The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter. His exceptions againſt the beginning and ending of my Sermon anſwered, Rom. 5. 1. vindicated. And the Antecedency of faith to Juſtification proved, from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture.
SECT. I.
FOr proof of our Juſtification by faith, (the doctrine§. 1. inſiſted on in my Sermon) I advanced ſeveral places of Scripture: to which Mr. Eyre ſhapes ſome anſwer in his fifth Chapter: which we ſhall here take a view of, that the Reader may yet better underſtand how unlike Scripture-Juſtification is to that eternal Juſtification which Mr. Eyre pleads for. But before he gives his anſwer to particular places, he thinks fit to informe the Reader, that I began my Sermon, and concluded it with a great miſtake. The miſtake in the beginning is, that I ſaid the Apoſtles ſcope in the Epiſtle to the Romanes was to prove, That we are juſtified by faith, i. e. that we are not juſtified in the ſight of God before we beleeve; and that faith is the condition on our part, to qualifie us for Juſtification: which is a miſtake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God. The Apoſtle tells us himſelf, that his ſcope is to prove, that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under ſin, Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law, neither Jew nor Gentile ſhall be juſtified in Gods ſight, ver. 20. that ſo he may conclude Juſtification by faith, ver. 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjuſtified but by faith, I know not what is. And that faith here is to be taken properly, we prove at large below. If this be not the Apoſtles ſcope, what is? Why (ſaith Mr. Eyre) to ſhew that we are juſtified, not by works or righteouſneſſe in us, but by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt freely imputed to us: which we apprehend and apply by faith. Very good: and this is as much as I ſtand for: namely, that we are juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt apprehended by faith. But know (Reader) that when we ſpeak of apprehending Chriſts righteouſneſſe, we mean not an intellectual apprehenſion, when a man comes to diſcern and know that he is juſtified, (as Mr. Eyre doth) but the right and intereſt which is given us by the Promiſe in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, when we believe. And in this ſenſe are our Proteſtants to be underſtood, when they ſay, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is apprehended by faith. Therefore when aDe inſtit. lib. 1. cap. 16. pag. 992. in 80.Bellarmine denies, that it is the office or property of faith to apprehend: our Proteſtants reject him as a Quibler. bAmeſ Bill. ener. page 314. in 12….Non enim ignoravit Bellarminus longè aliud intelligere per apprehenſionem, quàm ſpeculationem intellectus. Rectè Contarenus. Accipimus Juſtificationem per fidem, Gal. 3. 14. Hanc acceptionem Thomas appellat applicationem. Proteſtantes appellant apprehenſionem: non eâ ſignificatione quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus; ſed quâ illud dicimur apprehender quo pervenimus, & quod poſt motum noſtrum attingimus. This I thought good here to obſerve once for all, that the Reader may not be deceived with the ambignity of the word apprehend, but might know the different uſe of it in our Proteſtants writings, and Mr. Eyres.
The miſtake in my Concluſion was, that I told unbelievers, that§. 2. Chriſt was not a High Prieſt or Advocate to them, and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto: which Mr. Eyre denies to be true. If he mean, they may appeal by faith, I conſent; but that is nothing to his purpoſe. If, that they may appeal without faith, or that Chriſt intercedes that their ſins may be forgiven, who yet live in impenitency and unbelief, let him prove it. Of this alſo I ſhall ſpeak more, when I come to debate how farre we are reconciled in the death of Chriſt. In the mean time, I wonder why Mr. Eyre ſhould quarrel with Mr. Baxter, for aſſerting univerſal Redemption in the ſenſe of Davenant, Cameron, Teſtardus, Crocius, Amyraldus and others, when in the words following he yields the main foundations of their judgements in this point; namely, when he ſayes, Our duty is to exhort all men every where to believe in Chriſt: we were as good bid the devils to believe, as thoſe for whom Chriſt is not a High-Prieſt. I inferre, Ergo, Chriſt died for all men, (though I ſay not for all equally) or elſe we were as good preach the Goſpel to divels as to men. But let that paſſe. After Mr. Eyre hath leaped from one end of my Sermon to the other, he comes to the middle, which indeed doth moſt concern him. And whether he hath convinced me of errour in that alſo, is our next enquiry.
And firſt, he conſiders that place, (which was then my text) Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being juſtified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. His anſwer is double.
Firſt, (ſaith he) we may, without any violence to the text, place the comma after juſtified: as thus, Being juſtified, by faith we have peace with God.
Reply. And yet gives us no intelligence of any one copy, former or§. 3. latter, printed or manuſcript, to warrant ſuch a punctation. As to the diviſion of the ſentence, the Syriack, the Ancients, cLib. 5. adverſ. Marcion. c. 13. Si in eum competit pax cum quo ſuit belſum ei & juſtificabimur: & ejus e…i… Chriſtus, ex cujus fide juſtificabimur.Tertullian, dTranſ. lat. cdit. Loud. 1636. Juſtificati ergo ex ſide, pacem habeamus Et Ex…oſ. foreign &c.Theophylact, eEdit. Henr. Savill. & Fronto. Duc. Pariſ. foreign &c.Chryſoſtome, fIn loc.Origen, and our Proteſtant Commentatours, both Lutherans and Calviniſts, agree with our Tranſlation. And if Mr. Eyre will be juſt, and allow the ſame liberty to others, which he takes himſelf, as ſmall a matter as a comma is, the miſ-placing it may unravel a whole texture of Scripture. The Pſycopanyciſts and ſome Papiſts, when they are urged with the words of the Lord Jeſus, To day ſhalt thou be with me in Paradiſe, elude the place, by putting the comma after day; and ſo reade the words thus, gVid. Hag. Grot. Annot. in Luc. 23 43.Verily I ſay unto thee this day, Thou ſhalt be with me in Paradiſe. 2. I accept of Mr. Eyres obſervation, that the illative particle therefore, ſhews, that this place is a corollary or deduction from the words foregoing; and that the Apoſtles ſcope in the whole chapter foregoing, is to prove, that we are juſtified by faith, is more plain then to need proof. So that theſe words are the Concluſion of the former diſpute, iſſuing into this doctrine, That we are juſtified by faith. The uſes whereof the Apoſtle immediately ſubjoynes. But this way not taking, Mr. Eyre is provided of another, which is this.
If (ſaith he) we take the words, as commonly they are read; the ſenſe comes all to one, ſ…il. That being juſtified by Chriſt, we have peace with God: who by the faith he creates in us, cauſeth us to enjoy this reconciliation.
Rep. This is ſomewhat worſe then the former. The Apoſtle ſaith, Being juſtified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Mr. Eyre, to turne out faith from its office in Juſtification, will have the words read by tranſpoſition, Being juſtified by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt we have peace with God through faith: Or the word faith in the beginning of the verſe, muſt ſignifie our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt in the latter part of the verſe muſt be put for faith: which, as it is an intolerable liberty of interpreting Scriptures, ſo is it without all precedent in Scripture, which is neither wont to put faith for Chriſt, nor Chriſt for faith, (though both are often included, where but one is mentioned). Some (I know) do faſten ſuch a ſenſe on a text or two, but without any neceſſity or compulſory reaſon.
SECT. II.
THe next place is Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Jeſus Chriſt, §. 4.that we may be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt, and not by the works of the Law.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. That this doth no more infer that we are not juſtified before we believe, then that of our Saviour, Matth. 5. 44, 45. Love your enemies, &c.—that you may be the children of your Father in Heaven, infers, That works do go before Adoption. Things in Scripture are then ſaid to be, when they are known, manifeſted, and declared to be, Rom. 3. 26. That he might be juſt, i. e. that he might be known and acknowledged to be juſt. So John 15. 8. and 13. 35, &c. So here, That we might be juſtified, is, that we might know that we are juſtified. Not the being of our Juſtification, but the knowledge and feeling of it is a conſequent of faith.
Rep. 1. I would never deſire that any Argument of mine ſhould conclude more firmely, then that text, Mat. 5. will infer, that none are the children of God in the ſenſe there meant, before they love their enemies, and performe the other duties there enjoyned: for it is manifeſt the Lord there ſpeaks of becoming the children of God, not by adoption, but by ſimilitude of manners. Reader, ſee ver. 46, 47, 48. and give judgement impartially. Now in this way it is impoſſible to be a childe of God, till theſe things be done, and therefore that part of the anſwer ſtrengthens my Argument. 2. To Rom. 3. 26. where God is ſaid to have ſet forth his Son, &c.—that he might be juſt; I anſwer, that there is no neceſſity of underſtanding the word juſt, of being known and acknowledged to be juſt: for it will be a kinde of tautologie. To declare, I ſay, at this time his righteouſneſſe, That he may be declared to be righteous. Nor yet will it follow, that God was not juſt before; but that he had not been juſt now, if Chriſt had not ſuffered for ſinners. But if by the word juſt, be meant, declared to be juſt, it will not reach our caſe. We ſeek ſuch a ſenſe of the word Juſtification, when God is the juſtifier, and man the object, (which throughout all Mr. Eyres book is a non-inventus;) when man is the juſtifier, and God the object, ſuch a ſenſe is neceſſary: becauſe God is capable of no other Juſtification from man, as man is from God. 3. As to the thing it ſelf, I acknowledge it readily, That things are many times ſaid to be in Scripture, when they are only manifeſted and declared to be; but ſuch an interpretation is ſeldom warrantable, unleſſe the ſubject-matter invite to it, as in John 15. and 13. where the Lord ſpeaking to thoſe that were already diſciples, that if they brought forth much fruit, they ſhould be his diſciples; it is moſt natural to underſtand it of being manifeſted, or of continuing his diſciples. But we may not therefore interpret Juſtification by faith, of a manifeſtation or declaration that we are juſtified: not only becauſe the texts wherein that phraſe is uſed, ſuppoſe no Juſtification before it; but alſo, 1. Becauſe other Scriptures deny them that beleeve not, to be juſtified, John 3. 18. Rom. 3. 19, 22, 23, 24. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 11. Eph. 2. 3. and other places. And 2. Becauſe when to be in Scripture, ſignifies to be manifeſted or declared, it is underſtood perpetually of an external publike manifeſtation or declaration to many; not of an internal, ſpiritual, private diſcovery to the ſoule or conſcience of a particular perſon: for proof of which, I deſire no other witneſſe then theſe very texts, which Mr. Eyre hath here mentioned, ſuppoſing them all to be underſtood as he would have them. Our love to our enemies declares us to be the children of God: our bringing forth much fruit, declares us to be the diſciples of Chriſt, both publikely and in the ſight of many witneſſes: God is declared to be juſt, ſtill publikely, and in the judgement of many: yea, of all, good or bad, men or devils. But this ſenſe will by no meanes fit Mr. Eyres turne, for he contends for no more then, that Juſtification is manifeſted upon faith, to the believers own conſcience: nor do I think he will ſo much as pretend, that he that believes, is by his faith publikely declared to the world to be a juſtified perſon. So that neither can Juſtification by faith be allowed, to be underſtood of a declarative Juſtification; nor if it might, could it yet at all gratifie his deſign.
Of all places it cannot have that ſenſe in this text. 1. Becauſe§. 5. Juſtification by faith is expreſſely oppoſed to Juſtification by works. Knowing that a man is not juſtified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt: even we have believed in Jeſus Chriſt, that we may be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law ſhall no fleſh be juſtified. But it is moſt certain, and Mr. Eyre confeſſeth it roundly, that works do manifeſt and declare our Juſtification, page 79, 80. Ergo, by Juſtification here, is not meant the declaration or manifeſtation that a perſon is juſtified. 2. Juſtification in regard of its common nature is the ſame, whether it be by faith or works: namely, as it ſignifies a conſtituting of us juſt before God; for Chriſtians attain that righteouſneſſe by faith, which the Jewes ſought after by works: as the Apoſtle doth more largely expreſſe it, Rom. 9. 31, 32. Iſrael which followed after the Law of righteouſneſſe, have not attained to the Law of righteouſneſſe: Wherefore? becauſe they ſought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. Ergo, Juſtification, when aſcribed to faith, muſt be taken in the ſame ſenſe, as when it is denied to works. But the Jewes by their works ſought to be juſtified before God, and not ſimply, that it ſhould be manifeſted to them, that they were juſtified before their works were wrought: for they ſought to be juſtified by works, as the matter for which they ſhould be juſtified. And therefore when the Apoſtle oppoſeth himſelf directly to their principle, it is in theſe words. By the deeds of the Law ſhall no fleſh living be juſtified; that is, in the ſight of God: as it is expreſſed by the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 143. 2. and by this Apoſtle in this Argument, Rom. 3. 20, 21. Gal. 3. 11. Ergo, to be juſtified by faith in this place, is not ſimply to be aſſured of a mans Juſtification, but to be juſtified before God. 3. And becauſe Mr. Eyre doth uſe to oppoſe Juſtification by faith, to Juſtification by Chriſt; I deſire him to conſider, that Juſtification by faith, is here the very ſame with Juſtification by Chriſt; for after he had ſaid, ver. 16. We have beleeved in Chriſt, that we may be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt, he addes, ver. 17. but if while we ſeek to be juſtified by Chriſt. But to be juſtified by Chriſt, is not meerly to have it by Chriſt declared that we are juſtified. This is not only a conceſſion, but a main principle of Mr. Eyres. Ergo, to be juſtified by faith here, is not ſimply to have the knowledge of our Juſtification.
But Mr. Eyre hath another anſwer, a very ſtrange one, and that§. 6. is this. In the text it is, We have believed, that we might be juſtified by faith: ſo that from hence it can be inferred only, that we are not juſtified by faith before believing.
Rep. As if the queſtion between the Jewes and the Apoſtle were not, whether a man be juſtified ſimply by faith, or works? But whether a man were juſtified by faith, by faith or works? and the Apoſtles anſwer is to this effect; That indeed if you ſpeak of Juſtification by faith, we are juſtified by faith, and not by works. He that hath nothing elſe to do, may exerciſe his wits farther upon this acumen, if he pleaſe. If Mr. Eyre mean no more, then that we are not juſtified in conſcience before we believe, (as the latter words of his anſwer ſeem to import) then is this ſecond anſwer a meer tautologie, as being the very ſame with the former.
SECT. III.
THe next Scripture alleged is, Rom. 8. 30. Wh…m he predeſtinated, §. 7.them he alſo called: and whom he called, them he alſo juſtified: and whom he juſtified, them he alſo glorified. From whence it is manifeſt, that as glory follows Juſtification, ſo doth Juſtification follow vocation unto faith.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. That the order of words in Scripture, doth not ſhew the order and dependance of the things themſelves, 1 Sam. 6. 14, 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9. 2. The Apoſtles ſcope here, is not to ſhew in what order theſe benefits are beſtowed upon us; but how inſeparably they are linked to our predeſtination. 3. The Apoſtle here ſpeaks of Juſtification, as it is declared and terminated in our conſciences.
Rep. Mr. Eyre is the firſt of all Authors, that ever I met with, or heard of, ancient or moderne, Papiſt or Proteſtant, Remonſtrant or Contra-Remonſtrant, that ever denied the Apoſtles ſcope in this place, to be principally to ſhew the order in which the benefits mentioned are beſtowed upon us. And though I will not build my faith on humane authority; yet neither do I account it …ngenuous to deſert the ſenſe of all men gratis, without pretending at leaſt ſome reaſon for my ſingularity: but to the matter. I acknowledge, that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact, do frequently uſe a Hyſteron pr…teron, reporting thoſe things firſt, which it may be were acted laſt, or è c…ntra, as in 1 Sam. 6. 14, 15. Alſo that in a copulate axiome, where many things are attributed to one ſubject, the order many times is not attended, but the connexion only: as if I ſhould ſay of God, (as the Apoſtle doth of the Law) that he is holy, and juſt and good: or the latter is exegetical of the former: as in that of the Apoſtle, 2 Tim. 1. 9. He hath ſaved us, and called us. But 2. I do utterly deny, that ſuch manner of ſpeech as is here uſed (Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation) where ſeveral Propoſitions are linked together, the predicate of each former being the ſubject of the latter, is any where elſe to be found, but where the Speakers Purpoſe is to declare, not only the connexion, but ſpecially the order of the things themſelves. hVid. V…ſſ…um. inſtit. orat. lib. 5 cap. 8. & And. Tal…um. Rhetor. …x P. R. cap. …1.Examples hereof, out of Poets, Oratours, (Greek and Latine) and Eccleſiaſtical Writers; the Reader may ſee in almoſt every Rhetorician. Ovid. Mars videt hanc, viſámque cupit, potitúrque cupitâ. Cicero. In urbe luxuries creatur: ex luxuri… exiſtat avaritia neceſſe eſt: ex avaritiâ …rumpat audscia, &c. But let the Scriptures determine it, Rom. 5. 3, 4, 5. Affliction worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh not aſhamed: that is, (for the words are a Meioſis) giveth boldneſſe and joy, which is the thing the Apoſtle is proving; ver. 3. ſo Rom. 10. 14, 15. (where the order is retrograde) How can they call on him, on whom they have not believed? how can they believe on him, of whom they have not heard? how can they heare without a Preacher? how can they preach, unleſſe they be ſent? The wit of man cannot digeſt words more methodically, to ſhew the orderly dependance of things one upon another. As in the former example, of patience on affliction: experience on patience: hope on experience: joy on hope. And in the ſecond example, of invocation on faith, faith on hearing, hearing on preaching, preach…
3. In the preſent text, the matter is yet more clear, becauſe Predeſtination,§. 8. Vocation, Juſtification and Glorification, are all of them actions of one and the ſame efficient, tending unto one and the ſame end: and every ſecond action cumulative to the former, as the partitle alſo doth evidence. Whom he predeſtinated, them he alſo called: whom he called, them he alſo juſtified: whom he juſtified, them he alſo glorified. And though one and the ſame perſon be the object of all theſe acts; yet from the termination of each former act upon him, he becomes the more immediate object of the ſucceeding: as appears by the relative particles foreign and foreign: Whom, Them. So that the object of vocation is a perſon predeſtinated: of Juſtification a perſon called: of glorification a perſon juſtified: or elſe thoſe particles are utterly ſuperfluous, and the whole ſentence ridiculous. 4. Mr. Eyre will alſo acknowledge, that in two of theſe Propoſitions, not only connexion, but order is obſerved: namely, in the firſt; whom he predeſtinated, them he called: and the laſt; whom he juſtified, them he glorified. Yet hath he as much reaſon to deny both theſe, as the middlemoſt. And if Arminians, who acknowledge no abſolute election before faith, ſhould deny the firſt; and a Sadducee, who confeſſeth no reſurrection but what is paſt already, ſhould deny the laſt: he could not vindicate the text againſt either, but by the ſame Arguments, which will convince himſelf of errour in denying the ſecond.
5. But what doth Mr. Eyre meane to make us beleeve, when he§. 9. tells us, he can ſee no inconvenience at all, in ſaying the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of Juſtification, as declared in conſcience; whereas one would think it had been eaſie to ſee, that he is liable to a double ſhrewd inconvenience in ſo ſaying: the one is of contradicting himſelf; the other, of abuſing the text. 1. The Apoſtles ſcope here (ſaith he) is not, to ſhew in what order theſe benefits are beſtowed upon us. I wonder in which of them he breaks order. In the firſt and laſt Propoſition (as was but now obſerved) it will ſurely be granted, that he keeps order punctually: and when he ſaith in the ſecond Propoſition, whom he called, them he juſtified; I am ſure Mr. Eyre himſelf will acknowledge, that he hath hit the order as right as can be, if by Juſtification be meant that which is terminated in conſcience (as he ſpeaks.) And why then doth he deny, that the Apoſtle intends to declare the order of theſe benefits? belike, though his ſcope were not to do it; yet he had the good hap to ſtumble upon it, quite beſides his purpoſe and intention. 2. But neither can it be underſtood of Juſtification in conſcience; for the Juſtification here ſpoken of, is only and entirely Gods act: no leſſe then Predeſtination, Vocation, and Glorification: But Juſtification in conſcience is the act of conſcience, reaſoning and concluding a mans ſelfe to be juſt: and as for the expreſſion of Juſtification terminated in conſcience, let me here once for all declare againſt it; not only as not being Scriptural, but as not being very rational. For that upon which Juſtification is terminated, is that which is juſtified. But it is the man, and not his conſcience, which is juſtified. Erge, it is the perſon, and not the conſcience properly, upon which Juſtification is terminated. Paſſio as well as Actio is propriè ſuppoſiti.
SECT. IV.
ANother text which doth manifeſtly hold forth Juſtification to§. 10. be conſequent to faith is, Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his ſake alone, that righteouſneſſe was imputed to him, but for our ſakes alſo, to whom it ſhall be imputed, if we beleeve.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, that the particle (if) is uſed ſometimes declaratively, to deſcribe the perſon to whom the benefit doth belong: as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himſelf from theſe, he ſhall be a veſſel unto honour. And Heb. 3. 6. Whoſe houſe are we, if we holdfaſt our confidence, and the rejoycing of hope, &c.
Rep. Which obſervation is here miſplaced: for I am not yet diſputing the conditionality, but meerly the antecedency of faith to Juſtification. Now ſuppoſe the particle (if) be uſed ſometimes declaratively, yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares, or rather to the declaration of that thing. As ſuppoſe (which yet I do wholly deny) that a mans purging himſelf, do only manifeſt and declare that he is a veſſel of honour; yet ſurely his purging of himſelf is antecedent to that declaration or manifeſtation. As the holding faſt our confidence is alſo antecedent to our being declared to be the houſe of God. Yea, and Mr. Eyre himſelf interprets the imputation of righteouſneſſe in the text, of our knowing righteouſneſſe to be imputed to us: of which knowledge, himſelf will not deny faith to be the antecedent, yea, and more then an antecedent, even the proper effecting cauſe. And therefore to tell us beforehand, that the particle (if) doth not alwayes propound the cauſe, when by his own interpretation it muſt ſignifie the cauſe (which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent) was a very impertinent obſervation. His ſenſe of the text he thus delivers.
His righteouſneſſe is imputed to us if we believe, q. d. Hereby we may know and be aſſured, that Chriſts righteouſneſſe is imputed to us, if God hath drawn our hearts to believe.
Rep. To whom righteouſneſſe ſhall be imputed, if we beleeve, ſaith§. 11. the Apoſtle. We ſhall know that righteouſneſſe was imputed to us before we believed, ſaith Mr. Eyre, (for that is his ſenſe, though I do a little vary the words) This is an admirable gloſſe. Whereas, 1. Our knowledge, that righteouſneſſe is imputed to us is our own act: but the imputation of righteouſneſſe in the text is Gods act, not ours, ver. 6. Yea, (ſaith Mr. Eyre himſelfe, page 87. §. 13.) it is the act of God alone, and that in oppoſition to all other cauſes whatſoever, whether Miniſters of the Goſpel, or a mans own conſcience, or faith. But it is like when he wrote that, he had forgotten what he had ſaid before in this place. 2. Nor doth the text ſay, righteouſneſſe is imputed to us if we beleeve (as Mr. Eyre renders the words) but foreign. Quibus futurum eſt ut imputetur. To whom it ſhall come to paſſe that it ſhall be imputed, if we beleeve. 3. And that this imputation of righteouſneſſe cannot ſignifie our knowing it to be imputed, ſhould (methinks) be out of queſtion with Mr. Eyre. He diſputes againſt me a little below, that when the Apoſtle pleads for Juſtification by faith, the word faith muſt be taken objectively, for Chriſt: becauſe otherwiſe faith could not be oppoſed to works, foraſmuch as faith it ſelfe is a work of ours. And (ſaith the Apoſtle) in this chapter, ver. 4. To him that worketh, the reward is not imputed of grace, but of debt. Hence it follows, that that imputation is here meant, which hath no work of ours for its cauſe. But faith is clearly the cauſe of our knowing righteouſneſſe to be imputed: and that as it is a work of ours. Ergo, the imputation of righteouſneſſe here ſpoken of, is not our knowing or being aſſured that it is imputed.
4. To impute righteouſneſſe in this verſe, muſt have the ſame§▪ 12. ſenſe, as it hath ten or eleven times beſides in the chapter; and particularly, when it is ſaid, that Abrahams faith was imputed to him (not for righteouſneſſe, as we render it) but foreign, unto righteouſneſſe, ver. 3. 9, 22, 23. and unto every ſon of Abrahams faith, ver. 5. 11, 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteouſneſſe? I know, that learned and godly men give different Expoſitions. I may be the more excuſable if I am miſtaken. I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteouſneſſe is an Hebraiſme, and ſignifies properly, to reward the believer with righteouſneſſe, or more plainly, iVid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6… & Maymon. more Nevoch. 3. 53. & O… cum. in Rom. 4. 5. foreign. Et Tertull adverſ. Marcion. lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidi… & deputatum eſt juſtitiae: a…que exi…de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupa…i. Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde juſtificamur ſicut Abraham, & vitam proinde conſequimur.to give the believer a right to bleſſedneſſe, as his reward: the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical ſenſe, in which the Scriptures uſe it, when they call Heaven by glory, and eternal life by that name. And as the whole ſalvation of believers is expreſſed by its two termes, to wit, They ſhall not periſh, but ſhall have everlaſting life, John 3. 16. ſo in Juſtification there is a right given to deliverance from puniſhment, (which is the terminus à quo,) in which reſpect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of ſin: of which the Apoſtle gives an inſtance out of David, ver. 6. 7, 8. and a right to the more poſitive bleſſings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promiſe, (which is the terminus ad quem) in which reſpect it is called Juſtification of life, Rom. 5. 18. of which alſo he giveth us an inſtance in Abraham, ver. 13. for the Promiſe, that he ſhould be heire of the world, &c. In reference to which part or terme of Juſtification, it is in ſpecial manner, that Abrahams faith is ſaid to be imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe: for though thoſe Promiſes were things, which in the letter were carnal; yet in ſubſtance and ſignification they were ſpiritual, and ſo did he underſtand them, Heb. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15. and 11. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phraſe, (imputing faith unto righteouſneſſe) namely, a rewarding of the believer with a right to bleſſedneſſe, I gather from ver. 4, 5. To him that worketh, the reward is not imputed of grace, but of debt: but to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. Where the imputing of faith unto righteouſneſſe, is directly oppoſed to the imputing a reward according to works. Ergo, as the imputing works unto righteouſneſſe, were to give a right to bleſſedneſſe according to works, ſub ratione mercedis: ſo on the contrary, to impute faith unto righteouſneſſe, is to give the beleever a right and title to bleſſedneſſe, ſub ratione mercedis. The difference only is this: the former is of debt, the latter of grace, as we ſhall further ſhew anon. 2. Thus alſo we finde the Apoſtle interpreting the phraſe; for after he had ſaid, that Abraham was made the father of all them that beleeve, that righteouſneſſe might be imputed unto them alſo, ver. 11. he explains himſelf, ver. 13. for the Promiſe was not to Abraham or his ſeed by the Law, but by the righteouſneſſe of faith. The reaſon whereof he renders, ver. 16. That it might be by grace, that the Promiſe might be ſure to all the ſeed. So that the eſtabliſhing of the Promiſe to Abraham, and all that walk in the ſteps of his faith, (by which a right to life is given both to him and them) is the imputationVid. Dav Paraeum Dub. ex…lic. in Rom. 4. Dub. 3. of righteouſneſſe to them. 3. The ſame phraſe is uſed of Phineas, Pſal. 106. 30, 31. Then ſtood up Phineas, and executed judgement,—And it was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe, unto all generations for evermore. The meaning of which words is eaſie to be learned from the ſtory it ſelf, Numb. 25. 12, 13. Wherefore ſay, Behold, I give unto him my Covenant of Peace. And he ſhall have it, and his ſeed after him, even the Covenant of an everlaſting Prieſthood. The Promiſe of the continuance of the Prieſthood in his line, from one generation to another, as the reward of his zeal, is that which the Pſalmiſt calls, the imputing it to him unto righteouſneſſe to all generations. Indeed the phraſe there is not altogether ſo comprehenſive as it is here, becauſe the Promiſe made him was but of one particular bleſſing, and ſo could not conſtitute him righteous univerſally, but only in part, and as to that particular bleſſing which the Promiſe gave him right to. Yet it ſhews the Scripture-ſenſe of the phraſe as ſufficiently, as when the ſame phraſe is uſed with reference unto faith, to ſhew, that thereby we obtain the reward of an univerſal righteouſneſſe. 4. The imputation of righteouſneſſe, in reſpect of the terminus à quo, is all one with the non-imputation of ſin, ver. 6, 8. and what is it to non-impute ſin, but not to render the wages of ſin, by deſtroying the guilt and puniſhment of it? 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo, to impute faith unto righteouſneſſe, is to reward it with a right to impunity and bleſſedneſſe: though this reward be not of debt, but of grace. This therefore being the ſenſe of the phraſe throughout the whole Chapter, we leave Mr. Eyres gloſſe to go ſeek entertainment where it can finde it.
SECT. V.
THere remain three texts more, which I mentioned in my Sermon;§. 13. to prove, that Juſtification follows faith: namely, Acts 10. 43. Through his Name, whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhall receive remiſſion of ſin. And 26. 18.—To turne them from darkneſſe to light, and from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveneſſe of ſin, and an inheritance amongſt all them that are ſanctified through faith. And 13. 39. By him all that believe are juſtified from all things, from which you could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes.
To the two former Mr. Eyre anſwers. That the giving of remiſſion, and receiving it, are two things. The former is Gods act, and the latter is ours. A Prince may pardon a Malefactour, and he thereby is ſecured from puniſhment, though it come not to his hands for a good whiles after.
Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken ſometimes actively; as when we are ſaid to receive God and Chriſt, and his Word, Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely, by believing. Sometimes it is taken paſſively, in which ſenſe, giving and receiving are not two acts, but one and the ſame; as when we are ſaid to receive the reward of inheritance, Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life, Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold, Matth. 19. 29. In all which (and the like) places, our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance, eternal life, a hundred fold. And thus to receive remiſſion of ſin, is all one with Gods giving remiſſion, or to have our ſins remitted and pardoned. In this ſenſe do our Proteſtants underſtand Receiving remiſſion through faith, as was before obſerved out of Contarenus. So do the Scriptures alſo, Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under ſin, That the Promiſe (to wit, of Juſtification) by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, might be given to them that beleeve. In which place, Gods giving righteouſneſſe by the Promiſe, and our receiving it, are one and the ſame act: compare ver. 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteouſneſſe, ſhall reigne in life, &c. Whence alſo it is manifeſt, that Gods giving, and our receiving, are both one act. Therefore this giving or receiving of righteouſneſſe, is called, the coming of grace or righteouſneſſe upon us, ver. 18. As by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even ſo by the righteouſneſſe of one, the free gift came upon all men unto Juſtification. 2. The receiving of remiſſion muſt be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe, as the receiving of the inheritance: for they are joyned both together in the text, Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgiveneſſe of ſin, and an inheritance. But for us to receive the inheritance, is no more, then to be made partakers of the inheritance: not by any act of ours, but by the free and effectual gift of God. 3. To receive remiſſion, what act of ours is it? Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly, but by his anſwers to former texts, and his inſtance here of a Malefactour pardoned before he knowes it. I preſume he meanes, that it is our knowledge of our ſins being remitted. But ſuch a knowledge is not wont to follow ſo preſently and immediately upon believing, as pardon of ſin is every where in Scripture ſuppoſed to do: (unleſſe it be in thoſe who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their firſt Converſion unto God.) But moſt Chriſtians attain not to ſuch a knowledge, till after long ſearchings and experience: and it is very improper to ſay, a man receives ſuch an act of his own, which himſelfe works out with much labour and travel of minde: if our knowledge of remiſſion were by immediate revelation, or enthuſiaſtical inſpiration, the expreſſion were much more tolerable. 4. To the inſtance of a Malefactour that may be pardoned, though he do not know it till a great while after; I anſwer in the words of kChriſt ſet forth p. 26, …7.Reverend Dr. Godwin. Gods Promiſes of forgiveneſſe are not as the pardons of a Prince, which meerly contain an expreſſion of his royal word for pardoning;—But as if a Prince ſhould offer to pardon a Traitour, upon marriage with his childe, whom in and with that pardon he offers in ſuch a relation. So as all that would have pardon, muſt firſt ſeek out for his childe: and thus it is in the matter of believing.—The Promiſes hang all upon Chriſt: and without him there is no intereſt to be had in them. He that hath the Sonne, hath life. 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor.
To Acts 13. 39. Mr. Eyre anſwers. That the Apoſtle ſhews§. 14. the excellency of the Goſpel above the Law, in that 1. The Law did not cleanſe from all ſin. 2. And but in an external, typical manner. 3. And that by ſacrifice after ſacrifice, &c.
Rep. All which things I readily grant. Yet, 1. Some kinde of pardon there was under the Law, which did neceſſarily ſuppoſe a coming unto thoſe ſacrifices, Heb. 10. 1. The people were not firſt pardoned, and then came to the offering of ſacrifice, or to the Prieſt. So doth alſo the more perfect pardon under the Goſpel, neceſſarily preſuppoſe a coming by faith to the true High-Prieſt, the Lord Jeſus, that ſinners may partake therein. 2. When the Scriptures do ſo conſtantly require faith unto Juſtification, and faith only: (for proof of which, Mr. Eyre confeſſeth, my Concordance would furniſh me with many more places then I have taken notice of) I will never be brought to beleeve, that it is required as a conſequent of Juſtification: for all Chriſtian graces and duties are required as conſequents, as well as faith, (even by Mr. Eyres grant.) Nor yet that by Juſtification is meant our knowledge and aſſurance, that we are juſtified: becauſe unto that alſo many other things may be required, and not faith only. As for example, ſelf-examination, and proving of our ſelves, 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence, in adding one grace to another, 2 Pet. 1. 5, 6, 7, 10. a good conſcience towards God and man, and a keeping of the Commandments of Chriſt, 1 John 3. 20, 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren, 1 John 3. 18, 19, 14. and the like.
And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts, proving Faith's antecedency to Juſtification. By all which the Reader may ſee, that when I ſaid, the only anſwer made to theſe Texts was, That Juſtification is to be underſtood of that which is evidenced in conſcience; this account is true and perfect, though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect; there being not one of all the places mentioned, but what he anſwers to by ſuch a temperament of the word Juſtification. It was therefore neceſſary that I ſhould prove, that when the Apoſtle pleads for Juſtification by faith, he is to be underſtood of Juſtification before God, and not of that which is in the Court of Conſcience. To which end I advanced foure Arguments in my Sermon: the aſſerting of which againſt Mr. Eyres exceptions, is my next undertaking.