnesse by which we must be justified, in Rom 3.11. saith,Rom. 3.11. it is a righteousnesse witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even a righteousnesse that is of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ; where by Faith, is necess [...]rily understood the grace of Faith, and not Christ, who is expressely set down in the next words, where the scope of the place is to shew by what we must be justified, and he saith, not by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Christ; if Christ without Faith justifie, why doth the Apostle mention Faith? for he is not speaking here what doth evidence our Justification, but by what we are justi­fied.

I shall passe to the fourth particular in Mr. Eyre, he saith,Mr. Eyre, p. 3. That in the New Covenant there is no condition required to entitle us to the blessings of it, and that Faith is not the condition of the New Covenant, because then men must be Believers before they are ju­stified, for the condition must be performed before that benefit which is promised can be received: But men are not Believers before they are justified, the Scripture witnesseth that the subiect of just [...]fica­tion as a sinner, or ungod [...]y person, Rom. 9.5. & 5.8, 10. Now the Holy Ghost never calls Believers ungo [...]ly, or wicked, but Saints, Faithful, holy Brethren, children of God, members of Christ, the Covenant with them [...]s absolute made with Christ, and all the con­ditions [Page 136] in the Covenant are promised. Page 191.]

And he takes the condition as a part of the Covenant, because promised; so, that believing with him is a consequent of the Covenant, not antecedent to it; where he wholly departeth from the received truth of Christ, and speaketh that which is as contrary to the Scripture, as darknesse is to light.

For, 1. He destroyes the nature of a Covenant which is, and necessarily requires a mutual stipulation, else it may be a promise, but no Covenant.

2. Salvation is undoubtedly a fruit of the Covenant, but with­out faith there is no salvation.

3. He destroyes the order of the Gospel, which saith, be­lieve and thou shalt be saved, he saith, thou art saved, believe, and thou shalt know it; and that faith is a fruit of this salvation, not a cause.

4. The Gospel saith no where that a sinner under the reigning power of sin, and remaining so is a subject of Justification; but the contrary;1 John 1.6. If we say we have fellowshep with him, and walke in darknesse, we lie, and do not the truth.

The meaning then of this Scripture, that God justifieth the un­godly, is not as if the person to be justified, must needs be un­godly in the midst of his prophanenesse, delighting in it; but by ungodly is meant, a man that hath not a perfect legal righte­ousnesse, not an unsanctified man, as if he were a justified per­son; this is a prophane Justification indeed, not agreeable to the nature of a Holy God; But the meaning is,

1. That God hath found out a way to justifie the ungodly by faith in Christ, which the Law knoweth not, nor the wisdome of men and Angels could have contrived how God might do it, salvâ justitiâ, supposing his decree. And therefore when we say that God justifieth the ungodly, we understand it,

2. In sensudiviso, not in sensu composito; that is, not that he is so when justified, as the Scripture saith, The lame man shall leap, Isa. 35.6. Mark 11. the tongue of the dumb shall sing, and the blinde see, and the deaf hear; but no man will say that the lame as lame can leap, and that the dumb remaining so, can sing, and that the blinde as blinde, see; and so no man should dream that the ungodly as [Page 137] ungodly are justified; for in order of nature, our Faith goes before Justification, though there be no priority of time between our ungodlinesse and Justification; for immediately before our saith, we are ungodly, and upon the creation of faith, we are justified, and sanctified at the same time, and our ungodlinesse done away.

And what if Faith be promised, and freely given, it is a fruit of the Covenant as made with Christ, but not as the Covenant was made with us; God covenants with Christ to save all that he died for, and that shall believe; so that upon believing they shall have the fruit of Christs death, and the fruit of the Cove­nant of Grace; Christ undertakes for them to make them be­lieve; hence faith is wrought, and given, and then they are Christs Members, and so in Covenant, not before; for God pro­mised salvation to none, but such as believe; Hence Christ tel­eth the world. This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, John 6.40. may have everlasting life: Surely he willed nothing but agreeable to his Covenant with Christ, therefore he covenanted that Believers only should be saved; for where he saith, that it is the will of the Father, that they that believe should have everlasting life; the contrary al­so is meant, that he that believeth not, should not be saved.

I shall not prosecute his opinion any further here, I will now lay down some animadversions upon several passages in his Book, wherein his manifold errors, unsound opinions, and self-con­tradictions shall be manifested, which he hath cast himself upon in defence of this one error, and hath verified that old saying, Dato uno absurdo, mille sequuntur.

First, He blameth us, as if we did agree with Arminius, in holding a conditionall reconciliation, (which we utterly dis­claime) and yet he himself symbolizeth and agreeth with Armini­nius in that very thing which occasioned that error of Arminius, Armin. Exam. p. 31. & 158. in holding a temporal, suspensive and conditionall decree, for Ar­minius because the Scripture saith, we were chosen in Christ, will have it to be nos existentes in Christo, that we had an ex­istence, or being in Christ. And seeing we are not in Christ but by Faith, hereupon he maketh the object of Election to be fide­les, [Page 138] and so this decree to be temporal, and suspensive upon the will of man, in whose power it is to believe; though herein Arminius was more in the truth then Mr. Eyre, in that he judg­eth we are not in Christ, but by faith, which Mr. Eyre denieth. But for us we acknowledge no such temporall decree, nor do we hold this condition of faith to be an effect of our free will, but an absolute effect of Gods free grace. And in two other things he joyneth with Arminius, who seemingly is a mortall enemy to him.

1. They both stumble at the same stone, for the Arminians think it absurd, that the same thing should be donum promissum, and officium requisitum, a gift promised on Gods part, and yet a duty required on our part.Rem Apol. c 9. pag. 105. Thus the Remonstrants, Anne con­ditionem quis seriò, & sapienter praescriberet alteri, sub promisso praemii, & poenae gravissimae comminatione, qui eam in eo cui prae­scribit efficere vult, haec actio tota ludicra, & vix scenà digna est, Nihil ineptius, nihil vanius quàm fidem merito Christi tribuere, si enim Christus meritus est fidem, tum fides conditio esse non poterit, c. 8. p. 95.

They think it a ridiculous conceit, that any should prescribe that as a condition which he intendeth to work in them, or for them; and that faith, if it be merited by Christ, cannot be a condition.Vide Mr. Eyre, pag. 175. And saith not Mr. Eyre the same? page 175. But I appeal to the Reader, whether it doth not sound very harshly, that the same words should be formally both a Precept and a Promise; and that God should require a condition of us, and yet promise to work it in us, how shall we distinguish between Precepts and Promises?

I am sorry to see such a manly Divine as Mr. Eyre to be at a non-plus, where there is no difficulty. I take it for granted, that any Member in Mr. Eyre's Church can shew where faith is com­manded, and therefore it lieth upon us as a duty, and yet also can shew where it is said to be the gift of God; Surely, if the same thing may not be commanded and promised, either we have no duty to performe, or God hath not promised to give what he requireth or us: for it is said, he hath wrought all our works in us, [...]a. 16.12. and for us, and yet he calls it our work still, because our duty and act, though it be his grace inabling us; he commandeth us to repent, Mark 3.2. yet Christ is exalted as a Prince, to give [Page 139] repentance to Israel, Acts 5.31. We grant it cannot be a con­dition and a promise; if you take a condition in a strict proper sense, as the Jurists and Arminians take it for a condition per­formed by our own free will, but we take it in another sense, for a suspensive condition of the efficacy of Christs death, (and this is essential to a condition) appointed by God to apply Christs righteousnesse to us, which condition he hath purposed to work, and Christ hath merited, and therefore shall be infallibly given; and therefore the benefit of Christs death is no lesse certain, then if it were actually enjoyed.

2. The Arminians hold that no mans will is predeter­mined by God, for fear they should destroy the liberty of his will; and Mr. Eyre saith in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Parlia­ment, Though God doth move effectually, and perswades mens hearts, yet he doth not necessitate them to believe. If he mean it of a necessity of coaction only, we grant it; but if of ne­cessity of infallibility and event, we deny it; and he agreeth with Arminius, for God doth so effectually move, as to necessitate them, and irresistibly worketh upon their wills, over-powering them, and of unwilling making them willing, that they neces­sarily do believe, though they freely do it at the same time.

Secondly, He chargeth us that dissent from him, in making Faith the condition of the Covenant, as if we did agree with Arminians, Socinians and Papists, when he is not ignorant that we manifestly differ from them, and own not faith as a condi­tion in any of their senses; we make it not any meritorious condi­tion, as the Papists; nor any act performed by our own free will, as Arminians; nor the matter of our righteousnesse, as Socini­ans, and Arminians, and Papists do, neither in whole, nor in part. And somewhere he saith in his Book, that Mr, Calvin hath observed, That if we were accorded with the Church of Rome in all other points, save in this, (to wit, of Justification) it were im­possible to be reconciled; and I must needs say, I see no materiall difference between them, meaning between us that differ from him and the Papists; and yet, pag. 50. he saith that Bellarmine saith,Bellar. de justi­fic. l. 1. c. 17. Faith it self is our righteousnesse, and that it doth justifie us im­petrando, promerendo, in choando justificationem, that it doth ob­tain, [Page 138] [...] [Page 139] [...] [Page 140] merit, and begin our Justification; which of the Orthodox saith so, or with the Arminians that in the Covenant of Grace, God requireth faith, which in his gracious acceptation standeth instead of the obedience to the Moral Law? But to this wilfull slander, I shall tell him what in this case is the judgement of lear­ned VOSSIƲS, Vossius, Praefatione, to his defence of Grot. against, Herm. Ravensp. In confesso est apud omnes, haereticis cum meli­ùs quàm Catholicis consulere, qui callidum fidei Christianae hostem ità in tabellà populo spectandum offert, quasi dogmati faveat Catho­lico, cui bellum [...] indixit, strenuum autem veritatis de­fensorem ità depingit, quasi cum haeretico colludat, quem fortiter oppugnat. He is a better friend to Papists then Protestants, who shall describe the Papists that erre fundamentally, as favourably as the Protestants who hold the foundation, and strenously de­fend it, as if they did agree with Papists, with whom they are at an irreconcileable difference.

Mr. Eyre, p. 10.Thirdly, Mr. Eyre maketh a sinner (if he be an Elect per­son) remaining under the reigning power of sin, a subject of Justification: For he saith, God is well pleased with his Elect in Christ, whilest they are unregenerate, though he be not well pleased with their unregeneracy, or any of their actions in their unregene­rate estate.]

But how can this be agreeable to the Holy Nature of God, to justifie a sinner so remaining? For he that in this sense justifieth the wicked, is an abomination to the Lord; and what God con­demneth in us, he will not do himself. The Papists object against us that hold Justification by imputed, and not inherent righte­ousnesse, that it is contrary to the holinesse, justice, and purity of Gods Nature to justifie us that are ungodly, without an inherent rightsousnesse. To which the Protestants answer, that God at the same time doth begin to sanctifie whom he doth justifie, and he doth bestow a righteousnesse of Sanctification, as well as of Justification; but Mr. Eyre's opinion lieth justly liable to their exception, God cannot justifie any person, or be well pleased with him that is not a member of Christ, and to make an unre­generate man a member of Christs body, what a monstrous deformity would this be, and wrong to Christ, to make a limb of the Devil, a member of Christ? Let a man be the great­est [Page 141] sinner imaginable, practising and delighting in sin; yet he is a justified person, and a member of Christ. If Elect, why doth Mr. Eyre require the members of his Church to be Saints, not only by profession, but by inward sanctification, as that that shall make him a Church-member and yet holds an uregenerate person is a member of Christs body? will he require more holi­nesse in a Church-member, then in a Christ-member? And what an unreasonable assertion is it for him to say, God is pleased with the Elect whilest they are unregenerate, though he be not well pleased with their unregeneracy, or any of their actions in their unregenerate estate? Is it possible God can be well pleased with their persons, and yet none of all their actions please him? is that tree a good tree that never did, nor can bring forth good fruit? As the Scripture maketh no mans actions accepted, when their persons are not accepted, so neither doth it make their persons acceptable, but their actions (some of them at least) must be acceptable. And if their persons be justified, all their sins are pardoned, and many of their actions are for the matter good, and commanded; and when all the sin in their best actions is done away, how can they displease God, seeing nothing dis­pleaseth God but sin?

Fourthly, He saith, that the state of the loved and hated,Mr. Eyre, p. 66. compared with pag. 5. are different in the minde of God, yet not in the persons themselves, till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth; and yet findeth fault with me for asserting the same, that there was no difference between the Elect and Reprobate, as to their present condition, whilest the Elect are unregenerate, but only in the purpose of God intending to make a difference, by bringing the Elect unto faith in Christ, that they may be justified, which was all I said or intended.

Fifthly, He saith, Gods eternall decree to justifie,Mr. Eyre, p. 64. compared with pag 140. is Justifica­tion, because it secures men from wrath, and by this immanent act of God they are discharged and acquitted from their sinnes; Then what need Christ to die? here is forgivenesse without a satisfaction, Christs death was not the c [...]use of this immanent act, or will in God. And yet he contradicteth himself, for [Page 142] pag. 140. he saith, that sin lay as a block in the way, that God could not salvâ justititiâ bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his eternal Election. Surely Justifica­tion is one of the good things intended in Election, and there­fore God could not bestow this salvâ justitiâ, till their sin was satisfied for; but with him they were according to the first place discharged from sin by this immanent act, yet Christs death was not a cause of this act; and if they were actually discharged from sin, how did that lie as a block in the way to hinder any of the good things intended? And he citeth a place which he owneth out of Mr. Rutherford, pag. 140. God might will unto us that which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice, and this he understands of Gods saving and pardoning us; but if we were actually discharged, we were actually pardo­ned, and that without the merit of Christs death, and satisfacti­on to his justice.

Sixthly, He interpreteth, pag. 60. what is meant by Gods sight, when it is said, We are justified in his sight; this phrase he saith, is variously used.

1. Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts and knowledge of God, &c.

2. Sometimes it relates more peculiarly unto his legal justice, and although in articulo providentiae, in the Doctrine of Divine Providence, seeing and knowing are all one; yet in articulo ju­stificationis, in the article of Justification they are constantly di­stinguished throughout the Scripture, and God is never said to blot our sins out of his knowledge, but out of his sight: Now saith he, pag. 62. If we take it for the knowledge of God, we were justified in his sight when he willed and determined in himself not to impute to us our sins, &c. and this was from eternity. And with him the 63. pag. the essence and quiddity of Justifi­cation stands in this will of God not to punish, this is properly Justification in his judgement, and then God knew them to be righteous; yet he saith, in the article of Justification, knowledge is constantly distinguished from sight, throughout the whole Scripture, and God is never said to blot sins out of his knowledge, as much as if he should say, If you take this phrase as it is never [Page 143] to be taken, then we were justified from eternity. And the Scripture doth not acknowledge this eternal Justification; for when it speaks of the Doctrine of Justification, it speaketh of blotting out sins out of his sight, and this is to be referred to his legal Justice, (and this is the most proper and genuine use of it, saith he,) and so we were just [...]fied in the sight of God when he exhibited, and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood for all our sins; and yet this Justification is not the most proper ac­ceptation of Justification, for that was from eternity, and yet we were then most properly justified in his sight; how well this agrees, let the Reader judge.

Seventhly, He taketh Faith objectively,Mr. Eyre, p. 47. Pag. 58, 76. (not for the act with connotation of the object,) but for the object excluding the act, as if the word Faith signified Christ; and yet when we urge him with such places where it is said, We are justified by Faith, and the like, he understands it of a declarative Justification, and so taketh Faith subj [...]ctively, not objectively: So he taketh it, p. 73. In this sense men are said to be justified by the act of Faith, in regard Faith is the Medium, or instrument whereby the sentence of forgivenesse is terminated on their conscience.

Eightly,Pag. 63. He affirmeth that the judgement of Dr. Twisse is most accurate in placing the essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish, pag. 63. yet he saith, (and that truly in respect of this immanent and eternal act of God) that the merits of Christ do not move Gods will not to punish, or im­pute sinne to us; yet he acknowledgeth no other act, that Christs death is the meritorious cause of; he saith, it is the meritorious cause of the effects of this eternal Justification;Pag. 67, but the Scripture maketh Christs death the meritorious cause of some act of God justifying us; can Christ cause the effect, and not the act? Merit is an outward procatar [...]ical cause, moving the principal agent extrinsecally ad agendum; and hence God is said, for Christs sake to forgive us; Christs death doth morally work upon him by way of motive and objective moving, and is a remote cause of the effect, and God as the principall efficient, is the immediate cause; and what influence then can this remote cause have to [Page 144] produce the effects of Justification, and no way by any causal in­flux to cause the act? Though I still willingly acknowledge, that the internal moving cause, is Gods own will, for nothing out of God can be the cause of his will, unlesse we make God be­holding to another for his being.

9thly, He giveth a very superficial slight answer to those Scri­ptures that speak of receiving remission of sins by believing, Acts 10.43. Acts 26.18. ‘Though it be said, whosoever believeth shall re­ceive remission of sin; it is not said, (saith he,) by believing we obtain remission of sins;’ true, who would make an instrumentall cause the meritorious cause of remission of sins? but if by obtaining be meant no more then a receiving, and possessing what we never had before, so we do by Faith obtain remission of sins; he di­stinguisheth between the giving of remission, and the receiving it, as if one were long before the other; To which I answer, If you take giving for the will of God ordaining to give remission, so it is long before receiving, but that is not an actual bestowing of the thing purposed; but if you take it for an actual collation of the thing given, it implies the receiving of it; for Relata se mutuo ponunt, & tollunt; thus giving and receiving are toge­ther, and so forgivenesse of sins was not given till received; Mr. Eyre meanes, by our receiving remission, nothing but the com­fort and knowledge of it, but that interpretation will not agree with the Apostles minde; for he doth not say, Whosoever be­lieve shall have the knowledge, or comfort of the remission of sinnes, but shall have remission of sins; and that place, Acts 26.18. most expressely makes it manifest, for before their receiving this forgivenesse, they were under the power of Satan; surely they that are under Satans power, are not yet pardoned; what hath Sathan to do with a pardoned sinner? This were a wrong to Christs satisfaction, if it were accepted for a present discharge, and yet they left under Sathans power; but Christ himself saith, those that he sent Paul unto, namely, the Gentiles, were under the power of Sathan, because they were yet under spiritual blindnesse, and he is sent to turne them from darknesse to light, from the power of Sathan unto God, that they might receive re­mission of sins; not that they might receive the knowledge of a [Page 145] deliverance from the power of Sathan they had already, or the knowledge of the remission of sins, but remission it self; now Ju­stification standeth in remission of sins, therefore if they received it not before, they were not justified.

Tenthly, He giveth a worse answer to that place, Ephes. 2.12. where it is said, that the Elect before Faith or spiritual Re­generation in their natural estate, were without Christ, with­out God, and without hope in the world, that is, saith he, pag. 73. before faith, they had no knowledge or comfort, either of Gods gracious volitions towards them, or of Christs undertak­ings in their behalf; it is such a chaffy, illiterate exposition, that it more befits a Green-apron-Preacher, then such a Gamaliel, it needs not a graine of salt; but all the salt in the world will not make a savoury interpretation of it, to keep it from the dunghill, What were these Ephesians when dead in sins and trespasses, dead in conceit only, and truly alive to God, and dead in their ap­prehensions only? were they children of wrath in their appre­hensions? why then, they were more afraid then hurt; what needed they then the work of Creation, the Almighty power of God that was put forth to raise Christ from the dead, to raise them from this estate; could no body cure this conceit with an­other? that if they did but think all was well, that thought would be to them as the Resurrection from the dead; What, were they without Christ in the world, because they knew not Christ was there? Why then let some frenzy take them, and bereave them of their reason, as Mr. Eyre was in this interpreta­tion, and they are un-Christed again; or let them fall asleep, and they are again without Christ, without God, without hope in the world. And so they and their Christ will bid good-morrow, and good-night, so often as they rise, or go to bed: But the true scope and sense of the place is this, the Apostle setteth him­self to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in Christ to the Ephesi­ans, which he doth, by calling upon them to remember what their former deplorable estate was in Ethnicisme, when they were Gentiles in the flesh, by comparing it with their happy e­state since their conversion to the faith; and therefore that won­derful change, sheweth that their salvation is wholly of grace; [Page 146] in their former condition they were then in the flesh, that is, in their natural and sinful estate, as they descended from their pa­rents in a state of sin, living after the flesh, in which estate they could not please God.

2. They were without inward and outward circumcision, they had none of the signe and seal of the Covenant of Grace, of that righteousnesse that is by faith, but were despised by the Jewes, who gloried in their circumcision; but they had not so much as this outward circumcision in the flesh, much lesse the circumcision of the heart: Now uncircumcision was a signe of a people that were wholly strangers to God and the Covenant of Grace.

3. They were without Christ, without any knowledge of Christ; Christ was not so much as preached to them, and they had no faith in him, and so [...], as Diodat upon the place saith, they neither had union nor communion with Christ, nor, no knowledge of their union or communion with Christ, as if they were mystically united, as Mr. Eyre ignorantly, or wilfully af­firmeth; but without union or communion; they were not yet members of Christ, and so they lived as it were without Christ in the world, strangers to Christ, at a distance from Christ. Such as were sometimes afarre off from Christ, and God, as ver. 13. declareth,Calvin in Lo­cum: and as Calvine upon the place, procul à Deo & saluie, even as farre as heaven and hell asunder, and were strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel; that is, they were without the Pale of the Church, out of which ordinarily there is no salvati­on, and were strangers from the Covenant of Promise; that is, as Piscator saith,Piscator in Lo­cum. the Promise of the Covenant of Grace, where­in God promised remission of sins through the merit of Christ, and the renewing of their hearts by the efficacy of Christ, did not belong to them;Dickson in Lo­cum. and as Dickson upon the words saith, alieni à jure ad applicandum sibi pacta, & promissiones Dei, they were de­stitute of all right to apply the Covenants or Promises of God to themselves: And they were without hope in the world, that is, they had no hope of eternal life; so Piscator; haec enim nascitur ex fi­de; for this is begotten by saith; they could have no good well grounded hope for heaven, Spem merit ò conjungit promissionibus de Christo, nam absque his quic quid sperant homines frustrà speraent: [Page 147] He deservedly joyned hope to the promises concerning Christ; for without these, whatsoever men hope for, they hope in vaine. Truly, (as he saith) there can nothing be hoped for, that is not promised; and without the Covenant there is no Promise. And without God in the world, they acknowledged many gods; nay, knew the true God as Creator of heaven and earth; but knew him not in Christ, and did not worship him according to the light of Scripture, and so were without all true knowledge, and spiritual worship of God. And from all this it followeth that they were unjustified in this estate, and it destroyeth the scope of the Apo­stles argument, to take it as Mr. Eyre taketh it, only for the want of knowledge of their happy estate, whereas the Apostles scope is to shew how miserable they were when in this estate, how happy in the change, or deliverance from it; but here is no change signified by Mr. Eyre's interpretation, but only their condition was the same, and as good then as now, only they did not know it; Is it possible a man of reason should be so farre blinded, or hardened to shut his eyes against the clear light of the Scripture? Dreadful are Gods judgements in delivering men up to errour, that will not receive the truth in the love of it.

Eleventhly,Page 66, 67. He maketh the merits of Christ no more the cause of Justification, then of Election; he maketh the merits of Christ only the meritorious cause of the effects of Gods eternall will to justifie, as may appear, pag. 66, & 67. Although (saith he) Gods will not to punish, be antecedent to the death of Christ; yet (saith he) we are justified in him, (but he doth not say for him,) though the Scriptures speak it plain enough, because the whole effect of that will, is by and for the sake of Christ, as though electing love precedeth the consideration of Christ, yet we are said to be chosen in him, because all the effects of that love are given by, and through, and for him, and to the like purpose he speaketh in the 67. pag. &c. Col. 2.14. Heb. 9.12. But the Scriptures do plainly ascribe a meri­toriousnesse to the death of Christ, that we have redemption through his blood, he hath obtained eternal redemption for us,Eph. 4.32. Eph. 2.16. and that God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians. And that he hath reconciled both (that is, Jew and Gentle) unto [Page 148] God by the Crosse; and therefore Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification, but of the act of Justification, God being moved thereto by the death of Christ; but where saith the Scripture, that God elected us for the sake of Christ? it is true, it saith, we were chosen in him, and he accepted us in the belo­ved; but this doth not imply that we had a being in Christ, when elected, and that God elected us for Christs sake, as if Christ were the cause of our Election,Vide Dr. Twiss, Vind. Lib. 2. Digress. p. 74. Interca non di­cimus Christum in negotio ele­ctionis habere rationem causae meritoriae respe­ctu actûs cli­gentis sed dun­taxat respectu termini, &c. Ib. quoad actum eligentis, which Arminius mightily contendeth for, that he might bring in faith; if not as a cause, yet as a prerequisite of our Election. And none of ours except Rolloc maintain it; and yet though he calleth Christ the foundation of our Election, all that he saith ends in this, that Christ is therefore the foundation of our Election, because he is the meritorious cause Bonorum Electione praeparatorum, of good things which are prepared by Election; but Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification, but of the act of Ju­stification, for God doth forgive us for Christs sake, and then see what a good friend Mr. Eyre is to the merits and satisfaction of Christ, when he seemingly pleads for it, as if we wronged the merits of Christ by suspending the benefit untill faith, wrought by himself, as the effect of his death, and he wholly denieth it as to the act of Justification.

Twelfthly, He saith, that Justification is by Faith evidentially, and Faith is from Justification causally,Mr. Eyre, p. 79. and he seeth no absurdi­ty in it, p. 79. which is to place the Cart before the Horse, and as preposterous as to wear his Shoes upon his head, and his Hat upon his feet. That Faith may in a sense evidence Justification, I deny not, but that it is the effect of Justification, is as good sense as that the daughter brought forth the mother; Justification may be an effect of Faith, and so the Scripture maketh it, but not a cause of Faith: For it is neither the efficient, nor material, nor for­mall, nor final, therefore it is no cause; for all causes are redu­cible to these four Heads.

1. It is not the efficient principall cause of Faith; I hope he will not rob Gods free grace, and the Holy Spirit of his Honour (as he doth Christ of his merit,) of being the sole efficient cause of faith; Faith, it is the gift of God, and the effect of the Spirit, [Page 149] which worketh faith by the hearing of the Word: it is a known rule, Positâ causâ proximâ ponitur effectus, and if the act of Ju­stification should be the cause of Faith, then according to him being justified from eternity, we must be Believers from eterni­ty, but how contrary this is to sense, reason, and experience, I need not speak; and no man did ever yet dreame, much lesse speak of Justification being the efficient cause of Faith.

2. It is not the formall cause of Faith, for the formal cause doth ingredi compositum, it is part of the substance of the thing, or effect produced; the formall cause is alwayes intrinsecal to the effect, and concurreth to the substance and essence of it, but Justification is a thing wholly extrinsecal and adventitious to the nature of Faith; the formality of Faith lieth in an adherency to Christ, or a recumbency upon Christ for righteousnesse, not in the act of Justification.

3. Justification is not the materiall cause of Faith, for the same reason above named; the materiall cause is that which in u­nion with the forme, maketh up a substantial compounded bo­dy, but Faith is no such thing, it is not a substance, but a qua­lity, and hath no matter properly so called; and as for the mat­ter improperly so called, it is either materia in quâ, or circa quam, it is either the subject, or the object; but Justification is not the subject, or object of Faith; not the subject, for the subject of Faith is a Believer; nor is Justification the object of Faith, for in things that have matter improperly so called, the subject and the object are the same; the object of Justification then is a Be­liever, the person of a Believer, not his Faith.

4. And lastly, Justification is not the finall cause of Faith, for I am not justified that I might believe, but rather I believe that I might be justified; and salvation is made the end of faith,Gal. 2.16. 1 Pet. 1.9. and not faith the end of my salvation; and thus it appeareth, that Faith is not from Justification causally.

Thirteenthly, He saith, pag. 83. that he doth not presse every man to believe that he is justified,Mr Eyre p. 83. but to believe there is a suffici­ency in Christ for his Justification, and to rely upon him, and him alone for this benefit; but how contrary this is to his own principles, let the Reader judge: for he constantly affirmeth, [Page 150] that the Elect are justified from eternity, and from the death of Christ antecedently to Faith, and faith doth not instrumentally apply Christs righteousness unto Justification, but Faith doth only evidence Justification to the conscience: Surely, when you presse men to believe, you presse them to believe they are alrea­dy justified, and not to rely on him for this benefit; for if they be justified already, what need have they to rely upon him by faith for it? they may according to you rely upon him for the e­videncing of this to their consciences, but not for the benefit which they had in Christ before they were borne. And what di­minution is it of the grace of Christ, if they were justified from the time of Christs death, to tell them there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for Justification? when according to you there is an efficiency in the death of Christ; forasmuch as they were not virtually only, but actually and formally, as you affirme, p. 63. ju­stified at his death: Nor will it help you to say, you speak there of the non-elect, for we are bound to presse all men to believe, as you there acknowledge; and it is not known who are Elect, neither to the Minister nor to the people; therefore in pressing the Elect to believe a sufficiency, you extenuate the merit of Christs death, if they were actually justified, as you af­firme: And there is the same ground of Faith to all, the abi­lity of Christ to save, and Gods indefinite offer of salvation to whomsoever the Gospel is preached.

Fourteenthly, He affirmeth Faith, if it evidences our Justifica­tion, is a signe, is a dark and unsatisfying evidence, as other works of Sanctification are,1 John 3.14. where he contradicteth the Apostle, who saith, By this we know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the Brethren; not we hope, not we conjecture, but we know, it is a sure and stedfast signe. Little children, let no man deceive you, 1 John 3.7. saith John, he that doth righteousnesse, is righteous; is thereby, viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be a righteous person;Rom. 8.1. and in Rom. 8.1. he saith, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; and he givesh this as a signe,Rom. 8.13. Who are in Christ, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; doth the Holy Ghost, by Paul, give us a dark unsa­tisfying evidence of our being in Christ. What is more frequent [Page 151] then this; he that is in Christ, is a new Creature, they that mor­tifie the deeds of the body shall live:Gal 5.24. They that are Christs have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts thereof? are all these dark and unsatisfying evidences? then the Apostle did not well to propound them as satisfying evidences of the persons that are in Christ, and shall be saved; but we had rather suspect Mr. Eyre's opinion, then question the Apostles judgement or unfaithfulness to propound dark, and unsatisfying evidences of Justification.

2. He saith, that nothing that followes Faith, is so apt to e­vidence or prove Justification as Faith, because it is the first of all inherent graces; but I take this for an errour, and that works are every way as declarative of Justification, if not more, is an apparent truth: For first, if we speak of evidencing Justificati­on to others, it is more; for saith the Apostle, Thou hast faith, shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works, James 2.18. And Abraham was in this sense justi­fied by his works, If any man shall say he is a justified person, Vers. 2 [...]. 1 John 1.6. James 2.20. and yet liveth in the practice of any known sin, I shall be bold to tell him he is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and works of Sanctifica­tion are no lesse declarative of Justification in evidencing it to the conscience, then Faith: For how shall I know my saith is a true faith, an unfeigned faith, and peculiar to the Elect; but by the effect of a true Faith, the works of Sanctification, there­fore if the truth of my faith be evidenced by my works, then the truth of my justification is no lesse evidenced to my conscience by works then by faith; nor is his reason of any worth, because it is the first of all inherent graces; this may prove it to have an excellency in that respect above other graces, but that it hath for this reason an eminency above other graces in evidencing Ju­stification, is a lame consequence, of which Master Eyre's Book is too full.

Fifteenthly, He affirmerh that we should not be justified freely by grace, if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification; I take this also for a manifest errour, if it be understood aright, of an Evangelical condition ordained and wrought by God for the applying of Christs righteousnesse to Justification. Indeed, if you take a condition in a strict sense; [Page 152] for a condition performed by us without the help of grace, meri­ting, and obliging God to give us the righteousnesse of Christ; in such a sense it is true, it is inconsistent with grace: but such an Evangelical condition wrought by the grace of Christ, without which we are not justified, salvation is no lesse of grace, though it be by faith, as the Apostle speaketh: Ye are saved by grace through faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God; where the Apostle speaketh of the grace of faith,Eph. 2.8. and saith, we are saved by it; and yet he saith, We are saved by grace, because it is Gods gift.

Sixteenthly, He saith, pag. 99. that all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace are given us freely,Pag 99. and not upon conditions performed by us, (viz. by our own strength,) yet God hath his order & method in the bestowing of them, &c. If all the blessings of the Covenant be alike absolutely, and freely given, and alike merited by Christ, and yet God may for order and methods sake, deferre some blessings of the Covenant without wrong to Christs merits and satisfaction, why is it any wrong to Christs death, if Justification merited by Christ, be suspended untill it be fitly applied by faith, (that God may not justifie a person under the reigne and power of sinne, which is not agreeable to his Holinesse and Justice?)

Seventeenthly, In his 103. pag. he is guilty of a double error: First, [...]ag. 103. in making God to impute sin to men before there was any Law to offend, or any breach of that Law committed by man: And secondly, inSin is appa­rently the cause onely of condem­nation, but not of Gods purpose. Dr. Twisse, Exam. Mr. Cot. p. 54. confounding Gods hatred of Justice, with his negative act of non-election, or preterition, which ought to be distinguished. He saith, Though men will not impute sin, or charge it where there is no Law to convince them of it; yet it followes not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed; for what is Gods hating of a person, but his imputing of sin, or his will to punish him for his sin? Now the Lord hated all that perish, before the Law was given. To which I answer, that Gods preterition, or non-election, though it be justly called a hatred negatively, yet this was an act of Sovereignty, and not of Justice: nor is this hatred an imput­ing [Page 153] of their sin, nor was their sin foreseen the causeReprobatio ne­que damnationis ne (que) peccati quod incretur damna­tionem est pro­priè causa, sed antecedens tan­tum. Ames. Me­dul. c. 25. s. 40. 1 John 3.4. Rom. 5.13. of this act; And they that were not, could not have any sin imputed, yea, it chargeth God with untruth, and with unjustice, to impute sin before committed; for the very formality of a sin consisteth in the privation of that rectitude the Law requireth, or in the trans­gression of the Law: Now, where there is no Law, there is no transgression; therefore the Apostle proveth, That before the Law was promulged, there was some Law given, and transgres­sed, by which sin entered into the world, and death by sin, which was thatNot the Mo­ral Law exist­ing in the mind of God, before it was declared, as Master Eyre seemes to inti­mate in the same place. positive Law forbidding Adam, and in him us to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil; and had there been no Law; there had been no trangression; but now from eter­nity there was no Law given, nor any person to whom it should be given, and therefore from eternity there was no transgressi­on; and therefore to make God impute that which was not, is to ascribe unto God a fallible judgement, and to make God to esteem them sinners before they were men; yea, and in justice too will it charge upon God, to make him impute sin to them which they [...]ver committed, and for this to hate them, and passe them by, and not Elect them; Here is a complication of errours in this passage, God doth not esteem any person a sinner till by [...] act that he is guilty of, his Law be violated, nor ad­judge any man to punishment, nor execute, or inflict any punish­ment untill sin be committed: So that Gods imputation of sin followeth that act of sin, and doth not precede it; and is a transient, not an immanent act. And a little after he contradict­eth himself, A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin, either by himself, or representative, which necessarily supposeth a Law, for sin is the transgression of the Law; Why then it necessarily followes, no man was a sinner from eternity, and so God did not impute it; but let it go for one of his Paradoxes, the Law and sin had a coeternall existence in the minde of God, together with his own eternall Essence.

Eighteenthly, When we urge Mr. Eyre with those Scriptures, He that believeth not, is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him, and that the Elect are children of wrath, as well as others; and tell him, a man cannot be a child of wrath, and a [Page 154] justified person at the same time, then the argument will not hold, and is invalid, as you may see in his slight Answers to Mr. Woodbridges Arguments from these Scriptures,Pag. 110, 111, 112. compared with pag. 138. pag. 110, 111, 112. and yet when he cometh to prove that we are justified imme­diately from the time of Christs death, he can use the same Ar­gument, and then it is a divine Oracle; his words are these, p. 138. It was the will of God (saith he) that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation, for they could not be children of Christ, and children of Wrath at the same time; and be­cause this deserves a more full examination, and it was an Argu­ment used by my against Mr. Eyre in our conference, I will reserve what I have to say further to it, to another place.

Ninteenthly, He saith, That the Elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after believing, then they had before.] Unhappy man,Mr. Eyre, pag. 122. that he should be the father of so many foule errours, what had the Elect Corinthians when they were Idolaters, Fornicators, Adulterers, effeminate, and abusers of themselves with mankinde? had they then as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven, as after? What will this man make the Kingdome of Heaven to be, that admits of such Sodomites, and Whoremongers, to be the actuall heires of it? If they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven, they were a blessed people; Oh blessed Sodomites! Oh bles­sed Whoremongers! if this Doctrine be true; here was all the unhappinesse of these Sodomitical Saints, they knew not their happinesse before, they had as much right to salvation as before, only they had more knowledge of it after believing; but if they had as much right, why doth the Apostle say as such, they could not inherit the Kingdome of God? Be not deceived, no such shall inherit the Kingdome of God; why then, what a wrong is this to them, when they have a right to the Kingdome of God? Do any persons more deserve the same stile of the Gnosticks of old, to be called the dirty Sect, then such panders for the flesh as these? But I hope, such as fear the Lord will take the Apostles caveat, and not be seduced by such filthy dreamers, to believe that when they lie in Dalilahs lap, they are as dear to God, and have at much right to the Kingdome of Heaven, as when they lie in A­brahams bosome.

Twentith, He saith in pag. 129. That the best actions of the [Page 155] unregenerate are impure, and sinful, which though they are all par­doned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ, yet they are not ac­ceptable to God; but in themselves most abominable, and loathsome in his sight. But are their persons acceptable and justified, so as to have as much right as ever they shall have to the Kingdome of God? And are their best actions, such as are their praying, hear­ing, for the matter good, and duties commanded? and are all the sins pardoned, which make them only evil in Gods sight, and yet are they abominable and loathsome in his sight? who will believe you? can the want of faith (which is by you pardoned) hinder the acceptance of their works, and not the acceptance of their persons? Nay, what do you affirme of the actions of the Regenerate more, then may be said of the actions of the Elect unregenerate? if they be justified persons, as you say they are; for the best works of unregenerat, justified Infidels, as you will have it, are (as you say) of the regenerate, pleasing to God, not only comparatively, because better then the works of Re­probates, or then the sins of unregenerate persons, but abso­lutely, 1. Abstractly, as you affirme of the others, and in them­selves, for they are such things as are lawful, and commanded; and if they faile in the manner of doing it, in faith, hope, and love, this is but a faile in the manner; and Gradus non variat spe­ciem, and the Regenerate Elect, faile in the measure of faith, hope, and love; neither in them doth their faith, hope, or love, merit the acceptance of their duties And, 2. Concretely, as they are acted by justified persons, and so passe through the hands of par­doned persons, and the sins are washed away in Christs blood; this want of faith, hope, and love, is pardoned: I pray tell me now, what reall difference you make between the duties of an Elect unregenerate person, and of a Regenerate person.

Let not the ignorant Reader mistake me here, I affirme not that any duties of an unregenerate person are acceptable to God, or that the want of faith, hope, and love, maketh but a failing only in the manner and circumstances of the dutie; but I have only presented the Reader with a glasse, to let him see that Mr. Eyre for all the seeming difference he maketh between the actions of the Elect Regenerate, and unregenerate; yet indeed maketh none, and according to him it cannot be found.

Pag. 18.Thus the Reader may see, that one truth of Mr. Eyre ve­rified, where he saith, We may no more judge of Books by their Title, then of strumpets by their foreheads; and although his Tittle-Page hold forth the Gospel-language of free Justification, yet if thou read the Book, thou shalt finde Esaus hands, though thou sometimes hearest Jacobs voice; And therefore the Reader that is judicious, will not be like a silly fish taken with the bait, though it swallow the hook. I have given thee a few Animad­versions, but a judicious Reader will observe more. This is e­nough to give the Reader warning to preserve him from the in­fection of this aire: And I hope sufficient to reduce them that are led captive by him into the same Errour.

CHAP. VI. Proving that we are not justified from Eternity.

HERE I shall premise these few things.

First, That as we hold Justification to be a transient act, done in time, so there is no transient act, but it presup­poseth necessarily an immanent act in God.

And therefore secondly, I acknow­ledge there was an eternal, and an im­mutable act of Gods will, decreeing to justifie his Elect in time, through faith in Christ.

Thirdly, As for that conditionate decree, which Arminians make in God, making the condition antecedent to the act of Gods will, I no way acknowledge, and judge it absolutely in­consistent with Gods Nature and Essence; but such a conditional decree, as is so called subsequently, not in respect of God wil­ling, but in respect of the thing willed, sive objecti voliti, is not repugnant to him especially in such contingent effects as come to passe by vertue of his decree ordaining them; Thus God willeth salvation to the Elect, which salvation they shall be brought un­to by faith in Christ; not that faith is the cause of the act of E­lection, or God willing their salvation; yet it may be the cause of the thing willed, a subsequent condition wrought by God for the execution of his decree: And therefore when the Orthodox acknowledge Election to be absolute, they understand it not exclusively to the means which God hath ordained for the ob­taining [Page 158] of salvation; for God in the same eternall act did ordain the end and the meanes; hence Paul telleth the Thessalonians, that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, 2 Thess. 2.13. 1 Pet. 1.2. and belief of the truth; and Peter saith, The strangers he wrote unto, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. And as I acknowledge this to be an eternall decree, (Because he chose us in him before the foun­dation of the world, that we should be holy,) so I willingly grant it to be immutable; for he that changeth his purpose, doth it for want of wisdome in deliberating, or for want of power to exe­cute it, neither of which can be ascribed to God without blas­phemy. And hence the Scripture saith, The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his.

Fourthly, I grant that Christ was elected, and constituted to be a Head, and all the Elect were predestinated to be his mem­bers, and in this sense we were chosen in him, (not existing) but only we were pre-ordained unto salvation by him. And that this act was one in God, in respect of whole Christ mystical: al­though I deny, that the Elect were by this act of God mystically united unto Christ, which is done upon believing; yet I grant a cer­tain relative respect, and mutual relation between them. In which sense the Elect are called his people, before he saved them from their sins, and while they were not yet converted, and his sheep for which he laid down his life, although not yet brought home to him; yet was not Christ the meritorious cause of their Election (much lesse their foreseen faith, or good works,) although he be the cause of the effects of their Election; as therefore this salva­tion unto which we are predestinated, is the act of God, so Christ is the effect of Gods love of Election, and the means of salvation, and our salvation is the end, in respect of us; but as this salva­tion is our good, so Christ is the cause of it.

Fifthly, Though Christ were thus predestinated to be a Head, and the Elect his Members, yet was not he a Head actually from eternity, nor the Elect actual members, because he had not a mystical body from eternity; and although God decreed from eternity to justifie the Elect through faith in Christ, yet were not [Page 159] they actually justified: ForPraedestinatio enim an [...]e ap­plicationemgra­tiae nihil ponit in praedestinatis, sed latet solùm in praedestinan­te. Ames Me­dul. Theol. cap. 25. sect. 2. Predestination maketh no inter­nall difference between the Elect and Reprobate, untill actuall grace be given for applying the things intended in Election; nor doth Predestination necessarily presuppose the existence of its termePraedestinatio enim nec termi­num nec objectum suum necessariò praesupponit ut existens, sed ponit ut existat ità ut vi praedestinatio­nis ordinetur ut sit. Amesii Medul. c. 25. s. 8., nor object, but the futurity of both. Having premised these things, (which I have the rather more fully done, because he representeth me and such as differ from him, as Arminians and Papists,) I shall now prove that we were not justified from eter­nity.

1. Gods decree to justifie, is terminus diminuens, is a terme of diminution, and therefore is not actuall Justification; 'tis amor ordinativus, but it is not amor collativus; it is a love ordaining, and preparing good things for us, but not an actuall bestowing them; Justification is an actual bestowing of some special mercy, a discharge from the guilt of sin and death, a passing us from an estate of death into an estate of life; this may be intended, but is not actually performed by Predestination, for it's a known rule, Praedestinatio nihil ponit in Praedestinato: but I will not strangle the question so by the prejudice of a word or two, therefore I argue,

2. The Scripture no where speaketh of an eternal Justification; Therefore we were not justified from eternity. The Antecedent is acknowledged and made use of by Mr. Eyre, and a negative argument in matters of great concernment, is of necessary con­sequence, 'tis not written, therefore there is no such thing: now let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture, wherein the decree of God to justifie is called Justification, and I yield the cause,

3. That that is an act of God done in time, was not done from eternity; But Justification is an act of God done in time; Therefore it was not from eternity. The Major needs no proof, the Minor is no lesse evident, Gal. 3.8.Gal. 3.8. The Scripture foresee­ing that God would justifie the Heathen through fainh, preached the Gospel before unto Abraham, saying, in these shall all the na­tions of the earth be blessed, where the Apostle maketh it a work to [Page 160] be done in time, that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith, not that he had justified them; whereas if he had meant Justification was eternal, it had been senselesse for him to say, that God would do that which was done already; nor is this meant of a declarative justification in foro conscientiae, for it is such a justification as Abraham had, but Abraham was not only justified in his conscience, but before God; So, 2 Cor. 5.18, 19. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. And God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their transgressions to them; But Christ did reconcile us in time, and not from eternity; Therefore God did not justifie from eter­nity. Christ reconciles us to God, not only as God, but as God-man, by h s death, but Christ was not God-man, and died not from eternity; Therefore, &c.

4. That action of God which maketh a real change in the creature, is a transient action done in time, because it passeth from God to the creature, and some way worketh a change; But Ju­stification is such an action of God that maketh a present change; Therfore it is a transient, not an immanent act. The Major is clear, for what action soever is terminated in patiente, or upon the crea­ture, is certainly transient, because it doth not remaine in God; and if transient, it must be temporary, for no creature did exist from eternity. The Minor will invincibly remain a truth, for it is most certaine, that by Justification the state of a sinner is changed; he that was in the state of condemnation, is now in the state of salvation; Justification is opposed to condemnation, He that is under condemnation, is not justified, and he that is justified, is freed from condemnation.

Now let us see what he answereth to this, pag. 65. where he answereth this Objection, that Justification imports a change, which cannot be attributed to the simple decrees of God.

He answereth, That if Justification be taken for the thing wil­led, the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law, then there is a great change made, &c. but if we take it for the will of God not to punish, then we say Justification doth not suppose a change, as if God had a will to punish his Elect, but afterwards he altered his will to a will not to punish.

Where let the Reader observe the vanity of his distinction, in [Page 161] separating the thing willed from the act of Gods will; for the whole nature of Justification doth not consist in the thing willed, to wit, a delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law, but in some act of God as a Judge declaring his will to deliver. Take a man condemned to die by a Judge, this prisoner may by power be rescued from the sentence for the present, but is he therefore justified, and acquitted in Law by the Judge? Justification is an act of God delivering the sinner, or acquitting him from the crime, or accusation laid to his charge, and so from condemna­tion; and where this is, there is necessarily a change.

2. Observe his equivocation, and fallacy in the second mem­ber of his distinction; if we take it for the will of God not to punish, and then Justification doth not import a change, as if God had a will to punish his Elect, but afterwards he altered his will not to punish them; we are speaking of a change made by Justification upon the sinner, he saith, there is none made in Gods will, quid hoc ad rhombum? and who said that God did first will, and then cease to will, and then take up a new volition? truly, Arminians feign such a mutability in God, but the Ortho­dox abhorre it: Nor doth Mr. Eyre rightly understand, at least­wise represent the Orthodox Doctrine; we say, and that truly, that God by one act of his will, willed that he that is a sinner, and remaineth so in unbelief, should be liable to condemnation, and that upon believing he shall be freed from condemnation, that before faith he should be in a state of sin, and consequently of damnation, and upon faith that he should be justified, and delivered from it. Here is no change in Gods will, but in the object; a great change in man, but not in God; God may velle mutationem, when he doth not, as Aquinas saith, mutare volun­tatem: God may will a change in the creature, when he doth not change his own will; as a Father may will at his death, and accordingly bequeatheth an estate to a prodigal childe, and in case he will become a new man, he shall possesse and enjoy it; but if he will not, he shall go without it; here he wills a change, but doth not change his will: So it is in the present case.

I will here also take notice what he addeth, The change of a per­sons state ariseth from the Law, and the consideration of man there­unto, by whose sentence the transgressor is unjust: but considered at [Page 162] the tribunal of Grace, he is righteous, which is not properly a diffe­rent estate before God, but a different consideration of the same per­son: God may be said to look upon him as sinful, and righteous; as sinful in reference to his state by nature, as righteous to his estate by Grace.]

I answer, The change of a mans state ariseth not from the Law, (for that condemneth him) but from an act of God acquit­ting him from the Law; if God did not acquit him, the Law would not; 'Tis true, the Law pronounceth him guilty, because a transgressor, and so doth God, whose Law it is; for it was the will of God, so long as he remaineth a transgressor, without a righteousnesse to deliver him, that he stould be in a damnable e­state, and upon such a righteousnesse as God hath provided in Christ, if he believe, and be cloathed with this righteousnesse, he shall be saved: Now 'tis true, this mans state is really changed, but God is not changed; for he willed according to his righte­ous Law, his condemnation, he willeth upon believing his sal­vation, and this with one eternal unchangeable act of his will, and whom he hath elected, he giveth faith, hence they are justified; here is a new effect of Gods love, but not any new immanent act. Nor is there any truth in that, that God looks upon a man at the same time as sinful, and righteous; if you mean by it an estate of sin, and a righteous or justified estate, for this would ascribe to God a fallible judgement, to judge them otherwise then they are; but if your meaning be he may see at the same time what they were by nature, and what they are by grace, 'tis not denied; but to look upon them as being in their naturall estate, and in a state of grace at the same time, implies an errour in his judge­ment, which is blasphemy to imagine, and is a contradiction in adjecto.

5. Christs death is the meritorious cause of our Justification; But Christs death was not the meritorious cause of Gods eternall purpose; Therefore that immanent act, or eternal purpose of God to justifie us, is not our justification. The Major is expresly delivered in the Scripture;Eph. 4.32. 2 Cor. 5.19. Rom. 3.25. Heb. 9.12. God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians, God was in Christ reconciling the world, &c. and, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith, &c. He hath obtained eternal redemption for us, &c. And to deny it, [Page 163] were with Socinus that cursed Heretick, to deny the satisfaction of Christ. The Minor is acknowledged by himself, page 67. It may be he will answer, as he saith in pag. 66, & 67. If Justifica­tion be taken for the will of God, so Christs death is not theNihil movet voluntatem Dei nisi bonitas sua, Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art. 2. cause, &c. but if you take it for the thing willed, or effect of this will by this immanent act of his, to wit, our discharge from the Law, &c. so it hath Christs death for the adequate cause, but the vanity of this distinction is discovered in the foregoing Ar­gument; and here the Reader may see, he maketh Christs death the cause of Justification passively taken, but of no act of God in justifying. Besides, our deliverance from the Law, is an effect of Justification, not Justification it self, which is an act of God for Christs sake forgiving us, upon which followeth our delivery from the Law.

6. If we were actually and formally justified from eternity, then Christ died in vain, or his death was not to purchase for­givenesse, but to apply forgivenesse, or to manifest Gods love, not to satisfie Gods justice: But Christs death was not in vaine; he died, not only to apply, but to purchase forgivenesse; not to manifest Gods love only, but to satisfie Gods justice; There­fore the first consequence is evident, because his death was in vain, as to the act of Justification: for as in the former Argu­ment, Christs death was not the cause of that act, and Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other, and yet he will have Christs death to be the cause of the effect of that will; how can it cause the effect, and be no cause of any act of Gods will? for we acknowledge it the cause of the transient act of Gods will, which is properly our justification, which act he will not acknowledge. The second inference is evident; for if we were justified from eternity, then we were forgiven from eternity, and then either Christ doth but apply it at the most, for he did not purchase it, or only he doth but manifest Gods love to the world; but the Scripture is evi­dent, That he hath purchased forgiveness, In whom we have re­demption through his blood, the forgivenesse of our sins; and he died to satisfie Gods justice; hence, he is a propitiation for our sins.

7. This overthroweth the merit of Christs death, because, if we were justified from eternity, then Justification is a due debt to the Elect, and then what place is left for Christs merit? [Page 164] for it must be bonum indebitum: that that is properly merited, was not due before; but if we were justified, then it was due, and so no roome is left for Christs merits.

8. That which will not secure the sinner from wrath, is not Justification: But this decree will not secure the sinner from wrath. The Major is evident, for how can he be justified that is not se­cured from condemnation? The Minor I prove, because notwith­standing Gods decree Christ must die, there was a necessity of Christs death, (supposing Gods decree not to pardon sin without a satisfaction;) I grant that Gods decree doth eventualy secure the Elect, but not actually; it is true, because a man is Elect, he shall not as to the event be damned, but God will give faith to apply Christs righteousnesse; but this is not an actual acquittance, or discharge from sin, when the Apostle saith, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? that is, to such as are declared, or evi­denced to be Elect by believing, or effectual vocation. And that the Apostle must mean so, is evident; the Apostle is comforting in that Chapter Believers that are in Christ against condemnation: Now this he proveth, because they are Elect, The Elect shall not be condemned, but you are Elect; Now how shall this be known? by faith and our effectual vocation: Hence in the 30. ver. he speaketh of effectual vocation, as that that precedeth and is a sign of Election; and hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure. Why is Calling put before Election? because our Election is unknown to any, till it be evidenced by their effe­ctual Calling. Now surely the Apostle did not barely propound Election as a signe of Justification, without some means to know it: for, how can a thing so secret be a comfort till it be manifest­ed? and how shall it be manifested, but by Faith and Sanctifica­tion? therefore surely they being the subjects of his discourse, must be understood by the Elect; Now if you take the Proposi­tion, as an universal Negative, or universal Affirmative, No Elect Believer can be justly charged with sin, or All Elect Belie­vers are freed from the charge of sin, both are true; but to take it for the Elect antecedently to Faith, the Proposition is not true: for the Word may, and doth charge him with sin, for it threateneth damnation to him, but it threateneth damnation for nothing but sin, and God doth look upon him as a sinner, and [Page 165] he ought to charge himself with sin; therefore though all Elect Believers shall be freed from sin, yet all the Elect are not formal­ly discharged from sin. As for your weak and feeble endeavour to cast an Odium of simplicity upon so learned a man as Master Burges, who is well known to be an Aristotle to Mr. Eyre, that he should speak as weakly as if he said, Omne animal is rationale, and to excuse it should say, that by omne animal he meant omnis homo, and to prove the expression legitimate, should alledge that homo is often called animal, which is true; but very imper­tinent to prove, that omne animal may be put for omnis homo; but it may be very justly retorted upon Mr. Eyre thus, His opi­nion is, as if one should say, All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse, if they be Elect persons, are Saints; and to excuse it, should say by Saints, he meaneth justified per­sons; and to prove the expression legitimate, should say, the justified persons are often called Saints, which is true; but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallow­ing in uncleannesse are Saints.

9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner, not to be borne a sinner, under the guilt of sin, so as to be a childe of wrath, is contrary to the Scriptures; But to assert with Mr. Eyre, that the Elect are justified from eternity, is to make them never to be sinners, under the guilt of sin, and children of wrath; Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification. For the Major, it is evident, that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners, children of wrath, Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number, and saith he, And they were children of disobedience, under the power of Satan, Eph. 2.1, 2, 3. dead in sins and trespasses, workers of iniquity, and children of wrath as well as others. And they could not be at the same time children of wrath, and in the favour of God, and so he argueth in his 138. page, in his second Argument, to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death, he saith, They for whom Christ died, could not be the children of Christ at the same time, and children of wrath, and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it, when we urge it against his eternal Justification; but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture, he saith, it speaks most fully to the cause, but he answereth two things.

First, That the Text doth not say, God did condemne them, or that they were under condemnation before conversion.

2^dly. That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause, [That they were by nature] children of wrath, that is, in reference to their state in the first Adam; but this hinders not, but that by grace they might be children of love.

[1. He saith, the Text doth not say that God did condemne them,] I answer, it saith that that is equivalent to it; for it saith, they were children of wrath; by the wrath there, all Exposi­tors agree is meant the wrath of God; and when they are cal­led children of wrath, it is an Hebraisme, signifying that they were borne such, and surely subject to it, and obnoxious to divine wrath, and guilty of eternall death; and to call a man a childe of wrath, is to aggravate the misery; as a son of perdition, is a hopelesse, wretched, lost person; the son of disobedience, a ve­ry gracelesse, disobedient wretch; so a childe of wrath, he is one to whom wrath is eminently due, as an inheritance is to a child, and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justificati­on; for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath, liable to damnation, and guilty of it. For the clear understanding of this, we must know what is meant by the wrath of God, to which the Elect are subject.

First, By the wrath of God we must not understand any im­manent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevo­lence, or good will that he did beare to his Elect; For,

1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passi­on, to which God is not subject.

2. God cannot hate, or be angry with his Elect, so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from e­ternity.James 1.17. This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy, for with him there is not the least shadow of turning. This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemna­tion with the Reprobates, though with this difference, that God bearing them this love of good-will, will not leave them in it, as he will the others; for which cause he is said to love the Elect, and to hate the Reprobate.

I answer therefore, the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish, and revenge the [Page 167] sinnes committed against him; hence the Lord having created man, from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedi­ence, he therefore gives him a Law, and commandeth his obe­dience, threatening his sinne, or disobedience with eternall death or damnation; this Law is given to all, both Elect and Reprobates, and all alike are bound to yield obedience, and alike threatened in case of disobedience; now Adam in whom we all were, as in our common Parent, being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us, God maketh a Covenant with him, and in him with us, to give us eternall life in case of obedience, and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience; he sinned, and we all in him, and thus become liable to condemnation threatened; this is the wrath here meant, when we are said to be children of wrath, that is, liable to condemnation, and eternall death: Now the E­lect are involved in this estate as well as others; but now God from all eternity, bearing good-will to his Elect, and purposing to save them, and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen, purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins, and the wrath due to their persons, willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them, and pro­mising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing. Now Christ being made a second Adam, ordained to be head of the Elect, the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death, to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened; for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation, as an act of Sovereignty, but were in him in a natural way, from whom we are descended; this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of A­dams sin to his posterity, together with Gods ordaining him a publick person; now all sinned in him virtually, and were virtu­ally guilty of eternal death, and actually become subject to it at their birth; and hence the Elect being borne of Adam, they become as yet members of him, and so are subject unto death as well as others, and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam, and implant them into the second, this is done by faith; for faith is not our righteousnesse, by and for which we are justi­fied, but answereth to that which is the ground of our being par­takers with Adams sin; for we being one with Adam, in respect [Page 168] of original and nature, were in him, and one with him, and were so involved in his guilt; even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit, cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew, and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel, he implanteth us into Christ, hereby we are only united, and now being one, hence his death and suffer­ings in the merit of it is imputed to us, and hereby are we actual­ly acquitted and justified, and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature. Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath, liable to condemnation at our birth, and then were not justified from eternity; for if we were justified from eternity, then we never were borne sinners, under the guilt of sin, liable to condemnation, for Justification is a removal of this guilt; therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature, denieth this eternall Justification, and so the Minor is also made evident.

2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's an­swer, where he saith, that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words, [by nature] where he saith, that in reference to their estate in Adam, they were children of wrath, they could expect nothing but fiery indignation, yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love, &c. Where ob­serve, That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate, what it is as they are descended from Adam, but he speaketh of it what it was, as that which they were actually delivered from, and are now not in the same state they were. And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification, for it implies a contradiction, that they should be in both at the same time, and that in reference to God; 'tis true, they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man, but no man can actually be in both these estates; sure, they are two different estates, the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam, another in Christ by faith, and at their birth they were in the first, in which they could expect no­thing but wrath, and God in that estate could not pardon them, keeping to his own order of salvation, therefore then they were not justified; therefore when he saith, that this first estate hinde­red not, but that by grace they might be the children of love, if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of be­nevolence, [Page 169] and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate, it is not denied; but if he mean that they were not then guilty of, and subject to the wrath of God, and so were objects of Gods love of complacency, and justified, and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell, and actuall right to salvati­on, it is denied, and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost, who saith, they are children of wrath, John 3.36. and that while they remain in unbelief, the wrath of God abideth on them; there it was, and will remain till removed by faith; and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne, but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost.

He addeth, that God calleth them his Sons and Children be­fore conversion; be it granted, yet this is not because they actually are so, but certainly shall be made so; and to distin­guish them for whom Christ died, from them that shall perish, and to shew that it was not for any thing in them, that he first set his love upon them, therefore he calleth them so, not be­cause they were such antecedently to their conversion, but conse­quently should be made such.

He addeth likewise, that it is not any inherent qualification, but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children; if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive mo­ving cause, inward, or outward, that moveth God to make, and take them for his children, it is readily granted; but if he deny any inherent qualification, to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship, that he hath predestinated us unto; he contradicteth the Holy Ghost, which saith, John 1.12.John 1.1 [...]. To as many as received him, to them gave he power, not [...], but [...], right and authority, priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity, but predestinated to the Adopti­on of Sons,Eph. 1.5. And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

He further answereth, pag. 112, by concession,Mr. Eyre, pag. 112, 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath, because the Law doth terrifie their consciences; but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their con­science [...], but threateneth death and damnation to their persons; and God by the Law, so long as they remain unregenerate, and not only their consciences, as he affirmes, but their persons are [Page 170] under wrath, and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God, and how God doth account of them, till they are delive­red from that estate by grace, and not only what he is by nature. For the Law is the Law of God, and what power it hath to threaten and condemne, it hath it from God, and therefore when that condemneth, God condemneth; if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing, so that it is not a meer scare-crow, or bug-beare to af­fright the consciences of the Elect, when it cannot reach their persons; for it holdeth their persons under condemnation, till by faith laying hold upon Christ, they are delivered from the sentence of the Law; for Paul speaketh of himself, and the be­lieving Romans, Rom. 7.5. that While they were in the flesh, that is, in their unregenerate estate, wherein they could not please God, the mo­tions of sins which were by the Law, did work in our Members, to bring forth fruit unto death, the corruptions of nature took oc­casion by the Law, forbidding sin, to commit sin more greedily, & so to bring forth fruit unto death; i. e. death eternal, which is the wages of all sin; and thus they did but heap up, and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate, till they were married to Christ, and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law, and of their corrupt nature. The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only, but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death, so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ, and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh.

I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God.

First, he saith, It signifies the most just, and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law, and to in­flict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve.

Secondly, It noteth the threateni [...]gs and comminations of the Law.

Thirdly, It notes the executions of those threatenings. In the first and third sense, the Elect never were, nor shall be under wrath; but in the second sense, they are under the threatening of the Law, till they are able to plead their discharge.]

Let us apply this to the Redemption wrought by Christ, and let us see how great a friend he is to the Doctrine of Redempti­on; [Page 171] If you take the wrath of God in the first sense, for the will of God to punish, according to the tenor of the law, so they were not under wrath; if you take it in the third sense, for the execution of wrath, they were never under it; for how could they be under it, when God never intended it? what then did Christ redeem them from, only the bare threatenings of the Law? why, so long as it was only a threatening, and God intended not to execute it, what need Christ have died according to him? surely Christ hath delivered us from the execution of the wrath, and there was a will in God to punish thei [...] sins, as well as the sins of the Repro­bate; though he would punish their sins in Christ, the sins of the Reprobates in their own persons, and therfore Christ delivered us meritoriously from the reall effects of Gods wrath, not the bare verbal threatenings of the Law.

I shall now shew what effects of Gods wrath an Elect per­son still lieth under, till he be delivered through faith in Christ, and will cast it into a distinct Argument thus:

10. If the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath till their actual calling, then were not they justified from eternity; But the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath. The consequence of the Major is evident, because a man cannot lie under the eff [...]cts of wrath, and yet be delivered from that wrath. The Minor I prove thus, by an enumeration of those effects according to the Scripture, which are many.

1. To be in a state of alienation from God, so as to have none of their persons, nor services accepted; Thus God is Psal. 7.11. angry with the wicked every day, yet so are the unregenerate, though Elect, they are under the power of sin. And their prayers are rejected, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 15.8. And so are all the services of unregenerate men, though Elect persons, which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth, and they are truly cal­led wicked persons, because they are under the reigning power of sin.

2. They are under the sentence of damnation at their birth, for so saith the Apostle, Rom. 3.19.Rom. 3.19. where he sheweth all per­sons in their natural estate are under the Law; that is, the dam­ning power of it, and become guilty before God; there was a time that this was true: but if they be justified from eternity, [Page 172] then they never were under this damning power, nor were guilty before God; for if they were freed from eternity, when were they guilty? if there were any moment of time wherein they were not free, then they were not justified from eternity.

3. They are subject to the curse of the Law, Christ hath re­deemed us from the curse of the Law, therefore there was a time the Elect were under it; and if under it, they were not justified from eternity.

Acts 26.18. Heb. 2.14. Tit. 1.15.4. Yea, they are under the power of Sathan; but he was not from eternity that they should be under his power, they are in bondage to death, they have no outward enjoyment sanctified, these and the like are sad effects of Gods wrath; and how can they be justified, where these effects remain? and these all re­main till faith.

Acts 13.11. The Reprobates were not condemned from eternity, therefore were not the Elect justified. The consequence appear­eth,Jude 4. because contrariorum eadem est ratio, by Election the Elect are ordained to life, by reprobation men are ordained to con­demnation, these are contrarie, and among contraries there is the same reason: Now, if the Elect be justified, because of Gods decree, then are the Reprobate condemned; but the Reprobates are not condemned actually, therefore neither are the Elect actu­ally justified. Now this assumption is evident; for though Gods will be the cause of reprobation, yet sin is the cause of the Re­probates condemnation; but God cannot in justice condemne them for that which they never were yet guilty of; it's true, God loved Jacob, and hated Esau before they had done good or evil, they had not then according to Scripture done evil, and then God could not condemne them, though he might passe them by, and not Elect them, which is negatively or privatively called hatred.

12. If Gods decree to create the World, was not Creation, nor his will to call Calling, nor to glorifie Glorification, then his will to justifie was not Justification. To this Mr. Eyre an­swereth, There is not the same reason, for Creating, Calling, Glorifying, all which do import an inherent change in the per­son Created, Called, Glorified, which forgivenesse doth not, it being compleat in the minde of God; To which I answer, that [Page 173] his reason is of no force; for to be the subject of a moral change, doth as necessarily require the existence of the person, as to be the subject of a physical and natural change; for, though the act may be perfect in Gods minde, yet the person cannot be perfectly justified by that act, because he hath not existence; can he be pardoned, and acquitted, and declared just, that is so farre from being an offender, that he never yet was a man? The act of Gods will is perfect concerning the sanctifying of a person before he have a being; but he is not a subject capable, because as yet he is not; so God may will Justification, but he cannot justifie (de­liver him from a state of damnation into a state of salvation) till the person exist, who may be the subject of this change.

CHAP. VI. Shewing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christs death.

I Shall here first premise a few things, that it may be known what we affirme, and what we oppose.

First, Then it is willingly granted, that Christ in his death was a Mediator, and surety, and publick person, and that what he did and suffered, was in­tended for the benefit of the Elect.

Secondly, That Christ in his death made a full satisfaction to Divine justice for all the sins of the Elect, so that the whole sa­tisfaction is made, and the price paid, and quoad meritum, the work is done; and in this respect he hath made an end of sin, be­cause he hath fully satisfied for it, so that there need no more sa­crifice for sin,Heb. 1.3. Dan. 9.24. but he hath purged our sins away meritoriously by his blood.

Thirdly, God is thus far well-pleased with this satisfaction of Christ, that in respect of Christ our surety, God requires no more at his hands, nor at the hands of those for whom he died by way of satisfaction, it being the full value that his justice did re­quire.

Fourthly, By his death he obtained in the behalf of the Elect, not a remote, possible, conditional reconciliation, in an Armini­an sense, as if our redemption were to be compleated by an act of our Faith, performed by the power and liberty of our own [Page 175] free-will, so that upon this condition to be fulfilled by us, with­out the assistance of grace, the fruits of Christs death shall de­pend, for this had been to purchase for us only a salvability, not salvation, and to make us our own Saviours; but Christ died ab­solutely to purchase salvation, as absolutely is opposed to an Ar­minian sense of a condition already explained; but if absolutely be taken to oppose Faith, as a condition to apply Christs righte­ousnesse, by the order which God hath appointed in his Gospel, which Faith God hath ordained as a means to bring us into pos­session of Christ and his righteousnesse, which faith God hath ordained his Elect unto, and Christ hath merited, and shall be in­fallibly given for this end; In this sense I deny, that Christs death was absolutely a discharge from sin. And therefore affirme, that an Elect person is not actually reconciled, so as to be immediate­ly justified, and discharged from the guilt of sin from the time of Christs death antecedently unto faith, nor did God accept of the satisfaction of Christ for a present discharge to the sinner; but Christ having laid down the price, the Father and Sonne did agree upon a way and order, when this benefit shall become theirs, and that not to be till actual faith, according to the tenor of the Gospel, which promiseth salvation only to him that doth believe.

Having thus explained my self, I now shall prove it by these following arguments.

First, If Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect, that their sins should be pardoned, whether they believe, or not believe, then are they not actually discharged untill Faith: But Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect, that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe: Therefore, &c. As for the assumption, it is such a sacred truth, that none that have a spark of modesty or grace left will deny; for if Christ have died absolute­ly, that they shall have pardon though they die in unbelief, let them shew this, and I will yield the cause; for if Christ had died to have the sins of the Elect pardoned, whether they have faith or not, then an argument drawn from Christs satisfaction, and Gods accepting it so, would be nervous and strong to prove an immediate reconciliation: but this can never be proved; for, [Page 176] Without faith it is impossibe to Heb. 11.9. John 3.26. Acts 13.48. please God: And, He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him; And, As many as were ordain­ed to life, believe [...]. And the Consequence of the Major is proved thus; if Christ did not die absolutely to discharge them from sin without faith, then he died for them conditionally, that they be­lieve, and the benefit of his death is limited untill faith. Nor will it availe, to say that faith is a subsequent condition, not an­tecedent, which I disprove by these following Arguments.

1. If an unbeliever remaining so, cannot be the subject of Ju­stification, then Faith is not a subsequent, but antecedent condi­tion of Justification: But an unbeliever cannot be the subject of Justification; Therefore, &c. The Major will not be denied where Reason dwells: the Minor I prove thus, because the Scri­pture no where maketh an unbeliever the subject of Justifi­cation.

2. Because then Justification is a priviledge common to Belie­vers, and unbelievers; but the Scripture peculiarly, and solely ap­plieth it to them that believe.

3. Because no man out of Christ, or disunited can be saved by Christ, for Christ saveth none but his Members; Christ is called the Saviour of his Body,Eph. 5.23. and no unbeliever is a member of Christ; for as much as the mystical union is made by Faith, for which I referre the Reader to my Sermon, and the Vin­dication of it.

Secondly, Justification and Sanctification are inseparably joyn­ed: But were not sanctified from the time of Christs death, and antecedently to faith: Therefore we were not justified. It is evi­dent to experience, that Sanctification is not in the least moment of time separated from Justification; indeed we grant a prio­rity of nature, and order, but not of time; Hence the Apostle maketh all that are in Christ new creatures,2 Cor. 5.17. 1 John 1.6. And if any man, saith St. John, hath fellowship with God or Christ, and walketh in dark­nesse, he is a liar, and doth not the truth; for then a man might be the member of Christ, and the limbe of the Devil at the same time; if justified, he is a member of Christ; if unsanctified, a childe of the Devil;1 John 3.8. He that committeth sinne, is of the Devil; nor can it be agreeable to the purity of Christs Nature, and Ho­linesse [Page 177] to have an unsanctified member of his body, nor will the purity and holinesse of God the Father bear it, that any should be his childe that is not holy; nor can he that is a holy God, ju­stifie a wicked wretch so remaining;Institu. Calvin lib. 3. c. 11. whence Calvin in answer to Osiander, when he objected, Contumeliosum hoc fore Deo, & na­turae ejus contrarium, si justificet, qui reipsâ impii manent. Atqui tenendum est memoriâ, quod jam dixi, non separari justificandi gratiam à regeneratione, licèt res sint distinctae; It is contume­lious and contrary to Gods nature to justifie those that remaine wick­ed. To which he answereth, But we must remember that which I now said, the grace of Justification is not separated from Regene­ration, although they be several things.

Thirdly, If we were justified antecedently to our birth from the time of Christs death,Eph. 2.1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. 6.9. John 3. then we were never borne sinners un­der the guilt of sin; But this is contrary to many plain Scriptures, that say, we were children of wrath, and such as were unrighte­ous, and could not in our unregeneration inherit the Kingdome of God; and for further proof, I referre the Reader to the ninth Argument against eternall Justification.

Fourthly, If the state and condition of a man be truly altered, and changed, and that before God upon believing, then was he not justified from the time of Christs death; But his estate is truly altered in the sight of God upon believing; Hence it is said, that they are his people, which once they were not, 1 Pet. 2.10.1 Peter 2.10. Which in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which in times past were not under mercy, but have now obtained mercy;Hosea 1.10. Hosea 2.23. which words are taken from the Prophet Ho­sea, upon which words Zanchy observeth, that a people are called Gods people three wayes.

1. According to Predestination, thus it's said, God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

2. In respect of the Covenant under the Law, and so the Sons of Abraham were Gods people, and they that were excluded from that Covenant, were none of his.

3. In respect to their exclusion, or admittance to the Cove­nant in the Gospel, and thus the Elect Gentiles were once not a [Page 178] people, and then made a people to the Covenant of Grace.]

And in this sense I adde, all unregenerate, though Elect, are not Gods people, untill faith: And hence Zanchy saith thus, that whereas the words should have run thus, that in the place where it is said, ye are not my people, there it shall be said, ye are my people, instead thereof he saith it is said, ye are the Sonnes of God, and he assigneth three reasons, the third is, Ʋt meliùs hâc locutione indicaret rationem quâ justificamur, & salvamur, nempe per fidem, verbum Dei apprehensantem, (si enim filii Dei sumus, ergò nati ex Deo, si nati ex Deo, ergò per semen Dei in nos illapsum, & à nobis apprehensum, & in nobis retentum; semen Dei est verbum Evangelii in nos illabitur, per virtutem Spiritûs sancti, à nobis verò fide, quae it idem opus est Spiritûs sancti, solâ recipitur, ergò solâ fide fi­mus filii Dei. He speaketh thus, that he may the better declare the man­ner of our Justification, or Salvation, ta wit, by faith, apprehending the Word of God, (where he taketh faith not objectively, but subjectively with connotation to the object;) for if we be the sons of God, we are therefore borne of God; if borne of God, therefore by the seed of God falling into us, and received, and retained by us. The seed of God is the Word of the Gospel, it falleth into us by the power of the Holy Ghost, but of us it is on­ly received by faith, which again is the work of the Holy Ghost, therfore by faith alone we are made the sons of God; where you see that Zanchy maketh this great change to be by faith, and that such a change is made, is evident; for before faith they areEph. 2.1, 2, 3. 2 Tim. 2.26. Acts 26, 18. Ezek. 44.7. Heb. 2.15. Mark 16.16. dead in sins and trespasses, are children of disobedience, in whom Sa­tan acts and rules, by whom they are led captive at his will and pleasure; they are under his power, they are unrenewed, un­circumcised, slaves, in bondage to death, subject to damnation, children of wrath; but upon believing, are new2 Cor. 5, 17, 2 Pet. 1.4. John 1.12. Eph. 1.5. 1 Pet. 1.3, 23. creatures, par­takers of the Divine Nature, they are actually instated into the number of children, to which they were predestinated, are begot­ten again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are borne again not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever; But could this be affirmed of them ever since Christs death? surely no; th [...]re­fore here is a change, and that before God, wrought in their estate by effectual vocation, and therefore they were not justi [...]ed before.

Fifthly, If we are exhorted to believe in God for pardon and remission of sins, then were not we pardoned from the time of Christs death before faith; But we are thus exhorted to believe in God for the pardon of sins, Believe, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16.31. and the Scripture was written for this end that we might believe, and that believing, we might have life through his Name.John 20.21. The consequence is confirmed, because, if we were justified already before faith, it were a needlesse exhortation to call upon us to believe for pardon, when we are pardoned already, and therefore we might be called upon to believe to get assurance of our pardon, but not to obtain pardon it self; it were an exhorting us to seek for that by faith, which according to Mr. Eyre, is to be eviden­ced, not to be obtained through faith, and so were a needlesse and a groundlesse exhortation.

Sixthly, Such as were not mystically united to Christ at his death, could not be justified actually by his death; But Believets that now live, were not then mystically united; Therefore. The Major Proposition will need no shield and buckler to defend it, for Christ justifieth none but such as are in him; as the first Adam brings condemnation to none but such as are in him, so the se­cond Adam gives life and salvation to none but such as are in him. The Minor is proved, because that that is not, cannot be united; Believers were not then existing. Besides,

2. This union is made by faith; They that were not existing, were not then believers.

3. Christs being a common person, is not sufficient to make the mystical union.

4. Christ as a publick person, is a surety; but Christ as united to us, is a Head, which are different considerations; in the one he is a meritorious, moral cause of salvation, in the other a phy­sical cause, or efficient natural cause.

5. The mystical union is by a work of the Spirit,1 Cor. 6.17. He that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit; but if the mystical union be made by Christs being a publick person, that needeth not any new work of the Spirit to joyn Christ and Believers together.

6. Those places, where it is said, Ephes. 2.5. & 6.13.Ephes. 2.5.6.13. Col. 2.13, 14. & Col. 2.13, 14. That we were quickened with Christ, and are made to [Page 180] sit together in heavenly places: And in Christ Jesus, we who were sometimes afarre off, are now made nigh; and that the handwrit­ing of Ordinances was blotted out, signifie no more then that in, and through him, as a meritorious cause we obtain such mercies, but they hold not forth Believers to be existing in him before they had a being; and our sitting in heavenly places, is spoken only in regard of the certain right we have thereunto, jus ad rem, though not jus in re, and in a qualified sense, in Christ our Head who is already ascended.

Seventhly, Christ in his death was not mystically, but perso­nally considered: For, though he were a publick person, and Mediatour, yet as so, he was personally, not mystically, considered in his death and resurrection, and the Justification that he recei­ved from God; Therefore we were not justified actually from the time of Christs death. The Antecedent is thus made good, because it was not Christ mystical that was crucified, but Christ the Son of God; and, He trod the Isay 63.3. Wine-presse of his Fa­thers wrath alone; Christ mysticall is not the Saviout of the world, then the work of Redemption is to be attributed to every Believer, and they are as truly Saviours of the world as Christ; but this is blasphemy to imagine; and therefore if he were not mystically considered in his death, then not in his Resurrection; nor in that Justification he received, and so by consequence we were not justified by his death, nor were in him antecedently to faith.

Eightly, If we were pardoned from the time of Christs death, then as Bellarmine objecteth against our Divines that make faith an assurance, then it is as absurd to pray for pardon of sin, as for the incarnation of Christ, and I may adde at for an immanent act in God, as to pray for predestination; because, if it be a thing done already, then it is in vaine to pray for that that is done;Jame [...] 5.15, 16. but we are commanded to pray for pardon, as Peter taught Simon to pray for pardon, Pray, that if it be possible, &c. And though the Elders of the Church must pray for the sick, and if they have sinned, it shall be forgiven them; And Christ teach­eth us to pray,Burgess Justifi. page 199. forgive us our sins: Now in that prayer we do not pray, for assurance only, but for pardon it selfe. For as Mr. Burgess hath well observed to my hand, that we must not de­part from the literal sense of the words without an evident ne­cessity; [Page 181] But the plain sense is, that God would forgive our sin; our Saviour minding brevity, would speak his sense in the most perspi­cuous and clear manner, that may be. And it is not as he observeth so taken in other places, when the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Israelites, How their land was full of Idols, Isaiah 2 94. and both great men and mean men did humble themselves before them, prayeth, Isa. 2.9. that therefore God would not forgive them; can any imagine that he meant that God would not give them assurance of their forgivenesse? And so, Matth. 12.32. the Evangelist saith, All other sins may be forgiven but that against the Holy Ghost: Now in that sense other sins are said to be forgiven, in which sense that is denied to be forgiven, and that is denied to be forgiven, not in respect of assurance, but really.

And so as he saith, when it is applied to men, it is not meant of assurance; For we are commanded to pray that God would forgive us as we forgive others, and this last forgivenesse it not meant of as­surance; therefore neither is the former.

Ninthly, Such as are under the power of Satan are not justifi­ed; But all unbelievers are under the power of Satan; Therefore we were not justified from the death of Christ antecedently to faith. The Major is not liable to contradiction, because if a man be justified, he is accquitted by the Judge, then what power hath the Jayler to keep him in prison? neither will God nor Christ permit a soul under Satans power, that is discharged from guilt; that very act of Gods, is his deliverance from the power of Satan. The Minor is evident from Scripture, which saith of the Gentiles, to whom Paul was sent by special commission from Christ to o­pen their eyes; It is said, that he was sent to open their eyes, to turne them from darknesse to light,Acts 26.83. from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgivenesse of sins, and in­heritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ. Where it is evident that these Gentiles were Elect, for whom Christ died, that when he was in heaven, yet appeared in a vision to Paul, as he was going to Damascus to persecute the Saints; And con­verts him, and then sends him as a special Embassadour and Apo­stle to the Gentiles to open their eyes, to turne them from dark­nesse to light, from the power of Satan to God, &c. If they were from the time of Christs death justified, and pardoned, [Page 182] then they were not under Satans power, for that is inconsist­ent with Justification; and if they were pardoned already, what need he send him to open their eyes, to turne them from Satan to God, that they might receive forgivenesse? this was the end why he was sent, nor can it be meant of receiving the knowledge of their pardon, assurance of their forgivenesse; but that they might receive forgivenesse it self.

And to this end also the Apostle Paul saith of the Ephesians, That they walked according to the Prince of the power of the aire, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, intimating they were no lesse ruled and acted by Satan, then other worldly men in whom he now effectually worketh.

Tenthly, If we were justified from the time of Christs death, then the Elect Jewes are already justified, whom God will call in this latter age of the world: But the Elect Jewes are not yet justified: Therefore Justification is not from the time of Christs death. The consequence of the Major will not be denied. The assumption I prove.

1. Such as are notingraffed as members into Christs body, are not justified: The Elect Jews yet uncaled, are not yet ingraffed into Christs body. The major is expresly confirmed, because Christ is the Saviour of his body,Eph. 5.23. that is, only of his body; that the Elect Jews are not members of his body,Eph. 1.23. I prove, because they are not members of his Church, which is the body of Christ.

2. They that are not called, are not justified: But the Elect Jewes are not called. The Major is proved from Rom. 8.30. Whom he praedestinated, Rom. 8.30. them he called,, and whom he called, them he justified, and none else; and why Mr. Eyre should deny that the Apostle doth here set down the order of the causes of salvation, contrary to all reason and authority, I cannot imagine, but that he is not able to answer the Argu­ment: and the contrary may be proved out of the Text; for if in every thing else that relates to the salvation of man in this place, the Apostle hath observed the due order; why should we think he hath not assigned the right order of Vocation, and Ju­stification? For here the Apostle setteth down the golden chain of salvation.

For the first cause is Gods foreknowledge, not a simple pre­science or foresight, a foresight of approbation, nor a foresight of mens faith or works; butPet. Martyr-Bullinger. Pareus. Erasmus. whom he thus foreknew, or ac­knowledged, loved, and approved, without all cause in them, moving therunto, whom he thus foreknew with the knowledg of approbation, so as to choose unto himself by that foreknowledge, so the Learned render the word [...].

Secondly, whom God thus forknew he pedestinated, [...], he predestinated, that is, certainly appointed and ordained unto the end by certain means, he did infallibly ordain them unto glo­ry as the end, and appoint the means conducing to that end, namely Christ and Fa [...]th, and whatsoever is needful to salvation. Now when the Apostle speaketh thus, who can judge but he meanes a special order in this place?

Thirdly, in the next place he setteth down the means, and that is effectual Vocation, Whom he predestinated, them he also called, that is, called them unto faith.

Fourthly, Whom he called, them he justified, that is, pardoned for Christs sake, apprehended by Faith.

And lastly, Whom he justified, them he glorified; under which is comprehended Sanctification, which will end in glory, which is the last link in this golden chaine, and it's against all reason to think the Apostle did not intend a direct Series, and order of the causes of salvation in this place, from whence then it may be concluded, those that are uncalled, are unjustified, so are the Elect Jewes. Therefore.

A third reason is, because they who are alienated from God, they are not reconciled, and by consequence not justified; So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled; Therefore, &c. As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the E­lection, they are beloved for the Fathers sake, that is, asDe Judaeorum gente in genere disserit, qui quòd Evange­lium, idest, qua­tenus Evangeli­um non admit­tunc, nempe in praesenti con­diti [...]ne sunt De [...] exosi, &c. Beza saith upon the place, Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt, sunt Deo exosi: quod ad Electionem attinet, &c. That is, as they re­fuse the Gospel, they are enemies or hateful to God in the pre­sent condition for your sakes, which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good, that upon their rejection they might be called; but as concerning the Election, they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers; but [Page 184] as to their present condition they are hatefull to God, therefore unjustified.

Eleventhly, That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false, cannot be true: But to make unbelievers, (though Elect persons) the subjects of Justification doth this: Therefore, &c. The assumption only needeth proof,Rom. 8.15. yet it is evident, because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate, that they are in a state of bondage; whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage; but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth; there­fore the Elect unregenerated are not justified.

CHAP. VIII. Shewing that we are justified by faith, and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith, it doth not understand it only declara­tively, but really in the sight of God, nor ob­jectively excluding the act, and the instrumen­tality of Faith is proved.

HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand, I shall premise,

First, That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists, as if it did justifie us per modum causae effi­cient [...] & mor [...]oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour c [...]e, which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification; so Bellarmine saith,Bellar, De Ju­stific. l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie, impetrando, promorendo, & inchoando justifica­tionem. Nor,

Secondly, Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense, as if the [...] credere, the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse, or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law; so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect [...]ighte­ousnesse.

Thirdly, Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righte­ousnesse, as a grace, or a work, or an act, or a habit; but the matter of our Justification, is Christs righteousnesse and obedience.

Fourthly, Faith is not to be taken objectively only, that is, for Christ, as Mr. Eyre interprets it, though it be willingly acknow­ledged, that we are justified by no other righteousnesse, then the righteousnese of Christ. But,

Fifthly, I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith, and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification, and so it is to be taken with connotati­on to its object; That if you ask for what I am justified, I say, the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed; if you ask by what I am justified, I answer, by Faith, as an hand to put on Christ, as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ, so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse; but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ, to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin.

Sixthly, This grace of Faith is the free gift of God, not the birth or spawn of free will, but the effect of Election, and a fruit of Christs death.

Seventhly, When the Scripture saith, We are justified by faith, it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object; and by applying Christs righteousnesse, a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate, from death to life; so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Ju­stification to the conscience, but instrumentally it justifieth us, so as that I must be justified by it, though I am not justified for it. These things premised, I shall now prove it.

It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith, it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so; but only the difference is, how this is to be taken, whether properly, metonymically, or both? to which last I incline in the sense explained: So that neither Christ alone, nor Faith alone do justifie; but that they are social causes, though not co-ordinate, and ejusdem generis, of the same kinde or worth; but Christ is a morall meritorious cause, Faith the in­strumental working only virtute agentis principalis, by the [Page 187] power, order, constitution of the principal agent, to the pro­duction of an effect far above its own native-worth, or power.

Argument the first, against declarative Justification; The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justi­fication, but by what means we are justified; it is of farre great­er concernment to be justified, then to know his Justification; he said, we were justified by faith, they by the Law; whence I reason, If faith (taken subjectively) for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification, then we are no more justified by faith then by works; But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works; Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification. The consequence is evident, because works may evidence Justifi­cation; nay, works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith; Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works, not only to others, but to our selves; and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner, is apparent, Rom. 8.1.Rom. 8.1. There is no con­demnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; By this we know that we are passed, &c. 1 John 3.14. Now the Assumption I confirme thus, that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works, because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood, but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood; And when the Apostle speaketh of Justifi­cation by faith, he meaneth of a Justification before God, as in that third to the Romanes, he concludeth by a sound argument, that we are justified in the sight of God, and not before consci­ence: Thus, if all have sinned, and are come short of the glory of God, and so are inherently wicked, then we are not justified by what we can do; but we are all thus guilty before God, there­fore in his sight shall no flesh living be justified; He speaketh there a Justification in foro Dei, in the sight of God.

2. If faith do only declare that we are justified, then Paul did not say true, in denying that by the works of the Law, or holi­nesse, we are justified; for if he spake of a declarative Justi­fication, he had no reason to deny that we are justified by the works of obedience done to the Law, for works of Sanctificati­on [Page 188] do evidence this, 1 John 2.3, 4. 2 Cor. 5.17. 1 John. 3.14. 1 John 3.24. Rom. 8.13, 14.

3. If when the Scripture saith, we are justified by faith, be meant only we are declaratively justified by faith, then we may as well say we are elected by faith, as justified by faith; because faith will as truly evidence Election, as Justification; hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure;2 Pet. 1.10. but the Scri­pture saith not we are Elected by faith, or through faith, but chosen unto saith; therefore faith hath an influence into Justifica­tion, though not into Election, and something more is intended then a declarative Justification.

4. Then Faith is not a believing on Christ for pardon, but a believing on Christ because I am pardoned; and if so, then an Axiom or Proposition, according to Mr. Eyre, is the object of justifying faith, contrary to all theActus cre­dentis non ter­minatur ad axi­oma, sed ad rem, fatentibus Scho­lasticorum cla­rissimis. Amesii Medul. Theol. l. 2. c. 5 24. Orthodox, who make Christ, or the mercy of God in Christ, the object of Faith.

5. Then Faith may be necessary to Consolation, but it is not necessary to Salvation, contrary to the Scripture which saith that salvation is the end of Faith, and we believe unto the saving of our soules.

6. This inverteth the order of the Gospel, for that command­eth us to believe that we may be justified; this saith, we are al­ready justified, therefore we must believe; The Scripture saith, We are justified by faith, This opinion, as Mr. Woodbridge obser­veth, maketh us to be faithed by Justification.

7. Then it is not lawful to pray for pardon of sin, but for assu­rance, the vanity of this is before discovered.

But Mr. Eyre will object, that when the Scripture saith, We are justified by faith; the meaning is by Christ, taking faith ob­jectively, and exclusively. To which I answer, that we deny not faith to be taken objectively, if you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse; but that therefore faith is excluded, and that the object justifie without the act; I deny, and prove thus:

First, It conduceth much to the beliefe of this truth, that faith is to be taken subjectively with connotation to its object; or that faith subjectively taken, is not excluded from Justification, because the letter of the Scripture expressely in many places, [Page 189] affirmeth that we are justified by faith.

Secondly, I conceive the matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries, was not only precisely, and abstractively considered, what is the matter of our righteousnesse that God requires for our Justification, for then his direct answer had been the righ eousnesse of Christ, excluding faith, for faith is in no sense the matter of our righteousnesse, for which we are justified, for then faith and works had not been opposed, and we were then justified by works; but I conceive the question was, what was the matter of this righteousnesse, and how is this ours, as app areth by his answer: Now if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Justification, and is made ours by imputation antecedently to faith, the Apostle did impertinently adde faith in the answer to the questions, that we are justified by faith in Christ, if that be excluded from applying Christs righteous­nesse; for he is not speaking here of a declarative Justification, what shall evidence it to my conscience, and give me knowledge of it, but what justifieth me? and seeing it is something without, done for me, and imputed, how is it mine? not, how is it known to be mine? Therefore faith is not exclusively taken.

Thirdly, If when it is said we are justified by faith in Christ, the object is understood by the act, excluding the act, then why is it that in most places where Justification is spoken of, that the object and the act are both expressed, if by the object and act the same thing be intended?

Fourthly, It is not probable that the Apostle in such a weighty controversie, wherein he did desire to speak clearly (and had most reason to speak clearly, rather then elegantly, and obscurely) should take the act for the object, if the act had no influence into Justification, (neither as the matter of Justifica­tion, nor the instrument to apply it,) for danger might arise, and is given by such an expression, to ascribe something to faith in the point of Justification, if his intent were to exclude it, there­fore he intended not to exclude it; hence we justly ascribe in­strumentality unto faith, in applying Christs righteousnesse to Justification.

Fifthly, If Abrahams faith by which he was justified, was subjectively taken for the grace of faith, yet relatively conside­red to its object, then our faith that are the children of Abraham, [Page 190] is so taken in the point of Justification, this inference shineth clearly like the Sun at noon-day; But Abrahams faith was subje­ctively taken, with relation to its object; Therefore. The assum­ption is proved from Rom. 4.3.Rom. 4.3. For first, besides the letter, where it is said, that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, that is, his faith, believing on God, so that faith is described, vers. 17. in many excellent acts of that faith, ne ther of which can in pro­priety of speech be applied to Christs righteousnesse, and why the Apostle should impertinently break out into many expressions in the commendation of his faith as a grace, when he is treating of the point of Justification, and stirre up us to the imitation of the like faith, telling us that it was written for our sakes, that it was imputed to him for righteousness, and that our faith (believing on God that raised our Lord Jesus from the dead) shall be im­puted to us for righteousnesse, if we so believe; if faith hath no hand in Justification, to apply Christs righteousnesse to that end, I can no way rationally imagine.

Sixthly, Nor can I see any supereminent excellency in that grace above all other, as the Scripture expresseth, and Divines ac­knowledge, if its noblest effect of Justification be denied, but as works of Sanctification do as evidently declare Justification as Faith, as I have shewed; so the grace of love farre excelleth it in other respects; Therefore is it not exclusively taken in the point of Justification.

Seventhly, Besides in Rom. 4.5. it is said, That to him that believeth, his faith is imputed for righteousnesse; where something belonging to the Believer is called his, to wit, the act of faith, which is his before the imputation of it is made to him, and that is imputed for righteousnesse; that is, that act of Faith relatively considered, is that that gives him a title to Christs righteousness, and so that that is due to Christ, is attributed to the act; and hence that is said to be imputed for righteousnesse: Now that Christ without faith justifies not, I prove by these follow argu­ments.

1. If Christs righteousnesse will not profit a man without faith, the [...] Christ alone separated from faith, doth not justifie; But Christs righteousnesse will not profit any man without faith; Therefore, &c. The Major carries sufficient light. The assumpti­on [Page 191] is proved, because Christ saith to the Jewes;John 8.24. John 6. If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins; and, Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life; where though there be righteousnesse in Christ to justifie, he saith, If they believe not, they shall die in their sins; and, He that believeth not, shall be damned; there was life in Christ, but for want of coming, or believing, they did not par­take of it. I am not ignorant what Mr. Eyre will answer (as I conceive) to this, That Christs righteousnesse will not profit him that is a final unbeliever, and that Faith is a consequent con­dition of Salvation, but not an antecedent means to apply Christs righteousnesse. To this I answer, that the Scripture speaketh of unbelievers indefinitely, He that believeth not, shall be damned; and therefore it is understood of all unbelievers, so long as they abide such, they are under condemnation. Let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture that holds forth an unbeliever the subject of Justification, or one instance of a justified unbelie­ver; and if final unbelief will hinder salvation, then temporall unbelief may hinder the application of it for the time present; and so long as he continueth an unbeliever, it is of the same na­ture with final unbelief, because it keepeth the soul from coming unto Christ for life. To the second exception, that it is a subse­quent, not antecedent condition of Justification, I answer by a second Argument thus:

2. If Christs righteousnesse be the end of faith, and is obtained by faith, then it is antecedent unto the Application of it; But it is the end of faith, and obtained by it. The Assumption only needeth proof, and yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth it;Rom. 20.10. With the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse, and with the mouth con­fession is made unto salvation. And, To him that believeth, it shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse; that is, Christ apprehended by faith, shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse; It is not said, man believeth with the heart to the manifestation of righte­ousnesse, but unto righteousnesse, righteousnesse being that which he attaineth by believing; and hence salvation is called the end of faith,1 Pet. 1.9. receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls, and life is made the end of believing, John 20.31.John 20.3 [...]. These things are written, that ye might believe, and that believing, ye might have life through his Name; not that ye might know ye [Page 192] had life before ye believed, but that believing ye might have life, and Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth, God did therefore cause the Law to be delivered, that by the knowledge of mens sinfulnesse manifested by the Law, they might flie to Christ for righteousnesse.

3. If no man have eternal life, but such as eat Christs flesh, and drink his blood, then no man antecedently to faith hath e­ternall life, and by consequence Christ justifieth not with­out faith; But no man hath eternal life, but he that eats his flesh, and drinks his blood; Therefore. The Assumption are the words of Christ,John 6.53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; where Christ compareth himself to food. Now as food, though never so good nourisheth not, unless we eat and drink it, and it be incorporated into our body, and become one with us; so unlesse we thus eat Christ, &c. that is, unlesse we feed upon his death and sufferings by faith, and apply them by faith, so as to be one with him, we cannot live by Christ; where observe, Christ is the Food, Faith is the Hand to take this Food, and the Mouth to eat it, without which this food will do us no good; so here, therefore he hath no life, and an unbeliever hath not yet eaten.

4. Such whose mindes and consciences are defiled, are not justified; but the mindes and consciences of all unbelievers, are defiled. The Major appeareth, because when Christ justifieth, heHeb. 10.22 purgeth from an evil conscience. The Minor is expressed,Tit. 1.15▪ where he speaketh indefinitely of unbelievers, and therefore it is understood of all.

5. Such whose persons are abominable, who are Reprobates to good works are unjustified; such are unbelievers, for he speak­eth there indefinitely of all unbelievers.

Having then proved Justification not to be before faith, I shall now prove the instrumentality of Faith unto Justification, and the consistency of it with the free grace of God.

For the right understanding whereof we must know, what an instrumental cause is, and wherein the nature of it consists, and whether an instrumental cause be in the number of true causes, and to what it is reducible, and then apply it to faith.

Now we must know that an instrument hath divers significati­ons, [Page 193] I will not trouble the Reader with all, sometimes it is taken for any thing which is moved, and directed by a superior agent, thus the Platonists take it, and according to this ac­ceptation every agent but God is an instrument, and God alone in this sense is the principal efficient cause of all things; and thus Isaiah the Prophet seemeth to take it,Isaiah [...]0.15. when he calleth the King of Assyria Gods Axe, and his Saw, in respect of God that used him for the destruction of the Nations; and in this sense all causes as they depend upon GOD in their working, are instruments: but we take it not in this sense.

2. To omit the rest, an instrument according to the vulgar, and usual acceptation of it, is any thing that is used by the supe­riour agent, moving, and directing it to the production of an effect superior to it self; for if it be proportionated to the effect, it is not an instrument, but an efficient principal cause. And I conceive five things are required to an instrumen­tall cause.

First, That it be a necessary antecedent to the effect, not a consequent of it; and I say a necessary antecedent, to distinguish it from a contingent antecedent; not that the whole nature of an instrumental cause consists in this; for a thing may be a necessary antecedent, and yet not a cause of the thing, as the opening of a mans eyes is a necessary antecedent to sight, but not a cause of sight, that is the eye, or the visive faculty.

Secondly, It must be moved, acted, and directed by the su­periour agent to its end, as a Carpenter useth his artificial instru­ments to the building of a House.

Thirdly, That it be used to produce an effect exceeding the efficacy, and activity of the instrument, so that the effect is more noble then the instrumental cause of it; As a Minister is Gods instrument by whom men are converted, and brought to faith; but is not called an instrument in respect of the natural birth of a childe begotten by him, because in the first the effect transcends the efficacy of the instrument; but it is not so in respect of the natural birth, because there is a proportion between the cause and the effect.

Fourthly, It must be subservient to the action of the principal [Page 194] agent; hence the action of the principal agent and the instrument is the same.

Fifthly, That it have an influence into the effect by a proper causality.

I will apply this to faith, only I will here adde whether it be in the nature of true causes, and to what cause it must be reduced, because there are but foure Heads of causes: The Material, For­mall, Efficient, and Final.Scalig. Exer. 297. s. 3. Some exc [...]pt that an instrument is not in the number of true causes, because it doth not move, nisi moveatur, unlesse it be moved: but this is not essential to a cause to move, and not to be moved; for so the Efficient should not be a cause, because it is moved by the end, and so all adjuvant sociall causes should be excluded; Therefore it is a true cause, yet not a first cause, asPlato & Ga­lenus, ut refert. Scheib. Met. l. 1. c. 22. p. 308. some imagine, but is reducible to one of those foure Heads of causes, which are generally ac­knowledged to be as above recited; Therefore I take it to be re­duced to the Efficient, and so it is an instrumental efficient cause, not the externall impulsive efficient cause of it, that is peculiar to the merits of Christ.

Now that faith is such an instrumental cause I prove, because all those properties of an instrumental cause above cited belong to it.

First, It is a necessary antecedent unto Justification, as I have already proved, for without Faith no man is justified; it is not barely antecedent, as causa sine qua non, as a cause without which a thing is not done, which is only present in the action, but doth nothing therein, and therefore is an equivocal cause, and that is indeed none, having nothing but the name of it, but is that by which it is done.

Secondly, Faith is moved, acted, directed by GOD the superiour Agent unto this end, GOD is the principall Agent in Justifica­tion;Acts 13.48. Faith is wrought by GOD in the soul, for it is his gift, and directed by God to this end, to bring us to Justification; He hath ordained us not only to life, but to Faith, as a means to obtain it: As many as were ordained unto life believed. And whom [...]e predestinated, them he also cal­led, and whom he called, he al­so justified. And if God had not appointed Faith as a meanes to apply [Page 195] Christs righteousnesse unto Justification, Faith could not pro­duce such an effect; and God hath expressed his will, That he gave his only begotten Sonne, that whosoever believeth should not perish, but have eternal life. These two Propositions have been sufficiently confirmed already.

Thirdly, That the effect, to wit, Justification doth exceed the efficacy, and act vity of Faith, I think none will deny; so if we consider the excellency of the priviledges of Justification, how thereby our sins are pardoned, we reconciled, adopted in­to the number of Gods children, and so are made coheir [...]s with Christ of eternal life; How could Faith merit or effect this? There is no proportion between this grace, and the great things received by it.

Fourthly, It is subservient to the action of the principal Agent; not that it is needful to God, as if he could not produce the effect without it, had it been his will and pleasure, as a Car­penter dependeth upon his instruments in working, without which he cannot build: But God judged it the fittest means to apply Christs righteousnesse to Justification, and hath given to Faith this peculiar office to apply it; so as that God hath con­cluded with himself to justifie none unlesse they believe. Hence, though Justification be Gods act, yet Faith which he worketh, and freely giveth, is the means by which Gods eternal will and purpose to justifie, is executed, not by working any new will in God, but being that condition upon which God hath purposed, promised, and by Covenant obliged himself to performe it; and thus it concurreth with God, and God with it to the act of Justification.

Fifthly and lastly,Mr. Ball, p. 19. It hath an influence by a peculiar causality into Justification, as Master Ball saith on the Covenant of Grace, [As the eye is an active instrument for seeing, and the eare for hearing, so is Faith for justifying] Hence the Scripture frequently saith, we are justified by and through Faith, which indemonstrably sheweth the instrumentality of this grace; And although this act be nothing but a receiving, and so equivalent only to a passive [Page 196] instrument; God effecteth Justification, and passeth the sentence, forgiveth the sinner; Faith receiveth the mercy offered, recei­veth Christ, and in him forgivenesse, and so believeth unto Ju­stification. Nor do we in so saying Deify Faith, nor commit sacriledge against Christ; the power of life and death is Gods, and he forgiveth, not Faith; Christ is our righteousnesse for which we are justified, Faith is not our righteousnesse, but an active lively instrument of the soul, wrought by God to apply this righteousnesse; and it is more properly called in reference to God, his work, then his instrument; yet as it is subservient to his end or work of Justification, I see not any reason why it may not as fitly be called his instrument to our Justification, as any thing else he useth to produce an effect by, may be called his in­strument, not because he needs it, but because he will not do it without it: And hence there is a twofold action in Faith, as in other instrumental causes; one instrumentall, the other pro­per and peculiar to it self. The instrumental action of Faith is, that it helpeth the action of God in justifying, because now God according to his own constitution in the Gospel may justifie; which observing his own order, he cannot do, untill Faith, that which is proper to it, is as it relates to the subject, and so it is an instrument of the soul to receive, and apply Christs righteous­nesse unto Justification.

Nor have I asserted any thing in this that is inconsistent with the freenesse of Gods grace. For,

First, I make not Faith an uncertain effect depending upon mans free-will, upon which the act of Justification should de­pend;Acts 13.48. but a certain effect of Gods eternal purpose, and a fruit of Christs death, which shall infallibly in Gods due time be wrought: Now all Gods purposes of grace are free.

Secondly, I make not Faith the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified, but ascribe that to the active and pas­sive obedience of Christ.

Thirdly, Though Faith be our act, yet is it Gods gift; and therefore salvation is no lesse of grace, though by Faith, then if it were without it; and if it be an instrument helping the prin­cipal Agent, yet being wholly wrought by God, and all the ef­ficacy, and activity that Faith hath, it hath it not by any thing [Page 197] intrinsecal to it, but extrinsec [...]; and by G [...]d [...] [...] the Covenant of Grace, and merciful a [...]ceptance o [...] it, this [...]o way obsc [...]eth the grace of God; and therefore Paul [...]th [...]he inheritance is therefore by faith, that it might be of grace; and,Rom. 4.16. Ephes. 2.8. By grace ye are saved through faith, it is the gift of God,; Faith, it is an emptying, soul-humbling, and a Christ-ex­alting grace; it renounceth all its own righteousnesse, it goeth out of it self into another, relieth wholly upon Christ for righte­ousnesse, and receives heaven as an almes, and all from God as a free gift; and the more faith there is in any, the lesse pride, and resting upon any thing in our selves; Therefore hereby the grace of God is no way the lesse free, though that be the instru­ment to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification.

Fourthly, we do not make Faith an antecedent condition, mo­ving and inclining Gods will to receive us into Covenant with himself, but we make it antecedent to our being admitted to partake of the benefits of the Covenant.

CHAP. IX. Shewing how weakly he hath defended himselfe against the charge of Antinomianisme, and likewise manifesting that the Authors brought by him in defence of his Errour, do some in the same place, and most of them joyntly bring in evidence against his cause.

MAster Eyre, Page the 19th. complaineth that his Doctrine is called an Antinomian Error,pag. 19. (which is somewhat like the tem­per of such evil men,pag 27. which the world is too full of, that are more ashamed to be thought to be evil, then to do it.) And he saith, if it be an Error, it is an Anti-e­vangelical Error; Is not this a goodIncidit in Scyllam, &c. choice, to choose rather to be accounted a corrupter of the Gospel, then an enemy to the Law, which is by so much the greater sin, as the Gospel excelleth the Law? and although I willingly grant, and judge his Error to be diametrically opposite to the Gospel; yet if the Antinomist be cast into his right tribe, he will derive his pedigree from this Anti-evangelical principle, and therefore this childe will lie at his door still; but he purgeth himself from this crime, by saying that it hath been an old designe of Satan to blast the truths of God with odious nick-names: This I acknow­ledge, [Page 199] and he verifieth it himself, by stiling the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, to be a joyning in confederacy with Pa­pists, Socinians, and Arminians; for such he maketh all that dist [...]r from him, and enemies to the free grace of God; yet he will not see this beame in his own eye, when he can see a mote in his brothers.

2. He saith, that by all the Diagnosticks, which Divines have given us to discerne between Truth and Error, it hath the com­plexion of a saving Truth, by which I am contented to try it; and let me bear the blame of it, if the beauty of that complexi­on vanish not at the warme breath of the nex [...] Argument, as much as Jezabels painted colour faded, when the heat did trans­forme her again into her first deformity.

I admit of the rule that he giveth to try it by. That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ, is certainly true, and the contrary is as certainly false. Now let such, as he saith, that are least in the Church judge, which opinion giveth most glory unto God, his or ours; Either his which asserteth, That an Infidel, and an ungodly person Mr. Eyre, p. 10. so remaining under the reigning power of sin, even while he lieth like a swine wallowing in the mire of sin, commit­ting uncleannesse, and that with greedinesse; yea, in the very act of it, if an Elect person, he was justified from Page 64. eternity in the decree of God, and from the time of Page 67, 68. Christs death being united to him, because they were then in him as a Page 7. common person; and so while they are thus in their Pag 60, 61. unregenerate estate, being thus considered, God beholds them as righteous persons, perfectly righteous, and accor­dingly dealeth with them, and Divine Justice cannot charge them with the least sin, nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve: so that while they are thus, they have as much Master Eyre, page 122. right to salvation as ever they shall have, though they may by faith have more knowledge and comfort of their happinesse, yet they have no more right, nor is their estate changed before God upon believing as to Justification, but only their former blessednesse is made Page 66, evident to their consciences. This is the soile of that bru­tish opinion, and although in so many words together, Master Eyre Page 76. hath not expressed his minde; yet it is fairely without any wrong to his opinion, without wire-drawing per fidiculas conse­quentiaru [...], by threeds of consequences, which he disclaimes, [Page 200] collected, as may appear by comparing it with the places quot­ed in the Margin.

Now we hold, and maintaine, God purposed in his eternal decree to justifie his Elect in time, to that end he sent Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for their sins, that a full satisfacti­on might be given to his Divine Justice, as a foundation of Gods gracious act of Justification, which is not immanent, but transi­ent; and now by Christs death the price is paid, and we are me­ritoriously redeemed; but it was the will of the Father and the Son, that none should have actual benefit, as to a present dis­charge from the guilt of sin untill faith, which faith is not the effect of free-will, but a certaine effect of Gods decree, and fruit of Christs death, which shall be given to all the Elect for appli­cation of the righteousnesse of Christ, and his satisfaction unto their actual Justification: By which faith we are united to Christ, and so partake of the saving benefits of his death.

Now let the Reader judge which giveth most glory to God in Christ, his or ours.

First, Doth he ascribe the whole work of salvation to the grace of God, and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ? so do we. Nor,

Secondly, Do we, as he falsly accuseth us, make men moral causes of their salvation, let him prove it if he can.

Thirdly, Nor do we say that Christ purchased onely a new way of Salvation, whereby we may be saved, if we performe the conditions required of us; we acknowledge no condition to be performed by us by the power of free-will, but a condition as freely purchased and given, and as certainly bestowed as the Sal­vation it self; so that Christs death is no way rendered uncertain, or lesse sure.

Fourthly, Doth he say that God justifieth the ungodly? so do we; but we dare not say with him, that he justifieth the ungodly so re­maining under the reigning power of sin; but whom he justifieth, he also sanctifieth at the same time; for we think it dishonourable to God, to the purity and holinesse of his nature to justifie a man while he is a servant of sin; The Lord is of purer eyes then to delight in an unsanct [...]fied wretch, and it is a wrong to God, to make him a Father of such an unclean beast, and such a prophane [Page 201] ungodly person his adopted childe; though he did purpose to a­dopt him, yet he did not, he could not adopt him without changing his nature: We judge it a wrong to Christ, that a limbe of the devil should so remaining, be made a member of Christ; For he that committeth sinne is of the Devil; or,1 John 3.8. if he that hath the Devil for his father, should have at the same time Christ for his head; but all sinners that are under the reigne of sin, have the Devil for their father,John 8.44. Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do, And thus you may see which Doctrine ascribeth most glory to God in Christ.

Thirdly, He purgeth himself from this crime by describing Antinomists in Austins time, from Eunomeus their leader, of whom St. Austine saith, Fertur usquè ad eo, &c. August. de Hae­resibus, c. 54. It is reported that he was such an enemy to goodnesse, that he affirmed, though a man did commit, or lie in any kinde of sin, it should never hurt him if he had but that faith that he taught; and of the same straine were the Gno­sticks, who for their filthy lives were called Coenosi, the dirty sect.]

And what saith Mr. Eyre lesse, doth he not say that the unre­generate while they so remaine, (that is, let them commit, or lie in any kinde of sin,) yet if Elect, they are justified, that is, se­cured from wrath, and so it shall not hurt them; yea, though they have no faith? if those were the dirty Sect, I am sure this is no better.

And he further saith of the Corinthians whom the Apostle called unrighteous, fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with mankinde, &c. such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God,] That they had no more right unto salvation after faith, then before;1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11. Mr. Eyre, pag, 122. so then by him they had right unto salvation, and these sins could not keep them out of Heaven, when the Apostle saith, as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God; Is not this as bad as the opinion of Eunomius? nay, of the two, the first borne of abomina­tions, because he will make God the justifier of these, while they so remaine.

Fourthly, He vindicates himself from Antinomianisme, by the authority of some godly men that have asserted Justifi­cation in foro Dei, before faith, who were never accounted Antinomians.

[Page 202]1. From the authority of Mr. Pemble in his Vindiciae Grat. to which I answer, That if Mr. Pemble saw reason to alter his judge­ment, as it seemeth he did in his Treatise of Justification; Mr. Eyre upon deliberate thoughts, may finde as much reason, if he hath as much ingenuity to change his minde, although he hath doated upon an erroneous opinion, as many persons do upon a vaine fashion when it is new; yet let him have but a little more time, and serious thoughts about it, and he will see cause to lay it aside, as men do when their fashions grow stale. And that Mr. Pemble dissents from him. I shall make to appeare by a testimony or two of Mr. Pembles, in his Book of Justification, which is directly contrary to what he formerly asserted; in his first Sect. Cap. 3. pag. 22. of his Treatise of Justification, he hath these words: The cond [...]tion required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Justification, is true faith, whereunto God hath ordinarily an­nexed this great priviledge, that by faith, and faith only a sinner shall be justified; and, pag 23. speaking of the Covenant of Grace, The other Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, the tenor whereof is, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved; the condition of this Covenant is faith; And, pag. 24. A sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by faith, that is, by the obedience of Christ Jesus believed on, and embraced by a true faith, (where he taketh faith subjectively and objectively,) which act of Justi­fication of a sinner, although it be properly the onl wo k of God, for the only merit of Christ; yet it is rightly ascribed unto faith, and it alone; for as much as faith is that maine condition of the New Co­venant, which as we must performe if we will be justified: so by the performance thereof, we are said to obtaine Justification and life; for when God by grace hath enabled us to performe the condition of believing, then do we begin to enjoy the benefit of the Covenant, then is the sentence pronounced in our consciences, which shall be after confirmed in our death, and published in the last judgement. So in pag. 57. We confesse faith is a work, and in doing of it, we obey the Law, &c. but now we denie that faith justifieth as a work, which we performe in obedience to this Law; it justifieth us onely as a condition required of us, and an instrument embracing Christs righteousnesse; Thus his first authority is found to beare witnesse against him.

His second witnesse is Mr. Rutherford, whom he scoffingly de­rided, when in our conference he told me with contempt, as ap­peared to them that heard him, that it was Mr. Rutherfords judge­ment, which he hoped I did like well enough; and here he suborn­eth Mr. Rutherford to serve his turne; and had he had the honesty to quote his Author, and recite his whole minde, he had found but little shelter for his opinion on his words, the place cited is this, Sanè prius quam Electus credit cessat ira Dei adversus ipsum, Rutherford Apol. Exercit. pag 45. omnésque effectus irae erga ipsius personam, ídque propter Christi meritum. Sed non virtute illius palmaris promissi Evagelici, Qui credit in Christum non venit in condemnationem, nunquam enim re­moventur effecta irae Dei adversus peccatum Electi virtute illius promissi, donec quis actu credit: Verily (saith he) before an Elect person do believe, the wrath of God ceaseth against him, and all the effects of Gods wrath towards his person are remo­ved for the merit of Christ, (but then you fraudulently withold the latter part of the sentence which makes against you, as he did that cited Scripture to Christ;) but not by vertue of that signal promise of the Gospel, He that believeth shall be saved; for the effects of Gods anger against the sins of the Elect, are not removed by vertue of that promise, till he actually believe; for hence the Elect have no consolation till faith.

Now if you say he meant our Justification was not evidenced to our consciences till faith, and that is all he meanes;Ruth. Apol. Exercit. p. 44. Hear what he saith, Pag. 44. Dicent ergo Arminiani, nos hîc Justi­ficationem sumere pro sensu, & notitia Justificationis, & remis­sionis, ideòque (homines fide Justificantur) idem valet ac homines tum demum Justificantur, quandò credunt, hoc est sentiunt se justificari, cum anted essent justificati. Nugae, & tricae Siculae: Nam justificari plus est quàm sentire se justificari: Nam, 1. Est actus Dei absolventis terminati in conscientiam hominis, citati, & tracti ad tribunale tremendi Judicis, qui actus, ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiam. 2. Deus hoc actu, certum facit conscientiae citati, innitenti fiducialiter in Christum, jam etiam in Christo plenam expiationem omnium peccatorum factam. Ipse peccator actu fiduciali recumbit in Christum sufficientem Salvatorem credentium, at verò actus Dei terminatus in nos, non potest esse nudus sensus illius actûs, quis sanus ità argumenta retur cui paulò magis sobrium est sinciput?]

The Arminians will say, (for against them he principally deal­eth in that Book, and therefore opposeth an Arminian conditi­on of faith, and not ours) that we take Justification for the sense, and knowledge of Justification and pardon; and therefore to say men are justified by faith, it is as if we should say, that men are then justified by faith when they believe, that is, when they perceive they are justified, when as they were justified before.

These are but fables and trifles; for to be justified, is more then to know we are justified: For,

First, It is the act of God absolving, terminated in the con­science of a sinner, cited, and drawn to the tribunal of a dread­full Judge, which act before this instant was not terminated up­on the conscience.

Secondly, In this act God assureth the conscience of a sinner cited to his barre, fiducially trusting upon Christ, that now a full expiation is made of all his sins.

Thirdly, The sinner by a fiducial act, relying upon Christ as a sufficient Saviour of Believers.

But the act of God terminated upon us, cannot be a bare sense, or knowledge of that act; what sound man that hath a sober brain, would so reason?

And immediately followeth, Quamvis itaque in mente Dei peccata, &c. Although therefore sins were remitted in the minde of God from eternity, (where let the Reader observe, he is speaking against the temporal and conditional decrees of Armi­nius, making God to elect upon foreseen faith;) yet is not a man justified from eternity, that is, declared to be just in Christ, in his conscience, when he is cited to Gods tribunal, (where he taketh declared to be just, for a transient act of God termina­ted upon the conscience, fotgiving, and declaring this forgive­nesse, and not for a bare knowledge of this by a reflex act of faith;) for although that act of justifying in God, note an im­manent and an eternal act of God; yet notwithstanding that act is not the whole integral and formal reason of the Justification of a sinner, of which Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, and the Scripture speaketh, Formaliter enim justificare, &c. For, for God formally to justifie, is to declare actually, to wit, in a judiciall [Page 205] act, that the guilty sinner trembling before his Judge, now hath the benefit of eternal absolution; and now first of all, and never till now, that the effects of his divine displacency against their sins, do now cease, by vertue of that divine promise, wherein Christ and all his benefits, and an actuall right to the Kingdom of God, and the dignity of Adoption, or Son-ship are promised to the Beleever. Indeed he saith,Pag. 43. N. 20. that faith is not the instru­ment of Justification actively taken, as an immanent eternal act of God; for no man, saith he, by believing, doth make God to have a will not to punish sin, or to have a will to love us, (which the Arminians plainly make) and therein he saith true; yet he maketh faith the instrumental cause of Justification pas­sively taken, as a declared act of God terminated upon us, as that place declareth; and in expresse words in pag. 37.Ruther. Apol. Exer. p. 37. which Mr. Eyre in his 32. pag. of his Book, when he boasted that Master Rutherford made the opinion he did oppose the chief of the Arminians, and Socinians, and Papists Errors, could not be ig­norant of, for he there maketh faith the organical cause of Ju­stification. In that place he saith, the Arminians would de­sire nothing more then this, that remission of sin is not before actuall faith: And that the Remonstrants in their Apology do say that nothing is more false,Socinus part 4. de Salv. c. 10. then that men have sinnes remit­ted before they believe, in which they make Socinus more plau­sible, who saith that sinnes cannot be forgiven by an act of be­lieving, if they are remitted before they believe; and Bellarmine who hath these words, how is that faith true whereby I believe my sins are forgiven? if while I therefore believe they are not forgiven, but are to be remitted by the act of faith, because e­very object is before his act; so the Remonstrants urge, to which he saith, I would have these three acts distinguished.

1. The act of satisfying for our sins performed by Christ, and of reconciling us to God.

2. The act of God the Father accepting it, wherein he doth acknowledge that he is abundantly satisfied for all the sins of the Elect.

3. The act of Justification, cui fides subordinatur tanquam or­ganica causa, to which faith is subordinate as an organical cause, in all which Mr. Rutherford meaneth nothing but this, that God [Page 206] did not take up a new volition, but sins were intentionally par­doned from eternity,Ruth. Apol. page 4. which yet in his judgement is not justifi­cation: for, pag. 43. Homo non est justificatus ab aeterno, quia homo non est ab aeterno; homini credenti non sunt remissa peccata ab aeterno, qumiam non estab aeterno; nam justificatio, & remissio hoc sen­su-non sunt termini diminuentes: A man is not justified from eternity, because a man is not from eternity; sins are not remitted to a Believer from eternity, because he is not from eternity, and Ju­stification and Remission passively taken, are not termini dimi­nuentes, are not termes of diminution; where he plainly taketh Gods eternal Justification, for terminus diminuens, and so it is not Justification properly; and we are reconciled meritori­ously, and so causatively, and virtually our sins are remitted; but they are not formally temitted in his judgement untill faith, and to this act of Justification faith is an organical cause, and so a condition in the sense we take it of Justification, though not as the Arminians take it; and another place most fully expresseth his minde, Dicunt nostri fidem non esse conditionem moventem Dei voluntatem, & tamen salutem nostram, esse conditionatam, quod est verissimum: Nam Deus non vult nobis aliam vitam, quàm quae antecedaneam habet fidem, & tamen nullo modo movetur volun­tas à fide nostra: Ours do say, that faith is not a condition mo­ving the will of God, and yet notwithstanding our salvation is conditional, which is most true; for God willeth us no other life, then that which hath faith antecedaneous to it, and yet notwithstanding the will of God is not moved with our faith. I hope by this time the Reader seeth what cause Mr. Eyre hath to be ashamed thus to abuse the sense of an Author against his own minde, declared in significant termes to the contrary; but no wonder when he dares misinterpret Scripture, if he misrepresent an Author. And for a further satisfaction, that Mr. Rutherford dissenteth wholly from him, I referre the Reader to his Treatise of the Trial and Triumph of Faith, pag. 162, 163. p. 59, 60, 61, 62. p. 55. And to his Survey to the Spiritual Antichrist, and in the second part of his Survey of the Secrets of Antinomianisme, pag. 63. where he maketh faith a condition of Justification. And expressely he saith, It is a new heresie of Antinomians to deny a conditional Gospel; it is all one as to belie the Holy Ghost, who [Page 207] saith, He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not is condemned already. And, pag. 107, 108, 109. & pag. 115. Salt-marsh dresseth up a man of straw to come to Christ, 1. In all his dealing with God (saith he) and so before ever he come to Christ, or at his first believing, he believeth his Sonship, that is, being a hog, or limbe of the Devil, he believeth himself to be an heir of heaven, &c. which his judgement is sufficiently known in both these Books, that I wonder Mr. Eyre could with any modesty alledge Mr. Ru­therford in defence of his Error.

His third Author is Reverend Doctor Twisse, and in all the Writings of this Learned man, this is the only naevus which ad­hereth to him; but certainly he did understand, and hold a ne­cessity of personal Justification by faith, as far as I can understand by any thing I have seen of his; in his examination of a Treatise written by Mr. Cotton, pag. 55.Dr. Twisse, Exam. Mr. Co [...]. page 55. he maketh faith the condition of salvation, Certainly God will save any upon condition he be­lieves, and repents; and on the other side, neither is there any un­willingnesse in God, but a willingnesse rather; yea, and that a resolute will to damne any man in case he dieth in infidelity, and impenitency; for we have the clear Word for it, Whosoever be­lieveth shall be saved, whosoever believeth not shall be damned; and in pag. 95.page 95. he saith that Piscator a precise Divine spareth not to professe, that fides est causa salutis, which he no way contradi­cteth; and in the same place saith, that works are causae dispositi­vae of salvation, according to the Apostles phrase, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance with the Saints in light, and he saith undoubtedly,Col. 1 12. Gods purpose is not to give the Elect life, but upon condition of their obedience and repentance; page 96. so, pag. 96. As for the harmony you speak of between Gods purpose and Covrnant, herein is your Error twofold.

1. In that you apply this to the world, wholly to reprobates, whereas it concerneth the Elect, as I have shewed, as well as the Reprobate; the reason whereof is, because it respects only the collating of salva­tion, and inflicting of condemnation which have their course upon condition.

And therefore he maketh another distinct decree in God concer­ning the giving, and denying grace, for the performance of the con­dition of life, and this is absolute without all condition. And so [Page 208] likewise in his Vindiciae Grat. he hath these words; Rursus vi­deamus quae sit praecepti vis, Doctor Twiss Vindic. grat. sect. 25. p. 196. quo jubemur in Christum credere; ita­que quemadmodum summa praecepti legalis haec est, Si vis vitam ingredi serva mandata: ità praecepti, viz. Evangelici summa est, Si vis consequi remissionem peccatorum, & vitam aeternam, omnis tibi fiducia in Christo collocanda est, quod nihil aliud significat, quàm nullam aliam patere peccatoribus ad salutem viam, quàm credendo in Christum: Let us again see what is the force of the Precept, where­by we are commanded to believe in Christ; Therfore, as the summe of the legal Precept is this, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandements: So the force of the Evangelical Precept is, If thou wilt obtaine remission of sins and life eternal, you must place all your trust in Christ, which signifieth nothing else, but that no way is open to sinners unto salvation, but by believing in Christ; where you see expressely that he maketh faith to have the same order of antecedency to salvation in the Covenant of Grace, that Works had in the first Covenant, and that it is a necessary antecedent, and condition of salvation, not of the manifestati­on of this only to the conscience. I shall adde but one testimo­ny more, because he chiefly builds his opinion upon this Reverend Doctors authority, who yet differs as much in opinion from him, as the East is from the West. Christus (fateor) est caput electorum, & praedestinatorum, sed non formaliter consideratorum Ne (que)enim prae­destinati quà praedestinati sunt membra corporis Christi, sed potius fu­turi sunt membra ejus, nam quod est membrum Christi proculdubio existit. Ne (que) enim membrum Christi est terminus diminuens existen­tiam; at praedestinati quà praedestinati non existunt, nam praedestinatio fuit ab aeterno: hodie multi sunt Electi qui proculdubio adhuc non nascuntur. Rursus, unio illa per quam fimus ejus membra, fit per fidem, ergo quot quot Christi membra sunt opportet esse fideles; at non omnes praedestinati, ex quo primùm praedestinati sunt è vestigio fideles evadunt. Adhaec cùm non potiùs fiat caput aliquorum quàm illi aliqui siant membra corporis ejus, sequitur Christum non ab ae­terno caput fuisse, cùm non ab aeterno corpus habuerit mysticum, aut membra cujus ratione propriè dicitur caput Ecclesiae suae. Membra verò corporis cùm fiant per vocationem, unde dicitur [...], íd­que per vocationem efficacem, & consequenter per fidem, apparet [Page 209] ergo Christum non prius posse dici caput quàm sint aliqui qui credunt in ipsum, loquor de Christo Mediatore, & Redemptore.

I confesse (saith he) Christ is the Head of the Elect, and of those that are predestinated, but not formally of the predestinated: For neither are the predestinated as predestinated members of his body, (wherein he differeth from Mr. Eyre toto coelo, Vide Mr. Eyre. page 8.) but they shall be his members, for whosoever is a member of Christ, with­out doubt existeth: Nor is a member of Christ a term of diminu­tion lessening his existence, but the predestinate as predestinate do not exist, for predestination was from eternity; but the predesti­nate did not simply exist from eternity; This day there are many E­lect (without doubt) which are not yet borne.

Again, That union by which we are made the members of Christ, is made by faith; Therefore, as many as are Christs members, it is needful that they be Believers: but not all the predestinate, as soon as they are predestinate, do presently prove Believers. Moreover, seeing a head cannot be a head in respect of others, before they are made members of his body, it followeth that Christ was not a head from eternity; seeing he had not a mystical body from eternity, or members, in which respect he is properly called the head of his Church; seeing therefore, men are made members of his body by calling, whence the Church is called [...] (a company of persons called out from the rest of the world by the ministery of the word,) and that is by effectual vocation, and consequently by faith; it appeareth that Christ cannot first be called a head, before there are some that believe in him; I speak of Christ as Mediatour and Redeemer.

Where let the Reader observe that he plainly affirmeth a pre­destinate person is not a member of Christs body, and that the mysticall union is made by faith, and surely none are properly justified or saved before they are members, and therefore before faith there is no Justification, nor Salvation.

His next Author is, Learned and Holy Mr. Parker, who saith in his Book, de descensu Christi ad inferos, that Christ was justified in his Resurrection, and we in him, &c. I acknowledge the testi­mony rightly cited, but he understandeth no more then that we were meritoriously, causally justified in the Justification of Christ, but this is also a terme of diminution, in respect to a formal and actual Justification, till it be extra causas, it doth not exist. And that this Reverend man means no otherwise then we, that untill [Page 210] faith we are not justified or saved,Parker de de­scens. Christ. ad inferos lib. 3. sect. 49. may appear from another pas­sage in the same Book: Nullâ siquidem ratione aliâ salutem ad suos derivare poterat, quàm quâ ipsam damnationem transfudit Adam, nempe [...] illâ, quâ omnes homines qui ei per fidem coadunan­tur, in eo satisfecisse, quemadmodum per [...] similem, omnes Adami successores in eo peccâsse reputantur: Christ could no other way derive salvation to his, then that wherein Adam transmitted damnation, to wit, that communion wherein all men who are united to him by faith, are said to satis­fie in him, as by the like communion all Adams successors are reputed to have sinned in him. Where you may observe,

1. That as Adam derived condemnation to none but such as were in him; so Christ communicateth salvation to none but such as are in him.

And, 2. That this union to Christ is made by Faith, hence by necessary consequence none are saved and justified until faith; and he sheweth plainly that we are not in Christ in a natural way, as we were in Adam, therefore he setteth down faith as the means, and none satisfied in Christ but Believers, therefore none are ju­stified but such; for Christ cannot derive salvation to any but such as are in him, and before faith they are not in him.

His next Author is judicious Mr. Calvin, Fides porro i­ta justificatio­nem praecedit ut tamen dei re­spectu sequatur Calvin Antid. conc. trid. sess. 6, p. 282. who saith, that our Justification in respect of God doth precede our faith; to which I adde, you might have had the ingenuity to let your Reader know that he saith immediately, fides ipsa nos in possessionem justitiae mit­tit, that faith sends us into the possession of righteousnesse: And he meaneth nothing but this, that seeing God doth offer forgive­nesse in Christ, and we receive and accept it by faith, that in this respect Justification precede faith, but we are not actually justified untill faith, where I will by the way minde you of a passage of learned Rivet, Rivet. Advers. Baily, Jesuit. Tom. 2. p 245. against Baily the Jesu [...]t. Ne quidem dicimus Christi justitiam esse causam formalem justificationis, di­ximus, eam consistere in relatione inter dantem, & accipien­tem, sive inter condonantem, & eum cui condonatur, uno verbo imputatione à parte dei, & receptione ex parte nostri. Truly we do not say that Christs righteousnesse is the formal cause of Justifica­tion, we have said that it consists in the relation between the giver and the receiver, or between him that pardoneth, and him that is pardoned; in one word in imputation on Gods part, [Page 211] and receiving it on our part, so that now it is true, God offering pardon, his act precede our part of receiving, but yet we are not in the judgement of this Learned man, justified formally till we receive it. And this is Calvins minde, and many passages in the same discourse make against you; I will take but one, which Mr. Baxter hath observed to my hand, Nos autem memineri­mus fidei notuum à Christo estimandam esse, quia quod nobis offert Deus in Christo non nisi fide recipimus, proinde quicquid nobis est Christus id ad fidem transfertur, quae nos compotes, est Christi, & omnium ejus bonorum facit, neque aliter verum esset illud Johan­nis, fidem nostrum esse victoriam, quâ mandus vincitur, nisi nos in Christum inserereret, qui solus est mundi victor. But we have remembered before, that the nature of Faith is to be estimated from Christ; because what God offers us in Christ, we receive it not but by faith; whatsoever therefore Christ is to us, that is imputed to faith, which maketh us partakers of Christ, and of all his good things. Neither otherwise can that of John be true, that faith is our victory whereby we overcome the world, unlesse it did ingraf us into Christ, who is the Victor of the world. And the truth is, Calvin is in expresse termes for us against you, and I will manifest in a few passages:Calvin ad Con­cil. Triden. Sess. 6. ad Can. 9 Calvin Insti. l. 3. c. 11. N. 7. Hominem solâ fide justifi­cari quum dicimus, fidem non fingimus charitate vacuam, sed ipsam solam justificationis causam esse intelligimus, and so he saith: We gather, we do not take from Christ the power of justify­ing, when we teach that he is first received by faith; but yet I doe not admit of the crooked figures of this Sophistor, (meaning Osiander, when he saith that Faith is Christ, (where let the Reader observe, that Mr. Eyre agreeth with Osiander in interpreting faith to be Christ, and it is the high way to Familisme, and to think with Osiander, that the essential righteousnesse of Christ is ours; and withall, how Calvin disliketh this interpretation, As if, saith he, an earthen pot were a treasure, because Gold is hidden in it. For the rea­son is not unlike, but that faith although it be by it self of no worthinesse or price, may justifie us in bringing in Christ, as a pot full of money maketh a man rich; therefore I say that faith, which is only the instrument to receive righteousnesse, is unfitly mingled with Christ which is the material cause, and both Author and [Page 212] Minister of so great a benefit. And again, Quo enim modo vera fides justificat, Calvins Inst l. 3. c. 17. N. 11. nisi dum nos Christo conglutinat, ut unum cum illo facti participatione ejus fruamur. So again, However we be redeemed of Christ, yet till we be by the calling of the Father graffed into the communion of him, we are both heires of darknesse and death, and the enemies of God; 1 Cor. 6.11. for Paul teacheth that we are not cleansed by the blood of Christ, untill the Holy Ghost worketh that cleansing in us, 1 Pet. 1.2. which same thing Peter minding to teach, declareth that the sanctifying of the Spirit availeth unto obedience, and be sprinkling of the blood of Christ; if we be by the Spirit sprinkled unto cleansing by the blood of Christ, let us not think that before such watering we be any other then a sinner is, without Christ. Let this therefore re­main certain, that the beginning of our salvation is as it were a cer­tain resurrection from death te life, because when for Christs sake it is given to us to believe in him, then we first begin to passe from death to life.

Ʋnder this sort are comprehended they which have in the division above been noted for the second and third sort of men, for the unclean­nesse of conscience proveth that both of them are not yet regenerate by the Spirit of God. And again, where there is no regeneration in them, Calvins [...] Inst. 3. Book 14. c. N. 6, 7. this proveth the want of Faith, whereby appeareth that they are not yet reconciled to God, nor yet justified in his sight: for as much as these things are not attained to but by faith. The length of the Testimony hath made me omit the Latine, it is endlesse to repeat more, I conceive Calvine sufficiently vindicated by what is already cited.

Your next Author isZanchy, lib. 50. de Natura Dei, c. 2. p. 539 Zanchy, who though in the words cited something favoureth your opinion, yet he meaneth only that we were virtually justified in Christ, and in other places is most ex­pressely against you. And to avoid prolixity, I will give his Te­stimony only in English.

The fourth benefit, saith he, is Justification, that is, the for­givenesse of our sins, and the imputation of Christs righteousness, for this followeth faith: So also he saith, in a twofold sense it may be said, and understood that a man is justified by faith, in­strumentally and formally, and in both senses we are justified by faith alone; in the first sense, because by this as an instrument fit­ted for this matter, we receive the grace of God and righteous­nesse [Page 213] of Christ; in the latter sense, as by the only obedience and righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith, we are formally justified, as the faith apprehending is taken for the thing appre­hended.

So again,Zanch. Loc. Com. Theol. Epist. ad Eph. Loc. 2. p. 83. there are three things required to this that we be par­takers of salvation, and without which we cannot be saved.

First, As the fountain of all benefits, the grace of God, his e­ternal favour, love, and mercy to us.

Secondly, The other is the complement or fulfilling of the promises and figures of the Old Testament, concerning our re­demption by blood, and the offering up of a Lamb without spot, whereby sins might be expiated.

The third benefit necessary to salvation, and sine Zanch. de tri­bus El [...]. lib. 5. pag. 195, 196. quo reliqua duo nobis inania, & inutilia sunt, est vera Dei cognitio sive fides, nam sine fide est impossibile placere Deo: Without which the other two are vaine, and unprofitable, is the true knowledge of God, or faith, without which it is impossible to please God.Zanch. Tom. 8. de justisi. fi­dei loc. unde­cim. p. 781. Once more; the wrath of God (saith he) resteth upon all sinners so long as they continue to be sinners, (that is, unsanctified persons, that is his meaning,) therefore sin is a division between God and man, it is a turning of the face of God from the sinner; nor can it o­therwise be, seeing it is repugnant to his righteousnesse to have any fellowship with sin; whence the Apostle teacheth, that a man is an enemy to God, untill he returne into favour through Christ, whom therefore the Lord receiveth into conjunction; He is said to justifie, because he cannot receive into favour, nor unite any man to himself, but of a sinner he maketh him righteous.

The next Author is Chamier; and it cannot be denied but he hath the words you have cited, but it is no hard matter to prove that he contradicteth you and himself in other places. I will in­stance in one, Itaque semel habeto, nos Legis, & Evangeli [...] di­scrimen cùm quaerimus, Itaque semel habeto, nos Le­gis, & Evan­gelii discrimen cùm quaerimus, utrumqu [...] no­minare c [...]ntra­ctâ illâ significatione secundùm quam Paulus opponit leg [...] [...]perum legi fidei. D [...]inde propri­um, verum, certum discrimen conditionem operum & fidei, hoc [...]st. legem operam proponere salu­tem sub conditione legis perficiendae, at legem fidei e [...]dem proponere sub conditione tantùm cre­dendi, in [...]hristum, nimirum ut utrinque sumatur con [...]ttio eodem sensu. Cham. Panstrat Tom. 3. Lib. 15. Cap, 3. Sect. 26. &c. Therefore take it for once, that we when we seek a difference between the Law and the Gospel, [Page 214] do name both in that short signification, according to which Paul opposeth the Law of Works to the Law of Faith, therefore the condition of Works and Faith do constitute a proper, certain, and true difference, that is to say, the Law propoundeth salva­tion upon condition of fulfilling the Law, but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ, to wit, that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense, that is, that they have the same order to their respective Covenants, otherwise faith is not a condition, so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is.] Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Co­venant antecedent to salvation thereby expected.

As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony, but could pro­duce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note.

Your last is Dr. Ames, whose testimony you might have left out, because he speake [...]h far more against you then for you in the same place, for he saith that it was quasi concepta, as it were conceived in the minde of God, and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ, as it were, or virtually pronounced; but he doth not say it was so really and formally, as if we were so justified from eternity, or from the time of Christs death; yea, a little after, which you could not be ignorant of, he saith, Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum, Ames. Medul. l. 1. c. 27. s. 14. quo sensu Christu [...] est causa ipsius vocationis, sed propter Christum fide apprehensum, quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum, & justitiam Christi, ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur, unde & justitia dicitur esse ex fide, Rom. 9.30.10.6. & justificatio per fidem, Rom. 3.28. This Justification is for Christs sake, not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation, but for Christs sake apprehended by faith, which faith followeth effectual vocation, as the effect, and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended, Justification follow­eth; hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith, Rom. 9.30.10.6. and Justification by faith, Rom. 3.28. And in the sixteenth Section thus:

Neque est propriè loquendo, specialis siducia, Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance, (speaking of justifying faith,) whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins, and our [Page 215] justification: Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam, ut causa suum effectum, sed fides justficationem apprehendens ne­cessariò praesupponit, ac sequitur justificationem, ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur: For justifying faith goeth before Justi­fication, as the cause before its effect, but Faith comprehending Justification, necessarily presupposeth it to go before, as the act its object about which it is conversant; so that faith as it is assurance, followeth Justification; but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act, so it goeth before Justification, as the cause goeth before the effect. Thus having examined his au­thorities, we see that if they may be impartially examined, and permitted to speak their own minde, they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines.

CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith, and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre, together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification an­tecedent unto faith.

THE first Scripture is, Rom. 5.1. Therefore be­ing justified by faith we have peace with God.

1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified, as thus, being justified, by faith we have peace with God.

But first, This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men.

Secondly, It offereth violence to the Text; for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification, as may appear by the illative particle therefore, which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing, but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter; for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith, and not by the works of the Law, drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner: By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified, By the same it be­hoveth his children to be justified, that is, all Believers; but A­braham [Page 217] was not justified by any works, neither preceding nor following his faith, but by faith: Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only. In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption, because Abraham believed, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse, that is, his faith was imputed, not in an Arminian sense, but his faith properly taken, in relation to the object, and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham, the grace of faith, and sets it forth in many excel­lent properties, which can no way agree to the object, and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith, telling us that it was not written for his sake only, but for ours also; and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we be­lieve; then he describeth the object of this faith, God in Christ, as raising Christ from the dead; where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith, Christs Death and Resurrection; and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these, 1. He delivered him to death for our offences, that is, to satisfie for our sins.

2. He raised him again for our Justification, to declare he was absolved from our sins, and so had made full satisfaction: hence then he drawes down this conclusion, and shewes a new effect of faith, and so a new argument, Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God; as if he should say, By what we have peace, we are justified: But by faith we have peace, therefore we are justified.

Thirdly, Neither can faith be taken here for the object ex­cluding the act, but for the grace and act of faith, with relation to its object; for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tau­tology, for the meritorious cause is expressed; Therefore, here by faith the act must be understood, for it is said, Being justifi­ed by faith, we have peace through our Lord Jesus, there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed, therefore the same thing is not understood by faith; yea, here, saith Beza, Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation: Tres hîc enumerat cau­sas nostrae pacis Apostolus, fidem, Deum & Jesum Christum, non coordinatas, & ejusdem generis, sed subordinatas, incipiente Apo­stolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ, & instrumen­tali, nempe fide, cujus scopus, & objectum est Deus Pater, inter­veniente Jesu Christi propitiatione: Here saith Beza, the Apostle [Page 218] doth enumerate three causes of our peace, Faith. God, and Jesus Christ, not coordinate causes, and of the same k [...]nd, but subordinate; The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause, gi­ven us by the grace of God, to wit, Faith, whose scope and ob­ject is God the Father, by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ.

A second Scripture is, Gal. 2.16. We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law; where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture, is, that the phrase [that we may be] is as much as that we may be manifested and declared, and know that we are justified.

To this I answer, that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification, but of a Justification real before God; therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law, he meaneth not a declarative Justification; and there­fore when he speaks of Justification by faith, he means not a declarative Justification, for then the opposition is not ad idem; for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition, it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member; but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first, therefore neither in the latter: For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries, nor could the Apostle say with truth, that works do not evidence Justification. As for Justification in foro conscientiae, it is not Justification prop­erly, but the knowledge and assurance of it; Justification is to be considered as an action of God, for it is God that justifieth. The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification, because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law: Now there is no way but by the Law, or by faith in Christ, therefore they did beleeve in Christ; where Justification by the faith of Christ, is made the fi­nall cause of their believing; Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified, how can that that was the end of their beleeving, evidence that they were just [...]fied already before they did believe? and here let the Reader observe, that both the act and object is expressed; and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily under­stands the object by the act, why are both expressed? Therefore [Page 219] the grace of Faith relatively considered, as apprehending Christs righteousnesse, is that by which we are justified.

The third Scripture being, Rom. 8.30. I have already vindi­cated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justifica­tion.

A fourth place which he hath abused, is, Rom. 4 22. where it is said, that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve, that is, faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse, as it was to Abraham; for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified. Mr. Eyre's answer is, That this particle [if] is not conditional, but declarative, and so he taketh the meaning to be this; Hereby we may know, and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve; where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle, which is to encourage us to beleeve, as did Abraham, from the good effect of it; for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve, he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained, and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have, that it was done already; where he changeth the time past for the time present, and so overthrow­eth the Apostles scope, and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional; This is not to interpret Scripture, but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne.

And hence I argue against him, If the imputation of righte­ousnesse be a thing that is not already, but shall be imputed if they beleeve, then the particle [if] is not declarative, but conditional: But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done, but was to be done; Therefore. And for this the words are plaine, it shall be imputed if we believe.

A fifth Scripture is, Acts 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witnesse, that through his Name whosoever believe, shall receive the remission of sins.

He saith, it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins; and a little after, we obtain remission by Christ, but we receive it by faith.

I answer, There is an ambiguity in the word obtain, if by it he understand we do not merit, purchase forgivenesse, we grant it, for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins? but if by it he understand a receiving the [Page 220] remission of our sins through Christ, which then, and never till then was received; we say thus, forgivenesse is obtained by faith, as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification; nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission, as a thing before done, and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith; for it is said, that by faith we receive remission, not the know­ledge of remission; all the Prophets testifie this, we receive re­mission, not the sense of the remission of sinnes. Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse. Be­sides, were we justified from eternity, as Mr. Eyre wil have it, when by Gods eternal act this remission was given, it had been an in­jury to God. Besides, an improper speech to say, All that be­leeve shall receive remission; They should have said, ye were remitted before, if ye beleeve, ye shall know it,

The six [...]h Scripture is, Acts 13.39. By him all that believe shall be justified from all things, from which they could not, &c.

[He saith, that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law, and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification; though he affirme, that he that believeth is justified, yet it follow­eth not the Elect are not justified before faith, much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act, or habit of faith.]

I answer, let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law, yet he saith, that by ob­taining the Law they could not be justified; and what they could not have by the Law, or any sacrifice therein offeted, that may be obtained by Christ through faith; where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification, he might have said only, by him we are justified from all this, from which ye could not be justifi­ed by the Law of Moses; but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely; and if Believers only are justified, then unbe­lievers are not, and faith is necessary: Therefore though we be not justified by it, as the matter of our righteousnesse, yet as the instrument to apply it; and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine, if unbelievers also were the subjects of it.

A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence, is, 2 Cor. 5.21. where Christ is said to be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him; where this is made the finall cause, why our sin was imputed to Christ, that we might [Page 221] be made the righteousnesse of God in him, and he will have Christs being made sin, and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him, formally the same act in God: For he saith, this phrase [that we might be mad [...]] doth not alwayes imply the final cause, but sometimes the formal. And so his meaning is, that Christ was at the same time made sin for us, and by that act of God we were made the righteousnesse of God in him.

To this I answer, First, it offers violence to the Text; for that doth not say, that we were then made, but that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him, it laid the foundation for this.

Secondly, Let him assigne any other end that God had in this act in respect to us, if this were not his end; surely had it not been for this, God would not have imputed our sinnes to Christ.

Thirdly, That which he saith, is manifestly false; for this phrase [that we might be] alwayes doth expresse the finall cause, his instance doth not prove the thing in hand; He saith, That when light is let in that darknesse might be expelled, the im­mission of light is formally the expulsion of darknesse.

I answer, if it be granted, this hindereth not, but that it might be the end why the light is let in, as in a roome that hath shuts to keep out the light, the room is dark; now let a man that desires light open these shuts, at the same time the light doth physically expell the darknesse, and yet it was the end of the man in letting in the light to expel the darknesse.

Fourthly, The imputation of sin to Christ and righteousnesse to us, are two different acts, and have two different effects, and therefore are not formally the same; for by imputing sin to Christ, he is charged with the guilt of it, and is obnoxious to death; and the imputing righteousnesse to us, is a discharge from the guilt, and we are made capable of life: Now if this were formally our discharge, then we are discharged, and so made righteous before Christ had made satisfaction, even so soon as our sin was imputed; but this is a manifest contradiction; for it is not Christs being charged with our guilt, but his making satis­faction that procures our discharge; but this is but one drop of that river of contradiction, that flows from him as from a foun­taine, [Page 222] with which his Book swells like the river of Jordan, till it is foardable by no reason, nor any humane understanding.

4. I deny that the imputation of sin to Christ, and the non-imputation of it to us; If you speak of a formal non-imputati­on, and discharge, (or else you say nothing to the purpose,) is but one and the same act in God; they are two distinct acts, ter­minated upon two distinct subjects. The first upon Christ, the second upon us.

Imputation of sin to Christ, is a transient act done in time; for God did not charge Christ with our sin from eternity, and every transient act requireth the existence of the subject, upon which it is terminated, or produceth it, as did Creation. And therefore we that had no existence, could not be the subjects of a formal non-imputation, which is an actuall discharge from it; and therefore, that which you answer to this objection, we were nor then, and therefore righteousnesse could not be imputed, by propounding another objection, Our sins were not then, therefore they could not be imputed.

I answer, the reason is not alike; for the non-existence of a subject to whom any thing should be impated, is of greater ef­ficacy to hinder the imputation, then the non-existence of a sinne; for the terme or subject of a transient act, is of absolute necessity to be, or to be produced by the act; but there is no such ne­cessity of the thing that is imputed, the act may be without that, but not without the other. Besides, a sin is a moral cause of punishment, and therefore the effect, which is punishment, (which is that that is meant by imputation of sin,) is at the will of him that is moved thereby; and therefore sometimes goeth before the cause, as in the death of Christ, for which the Pa­triarchs were justified before Christ had given satisfaction, and sometimes after it; therefore the punishment might be inflicted on Christ before the sin was committed.

I shall now addresse my self to give an answer to such Scriptures as he hath alledged in defence of his own opinion.

The first is, Matth. 3.17. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

From whence he argueth, that if the well pleasednesse of God, which is here declared, is terminated upon Christ mystical, and not [Page 223] to Christ personal, then God was well pleased with all his Elect, (who are Christ mystical) when this voice came from heaven, and consequently before many of them do believe.

To which I answer, that I take it to be, and have proved it an err [...]r, to say that the Elect as El [...]ct, are myst cally uni ed to Christ; for union necessarily pre-requireth existence, and Christ had not a mystical body from eternity.

2. I deny, as then I did, the assumption, and say the well-pleasednesse of God was terminated upon Christ personal, and not Christ mystical: And the meaning is, This is my beloved Son in whose person I am well pleased, and with whose work and office as a Mediator I am well pleased; but it was not the intent of God there to say, for his sake I am actually well pleas­ed with all the Elect, antecedently to their faith.

Now I prove it was spoken of Christ personal, and not Christ mystical.

1. If Christ considered as Mediatour be personally considered, then this is understood of Christ personal, and not Christ mysti­call: The antecedent is true: Therefore the consequence. The reason of the consequence is, because this is spoken of Christ as Mediator; But Christ mystical is not the Media [...]our of the world, for then we have so many Redeemers and Saviours of the world, as are united to Christ, and then Christ alone did not tread the winepresse of his Fathers wrath.

2. Christ mystically considered, was not baptized by John: But this beloved Son in whom God was well pleased, was baptized by John: Ergo.

3. This was terminated on him, to whom the Heavens were then opened, and upon whom the Spirit descended like a Dove: But this is true only of Christ personally, not mystically con­sidered.

4. This voice was terminated on him, for whose sake God is well pleased with such as believe; But God is not well pleased with believers for the sake of Christ mystically considered, but personally; Ergo.

5. This voice is terminated upon him, who is by a peculiar generation and Sonship so a Son, that it is incommunicable unto others; But this belongs only to Christ personal; Therefore this [Page 224] voice was not terminated upon Christ mystical.

6. Now to all this I adde this, that the consideration of Christ as a pub [...]ick Mediatour is not sufficient to denominate him to be a Head, and the Elect his Members, so as to make a mystical uni­nion between them, it may constitute him a publick person and surety; but to make him a Head mystically united to any, it re­quireth the existence and faith of the person united. Now where­as you say that Mr. Woodbridge did uncivilly interpose, and o­thers, or else you had urged more; it is to make the world be­lieve I could not answer you; whereas you could drive on your Argument no further by a new Medium: and then you appealed to the people, which occasioned that interposition you com­plain of.

And here I shall answer to such Arguments as you use, p. 124, 125. to prove, it was terminated to Christ mysticall.

Your first is drawn from the authorities of Musculus, Calvin, Beza, Pareus; None of all which acknowledge no more then that it testifies that great love of God, in whom God is well pleased with such as believe, shewing the only way of appeasing God, and reconciling God to man; but none of them do affirme Gods actual well-pleasednesse with any persons before faith, but that Christ is he by whom Gods wrath is turned away, as the only Mediatour to reconcile God and man; but none did afore you dream, that this Son in whom God was well pleased was the mystical Christ, or that this voice was terminated upon Christ mystical.

Secondly, You say it is against the scope of the words to limit them to the person of Christ, they being a solemne declaration of Christs investiture into his office of Mediatorship; We grant it is a solemne inauguration, or instalme. of Christ in this office, but deny your consequence, that because Christ is here considered as Mediatour, therefore, what is so spoken to him, is termi­nated to Christ mystical, (though it might be spoken for th [...]ir be­nefit and comfort that shall believe.

Thirdly, You say there is no reason why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ, seeing that God was never displeased with him; nor had our Saviour any doubt or suspition of it, and therefore it was needlesse that God should [Page 225] declare his well-pleasednesse to him in his own person.

I answer, this was spoken for to satisfie us, that Christ was a Mediatour well fitted for this work, that God was well pleased in him as one endued with sufficient ability to reconcile; and God was well pleased with him, because he never displeased him; and therefore was the more fitting person for this worke; and therefore though it be granted Christ needed not this testimony, and that it was spoken as an encouragement to us to believe in him: Yet it followeth not that therefore God was well pleased with us for his sake before we believe, because he is well pleased with Christ, and his Mediatory work.

Fourthly, You say the well-pleasednesse of God is to be ex­tended unto them, for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice: But Christ did not offer up his sacrifice for himself. I deny your Major, and do say, that in this voice God did declare for the be­nefit and comfort of them that do believe that God was well pleased and satisfied with Christ, and his Mediatory work, that they may know they believe on him who is a person in whom, the Lord taketh infinite delight; and therefore he being so dear to God, they shall finde favour for his sake that believe; but that therefore he is actually well pleased with them, whether they believe or not, yea, when they live under the power of sinne, I take it to be no lesse then presumptuous boldnesse to determine, and it carries a spirit of contradiction to the whole Gospel.

And to this end the Apostle saith, Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. To which you say, the Apostle speak­eth there of mens works, and not of their persons.

I answer, it is manifestly false; for he speaketh of their per­sons, as well as of their works. For,

1. He saith, by faith the Elders received a good report, that is, all of them in general; but with whom were they thus re­ported of? surely by God himself; hence he declared his thoughts of them, thus Abraham is called the friend of God; and Noah, Thee only have I found righteous; and David is called a man after Gods own heart.

2. In particular Abel, he by faith offered a more excellent sacrifice then Cain, by which he obtained testimony that he was righteous; God did not testifie only that his action was righte­ous, but that he was a righteous person, and so Enoch, by [Page 226] faith was translated, &c. and he received this testimony that he pleased God, that is, that his person pleased God, for would God translate him to heaven for a righteous action, if his person had not pleased God? And the very scope is to prove that he was a Believer, and by consequence that his person did please; for without faith it is impossible to please God, and so Mr. Per­kins, and all Interpreters that I know speak of it. Besides, is it possible that mens act [...]ons can please, where their persons please not? Surely no, God had first respect to the person of Abel, then to his offering; and he had no respect to Cain, and then he regarded not his offering, therefore their persons as well as their works did please, and both by faith; for let their actions be never so conformable to the rule, unlesse their persons be ac­cepted, their services cannot be accepted, and their best actions being mixt with sinne, need Christ, and must be accepted through Christ, as well as their persons. And whereas a little after you make an Elect person to be plea­sing to God, but none of his actions; it is altogether against reason, to imagine that a tree should be good, that never did, nor can bring forth good fruit; and if all the sins, of the Elect, be pardoned, because they are justified, what is there in their actions wherewith God can be displeased, when their want of faith and conformity to the rule is pardoned?

Secondly, those Scriptures which are usually alledged by him and others of that opinion for eternal Justification, are princi­pally these two, Ephes. 1.4. 2 Tim. 1.9, 10. In the first it is said, God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world; and in the 6th. vers. He hath made us accepted in his Beloved.

I answer, It is one thing to say, God did chuse us in Christ be­fore the foundation of the world, and another to say, God justified us, and reconciled us: Gods Election denotes Gods will of pur­pose to justifie and reconcile, and is terminus diminuens, amor ordinativus, not collativus; it is a terme of diminution, and doth not actually collate the things purposed; it is true, that Justifi­cation and Reconciliation, is a fruit of Gods Election, but it is not coeternal with it; and when it is said, he chose us in Christ, this, as I have shewed by the testimony of Dr. Twisse, doth not denote any existence that we then had in Christ, but only the [Page 227] way and means by which we obtain the things purposed in Ele­ction, to wit, in Christ, or for Christs sake. And therefore as it is not said, that we were sanctified from eternity, though he chose us in Christ, that we should be holy; so neither are we justified from eternity, for there is no difference, be­cause a man cannot be the subject of a moral change, to passe from a state of death and life, till he do exist, (though he may be predestinated to be the subject of such a change in time) any more then he can be the subject of a physical or natural change. Nor doth that passage in the 6th. Verse confirme it, where it is said, He hath made us accepted in the Beloved; for that is to be understood of the Elect Ephesians, as they were now re­generate, and not to be referred to Gods eternall purpose. And all this is made more manifest, in that those that were Elect, and chosen in Christ, are said to be children of wrath, without God, without Christ, and without hope in the world, which, as we have shewed, is inconsistent with the state of Justification.

The second place in Timothy, where it is said,2 Tim. 1.9, 10. That grace was given us in Christ before the world began; but is now made ma­nifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, holds forth no such thing as eternal Justification; but grace is said to be given in respect of the firmnesse, and immutability of Gods purpose: Therefore in this place, Gods giving is not an actual collation, but an eternal preparation of grace to be given infallibly to the Elect. And thus Augustinus, Apostolus datam dixit gratiam, August de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 34. quando nec erant adhuc, quibus daretur; quoniam in dispositione, ac praedestinatione Dei jam sactum erat quod suo tempore futurum erat: The Apostle saith, Grace was given when they were not as yet, to whom it should be given, because in the appointment and predestination of God that was done, which in its time should be done;Vide Junius, Calvin. and to this Junius and Calvin give in their suffrage with him.

The other Scriptures alledged by h [...]m are in pag. 128. which relate to the death of Christ, from whence he would prove, be­cause it is said that we were then reconciled, and had redem­ption in his blood, therefore we were justified before faith, from the time of Christs death; But observe how the places brought for our Justification from Christs death, do utterly overthrow the eternity of Justification: For, if we were then enemies, and [Page 228] then reconciled, then was he not reconciled from eternity.

That in Ephes. 1.7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgivenesse of sins, signifieth nothing but that the price of redemption was paid by him, and we have forgivenesse of sins, because it is purchased for us, but it is not actually given: For although Christs death be the meritorious cause of Justifica­tion, yet is it not the only cause; and therefore we are not a­ctually justified, till all those causes be actually, which have an influence into it;Col. 1.20, 21. and that in Col. 1.20, 21. signifies no more, but that peace is thus farre made by the blood of his Crosse, that now the cause of enmity is removed by a satisfaction made by the death of Christ, and God is now willing to forgive such as be­lieve; whence he addeth, these mercies named shall be enjoyed if they continue in the faith grounded,Ver. 23. and setled, and be not moved from the hope of the Gospel.

Eph. 2.13, 14.And the like I affirme of that place, Ephes. 2.13, 14. and of that in 2 Cor. 5.19.2 Cor. 5.19, 20. we are causally and meritoriously reconci­led; Th [...]s was Gods designe in Christ, in giving him to die; but God and they were not actually reconciled, that believe not; Hence the Apostle exhorteth in the same place the Corinthians to be reconciled to God; and when God justifies, and is actually re­conciled, the reconciliation is mutual; there is a change in Gods disp [...]nsation, though not a change in his affection; and when it is sa [...]d, that we are said to sit with him in heavenly places, this is spoken in regard of a right purchased,Eph. 2.6. and the certainty of the thing to be obtained, though we do not yet personally sit with him; and all such places as speak of our being enemies to God, and that while we were enemies we were reconciled, signifie nothing but this, that we were translated out of a state of enmity, into a state of actual reconciliation by Christ, as soon as we believe,Rom. 5.10. as that, Rom. 5.10. for in the first verse he speak­eth of them that were already justified by faith; and in the 11th. We have now received the atonement, so that there he speaketh of actual believers, not that they received this while they re­mained unbelievers, and enemies to God; and if you understand it of what was done for us before we had faith, and were rege­nerated, it signifieth nothing but the reconciliation meritoriously made by removing the guilt of sin by a sufficient price paid, even [Page 229] while we were actually in the state of enmity; but the paying of the price is not the whole, nor the formalis ratio justificationis: For this price paid, is part of the matter of our righteousnesse; but the formal nature of Justification stands in the imputation of this righteousnesse, which is an actual bestowing of it, and in our receiving of it by faith, then,Mr. Eyre, pag. 132. and not till then are we formally justified. Here Mr. Eyre objecteth two things.

First, That Christ did not only pay the price of our reconciliation, Object. 1 but that God did so farre accept it for us, that upon the payment he did not impute our sins to us; for the Apostle define. Justification to be a non-imputation of sin.

1. This is petitio principii, a begging the question, to say, God did accept it so as he did not impute sin to us, (that is, at the same time when our sins were imputed to Christ.)

2. I adde, that Gods imputing sin to Christ, is virtually a non-imputing it to us; but not formally, and therefore not a for­mall Justification.

3. I adde, that the non-imputation of sin containeth not the whole nature of Justification, unlesse under it be comprized the imputation of righteousnesse.

Secondly, He objecteth, that the paiment of the full price for our Object. 2 deliverance from the curse of the Law, is a yielding the question, that we are actually set free from the obligation of it; for when the debt is paid, the debtor is free in Law; it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid.

To this objection I have already given sufficient answer; but because it is the maine Argument to which he, and all of his judge­ment trust; I will here also give a solution to it.

I answer then, by denying the consequence: For, in the first place, payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation; but now if there were nothing else to say, but this, this were enough to prove it not the same; dum alius sol [...]it, necessariò aliud solvitur: while another payeth the debt, another thing is paid. But secondly, if a surety of our own appoint­ment pay the debt, then it may also be available, but the surety is provided by God, and not by us. And thirdly; he paid not the same, but the value. Fourthly, besides, Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another; not only by the intrin­secal [Page 230] value, but by the constitution of God; for if God had or­dained it, it might have been efficaciously sufficient, even for the Reprobate; Therefore as Scotus Scotus, lib. 3. distin. 19. qu. vin. p 74. saith well, Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo: Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it, and how farre he will accept it, it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge; for though he did accept it for them, yet not for an immediate discharge; and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith, then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number, if God had so accepted it? Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all in­tents and purposes, and as certainly applied, as if presently the benefit were obtained, for faith also is merited, and shall be gi­ven: And God did suspend it till faith, as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient. Because,

1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin, it unites us to Christ.

2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remain­ing, which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature.

3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remain­ing so under the reigning power of sin.

4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal, it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse.

5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Re­deemer, the soul to see his need of Christ, and to prize his love, and he will have him to acknowledge, and take him for his Lord, that will have benefit by him; and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son, that the benefit of this satisfacti­on shall not be injoyed untill faith; And, Volenti non fit injuria. If the Reader desire further satisfaction, let him peruse the Vin­dication of my Sermon upon this subject.

CHAP. XI. Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith, that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death, and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification.

FIrst he saith, that the Essence and Quiddity of Ju­stification consisteth in the will of God not to punish, and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments.

1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification, is most properly ap­plied to this act; and (saith he) it is a certain rule, Cui convenit definitio, convenit definitum, that is Justification, to which the de­finition of Justification doth agree. Now, saith he, the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification, is Gods not imputing sin, and his imputing of righteousnesse.

To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument; but I de­ny that the non-imputing of sin, and the imputation of righte­ousnesse is the whole definition of Justification; but it is a non-im­puting of sin, and imputing of righteousnesse according to the te­nour of the Gospel, by vertue of that signal promise, He that believes shall be saved: And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle, if it be a full definition; for Justification is a forensi­cal, judicial act; now according to the tenour of the first Cove­nant, [Page 232] which requireth personal and perfect obedience, we can­not be saved: Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel, wherein he hath promised, whosoever believe shall be saved: Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant, doth not impute sin, and impute righte­ousnesse to a person, this is truly Justification; but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith.

Secondly, I answer, Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin, but a purpose of not imputing it: There­fore till this purpose be brought into act, we are not pardoned and justified; for although his will be actuall, yet his non-impu­tation is not actual, but to be done in time; for neither is the sin in actual being, which how it can be remitted before it be committed, let him shew; for it is not actually, but potentially a sin; And therefore, in what sense it is a sin, in that sense it is remitted onely, and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actu­all being, but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified, passing him from death to life, and that for Christs sake; but how can the state of the sinner be changed, who is yet unborne? and never was yet actually a childe of wrath? and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and pur­pose; and consequently, if that be Justification, we are justified without the merits of Christ, and then Socinian doctrine takes place; but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification, for which God justifieth us; In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgivenesse of sins; and, God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood; and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians.

Thirdly, Whereas you, say the words, (both in the Old and New Testament,) whereby imputation is signified, which are [...], and [...], do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will, an immanent act.

I answer, that sometimes when they are related to men, they so signifie;Gen. 15.6. Gen. 38.15. Numb. 18.17. Psal. 32.1. Psal. 106.31. Rom. 4.6, 8. yet that they are so taken, when attributed to God, I absolutely deny; but do alwayes hold forth a transient act, and not an immanent act; as, Gen. 15.6. Gen. 38.15. Numb. 18.27. Psal. 32.1. Ps. 106.31. Rom. 4.6, 8. 3 Cor. 5.19. nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act, where it is so taken; [Page 233] for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God, to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person, that is to say, he judg­eth and esteemeth them not to have sinned, for Gods judgement is according to truth; and therefore such as have sinned, he looketh upon them as such as have sinned, and he cannot esteem them such, as never did sin; though he may, if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned, and in this sense he imputeth it not when he pardoneth.

Secondly, His second Argument is thus, That which doth se­cure men from wrath, and whereby they are discharged, and ac­quitted from their sins, is Justification. By this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged, and acquitted from their sins, and secured from wrath and destruction: Ergo.

To which I answer, 1. By distinguishing upon your Major pro­position, that which doth secure presently, actually, fully, and formally, from wrath without any other cause intervening, is Justification. And then in taking the Proposition thus, I deny the Minor, that Election doth presently, actually, fully, and for­mally discharge the sinner from guilt and wrath; it is but a pur­pose in God to do it, the sinner is not thereby discharged; Hence as soon as he is borne, he is a childe of wrath, which he could not be, if he were justified from eternity, and so continueth untill faith; and the death of Christ is a necessary cause intervening between this decree, and the discharge, for which he is discharg­ed; and without which, (supposing the decree, he cannot be secured from wrath,) and Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth, p. 140. that sin lay as a block in the way, that God could not salvâ justitià, bestow upon the Elect those good things intended in Electi­on: How then did Gods decree secure them from wrath, if he mean only eventually, it doth secure, because they shall not have sin imputed to the condemnation of their persons; this is true, but to little purpose, to prove a present formal discharge, such as Justification is: Therefore when the Apostle saith, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? The Apostle doth not speak of the Elect antecedenter, antecedently to their faith; but executivè, or consequenter, as it is executed, and compleated in those that are Elected, as Mr. Burgesse Mr. Burg. of Justif. p. 186. hath observed; Therefore, by the Elect he meaneth the Elect Believers, there­fore [Page 234] if you resolve it either into a universal negative, No Elect person can be justly charged with sin, or a universal affirmative, all Elect persons are free from the charge of sin, if by the Elect, you understand the Elect before Faith and Regeneration, both Propositions are absolutely false, for otherwise Christ could not have been charged with our sin, if Election did free us from the charge, then was there no necessity of Christs dying, and then no person is borne a sinner that is an Elect person, nor was e­ver under condemnation, then neither was Adam a sinner un­der condemnation, for I take him to be an Elect person, and then no man ever was under condemnation, for we receive not guilt from him, unlesse he also were guilty, and we in him: But if you take it for Elect Believers, then both Propositions are true, and this is agreeable to the scope of the place; for he had said a little before, Whom he predestinated, them he called, and whom he called, (that is, unto faith,) them he justified.

Mr. Eyre, p. 64.As for the Answers which he giveth to the Objections framed by himself, I have considered them, and derected the weakness of them already. There remaineth but one Objection which I have not yet given any Animadversion upon, and therefore will do it here.

Object. He saith, 'tis obj [...]cted that hereby by making Justification to be Gods eternal will not to punish, Justification and Election are con­founded.

His answer to this is that they are not confounded, because Ele­ction includes both the end, which is the glory of Gods grace, and all the means from the beginning to the ending, conducing thereunto; his will not to punish, includes precisely, and formally only some part of the meanes.

To this I answer; that according to Mr. Eyre's opinion, there is no distinction at all between Election and Justification; for if it be the same act of Gods will, if the object be the same, if the end of God in both be the same, if the means conducing to that end be the same, then is there no difference at all according to him; bur the antecedent is true, Ther [...]fore. That with him it is the same act,pag. 61. is evident, pag. 62. for he acknowledge no transient act, but an immanent eternal act of his will, purposing salvation in Christ, that the object is the same needeth no proof, [Page 235] the end is the same, the glory of Gods grace in both, and that the means conducing to that end is the same; Let him that hath but a sparke of reason judge, for if the act be the same, the ob­ject the same, and the end the same in both; why the meanes should not be the same, no reason can be imagined, and let him assigne what means God hath appointed for the execution of the eternal Election, and we shall easily shew it that the same thing God hath appointed as a necessary Medium to effect our Justification (according to his opinon,) which hold it to be one and the same eternal act of his will: And let the Reader observe, that he maketh no cause of our Justification, but Gods own eternal good will and pleasure, as in the case of Election, for Christs death with him is not the cause of the act of Justification, but of the effects of it, of the thing willed, and so Christs death with him is no antecedent meanes to effect the act of Justification, but a subsequent mea [...] [...]o fulfill the purpose of his will; and what a good friend he is to the Gospel, to debase the merits of Christ, let the undestanding Christian judge.

As for those arguments which he useth to disprove that our faith,pag. 52. or faithful actions, are that Evangelical righteousnesse, by which we are justified, maketh nothing against me: For, if we speak of our Evangelical righteousnesse, that is the matter of our righte­ousnesse, or that for which we are justified, I acknowledge it is wholly in Christ subjective, and it is ours only by imputation, and that faith is but the instrument to apply this; as for that Reve­rendMr. Baxter. Brother and Servant of Christ, against whom these are leveled, he hath since explained his meaning, that he understandeth not faith to be the matter of our righteousnesse, or a co-ordinate righteousnesse with Christ, but he calleth it our subordinate E­vangelical righteousnesse; in which he disagreeth from us, and I confesse, (it had been more satisfaction to his Brethren, if he had not used that terme;) And therefore being not concerned in it, I passe them by.

The next File of Arguments that he brings up against our cause, we finde in the 9th Chapter, which though he will have them give fire, yet they do no execution, nor will they stand the Field, and abide the shock of a solid answer; which, because they are a company of tame Souldiers, we will take them prisoners, and [Page 236] see how they will abide to be examined. He saith, that faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie for Justification.

Where I premise, that we understand not by qualifying us for Justification any moral disposing, and qualifying us sensu ponti­ficio, in the Papists sense, inchoating our Justification, as if we were to be justified by something inherent in us; but by qualify­ing we mean nothing but this, that according to the tenour of the Gospel and New Covenant, it makes us subjects capable of the act of Justification, for as much as the condition required is now fulfilled; and as faith is Gods gift, so it is a passive condition; as it is our act, so it is an active instrument, not elicited by the pow­er of free will, but by assistance of special grace,) whereby we apprehend Christs righteousnesse for Justification, and in this sense we are justified by faith according to the Scriptures. Now let us consider his Arguments.

First, That Interpretation of the phrase, which gives no more to faith in the businesse of our Justification, then to other works of Sanctification, cannot be true, because the Scripture doth peculiar­ly attribute our Justification unto Faith in way of opposition to other workes of Sanctification; but to interpret Faith meerly thus, that it is a condition to qualifie us for Justification, gives no more to Faith then to other works of Sanctification.

We shall reverence the Major, and let it go; but must commit his Minor to the Marshalsie as a Rebel against reason: For though we make Faith a condition, and a passive condition in the sense explained, yet this hindereth not, but that it may be an instrumental cause of Justification, and in this sense we give more to faith, then to other works of Sanctification; Besides, we make not as he affirme works necessary antecedents to Justifi­cation, necessary antecedents to Salvation we do, but not unto Justification: For we acknowledge that of August, to be true, opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum. And now I shall retort this Argument upon himself, That Interpre­tation of the phrase, which giveth no more to faith in the busi­nesse of Justification then to other works of Sanctification, can­not be true, because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in a way of opposition to other works of [Page 237] Sanctification; but to interpret Faith (subjectively taken,) thus, that it justifieth us only, because it evidenceth our Justifica­tion, is to attribute no more to faith then to other works of San­ctification: Ergo. If he answer that faith subjectively taken, for the grace of faith is not opposed to works, because it is a work.

I answer, 1. If it be a work, yet it is the work of God, and not ours.

2. It justifieth not as a work, but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse: Nay,

3. I see not but the opposition stand as strongly, as if he took faith objectively for Christs righteousnesse, or obedience; for certainly the matter of our Justification, is the obedience of Christ to the Law, and so we are justified by works properly in the person of another.

Secondly, That Interpretation which gives no more to faith then to works of nature, such as are found in natural unregenerate men, is not true, but to interpret faith a necessary antecedent of our Justi­fication, gives no more to faith then to works of nature.

I deny the Minor; for, conditio sine quà non, a condition, whithout which a thing is not done, may be a necessary conditi­on; yet it is not so necessary as that is, which is a cause by which the thing is done; the eye-lids must be opened as a necessary antecedent unto sight, But will you therefore say, it is as equally necessary as the eye it self; so it is in the present case, sight of sin, sorrow for it are necessarily required in the subject where God will work faith; but it followeth not that they are as equally necessary, and have as much influence into Justification, as Faith.

‘The third Argument is this, That by which we are justified, is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification, but Faith considered as a passive condition, is not a proper efficient cause of Justification.’

I answer, by distinguishing upon the word [by]. That by which we are justified, as the material cause of our Justification, or the matter for which we are justified, is the meritorious pro­per efficient cause of Justification, and in this sense we are not justified by faith.

2. It may be taken for the instrument by which that righteous­nesse for which we are justified is apprehended and applied, and [Page 238] in this sense we are justified by faith, and taking it in this latter sense, I deny the Major: Nor is faith only the instrumental cause of Justification, in foro conscientiae, as a little after you affirme, though it be taken properly for the act of believing; but in foro Dei, nor a bare condition without which, but a con­dition by which, by vertue of Gods Covenant it is obtained; and therfore I acknowledg a true causality in faith unto Justification.

Fourthly, That which maketh us concurrent causes in the form­all act of Justification with God and Christ, because our Justificati­on in respect of efficiency, is attributed to them, is not true, but to make faith morally disposing us to Justification, maketh us concur­rent causes with God and Christ in our Justification.

I answer, 1. He attributeth more to us then we affirme; we say not that faith doth moraly dispose us to Justification as he tak­eth it in the Argument, [it is no meritorious moving cause of Ju­stification, nor is all moral disposition a morall causality.]

2. The Major is not universally true, for Faith is a social cause, but not a co-ordinate cause of Justification; Besides, what Faith doth, it doth it, virtute agentis principalis, and by vertue of Gods Covenant, not as our act, nor by any inherent worth in it self.

1. Nor doth it follow from hence, that if any condition be required in order to our Justification, then it is not free, for the very condition is freely given, nor is it left to be performed by the power of our free-will, this would hinder the freenesse of Justification.

2. It is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ, but Christ and Faith are not causes ejusdem generis; for Christs righteousnesse is that for which we are justified, Faith is only that whereby this righteousnesse is received, and applied unto Justification.

Fifthly, That Interpretation which makes Works going before Justification, not only, not sinful, but acceptable to God, and prae­paratory to the grace of Justification, is not according to the minde of the Holy Ghost; but to interpret Justification by faith, that faith is a condition, which doth qualifie us for Justification, necessarily supposeth a work, or works which have not the nature of sin, but are acceptable to God, and preparatory to grace.

The Major we shall let passe as innocent, the Minor hath [Page 239] guilt, and weaknesse more then enough to be imputed to it.

1. We say, Faith doth not us qualifie as an inherent disposition, preparing us for a Justification, to be effected by it as an inherent grace, only it puts the subject into a capacity of being actually ju­stified by the righteousnesse of Christ, according to the tenour of the Covenant.

2. Faith doth not justifie as a Work, but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse.

3. Though Faith be a Work, it is not ours, but Gods; and therefore none of our Works justifie.

4. Though there be a priority of nature in Faith unto Justifi­cation, yet there is not any priority of time; but the same mo­ment that Faith is wrought, we are justified.

Sixthly, That Interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which in­volveth a contradiction, is not to be admitted; but to say, Faith is a passive condition, that doth morally qualifie us for Justification, implies a contradiction.

I subscribe the Major with both hands, and should be loth such a pouring showre of contradictions should fall from my pen, as have done from yours, which were enough to drown the repu­tation of a man, that would be counted one of the more manly sorts of Divines. And I deny your Minor, it implieth not a con­tradiction to say, Faith is a condition of Justification. ‘Your proof is this, to be both passive and active in reference to the same effect, is a flat contradiction. Now, that is active which is effective, which contributes an efficacy, whether more or lesse, to the production of the effect, a condition hath not the least efficacy.’

I answer, therefore it is peccant against the Law of opposi­tion, for i [...] is not [...], for Praedicatum non disponitur cum subjecto secundum eandem subjecti partem, & naturam. For faith is active and p [...]ssive in a different sense; if you take faith in genere physico, it is act [...]ve; if you take it in genere moris, it is passive, for it is only a condition making us c [...]ble, (according to the Covenant) of Ju [...]ification, not merito [...]ously deserving, or by it self effecting Justification; but it is not a [...] the same time active and p [...]siv [...] in genere phisico, nor active and passive at the same time in genere moris, and therefore here is no contradiction. [Page 240] Besides faith, as it is an act, it is active, and some way helpeth the agent, (not that God needeth it, but because he will not justi­fie us without it;) but in regard that this is a receiving, it is equi­valent to suffering, and is a going out of our selves, renouncing our own righteousnesse, and so is rightly judged passive, though formally it be an action, yet virtually it is but a passive reception.

In the next place we shall consider his Arguments, which he bringeth in the 14th. Chapter, to prove that there was no Co­venant between the Father and the Son, to suspend the effects of his death untill faith; and that it was the will of God, that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconcilia­tion and Justification of all the Elect antecedent to Faith. Now because these Arguments are his Triarii, his Souldiers in the rere­ward in which he puts most confidence; if we can but rout these, the day will be our own.

His first Argument runs thus, There is no such Covenant doth appear, Ergo there is none. A negative Argument I acknowledge in matters of great consequence, is availeable; Therefore I deny his Assumption and all those Scriptures, which promise Justifica­tion upon believing, and that limit the benefit of Christs death un [...]ill faith, is proof enough to prove there was a Covenant be­tween the Father and Christ to suspend the benefits of Christs death untill faith, but because he will see the place; we referre him to Isa. 53.10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his dayes, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the travel of his soul, and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Mr. Eyre acknow­ledgeth this place holds forth the Covenant between God and Christ about the effects of his death; if you take the words as a prediction of the Prophet, they hold forth a promise of God to Christ of the fruit of his death, when God should make his soul an offering for sin, or when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin, for the words will bear it: Now this promise is virtu­ally a Covenant, and doth not limit the benefits of his death to the present time; but first presupposeth this work to be done, and then as a fruit of this, he shall see his seed, (not all his seed presently,) but he shall see it, and prolong his dayes; the pro­noun [Page 241] is wanting, and therefore the words have a twofold sense given them; some expound them of Christ, who after his Resurrection should die no more, others of his issue, and race of the Saints, and say the Authors of our English Annotations, the ancient Greek and old Latine go both that way, and so take the meaning, he shall see his seed that shall prolong its dayes, with a supply of the relative, and if so, this maketh clear against Master Eyre; But however, take it which way you will, there is e­nough to evince it; He shall see of the travel of his soul, and be sa­tisfied, that is, he shall see that as the fruit and effect of his death, which shall give him full content, he shall be much refreshed, and gladded as a woman after hard travel, that seeth the fruit of her womb, and he shall live to see it. And then follow the words, which are the words of God delivered as in his person, for Christ was not the Prophets servant, But by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many, that is, by the knowledge of him, not his knowledge taken subjectively, but objectively, that is, the knowledge whereby they know him; where knowledge is put for faith, as, This is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; and so Paul counted all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ his Lord. Now here God describeth how Christ shall justifie many by his knowledge, or by faith on him: Whence I argue, If God in the Covenant made with Christ, did mention faith as a means by which he should justifie many, that is, all his seed that should be the travel of his soul; then was there such a Co­venant, that the fruits and benefits of Christs death should not be enjoyed untill faith; for it is added, that he shall bear their ini­quities; not that this should be a present discharge, but to sig­nifie that none else but Believers should be pardoned, because he shall bear their sins, and theirs only; but if they be justified before faith, then he beareth the sins of unbelievers, and so un­believers, and Believers are the subjects of Justification contra­ry to the Scriptures. But God made such a Covenant, and made mention of Faith in it, as a means whereby he should justifie ma­ny, not that Faith is the cause of Gods acceptation of the me­rits of Christ, but of applying it to us.

Secondly, That which Mr. Eyre addeth, that our Saviour after [Page 242] he had tasted death, to bring many sons to glory, boasts and glories in this atchievement, Behold, I and the children which thou hast given me, Heb. 2.13. Therefore it was the will of God that his death should be immediately available for their reconciliation, for they could not be the children of wrath, and of Christ at the same time.

I answer, Mr. Eyre hath dealt fraudulently in citing this Scri­pture, for he hath left out the 11th Vers. which is the true Key to unlock this, and to shew us who are there called his children; for these that are called children, are called brethren in the 11th. Verse, and the same persons are understood without all questi­on, and who were his brethren, why, they that were sanctified; for both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one, wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren. Now a man is not sanctified before Faith, therefore not a brother be­fore Faith, therefore not a childe.

1. The scope of the place is this, the Apostle is comforting the believing Hebrews against the scandall of the Crosse, to which the Apostle answereth in v. 9. 1. That he was subjected unto death for our sakes, not for his own, therefore his Crosse should not offend us.

2. That he did but taste of death, he was but a little while un­der it.

3. It is was by the special grace of God, that his death for a short time should stand for our eternal death deserved; There­fore we should rather gloriously esteem of his suffering, then be offended.

2. He giveth a second reason in the 10th Verse, it made for Gods glory as well as for our salvation; for it behoved him, for whom are all things, and by whom, in bringing many sonnes to glory, to make the Captaine of our salvation perfect through suffering In v. 11. he gives an account how Christ could die, and how this could be accepted in our stead. He answereth, Be­cause that he is one of our kin and nature. Now least it should therefore be thought that all are redeemed, because all partake in the community of nature with Christ as man: He sheweth who in­deed are his kindred, brethren, for whom he died, they are san­ctified ones; They that are sanctified, and he that sanctifieth, are [Page 243] all of one, as if he should say, Christ died for them that are one with him: Now none are one with him, but such, they are not only all of one common lump, but of the same body, and have the same God for their Father: Hence if none be united but sanctified ones, and if Christ will claime kindred with none but sanctified ones, then none but Believers are his brethren, and children. Now as to your Argument that they could not be the children of wrath, and of Christ at the same time, I retort it upon you, and say, therefore it is evident they were not Christs children immediately from the time of his death, for then they could not be children of wrath, which yet the Apostle expresse­ly affirmeth of the Elect Ephesians, before regeneration. Thus the Captain of the Life-guard of his opinion, lieth bleeding at the feet of the truth that he doth oppose.

Secondly, If it were the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt, and a full satisfaction for all our iniqui­ties, then was it his will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate: But it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the paiment of our debt, and a full satisfaction for our iniquities: Ergo.

I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition, which he endeavoureth to prove, because saith he, it is unjust that a debt when it is paid, should be charged upon the Surety, or Principal.

I answer, if it had been the intention of God and of Christ, that the payment should have procured an immediat discharge; it were unjust: But that rests to be proved, and will while the world stands. We deny not the value of the price or satisfaction, but that God or Christ intended it for a present discharge.

1. Because Christs death, though it be the meritorious cause, yet it is not the only cause of Justification.

2. Christs was Gods servant in the work of Redemption, and if it were the will of God to limit this benefit till faith, it beho­ved Christ as Mediatour to obey.

3. The merit of Christs death is not to be valued only by the intrinsecal value of it, but by the constitution and acceptation of God; it is said, that by grace he tasted death for every man; It was an act of grace to Christ, that he should be Mediatour, that the sufferings of his humane nature, united to the divine person [Page 244] of the Son of God, should be accepted as a ransome for us from eternal death. Hence Christs death was not an act of pure ju­stice, but of justice mixed with grace; and is so farre accepted, as the divine will of the Father pleaseth, as we see in denying the fruit of it to Reprobates, and limiting it to the Elect, which might have ransomed all. And why is it any more injustice to have it limi­ted for a time by the will of God for application to the Elect, when it shall certainly be done, then to have it by the will of God absolutely limited to them alone? Hence Christs death is so far meritorious, as the will of God is to accept it; hence Gods will must not be regulated by the death of Christ, for the time & maner of application, or else it must be injustice in God, (which is a harsh expression in you,) but Christs death must be regulated by Gods will in accepting it; and I have else where given sufficient reason, why God did limit the benefit of it untill faith. And from what goeth before, it followeth Christs death was not solutio ejusdem, but tantidem, for then it would have produced an immediate dis­charge. This is the great Argument upon which his cause depends; and you see how invincibly it is overmatcht, by opposing the Do­ctrine of Justification by Faith.

3ly. ‘If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God, but the breach of the Law, then the Law being satisfied, it was the will of God that they should be immediatly reconciled; But nothing hindered their reconciliation with God, but the breach of the Law.’ I shall here distinguish in answer to this Ar­gument upon the hinder [...]ng of reconciliation. 1. Reconciliation may be hindered by that which is the cause of separation, which at first made the breach; or reconciliation may be hindered for want of a fit means to apply the benefit of reconciliation. And thus I apply it to the Minor. And deny it, though nothing do hinder by way of guilt as a cause of separation for want of satisfaction, yet something did hinder by way of application, for the want of Faith as a meanes to unite the soul to Christ, hindered it; for as none are partakers of Adams sin, but such as were in him; so none are partakers of the reconciliation wrought by Christ, but such as are in him. Now it is by Faith that we are implanted into Christ, and therfore until Faith we are not partakers of the bene­fit of actual reconciliation. Mr. Eyre doth erre toto coelo, when [Page 245] he thinketh we conceive a new will and aff [...]ction to be in God upon believing, which was not before, for we acknowledge no new immanent act in God, this were to make him mutable; but we acknowledge a transient act of God to passe upon the be­liever, and that there is a change of Gods dispensation toward the believer, though not a change of affection; and God loved them before with the love of benevolence, not with the love of complacency, and delight, which he could not do while they re­mained unjustified; The first love is terminated upon their per­sons, (yet the nature of Justification consists not in it, because it is a love of good-will and purpose to do them good; The second is a love terminated upon their graces, and so a delighting in his own work, & so a loving them for what he hath wrought in them, and now he pardoneth by vertue of the Covenant of grace, and the promise, Whosoever believe, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Fourthly, If it were the will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity, then it was the will of God that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately re­dound to the benefit of Gods elect.

This consequence is denied, the reason that he bringeth, is, that there is the same reason for the immediat transmission of both to their respective subjects; for as the Apostle sheweth, Rom. 5.14, both of them were Heads and Roots of mankind. To which I answer, & deny that there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both, for though they be both Roots of mankinde, yet we are in the first Adam in a naturall way, and so sinned in him before we had a being, and were formally and actually sinners as soon as we had an actual being; but we are in the second Adam by a supernatural work of the Spirit working Faith, and this is not wrought alwayes at our birth, but a long time after. Besides, the scope of the Apostle is not to compare Adam and Christ, as causes in eodem genere, of the same kinde that did in the same manner, in every respect communicate the issues of their actions, to their respective members; but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious, nay, more powerfully efficacious to save all that are in him; then Adams sinne were to condemn all that are in him; and the efficaciousnesse of Christs death consists not in the immediate conferring of the things purchased, (for though [Page 248] in regerd of causality, the effects are immediat, yet not in respect of application;) but in the certainty of collating the things purcha­sed, and the excellency of the things obtained; for it is farre mo [...]e efficacious to save one man, then to damn all the world: The first is an act of Impotency, this an act of Omnipotency; and they for whom Christ died, shall as certainly be justified and sa­ved as if the work were already done.

Fifthly, If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the typical cleansing of sins under that administration, then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available, to make a real atonement for all those sinnes for which he suffered. The reason of which consequence is this, because the real sacrifice is no lesse efficacious then the typical, Heb. 9.14 But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition perfermed on the sinners part, Lev. 16.30.

I answer, that the consequence of the major may justly be que­stioned; for if they were immediate, it followeth not that there­fore Christs sacrifice must be so, or else it is of lesse efficacy,

First, because that such as brought those sacrifices were actu­ally the people of God, and professed faith in Christ, and if the Profession were outward only, they had an outward clean­sing; if real, they had by faith in Christ a spiritual cleansing, signified by the outward cleansing, but all that shall be clean­sed by the sacrifice of Christs death were not in being, much lesse had an actual faith to apply it, nor is the death of Christ lesse efficacious, because they did but typically cleanse, they could not purge the conscience,Heb. 9.25, 26. hence they were often repeat­ed, but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath cleansed us, they had their power and efficacy only in reference to Christs blood, which was typified thereby.

Secondly, we say that Christs death doth immediately cleanse in respect of causality though not in respect of actual application, the defect is not in Christs blood, but in the want of faith, that it might be applied. But

Thirdly, I deny the minor, those legal sacrifices did not im­mediately make atonement without any condition on the sin­ners part; for that is apparently false; For,

First, the man that would have an atonement made for him [Page 249] by sacrifice, must have it be done by the slaying of a beast, offered up and burnt with fire, to signifie that without blood there [...] no remission,Levit. 1. and to set forth the grievous sufferings of Christ.

Secondly,Levit. 1. he must bring his sacrifice to the door of the Ta­bernacle, without which it should not be accepted, yea, blood should be imputed to him, and he should be cut off:Lev. 17.4. this Ta­bernacle signified Christ, Heb. 9.11.Heb. 9.11. by whom all services as a door must have passage to, and acceptance with God, and he must voluntarily bring it, to shew his voluntary Professi­on of faith, though it were a duty commanded, and a sin not to do it, yet he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary service, and profession of faith in Christ.

Thirdly, he must put his hand upon the head of the beast, Levit. 1.4. Exod. 29.10.Lev. 1.4. whereby he confessed his sins, and worthinesse to die, though through Gods mercy this death was inflicted on the beast, by which was signified, that he must confesse his sins and worthinesse to die, and that God hath laid his iniquities upon Christ, and by this laying on of the hand is signified his apprehending Christ;Exod. 24.8. and likewise the blood was sprinkled upon the people, Heb. 9.19.Heb. 9.19. The Priest took the blood of calves, and of goats, and he sprinkled the book, and all the people, under which is typified the appli­cation of Christs blood to the conscience upon believing: Hence Calvin saith, upon Heb. 9.19.Calvin apud marl. Heb. 9.19. Quòd autem ex hyssopo a­spergillum fiebat, & lanâ cotcinâ, non dubium est quin mysticam asperginem quae fit per Spiritum representaverit, scimus hyssopum singulari purgandi & excoquendi efficaciâ pollere: Itâ Christus Spiritu suo vice aspergilli utitur ad nos sanguine suo abluendos, dum seriò poenitentiae nos sensu afficit, dum excoquit pravas carnis nostrae cupiditates, dum pretioso justitiae suae colore nos tingit; and without these ceremonies thus performed, the atonement was not available.

‘Sixthly, if it be the Will of God, that the death of Christ should be available, for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect, without any condition performed by them, then it was his will that it should be for all of them: But it is the Will of God that it should be available for the immediate [Page 248] reconciliation of some of the Elect, viz. infants, or else they cannot be reconciled.’

I answer, Mr. Eyre is hardly put to it, that he must run to the Philistins to sharpen his goad; this argument is taken from Suarez, who argueth against faith in general upon this ground, because Infants are justified without it. Now this argument proveth, if it proveth any thing at all, that we are justified without it, and not before it, and so believers are not the sole subjects of justification, as Mr. Eyre elsewhere affirmeth; but the case of In­fants is not to be urged in most questions, especially when we are speaking of what God requires in those that are adulti, of age unto salvation; but I deny his minor, and affirm that Infants are not united to Christ without saith, they are saved by faith as well as we. ThusZanch. 5. Tom. in Com. in Hoseam. p. 28. Zanchy, Ʋt uniamur huic capiti Christo, Spiritus propriae fidei per sese omnibus ipsis etiam parvulis perne­cessarius est, justus enim ex solâ fide suâ vivet, non alienâ: assen­sus autem propriae voluntatis omnibus adultis est necessarius, &c. ac proinde etiam parvuli quodammodo sibi ponunt hoc caput, cùm Spiritu fidei interno in hoc caput donantur: That we may be uni­ted to Christ, the spirit of a mans own faith by it self is neces­sary to all, yea to Infants also, for the just shal live by his own faith, not by another mans: but the assent of our own proper will is necessary to all that are of age. And a little after he saith, and therefore also Infants do in a manner appoint themselves this head, when they are given unto this head by the internal Spirit of faith. So also learnedRivet ad vers. Babyl Jesui. Tom. 297. p. 254. Rivet, Agnoscimus Deum in Infan­tibus supplere quod deest propter aetatis imbecillitatem internâ Spi­ritûs sui operatione, qui fidei semen in ipsis ingenerat, & vi suâ eis applicat meritum Christi, cujus suo tempore in eis sensum est exci­taturus: We acknowledge, that God supplyeth in Infants, what is wanting through the weaknesse of their age by the internal work of his Spirit, who engendereth a seed of faith, and by his power applyeth the merits of Christ to them, whereof he will raise up a sense in his time; therefore I acknowledge there is at l [...]ast wrought in them semen fidei, a seed of faith, by which they become members of Christ, and that relation which is in their faith to Christ [...] merits, is the instrument by which they obtain remission of sins, and without which they could not be saved, [Page 249] nor may this seem strange, seeing we grant, that in men grown up they are meerly passive in the first work of grace, their un­derstandings and wills no wayes concurring antecedently to this work, and seeing it is a work wrought in us without us, why may not children be capable of this? Besides, if Adam had stood, even Infants before the use of reason had been sanctified, and Christ was so from the wombe, and John Baptist, and In­fants received the seale of the righteousnesse of faith, and are they capable of the seal of the righteousnesse of faith, and not of faith? And therefore though they have not the use of know­ledge, this hinders not a seed and work of faith, they have not actual reason, yet they have reasonable soules; and when its said that faith cometh by hearing, it is to be applied to persons that are of age, to whom the ordinary meanes to beget faith, is hearing of the Word preached.

Seventhly, if it were the Will of God, that Christ should have the whole glory of our reconciliation, it was his Will that it should not in the least depend upon our works and conditions, because that con­ditions will share with him in the glory of this effect, and our salva­tion would be partly of works, and partly of grace, partly from Christ, and partly from our selves, nay, it would be more from our selves then Christ.

Ans. I shall here distinguish upon conditions; A condition is ei­ther strictly and properly taken for an absolute condition, requi­red on our parts, performed by our selves without the help of grace, no way given and merited by Christ, upon which the ef­fect of Christs death should depend, as a cause of the effect, if not deserving, yet at least-wise obliging God to give the effect; such a condition would indeed share with Christ, and the ho­nour of our salvation would be ascribed, partly to our selves, and partly to Christ; nay, we should be more beholding to our selvs then to Christ, because notwithstanding all that he hath done, we might have been miserable, unlesse we had by the liberty of our Will, and improvement of our natural abilities performed this condition; but we deny and abhor such a condition as de­rogatory to Christ.

Secondly, a condition may be taken in a lesse proper sense, for an Evangelical condition appointed by God to suspend the bene­fit [Page 250] of Christs death, till the condition be performed, which con­dition is not the fruit of free-will, but the absolute purchase of Christ, and the free gift of God, and shall be infallibly given in the Lords due time to all, for whom Christ died, effectually to apply the benefit of his death unto justification; this condition we acknowledge, nor is it any wrong to Christ; for it is not the mat­ter for which we are justified, and it is the fruit of his death, and freely wrought by his own Spirit, and the death of Christ is not rendered the lesse certain or effectual, but as absolutely effectu­al, as if the effects were already enjoyed.

Eighthly, If it were the Wil of God that his people should have strong consolation, and that their joy should be full, then it was his Will that their reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves.

I answer, that the consolation and joy of Gods people is no whit lessened, or abated by this condition before explained; for their salvation is as firme and sure, as if that condition were not required, for they are not left to perform the condition by na­tural strength; as for the condition which Calvin opposeth, it is a condition of works in the Papists sense, not in ours. And when the Apostle saith,Rom. 4.16. Our salvation is of grace, that it might be sure to all the seed; the same Apostle saith in the same verse, It is of faith, that it might be of grace, and yet you are willing to leave out those words, because they make against you: nor is it lesse sure by faith,Acts 16.48. then if it were without it; for faith is merited, and shall be given, As many as were ordained to eternal life belie­ved; Phil. 1.29. and To you it is given not only to believe, &c.

Ninthly, If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available while they live in this world, then it was the Will of God it should procure for them immediate and actual re­conciliation.

Ans. This consequence is denied, the argument maketh against a condition in an Arminian sense, not in ours; for upon the first mo­ment that a man believeth he is justified, and all his sins past are actually pardoned, his sins to come virtually, so that no follow­ing sin shall unjustifie him; though it may take away his aptitude for heaven, yet not his right: and though his sin may deserve damnation, and without actual repentance and faith he cannot [Page 251] be saved, yet grace shall be given to inable him to repent and believe, so that though there must be nova remissio, yet there is not nova justificatio; though a new remission is needful, yet not a new justification; pardon of sin is a continued act, but our justification quoad statum is done simul & semel, once and for all; this you know to be the Orthodox opinion, yet you frau­dulently conceal it, and oppose us, as if we held a condition in an Arminian sense, and that so often as we fall into sin, we fall from justification, and so no man could be sure of salvation untill death.

Tenthly, If it were the Will of God, that the death of Christ should certainly procure reconciliation, then it was his Will it should not depend upon termes and conditions performed by us.

Answ. Still your consequence doth halt down-right, for the sal­vation of the Elect is not uncertain as to the event, but as cer­tain as the unchangeable decree of God can make it; but this is, Crambe bis vel ter recocta, & fastidium parit.

Eleventhly, If he willed this blessing to his Elect by the death of Christ but conditionally, then he willed the reconciliation and justifi­cation of the Elect, no more then their non-reconciliation.

Answ. If Mr. Eyre be not, he may; and I am ashamed of this grosse and wilful ignorance; I beleeve he knows it as well as he knows there is a God, that the Orthodox abhor these positi­ons of the Remonstrants, & that we acknowledg that God willed the salvation of Peter with another manner of intention, then of Judas, and that we acknowledge no condition antecedently to their Election, but that he hath absolutely predestinated the Elect unto the end, and as absolutely to the meanes, and that God did not stand indifferent to the event, whether they shall be justified, saved or no, but absolutely decreed them unto life as the end, unto justification as the meanes, unto faith as a means to bring them unto justification; so that though they be not ju­stified nor reconciled actually, yet he absolutely willed that they should be reconciled, and therefore gave Christ to die for them, and will give faith to apply the benefits of his death. As for the proof of his consequence, if he willed their salvation only in case they believe, then he willed their condemnation if they believe not. I distinguish upon Gods Will, it is either se­cret, [Page 252] or revealed, voluntas signi, or beneplacity; praecepti, or pro­positi; if you look to the will of Gods purpose, and his good-will and pleasure, he absolutely willed their reconciliation, so that nothing shall hinder it; but he did not will an absolute reconci­liation without Faith; there was no condition of his will, though of the thing willed; but if you look to the revealed will of God, the will of precept, so he declareth it is his will, that he that be­lieveth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned, and thus he willeth their damnation if they believe not.

Twelfthly, If God willed unto men the benefits of Christs death, upon any condition to be performed by them, it will follow that God foresaw in them an ability to performe some good which Christ hath not merited, conditional reconciliation necessarily presupposeth free­will.

Answ. Still his arguments are guilty of this common fate to be lame in the consequence, and to fall very short of the mark intend­ed; It doth not follow that God foresaw any such ability in man, nor doth such a condition as we establish, enthrone free-will; we yield him that God willed this blessing upon a possible condition; not possible to nature, but possible by grace; not because man can performe it, (for it requireth the same Almighty power that was required to raise Christ from the dead, Eph. 1.18,) but be­cause God by his Spirit will work and give it. And those he cal­leth his adversaries, do mean it in this sense, it is a fruit of a promise made to Christ, and an effect of his death that Faith shall be given, but not a fruit of the Covenant made with us, but ra­ther the condition by which we are really received into Cove­nant.

Thirteenthly, If God did will that our sinnes should be account­ed to Christ without any condition on our part, then was it his will that they should be discounted without any condition on our part: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo.

I answer, 'tis pity that a man, whom we hope means well, that his Arguments should go out like a snuffe of a candle in the sock­et, as these do; And I confesse it is a ridiculous argument, and inference, yet I will give a solution to it. I therefore deny his consequence: It is readily granted, that the imputation of our sinnes to Christ did not depend upon any condition of ours, for [Page 253] we had not then a being when this imputation was made, nor was it needful either for Christ, or us, that any condition on our parts should be the ground of this imputation; it was a free act of God in mercy, taking off the guilt from us, and transferring it on Christ, and his sole will and pleasure was the cause of it; but that therefore it was the will of God that it should without any ondition on our part be discounted to us, is a miserable conse­quence, more fit to be laughed at, then refuted. But to omit no­thing that may have the face, though not the force of an argu­ment unanswered; I deny the consequence, and the reason of it, and affirm that the charging our sins upon Christ, was not our dis­charge formally considered, the imputing out sinnes to Christ was not a formall non-imputing them to us, virtually it was, it was a foundation laid for the non-imputing them to us, it was a paying the ransome for us, a legal translation of the eternal pu­nishment upon Christ, a laying help upon one that was mighty; but this was not, nor is ever called in Scripture Justification: here is no formal imputation of any righteousnesse to us, who are not yet borne, much lesse cited before a Tribunal, and absolved from the guilt of sinne. Besides, 'tis not the charging of a surety with the debt, bue the discharging of him rather that carries the force of an Argument, to prove our discharge: but although Christ in his Resurrection was legally discharged as a publik person, and all that he did represent, fundamentally, meritoriously, and causally; yet not personally, and formally, which is necessary to Justifi­cation.

Thus have I answered his Arguments, which he hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to Faith, there remain­eth yet one Argument, and Objection behinde, with which I shall put an end to this discourse, leaving that which relateth to the Covenant to Mr. Woodbridge, to whom it peculiarly belong­eth, from whom I doubt not but the world will receive a satis­factory answer. The Argument yet unanswered, is this;

If a man have the Spirit of God given him before he beleeve, then he must needs be justified before he doth beleeve, because then he is in Covenant before he beleeveth, and he that is in Co­venant is justified.

To this I answer; First, by Concession, willingly acknowledg­ing [Page 254] faith to be the Spirits work, and that no man can beleeve without the help of the Spirit working Faith.

Secondly, I deny the Consequence, that although the Spirit worketh Faith before we can beleeve, yet doth it not follow that a man is justified before beleeving. And the reason of the Con­sequence I deny also, it followeth not that he is in Covenant be­fore beleeving, for there is no distance of time between the gi­ving of the Spirit, our beleeving, and being justified, and in Co­venant, or being passed from the state of death into a state of sal­vation, because there is a synchronisme in these, in respect of time, they being altogether, as soone as ever there is fire there is heat; so as soone as the Spirit is given, Faith is wrought, and the person justified, and in Covenant, and sanctified, at the same time; for God is able to act in instanti, in a moment; the Spirit is then said to be given to us, when he doth manifest his Divine pre­sence by working somthing in us peculiar to the elect, for though those that shall perish may be enlightened, and taste of the pow­ers of the world to come, and may be said to be partakers of the holy Ghost, yet properly none receive the Spirit but the Elect, and what others have is not a true saving work; now because no work before Faith is truly saving, and have a necessary connex­ion with salvation, therefore the Spirit is not received before Faith, and so they are simultanea, all together, the Spirit, Faith, and Justification, and being in Covenant; and therefore though there may be a precedency of nature in this gift of the Spirit be­fore Faith, yet followeth it not that we are justified, and in Co­venant before Faith, but at this very instant is the beleever taken into Covenant, and justified; and thus I willingly acknowledge the first grace is absolutely given, to wit effectual vocation, or Faith, by which the soul is brought into an estate of Justification, and Faith is made the condition (though wrought by God) of our Justification. So that our being in Covenant and justified, fol­low Faith in order of nature, which is contrary to that which Master Eyre hath all along contended for, that a man is justified from eternity, or from the time of Christs death, antecedently to our birth, and faith; and that the unregenerate, so remaining, if elected, are justified in that estate: which opinion, if it be re­ceived, how it should not destroy the vitals of Religion, is past [Page 255] my understanding to imagine. Having therefore had the glory of God, the vindication of this blessed truth, the salvation of the souls of Gods Elect, the preserving them from Errour that are yet free from the infection of it, the reducing those that are gone astray before mine eyes; and having with earnest prayers unto God sought for guidance herein, I undertook this task, and through his grace have finished it; and I trust I have not (I am sure I have not willingly) departed from the truth: and if in a­ny thing I have written, I have erred from the truth, as humanum est errare, upon the first discovery of it I shall through the grace of Christ become a thankful Proselyte; in the meane time I com­mend the Christian Reader to the grace of God in Christ. And the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, tread down Satan under our feet, establish and settle us in the truth, and give us to receive it in the love of it, and grant to us the Spirit of wisdome, and revela­tion in the knowledge of him, that the eyes of our understand­ings may be enlightened, that we may know what is the hope of his calling, and what is the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints, and by the exceding greatnesse of his power, work Faith in the hearts of his Elect, where it is yet wanting; accord­ing to the working of his mighty power, and fulfil that which is lacking in our faith with power, and so keep us by his mighty power through faith unto this salvation, which is ready to be re­vealed at the second coming of Christ, Amen.