The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 4

The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners · Chapter 4

p. 64CHAP. IV.

An Anſwer to Mr. Eyres eighth Chapter, and part of the Ninth. His ſaying and unſaying. Many Arguments proving, that when we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, faith is to be taken proving, that when we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, faith is be taken properly, for the faith in us, and not for Chriſt. Faith and works, how oppoſed in the matter of Juſtification. That we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Juſtification virtually, or axiomatically, or ſyllogiſtically. Sinners, according to Mr. Eyre, the cauſes of their own Juſtification. Nor is Juſtification taken properly in all the Scriptures, as he expounds it.

SECT. I.

THe firſt Argument proving, that when the Apoſtle§. 1. pleads for Juſtification by faith, he is to be underſtood of Juſtification before God, or in the ſight of God: and not in the Court of Conſcience, is this. The Queſtion between him and the Jewes was not, whether we were declared to be juſtified by faith or works, but whether we were juſtified by faith or works in the ſight of God. And he concludes, that it is by faith, and not by works, Rom. 3. 20, 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants; but will have the Apoſtle by the word faith to underſtand, not the act or habit of faith, but the object; ſcil. Chriſts righteouſneſſe, or righteouſneſſe imputed. His reaſon is, becauſe elſe there were no oppoſition between faith and works: ſeeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no leſſe then love. Yet when the Apoſtle diſputes for Juſtification by faith, Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct oppoſition to works, and for the imputation of faith unto righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4. ſtill as oppoſed to works, ver. 4, 5. we were told that juſtifying and imputing were the manifeſtation of Juſtification and Imputation: But now we have another anſwer, which overthrows the former; namely, that faith is to be taken for p. 59Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe? What aileth thee, O Jordan, that thou art turned backward? Yea, he will not allow, that the Apoſtle hath any queſtion with them about the time when, or the con…tion upon which we are juſtified. Yet I think all men beſides himſelf will grant, that his deſigne is to ſhew the way and meanes, by which a ſinner may come to be juſtified. Though I confeſſe I ſee not how Mr. Eyre can grant this. For if the Juſtification of all that are juſtified, be abſolute and perfect in the death of Chriſt, (as he ſuppoſeth) then from that time there can no way be preſcribed to a ſinner, no counſel given him, what courſe to take, that he may be juſtified. Only he may be told, that if he be juſtified, the way to know it, is to beleeve. And when the Jewes ſay, We muſt be juſtified by works, and the Apoſtle, By faith: they are both out, for we are juſtified by neither. And the Gentiles were in an errour, in ſeeking to be juſtified by faith, as well as the Jewes in ſeeking it by works: if they ſeek any thing more then to know that they are juſtified.

But becauſe Mr. Eyre doth ſo often take Sanctuary at this notion,§. 2. that ſaith is put for its object, Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe, (though he give us not one text that may convince us of it) we muſt of neceſſity examine the truth of it. And yet when I conſider, how preſumptuous and irrational the conceit is in it ſelfe: and how ſolidly already confuted by Mr. aaDe re… on… p…c par. 2. l 1. c. 15.Wotton: who alſo hath ſet down the teſtimonies of no leſſe then fourty Authours, Fathers and Proteſtants, beſides Papiſts, all co…ſenting with him: I confeſſe, I can hardly think it worth my labour; yet ſomething muſt be done, this only being premiſed, (which hath alſo been before obſerved) That when our Proteſtants ſometimes ſay, the word faith, (in this Propoſition, we are juſtified by faith) is to be taken objectively: they intend not to exclude faith it ſelfe from its concurrence to our Juſtification: (as Mr. Eyre doth) for we have ſhewed in the firſt Chapter, their unanimous conſent, in making faith the inſtrument or condition of our Juſtification. But only to deny it to be the matter or meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification: which they truly ſay is only the righteouſneſſe of Jeſus Chriſt, who is the object of our faith. So that we are juſtified by Chriſt as the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification: and yet by faith as the inſtrument or condition, upon which the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt hath effect upon us, to our Juſtification. And ſo I come to prove, that faith is to be taken ſubjectively, for the grace or act of faith, not objectively for p. 66Chriſt, throughtout the Apoſtles diſcourſe for Juſtification by faith.

SECT. II.

1. SUch an Interpretation of the words, as makes non-ſenſe of moſt§. 3. of the Scriptures, which ſpeak of Juſtification by faith, is not to be admitted. But to put faith for Chriſt beleeved on, makes non-ſenſe of moſt of thoſe texts, which ſpeak of Juſtification by faith. Ergo. For proof of the minor, we ſhall begin, where the Apoſtle begins to diſpute for Juſtification by faith, Rom. 3. 21, 22. But now the righteouſneſſe of God without the Law is manifeſted, even the righteouſneſſe of God, which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt: put faith for Chriſt believed or, and the words run thus, Even the righteouſneſſe of God, which is by Chriſt of Jeſus Chriſt: or put it for the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, and they run thus, Even the righteouſneſſe of God, which is by righteouſneſſe of Jeſus Chriſt, unto all, and upon all that beleeve. Almoſt the very ſame words doth this Apoſtle uſe, Phil. 3. 9. That I may be found in him, not having my own righteouſneſſe, but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith. Where, in like manner, if faith be put for righteouſneſſe, we muſt reade the words thus, Not having my own righteouſneſſe, but that which is through the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God through righteouſneſſe. I hope the Reader doth not expect, that I ſhould ſpend time in confuting theſe abſurd paraphraſes: I count that ſufficiently done in mentioning them. In the ſame Chapter to the Romanes, ver. 25. Whom God h…h ſet forth, to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. According to Mr. Eyre we muſt reade it, Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through Chriſt in his blood; or at beſt, through righteouſneſſe in his blood. But his blood being here ſet forth, as the object of the faith mentioned in the text: the blood of Chriſt muſt be made the object of his righteouſneſſe, if by faith be meant righteouſneſſe: which will reſolve the words into a pretty piece of ſenſe. Again, ver. 26. God through the death of Chriſt, is ſaid to be the Juſtifier of him that beleeveth in Jeſus. What's that? of him that chriſteth in Jeſus? or what is it? It is an eaſie matter to ſay, that faith is put for Chriſt or his righteouſneſſe: but the miſchief is, the ſubſtantive cannot be varied p. 67into a verbe or participle, to make an intelligible Propoſition; for example, We are juſtified by faith: that is, (will Mr. Eyre ſay) by Chriſt, or his righteouſneſſe. But then change the ſubſtantive into a verbe or participle, and give me the ſenſe of it. As, He that beleeveth in Chriſt is juſtified. If faith be put for Chriſt, what is it to beleeve in Chriſt? or what do we mean, when we ſay, We are juſtified by faith in Jeſus Chriſt? We are juſtified by Chriſt in Jeſus Chriſt? or by righteouſneſſe in Jeſus Chriſt? This latter, I confeſſe, hath a more tolerable ſound, but not a grain more of ſenſe. For when we ſay, We are juſtified by faith in Chriſt, Chriſt in that Propoſition is the object of faith, and we the ſubject. But if faith ſignifie righteouſneſſe, then Chriſt is the object of his own righteouſneſſe. Of the non-ſenſe of this Interpretation, the Reader ſhal ſee more in that which follows. 2. Juſtification by Chriſt or his righteouſneſſe was finiſhed in his death, (according to Mr. Eyre) Ergo, if faith ſignifie Chriſt or his righteouſneſſe, we were juſtified by faith, as ſoon as Chriſt was dead. But many yeares after Chriſts death, there were many who were to be juſtified by faith, Rom. 3. 30. It is one God foreign (in the future tenſe) which ſhall juſtifie the circumciſion and uncircumciſion, (that is, Jewes and Gentiles) by faith, which is the application of the general Concluſion, ver. 28. We conclude, That a man is juſtified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Ergo, they were not juſtified by faith as ſoon as Chriſt was dead.

3. But becauſe Mr. Eyre, by his marginal Annotation, referres us§. 4. to Rom. 4. let us make ſome enquiry into that Chapter. And if we prove, that faith in that Chapter, is meant of the act, not of the object, this controverſie is ended. We begin with the third verſe, Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. What can be more plain, then that it was Abrahams believing which was imputed to him, (of the ſenſe of that phraſe we have ſpoke already) even as when it is ſaid of Phineas, Pſal. 106. 30, 31. Then ſtood up Phineas, and executed judgement.—And it was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. I appeal to common ſenſe, whether his executing of judgement were not the thing that was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe? or if ſomething be to be underſtood which is not expreſſed: let every mans fancie be left to its liberty, to ſupply what he ſees ſit, and we ſhall be much the better for the Scriptures. 2. The ſame is alſo delivered more generally of all believers, ver. 5. To him that worketh not, but beleeveth, his faith is imputed to him unto p. 68righteouſneſſe. If there had been no more ſpoken in all the chapter, this had been enough to prove, that by faith here is meant the act, not the object. For 1. It is the expreſſe letter of the text, To him that worketh not, but believeth. 2. That faith is here meant, which is a mans own, before it be imputed. His faith is imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. But the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is no mans before it be imputed. If it be, let us know what act that is, diſtinct from imputation, and antecedent to it, by which Chriſts righteouſneſſe is made ours. 3. That faith is here meant, which is ſo a mans owne, as that in individuo it is no bodies elſe. But Chriſts righteouſneſſe is not ſo any one mans, as to be no bodies elſe: for then ſhould be but one man in the world, to whom the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt were imputed. The Propoſition is manifeſt: becauſe the faith here ſpoken of, is determined to the perſon of the beleever. To him that beleeveth, foreign HIS faith is imputed. And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumciſion, ver. 11. And the truth is, that otherwiſe (I mean, if His faith be His Chriſt) Abrahams faith, or Davids faith, or any other Chriſtians faith may be ſaid to be imputed unto us, with the very ſame propriety of ſpeech, as it is ſaid to be imputed to him or them. 4. If faith be here put for Chriſt or his righteouſneſs, the words are non-ſenſe. Put faith for righteouſneſs, and the words run thus. But unto him that believeth, his righteouſneſs is imputed to him for righteouſneſs. What ſenſe is that? or put it for Chriſt, and they run thus, But unto him that believeth, his Chriſt is impured to him unto righteouſneſs. But what is it to impute Chriſt unto righteouſneſſe? I know he is ſaid to be made unto us righteouſneſs; 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wiſdom and Sancti…ication, that is, the Authour of both: but to impute him unto righteouſneſſe is a barbariſme. To ſay nothing of the inſolency of that phraſe (His Chriſt) in Scripture; and of making Chriſt, as diſtinct from his righteouſneſſe, the object of juſtifying faith.

3. We have already proved, that to impute faith unto righteouſneſſe,§. 5. is to reward the believer with a right to life. If then faith be put for Chriſt; to impute faith unto righteouſneſſe, is to reward Chriſt with righteouſneſſe. And if for righteouſneſſe, it is to reward righteouſneſſe with righteouſneſſe: both which are abſurd. 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteouſneſſe, was the faith which he had, being yet uncircumciſed, ver. 10, 11. If faith do here ſignifie Chriſts righteouſneſſe, the words ſound thus, p. 69The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which he had in his uncircumciſion, was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. And becauſe he could not have it but by imputation, therefore the full ſenſe will be this. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which was imputed to him in his uncircumciſion, was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. Spectatum admiſſi, &c.

5. Conſider we alſo what is ſaid, ver. 9, 10, 11, 12. from whence§. 6. we advance three Arguments more. 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful, and the father of the faithful, was the habit or grace of faith, not the object. A conjugatis. Even as it is the habit of wiſdom, goodneſs, temperance, &c. from whence a man is denominated wiſe, good, temperate, &c. but the faith which was imputed to him, was that from whence he was denominated faithful, and the father of the faithful; for faith was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe, ſaith the Apoſtle, ver. 9. and that in his uncircumciſion, ver. 10. foreign, that he might become the father of all the faithful, that are in uncircumciſion, that righteouſneſſe might be imputed to them alſo, ver. 11. (for ſo ſtands the connexion of the ſentences: and the beginning of this, ver. 11. And he received Circumciſion, &c. is anſwered immediately by ver. 12. And the father of circumciſion, &c.) The like Argument doth this Apoſtle uſe elſewhere, Gal. 3. 9. They which be of the faith, be bleſſed with faithful Abraham. 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing, then Abrahams faith ſignifies his believing, and not Chriſts righteouſneſſe. The reaſon is, becauſe to be a childe of Abrahams faith, is to follow or imitate him, in that which is called his faith (as when Mr. Eyre calls me a ſonne of Mr. Baxters faith). And if we are like him by believing, then believing is the quality wherein the ſimilitude conſiſts, between him the Father, and us the children. But we become the children of Abrahams faith, (even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe) by believing, ver. 10. The father of all them that beleeve, ver. 11. That walk in the ſteps of father Abrahams faith, Who are alſo called the ſeed of the faith of Abraham, ver. 16. 3. And I would, that Mr. Eyre or ſome body elſe, would make ſenſe of the Apoſtles words, if faith be put for Chriſts righteouſneſſe, ver. 12. Abraham became the father of Circumciſion, to them that walk in the ſteps of his faith. What is that? Why to them that walk in his Chriſts righteouſneſſe. I am even ſick of this non-ſenſe: let me adde one word more, that I may rid my ſelf of this nauſ…ous work.

6. The faith ſpoken of throughout this chapter, is that which is§. 7. p. 70deſcribed at large from ver. 18. to the end, where it is ſaid, that Abraham againſt hope, believed in hope. And being not weak in faith, he conſidered not his own nor Sarahs age, ver. 19. That he ſtaggered not at the Promiſe of God through unbelief, but was ſtrong in faith, ver. 20. And was fully perſwaded, that what God had promiſed, he was able alſo to perform, ver. 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe, is manifeſt from the very next verſe, ver. 22. And therefore it …as imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe. To make this the deſcription of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, would render the ſenſe ſo beyond meaſure ridiculous, that I profeſſe (Reader) I am afraid to repreſent it to thee in a paraphraſe, leſt ſome prophane wits ſhould take occaſion to make this bleſſed Word of God the object of their deriſion and contempt.

I might adde, that by the ſame reaſon that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, another may make as bold to interpret it, of the Wiſdome, Power, Goodneſs, Faithfulneſs, or any other Attribute of God, (for theſe alſo are the objects of faith) and ſo to be juſtified by faith, is to be juſtified by the Wiſdome of God, or by his Goodneſs, &c. every line in Scripture that ſpeaks of Juſtification by faith, will be as good ſenſe thus expounded, as if faith be put for Chriſts righteouſneſſe, unleſs it be in thoſe places, where faith is particularly and expreſſely determined to Chriſt as its object, and in all ſuch places Mr. Eyre himſelf will ſurely interpret faith for the act, not for the object.

SECT. III.

NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre oppoſeth, to§. 8. prove, that faith muſt be put for its obiect, the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. Elſe (ſaith he) the Apoſtle contradicts himſelf, in oppoſing Juſtification by faith, to Juſtification by works: becauſe faith it ſelfe is a work of ours.

Anſw. But by his favour, I will rather beleeve that he contradicts the Apoſtle, (and that as perfectly, as if he had ſtudied to do it on purpoſe) then that the Apoſtle contradicts himſelf. For it is as manifeſt as light can make it, that it is the act of believing which the Apoſtle oppoſeth to works, Rom. 4. 4, 5. To him that worketh, p. 71the reward is imputed of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth, &c. Not working is oppoſed to works. Beleeving is not working (with the Apoſtle) Ergo, believing is oppoſed to works. Judge then who will (for I am indifferent in ſo juſt a cauſe) whether the Apoſtle contradict himſelfe, or Mr. Eyre him. 2. The oppoſition between faith and works in the matter of Juſtification, ſtands thus according to Scripture, That he that worketh, doth himſelf effect that righteouſneſſe for which he is juſtified: perſonal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man, to make him juſt before God. And hence righteouſneſſe by works, or by the Law, is called our own righteouſneſſe, Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth, doth by the gift of God partake in the righteouſneſſe of another, even of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, for which only he is juſtified. And hence righteouſneſſe by faith is oppoſed to our own righteouſneſſe, Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteouſneſſe, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith. So that he that is juſtified by works, is juſtified for his own ſake: but he that is juſtified by faith, is juſtified for anothers ſake.§. 9.

But becauſe this is the total ſumme of all Mr. Eyre hath to ſay, for the abuſe of the word Faith, from its own native ſenſe, to a tropical; I ſhall ſet down my anſwer more fully. I diſtinguiſh therefore, 1. Of works. 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action; and ſo no doubt but faith is a work; ſo is laughing, crying, ſpeaking, reaſoning and the like. 2. Strictly, for that obedience by which the righteouſneſſe of the Law is fulfilled, (really, or in conceit) and ſo they are uncapable of an ordinability to, or of being made the conditions of our Juſtification, by the righteouſneſſe of another. In this ſenſe doth the Apoſtle take works, when he oppoſeth them to faith, bbVid, Conra…. Vorſt. Schol. in loc.Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh, the reward is imputed of debt; and ver. 2. If Abraham were j…ſtified by works, he hath whereof to glory. Both which Propoſitions were falſe, if works were any thing leſſe then perfect legal righteouſneſſe: for he had ſaid before, that there is no glorying for a ſinner before God, **Vid. Joh. Piſcat. Schol. in loc. ex Olev. Calvin.Rom. 3. 23. (Not that I think the Jewes themſelves, (who ſought righteouſneſſe by works) did conceive they were able ſo to keep the Law▪ as not at all to ſin: but rather thought (ſuch was their blindneſſe) that the Law was ſufficiently kept to Juſtification, if they forbore the outward acts of ſin, and performed the outward act of duty, ccJoſeph. Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. & Joh. Reynol. Co…f. with Hart. ch. 7. D. 4. p. 264.neglecting the inward purity▪ p. 72of heart:) ddSic M…rmon. in … Te….or if their good works were more then their evil works: or finally, if they did perform thoſe ceremonial obſervances, which were required in the Law for the expiation of ſinne, Mat…h. 19. 18, 19. and 23. 25, 26, 27, 28. Luke 18. 11, 12. Phil. 3. 6. Againſt which conceit of theirs, the grand Argument which the Apoſtle oppoſeth is this, That all had ſinned againſt the Law. Rom. 3. 19, 20, 23. and therefore none could be juſtified by the Law; for it is written, Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them, Gal. 3. 10, 11.) Now works being taken in this ſtrict ſenſe, it is manifeſt, that faith is not works: no eeFidem non eſ…e opus▪ Vi…. C… m…ron▪ pr…lect. in M…. 16. …7. op…r p. 47, 48.nor a work, as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous: as the Apoſtle expreſſely witneſſeth, Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith (that is, requires not faith in order to Juſtification) but the man that doth them, ſhall live in them.

2. When we ſpeak of Juſtification by works, and of Juſtification§. 10. by faith, the particle (By) hath not the ſame ſenſe in both Propoſitions. But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteouſneſſe for which a perſon is juſtified: in the latter, it denotes faith to be the meanes or condition, upon which we receive the gift of Chriſts righteouſneſs. Of the uſe of that particle in ſuch a ſenſe, the Reader ſhall finde many inſtances in anſwer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter. When then he diſputes, that if we are juſtified by faith in a proper ſenſe, we are juſtified by works, becauſe faith is a work; I deny the conſequence with the proof of it. The former, becauſe to be juſtified by faith, is to be juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of another through faith, as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us: but to be juſtified by works, is to be juſtified by and for a righteouſneſſe wrought by our ſelves. The latter, becauſe faith is not a work, as the Apoſtle uſeth works: that is, no part of that righteouſneſſe for which we are juſtified. What can be objected againſt this, the Reader will meet with in the following diſcourſe. In the mean time, I deſire him to have recourſe hither for anſwer to this Argument, in all the following places (which are very many) wherein it is objected againſt me: that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies, even unto nauſeouſneſſe.

p. 73SECT. IV.

THe ſecond general Argument proving, that Juſtification by§. 11. faith, is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Juſtification, is this. It cannot be imagined how faith ſhould evidence to us our Juſtification but one of theſe three wayes. Either as an Argument affected to prove it, or axiomatically, or ſyllogiſtically, (which termes, becauſe Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obſcurity, we ſhall endeavour to explain as we come to them). But we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reference to faiths evidencing our Juſtification in any of theſe three wayes. Ergo, we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, becauſe of faiths evidencing our Juſtification. This (Reader) is the ſumme and ſcope of my ſecond Argument: which I have here ſet down diſtinctly, that thou mayeſt not be lead into a miſtake, common to Mr. Eyre, with ſome of my own friends (as themſelves have told me) as if I had denied all uſe of faith, in evidencing Juſtification: which is as farre from my judgement, as the Eaſt is from the Weſt. I confeſſe I have little cauſe to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus miſtaken: becauſe there is an ellipfis in my words, which might give ſome occaſion of ſuch a miſapprehenſion; for whereas it is ſaid (in my Sermon, page 3.) It is a moſt unſound Aſſertion, that faith doth evidence our Juſtification before faith. The full ſentence ſhould have been this. It is an unſound Aſſertion, that we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, becauſe that faith doth evidence our Juſtification before faith. The proof of this is the manifeſt tendency of every branch of this Argument, and of each Argument under each branch. And I am apt to think Mr. Eyre himſelf ſo underſtood me, when he comes to particulars; for he doth not once charge them with impertinency, (which he might have done with advantage enough, if it had not been clear, that they were all levelled at another ſcope, then ſimply to prove, that faith is of no uſe to evidence Juſtification.) As to the thing it ſelf, I am ſo far from denying faith to evidence our Juſtification, that I do aſſert as followeth. 1. As the word evidence ſignifies, that which is affected to argue another thing, ſo faith doth … vidence our Juſtification, yea, and is the firſt thing that doth evidence it. 2. Faith doth alſo evidence Juſtification axiomatically to all p. 74thoſe that have a particular teſtimony from God, that they are juſtified. As thoſe whom Chriſt tells in the Goſpel, that their ſinnes were forgiven them, Matth. 9. 2, 5. Luke 5. 20, 23. and 7. 47, 48. If any man now living hath the like teſtimony from God, that his ſins are forgiven, he hath no better way to evidence it to himſelfe, then without any more ado, to beleeve that they are forgiven. 3. Faith doth alſo concurre to the evidencing of Juſtification ſyllogiſtically, but then the whole evidence is not of faith, as we ſhall ſhew by and by. I do therefore acknowledge the uſe of faith in evidencing Juſtification, in all thoſe wayes by which it may be evidenced; though not of faith only in the laſt, nor at all in the ſecond; unleſſe there be any man that hath heard God ſaying to him, Thy ſins are forgiven thee.

Come we on then to the proof of particulars. And firſt, that we§. 12. cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reſpect of faiths evidencing our Juſtification as an Argument, or particularly as an effect thereof. To evidence Juſtification as an Argument, is no more then for faith to have ſuch a relation unto Juſtification, as that where the one is, the other muſt needs be alſo: and he that knows the relation they have to each other, cannot but know that where faith is, there Juſtification muſt needs alſo be. Even as laughing and crying may be ſaid to evidence reaſon in a childe (though it may not evidence it to the childe himſelf, becauſe he knows not the dependance of theſe actions upon his reaſon) ſo we ſay, where there is ſmoak there is ſome fire. Groanings argue ſome ill affection in the body, and generally every effect doth argue and evidence its cauſe, to them that know the connexion between the cauſe and effect. Mr. Eyre diſclaims faiths evidencing in this way: though in anſwer to Rom. 4. 24. above debated (of his Book, pag. 44. §. 6.) he hath as plainly yielded it as can be, in theſe words, Hereby we may know and be aſſured, that Chriſts righteouſneſſe is imputed to us, that we, whether Jewes or Gentiles, are the perſons to whom this grace belongs; if God hath drawn our hearts to beleeve and obey the Goſpel: in regard that none do or can beleeve, but ſuch as are ordained to life, and to obtain ſalvation by Jeſus Chriſt. What is this, but that faith doth evidence our Juſtification as an Argument: ſeeing that where one is, the other is alſo: where there is faith there is Juſtification. It ſeems the ſame thing is good Divinity out of Mr. Eyres mouth: but out of mine, an errour. Yet though Mr. Eyre will not owne, that faith doth evidence Juſtification in this p. 75way, he thinks fit to give his Reader, his ſenſe of my Reaſons.

There are therefore three Reaſons in my Sermon, why we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reſpect of faiths evidencing our Juſtification as an Argument. The firſt is this. Becauſe then Juſtification by faith, is not neceſſarily ſo much as Juſtification in conſcience. A Chriſtian may have faith, and yet not have the evidence that he is juſtified. As a childe may laugh and cry, and yet not have the evidence or clear knowledge, that himſelfe hath reaſon, &c.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. By intimating, that this agrees not with what I allege out of the Apoſtle, 1 John 3. 20. to prove, that if our hearts condemn us, God doth much more condemn us. 2. If faith did evidence only as a ſigne, it would be a dark and unſatisfying evidence. 3. Nothing that precedes faith, doth prove a man juſtified: nothing that follows it, is ſo apt to prove it as faith it ſelfe. 4. Whereſoever there is faith, there is ſome evidence of this grace. In the leaſt ſpark of fire, and the leaſt twinkling ſtarre, there is ſome light.

Rep. To the firſt I ſay, that it never came into my minde to prove, that God condemns every one, whom his own conſcience condemns: but that if conſcience condemns truly, then the judgement thereof is according to the judgement of God, and ſo God condemns as well as conſcience. But if a beleevers heart ſhall tell him that he is not juſtified, and his ſins not pardoned; his conſcience is erroneous and judgeth otherwiſe then God judgeth. 2. The two next anſwers are like chips in pottage, that do neither good nor hurt, as I ſee. When I can underſtand, whether they make with me or againſt me; I ſhall conſider them farther. 3. The fourth anſwer, that whoſoever hath faith, hath ſome evidence of his Juſtification, (for that he meanes by grace, or elſe its nothing to the purpoſe) I deny utte… ly: if by evidence he mean, not that which would prove it, if it were rightly underſtood: but a mans actual knowledge that he is juſtified. And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it? why, the leaſt ſpark of fire hath ſome light, and the leaſt twinkling ſtarre. True. So the leaſt degree of true faith hath that in it, which if it were rightly apprehended would make ſome diſcovery that a man were juſtified. But theſe ſparks of fire give no light at all, when they lie buried under heaps of aſhes: and ſuch black and d…ſmal clouds may cover the face of the Heavens, that we cannot ſee, not only the leſſer ſtars, p. 76but not thoſe of greateſt magnitude. And the Scripture teſtifieth, not only poſitively, that a gracious ſoule may walk in darkneſſe; but to expreſſe the greatneſſe of this darkneſſe, addes an univerſal negative. And may ſee no light, that is, (as ffChilde of light. page 5. 6, 8, 9, 10.Dr. Godwin hath excellently proved) he may be without all evidence of his Juſtification, of which the ſaid Doctor gives ſeveral inſtances, in David, Job, Heman, and Chriſt himſelf; and propoſeth largely the cauſes and cure of ſuch darkneſſe: in all which, he hath beſtowed a great deal of excellent and acceptable paines to no purpoſe, if Mr. Eyres doctrine here be true. How many ſoules have I known, and ggSee Mr. Tho. Brookes, Heaven upon earth. page 65, 66.heard of in ſuch a condition? If it be ſaid, we may be miſtaken in men; I acknowledge it. But withal, I am not bound to beleeve impoſſibilities and contradictions. If I muſt beleeve that it is poſſible for them to have true faith, even whiles they have not the leaſt ſpark or twinkling evidence of Gods juſtifying pardoning love: then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be univerſally true; That whereſoever there is faith, there is ſome evidence of Juſtification. And (me thinks) he ſhould not have expected, that we ſhould take his word againſt Scripture and experience both. 2. Yet if all this were granted, it comes not up to our caſe, when the Scriptures ſay, He that believes ſhall be juſtified: it ſurely ſpeaks of a Juſtification, which is the ſame equally unto all that beleeve. And for Mr. Eyre to ſay, every one that believes hath ſome evidence of Juſtification, though it may be not ſo much as another, is to ſay, one believer may be more juſtified then another, which we deſire him to prove, the Scriptures imply the contrary, Romanes 3. 29, 30. and 4. 23, 24. and 10. 12.

The ſecond Argument, to prove that we are not ſaid to be juſtified§. 13. by faith, in reſpect of faiths evidencing our Juſtificarion as an effect, was, becauſe faith is not the effect of Juſtification: for if it be, then we may as truly be ſaid to be faithed by our Juſtification, as to be juſtified by our faith: and in ſtead of ſaying, Beleeve and thou ſhalt be juſtified; we muſt ſay hence-forward, Thou art juſtified, therefore beleeve.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, That he ſees no abſurdity at all, in ſaying, That faith is from Juſtification cauſally. That grace which juſtifies us, is the cauſe and fountain of all good things, and more eſpecially of faith, 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29.

Rep. Is it then no abſurdity, to ſet the Scriptures upon their heads? we are ſaid in Scripture to beleeve unto righteouſneſſe or p. 77Juſtification, Rom. 10. 10. and were it no abſurdity to ſay, we are made righteous, or juſtified unto believing? when the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition: but of them that beleeve unto the ſaving of the ſoule. Surely the particle unto doth in both ſentences denote the iſſue and conſequence: in the former, perdition of drawing back: in the latter, ſalvation of believing. 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Juſtification: if Juſtification be what Mr. Eyre ſayes it is, namely, the eternal Will of God, not to puniſh, preciſely; for a Will determined preciſely to a nonpunition is not the cauſe of faith, unleſſe Gods not puniſhing be our believing. 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Juſtification? That grace which juſtifies us is the cauſe of all good things, and particularly of faith. Ergo, Juſtification is the cauſe of faith. This is Logick of the game. The grace that juſtifies us, is alſo the grace that glorifies us: ſhall I therefore infer that glorification is the cauſe of faith?

I did therefore truly ſay, that according to this doctrine, we muſt§. 14. not ſay, Beleeve, and thou ſhalt be juſtified; but rather, thou art juſtified; Ergo beleeve.

No (ſaith Mr. Eyre.) becauſe 1. It is not the priviledge of all men. 2. We know not who are juſtified, no more then who are elected. Though faith be an effect of Election, yet we may not ſay, Thou art elected, therefore believe. 3. When the cauſe is not noti…r effectu, we muſt aſcend from the effect to the cauſe.

Rep. Indeed to be juſtified is not the priviledge of all men: yet Juſtification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men, if they will beleeve: which yet it cannnt be, if Juſtification be the cauſe of faith, and not the conſequent. 2. It is alſo true, that we cannot ſay, Thou art elected, therefore beleeve; neither may we ſay, Beleeve, and thou ſhalt be elected. But we may and muſt ſay, Beleeve and thou ſhalt be juſtified; therefore the caſe of Election and Juſtification is not the ſame. The third anſwer I underſtand not, nor I think no man elſe; at leaſt, how it ſhould be applied to the preſent caſe: and therefore I ſay nothing to it.

My laſt, and indeed the main Argument for proof of the poſition,§. 15. namely, that we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reſpect of faiths evidencing our Juſtification as an Argument, or particularly as an effect, is this; becauſe then it will unavoidably follow, that we are juſtified by works as well as faith: works being an p. 78effect evidencing Juſti…ication as well as faith.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. By retortion. That this follows from my opinion; for if we be juſtified by the act of beleeving, we are juſtified by a work of our own. For anſwer to which, I refer the Reader, to the ſecond and third Sections of this chapter. If works be taken largely, for any humane action, faith is a work; but it is (as I may ſo call it) an unworking work; for to beleeve and not to work, are all one with the Apoſtle, as we have ſhewed before out of Rom. 4. 4, 5. His ſecond anſwer is a large grant, that works do declare and evidence Juſtification; and therefore I take notice only of the laſt line of it, wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Juſtification to conſcience. Of Gal. 2 16. I have already ſpoken largely: and have proved, that the Apoſtles words, We have beleeved that we may be juſtified, cannot have this ſenſe, we have beleeved that we may know our ſelves to be juſtified. And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not ſee how he ſtumbles again, at the common rock of contradicting himſelf, in alleging that text. He here acknowledgeth, that works do evidence our Juſtification: but the Apoſtle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Juſtification there ſpoken of. Ergo, The Juſtification there ſpoken of, is not the evidencing of Juſtification. The words in Rom. 1. 17. are theſe. Therein (namely in the Goſpel) is the righteouſneſſe of God revealed from faith to faith. That is, (as the Apoſtle expounds himſelf, chap. 3. 21, 22.) In the Goſpel is manifeſted the righteouſneſſe of God, which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, unto all, and upon all that beleeve: from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles; for that queſtionleſſe is the meaning of thoſe words, from faith to faith; as is manifeſt, by comparing them with the foregoing, ver. 16. The Goſpel is the Power of God to ſalvation, to every one that bel…eveth; to the Jew firſt, and alſo to the Greek. But how this proves, that to be juſtified by faith, is to have the evidence of Juſtification in our conſciences, I cannot divine.

At laſt, Mr. Eyre gives us his direct anſwer, or rather ſomething§. 16. like an anſwer, and denies that works do evidence Juſtification as well as faith: where note (Reader) that the words (as well) are not a note of parity (as Mr. Eyre miſtakes them, I doubt, not unwillingly) but of ſimilitude: for I do not mean, that works do evidence with an equal degree of clearneſſe or certainty; but in the ſame way or manner, or that they are an evidence of the ſame kinde and nature as faith is, if faith evidence barely as an effect. And ſo p. 79we may be ſaid to be juſtified by works, by the very ſame reaſon as we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith; if to be juſtified by faith be no more, then by faith as an effect, to know that we are juſtified: which is that which Mr. Eyre will never be able to anſwer while he lives. But let us ſee what he ſayes for his denial of works to evidence as well as faith.

Firſt (ſaith he) they do not evidence ſo clearly and certainly as faith doth: becauſe works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality. 2. Works do evidence in the judgement of charity and before men: but not in the judgement of infallibility, or with that clearneſſe and demonſtrative certainty which the conſcience requires.

Rep. All this is nothing. Majus & minus non variant ſpeciem. If works evidence Juſtification in the ſame way and manner as faith doth, though not with ſuch a perfect degree of evidence as faith doth; then are we juſtified by works as well as by faith: if to be juſtified be to know that we are juſtified. 2. The Scriptures tell us that works (Chriſtian and ſpiritual works) are a very clear and certain evidence, 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are paſſed from death to life, becauſe we love the brethren. So 2 Pet. 1. 5, 6, 7. with ver. 10, 11. It is true, there may be works like good works, which are not ſo in truth; and there may be faith like true faith, which yet is not faith unfeigned: but when works are brought to the light, and manifeſted that they are wrought in God, they are a very ſure evidence: as ſure (for ought I know) as faith it ſelfe, though I will not diſpute it, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. I have fought a good ſight, I have finiſhed my courſe, I have kept the faith: hencef…rth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteouſneſſe, &c. 3. What he ſayes in the ſecond place, that works do evidence before men, but not with that clearneſſe and certainty which the conſcience requires, is point blank againſt the Scriptures, 1 John 3. 18, 19. My little children, let us not l…ve in w…rd, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth: And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and ſhall aſſure our hearts before him. 4. Obſerve alſo (Reader) that Mr. Eyre doth here, (as alſo in other places) diſtinguiſh between faith and works: and yet, to oppoſe me, will not allow that we are juſtified by faith, becauſe faith is a work.

Before I paſſe to the next branch of this Argument, I muſt acquaint§. 17. thee (Reader) that in the cloſe of this, I added theſe words: Whether works be the firſt effect (namely of Juſtification) p. 80or the ſecond, and by conſequence the firſt evidence or the ſecond, is not at all material in this caſe: becauſe the Apoſtle, when he denies Juſtification by works, excludes works altogether, Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 5. The Reaſon why I added, this, was, Becauſe when Mr. Warren propoſed this Argument againſt Mr. Eyre, all the anſwer he could get was this Queſtion; Whether Works were the firſt evidence, or the ſecond? The impertinency of this Queſtion I thought fit to diſcover, by obſerving that the Apoſtle denies to works any influence at all, into that Juſtification which he ſpeaks of: and therefore he ſpeaks not of Juſtification by way of evidence, whether firſt or ſecond. But the principal intent of the Argument, was to prove the main Concluſion, That the Apoſtle, when he diſputes for Juſtification by faith, cannot be underſtood of Juſtification declared in couſcience, for works have an efficiency in producing that Juſtification. But the Apoſtle rejects works from having any hand at all in that Juſtification which he diſputes for. Therefore he meanes not Juſtification in conſcience. To this Mr. Eyre hath held it his wiſeſt courſe to ſay nothing. If he ſhould have diſtinguiſhed of works (as that he muſt do, if he do any thing) he knows well enough what advantage he had put into my hands againſt himſelf. Whether this be an Argument of a minde deſirous to advance the truth, the day will make manifeſt.

SECT. V.

I Come now to the ſecond branch of my Argument, and that is,§. 18. That we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reference to faiths evidencing our Juſtification, immediately or axiomatically; which before I prove, I muſt ſpeak ſomething by way of Explication. By an axiome we mean a ſentence or Propoſition, manifeſt by its own light, & worthy to be believed for its own ſake: ſo that it is no ſooner propoſed, but the mind (hhIn intellectione perfecta reperiuntur tria. Primum eſt conformitas actus cum objecto: ſecundum, neceſſitas aſſentiendi tertium, impotentia ad falſita…em. P…imum vocatur veritas. Secundum evidentia. Tertium certitudo. P. H…rt. de Me…doz. de Anim. d. 8. ſect. 1. §. ….) aſſents to it preſently, that it is true. As (in naturall things) that every whole is more then its part. That man is a reaſonable creature. That two make four, or the like. Theſe things are evident to our reaſon at firſt view, without any farther proof. And there is a double evidence in all ſuch aſſent. The p. 81one is the evidence of the object, or the truth aſſented to, which muſt be clearly repreſented in the Axiome or Propoſition. The other of the ſubject, which is the light of reaſon within us, by which we aſſent to a Propoſition of evident truth, and have the clear knowledge thereof. Even as unto our ſeeing of any thing, there muſt concurre an external light to make the object viſible; and internal ſight in the eye, to evidence the ſame object to each man in particular; for though the light ſhine never ſo clearly, a blinde man can ſee nothing: nor the moſt quick-ſighted, without outward light. The caſe is the ſame in ſupernatural verities: as, That Jeſus Chriſt is the Sonne of God; that he is come into the world to ſave ſinn…rs; that whoſoever believeth on him ſhall be ſaved, and the like. Which things, becauſe they are above the reach and comprehenſion of natural reaſon, therefore our mindes aſſent not to them, nor have the evidence of them, till they be informed with a more ſupernatural light and principle, namely faith, which is the eye and ſight of the ſoule, Heb. 11. 26, 27. Hence the Apoſtle in that chapter, ver. 1. deſcribes faith to be the evidence of things not ſeen; and ſayes, ver. 3. By faith we know the world was made by the Word of God. That God made the world is evidenced objectively by the Word, which ſaith; that God made the Heavens and the earth, Gen. 1. 1. but it is not evidenced unto us, unleſſe we beleeve that Word. And ſo in the preſent caſe, if any perſon (ſuppoſe Peter) have by faith the evidence of his Juſtification, immediately or axiomatically, it muſt be by aſſenting to ſome Axiome or Propoſition of divine revelation. Thou Peter art juſtified.

Theſe things being premiſed, we come now to prove, that we§. 19. cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, becauſe of faiths evidencing our Juſtification axiomatically. Two reaſons I gave of it. 1. Becauſe ſuch an immediate evidence of a particular mans Juſtification cannot be had without a particular teſtimony from God, Thou Paul, or Peter, or Thomas art juſtified. But there is no ſuch thing written in Scripture, Ergo, no ſuch evidence can be had.

Mr. Eyre ſaith, I miſtake the nature of juſtifying faith, conceiving it to be a bare intellectual aſſent to a Propoſition: which yet is quite againſt my judgement, and that which I do purpoſely oppoſe in my next argument. I conſent to Mr. Eyre, in placing faith, partly in the underſtanding, and partly in the will. But our queſtion is now concerning that faith which is in the underſtanding, how Peter (for example) comes to know, or to be aſſured by faith immediately p. 82that he is juſtified? And this (ſay I) muſt be by the aſſent of faith to ſome ſuch Axiome, Propoſition, or Word of God, as was but now mentioned, Thou Peter art juſtified. Even as Paul was aſſured, that neither himſelf, nor any that were in the ſhip with him ſhould periſh, by beleeving the teſtimony of God ſent him by an Angel, Acts 27 25. And becauſe there is now a dayes no ſuch teſtimony of a particular mans Juſtification, therefore there is no evidence thereof to be had this way, (at leaſt ordinarily) and if there were, yet I would not call that faith juſtifying faith, but rather evidencing faith.

His Anſwer to the Argument is large, and (to me) very confuſed. He excepts againſt my terme of an axiomatical evidence (I would change it, if I could deviſe any terme more ſignificant) but at laſt, yields it me; yet thinks it fitter to ſay, faith evidenceth organically as it is the organ or inſtrument whereby we do apprehend and adhere to Chriſt. But we ſhall ſhew fully, that this organical evidence, muſt be reduced to one of thoſe three by me mentioned, and cannot make a fourth way of evidence, diſtinct from them. The ſumme of his anſwer is,

That faith is ſuch an aſſent to the truth of the Goſpel, as that withal the ſoule taſtes an ineffable ſweetneſſe in the ſame: and he that taſtes the ſweetneſſe of Goſpel-Promiſes and grace, knows his intereſt and propriety therein: for all manner of ſweetneſſe is a conſequent and effect of ſome propriety which we have in that good thing which cauſeth it.—And ſo faith doth evidence our Juſtification axiomatically, by aſſenting to, and withal taſting and reliſhing thoſe indefinite and general Propoſitions, Invitations and Promiſes that are held forth to us in the Goſpel, which by a ſecret and unſcrutable work of the Spirit, are applied and made particular to the ſoule of a true beleever: for otherwiſe he could never taſte any ſweetneſſe in them.

Rep. How truly did I ſay, that Mr. Eyres doctrine would at laſt§, 20. leave the poor doubting Chriſtian without all evidence of his Juſtification? I need no other confirmation of it then theſe words: wherein are many things delivered, not only without any other authority then Mr. Eyres bare word; but directly againſt experience, reaſon and Scripture. 1. I deny that faith is alwayes accompanied with ſuch a taſte of ſweetneſſe in the Promiſes of the Goſpel, as will give an evidence to the ſoule of his Juſtification: The reaſons are ſet down already in this chapter, §. 12. I remember what p. 83holy (iiNeither the letters nor pages are numbred, and therefo…e I cannot direct the Reader to the particular place.) Bayne ſayes of himſelf in one of his letters. I thank God, in Chriſt ſuſtentation I have, and ſome little ſtrength: ſuavities ſpiritual I taſte not any. But indeed I often tell my ſelfe, Phyſick purgative and reſtorative are not to be taken at the ſame time, &c. Neither do I dare to deny, but that it may be the caſe of one that is ſaved, to die in as much darkneſſe as Spira himſelf: if any man can prove the contrary, let him. Yea, ſo ſeparable is ſweetneſſe from faith, that ſometimes on the contrary, exceſſe of ſweetneſſe hath hindred and overcome faith: as it was in the diſciples, who for very joy beleeved not, Luke 24. 41. and with old Jacob in a like caſe, Gen. 45. 26. 2. I alſo deny, that there can be no manner of ſweetneſſe taſted in the Goſpel, but by ſuch as have intereſt and propriety in the grace thereof. A propriety in conceit, though not in truth, or an intereſt poſſible and attainable, though not actually obtained, may make the Goſpel taſte not a little ſweet. The Scriptures tell us, that ſome may be enlightened, and taſte of the heavenly gift, and of the good Word of God, Heb. 6. 4, 5. and receive the Word with joy, Matth. 13. 20. who yet were not juſtified nor pardoned. 3. A taſte of ſweetneſſe in the Goſpel, doth evidence to the ſoule ſenſibly and experimentally, that God and his Word are good: which may be an Argument to prove that he is juſtified. But it neither doth nor can actually evidence it to him, unleſſe there intervene another act of the minde, concluding himſelf to be juſtified, according to the Promiſe made to ſuch a faith. Sugar will evidence its ſweetneſſe to my taſte: but my taſting will not evidence to me actually that I am a living creature, unleſſe I conclude it by the diſcourſe of my minde: becauſe according to the rules of Philoſophy, None can taſte but a living creature. Beaſts can taſte as well as men, yet-they do not know that they are living creatures: becauſe they cannot compare their act with the rule according to which they act: which ability in the reaſonable ſoule, is uſually called a power of reflecting upon its own act. The caſe is much the ſame in Infants. Therefore Mr. Eyres organical evidence is the very ſame with that which I call faiths evidencing as an Argument: or if he underſtand it of that which is not only affected to prove, but doth actually prove, then it is the ſame with that which I below call ſyllogiſtical: as being an act of the ſoule, concluding its own Juſtification, from the ſweetneſſe it taſteth in the Promiſes. 4. But the truth is, it is a moſt prepoſterous courſe, to ſend the ſoul for its evidence of right and intereſt in the Promiſes, to a taſte of p. 84ſweetneſſe in them: which will quickly appear, if Mr. Eyres metaphorical expreſſions be made more grammatical. Wherefore, to taſte ſweetneſſe in the Promiſes, is either an act of the underſtanding, judging of the Promiſe ſub ratione b…ni convenientis, as a moſt ſuitable good: and thus, it is a knowledge antecedent to faith, or at moſt but the beginning of faith it ſelf, Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not juſtified, but by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, we have believed, Or it is an act of the Will, embracing, delighting, and taking complacency in the Promiſe, as his beſt good: and then it follows immediately, not upon our right and intereſt in the Promiſe, but upon our knowledge of that right: for as we deſire not that which we do not know; ſo neither can we rejoyce in a right which we know not. The Queſtion then returnes, viz. how the ſoul comes to know its right and intereſt in the Promiſe? To ſay, it knows it by taking complacency in it, is to ſay it delights in it knows not what; for the will follows the judgement: and to take complacency in a good, which we do not know we have a right in, is naturally impoſſible. Mr. Eyre therefore may ſpeak truly, when he ſayes, He that taſtes the ſweetneſſe of Goſpel-grace knows his intereſt therein (ſuch the taſte may be); but we are never the wiſer in the underſtanding of the main queſtion: viz. How the ſoule comes to the knowledge of his intereſt in that Promiſe, in which he taſtes ſo much ſweetneſſe? from anſwer to this, Mr. Eyre makes an eſcape under the darkneſſe of his metaphorical expreſſions. 5. I deſire alſo to know, whether it be the Promiſe of pardon and Juſtification, in which the ſoule taſtes ſuch ſweetneſſe, as thereby to have the evidence of his Juſtification, or ſome other? If ſome other, how is it poſſible that faith ſhould evidence to me my pardon and Juſtification, by taſting ſweetneſſe in that truth which promiſeth no pardon or Juſtification at all? If it be the Promiſe of pardon, let Mr. Eyre ſee that he conſiſt with himſelf. Promiſes are eſſentially boni futuri, of a future good. Therefore according to Mr. Eyre, there can be now no Promiſe of pardon or Juſtification. Not of the Act, for that is paſt from all eternity: not of the Effect, for that is paſt as long as ſince the death of Chriſt: and therefore neither the one nor the other can be the object or matter of a Promiſe. It remaines then, that it is the Promiſe of manifeſting and declaring Juſtification. But then behold the ſenſe. My faith doth evidence to me that I am juſtified, by reliſhing the Promiſe which God hath made of manifeſting and declaring Juſtification. Hence it follows, that I have the evidence of my Juſtification p. 85by beleeving that I ſhall have it. And then either my faith muſt be falſe, or the Promiſe muſt be falſe; for if I do already know that I am juſtified, that knowledge cannot be future: elſe the ſame thing might be and not be at the ſame time. But there can be no falſhood either in a divine faith, or in a divine teſtimony. And I deſire alſo Mr. Eyre to reconcile what here he ſpeaks of faiths evidencing, with the Interpretations given before of thoſe ſayings in Scripture, whoſoever beleeves ſhall receive remiſſion of ſins, Acts 10. 43. and 26. 18. That receiving (ſaith he) is our act, not Gods; namely, our knowing our ſelves to be juſtified. Here he makes it intrinſecal to faith to beget aſſurance, as it is a taſte of ſweetneſſe in the Promiſe, that is, in the Promiſe of manifeſting Juſtification: for no other Juſtification is capable of being promiſed. Lay all this together, and one or both theſe two things muſt be the reſult, either that I know I am juſtified, before God manifeſt it to me (for I beleeve, and thereby know that I am juſtified: and the Promiſe which I beleeve is, that God will manifeſt my Juſtification to me. Ergo, he hath not yet manifeſted it,) or elſe the great Promiſe of juſtifying them that beleeve muſt be reſolved into this ridiculous piece of nonſenſe. He that hath the evidence of his Juſtification, ſhall have the evidence of his Juſtification; for in that he believes he hath this evidence: and the thing that is promiſed is, that he ſhall have this evidence.

Therefore Mr. Eyre doth not limit the evidence of faith, to its reliſhing§. 21. the ſweetneſſe of indefinite and general Promiſes: but there muſt concurre withal a ſecret and inſcrutable work of the Spirit, to make theſe general Promiſes particular. It is not the firſt time I have been acquainted, both at home and elſewhere, with Pretenders to aſſurance in ſuch a way; whoſe lives and ends I have known ſo well, that I ſhall (for their ſakes) eſteem it no other whileſt I live, then a carnal, groundleſſe, enthuſiaſtical preſumption. Two Authours Mr. Eyre quotes in his margin, as countenancing his doctrine, namely (kkOf faith. ſect. 1 cap 9 …. 4.) Dr. Jackſon, and (llSound Bel. pag. 220, 221.) Mr. Shepheard. But the former hath not a word of making the general Promiſe particular, but ſaith only, That the particular manner of the Spirits working this alteration in our ſoules, (namely, that now we reliſh ſpiritual things, which naturally we taſte no ſweetneſſe in) is a myſtery inſcrutable, to which I conſent. The latter (whoſe memory is very honourable and precious to me) was the moſt violent oppoſer of this doctrine of any man on earth, that ever I knew or heard of: his works ſhew p. 86ſomething of it; but they that knew him can teſtifie more. I heartily conſent to him, that in vocation the Spirit makes the general call particular, according to the ſenſe in which he explaines himſelfe in the place quoted. The ſoule (ſaith he) at this inſtant, feeles ſuch a ſpecial ſtirring of the Spirit upon it, which it feeles now, and never felt before: as alſo its particular caſe ſo ſpoken to, and its particular objections ſo anſwered, and the grievouſneſſe of its ſin, in refuſing grace ſo particularly applied, as if God ſpake only unto it. All this I beleeve to be true, but it is nothing in the world to our purpoſe. To make the common motives and invitations unto faith, to become in this manner particular in their operation, upon particular perſons, doth neither affirme nor deny any thing concerning the ſtate and condition of thoſe perſons. But to evidence to a man immediately that he is juſtified, muſt be by a particular teſtimony: and that as diſtinct from the teſtimony of Scripture (which ſaith only that believers are juſtified) as a proper or particular Propoſition from a general.

I ſay therefore, 1. That the Spirit evidenceth to no man that he is§. 22. juſtified, who hath not at the ſame time the evidence of his faith: and ſo is this evidence of the Spirit alwayes, (at leaſt) implicitly ſyllogiſtical. And the ſoule can have no ſetled comfort in it, but by analyſing the crypſis, and reſolving the whole evidence into its parts, after the manner below ſpecified. He that beleeveth is juſtified. But I beleeve, Ergo I am juſtified. The caſe is ſo plain to me, that I appeal to Mr. Eyre himſelf for judgement. If a man ſhall come to him and ſay, Sir, I am aſſured by the Spirit of God that I am juſtified, and that all my ſins are pardoned, but whether I beleeve or no, or ever did, that I cannot tell: Would he allow this perſwaſion to be of God? If not, then doth not the Spirit teſtifie to any man immediately that he is juſtified: but the evidence of the Spirit (as I ſaid before) is, if not expreſſely, yet implicitly ſyllogiſtical. If ſo, I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyres principles. He that doth not believe, cannot be aſſured that he is juſtified. But thou doſt not believe, Ergo thou canſt not have aſſurance (from the Spirit) that thou art juſtified. What will be here denied? Not the major, for that's an undoubted truth, grounded in Mr. Eyres interpretation. Not the minor: for the man whom we are now convincing. of his errour, in pretending to aſſurance by the Spirit, is ſuppoſed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo, he cannot truly ſay he hath faith, though he have it: becauſe to affirme that for truth, which p. 87we do not know to be true, is a lie, though the thing ſhould be ſo as we ſay. Ergo he muſt yield to the Concluſion, that his aſſurance is not from the Spirit: elſe the teſtimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture.

Secondly, Mr. Eyres words do alſo contradict themſelves notoriouſly.§. 23. Firſt, he tells us, that faith evidenceth our Juſtification, by aſſenting to, and taſting the general Propoſitions of the Goſpel: then he tells us that thoſe general Propoſitions are made particular by the Spirit to a beleever: otherwiſe he could taſte no ſweetneſſe in them. To tell us, that faith evidenceth by taſting general Propoſitions, and then to ſay in the ſame breath, that it can taſte no ſweetneſſe in general Propoſitions, but they muſt be firſt made particular by the Spirit, is to ſay and unſay. 3. Accordingly the general Propoſitions in the Goſpel, muſt firſt be made particular by the Spirit, before the ſoul can taſte any ſweetneſſe in them, for which I confeſſe there is all the reaſon in the world: for the object apprehended muſt be before the act apprehending: the Propoſition aſſented to and taſted, muſt be before the act aſſenting and taſting. But then hence it will follow, that a man before he believes hath a particular teſtimony from the Spirit, that he is juſtified. For this Propoſition, thus made particular by the Spirit, is the object of his aſſent and taſte, that is, of his faith, Ergo, it exiſts before his faith; even as the general Promiſes in the Word exiſt before we can believe them. But to ſay, it is evidenced to any man before he believes, that he is juſtified, is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto diſowned, as well he may.

A mans faith (ſuppoſe Peters) can evidence no more to him ſubjectively,§. 21. then the Word doth evidence to him objectively; even as the eye can ſee no other thing then what the light makes manifeſt. But this Propoſition, He that believes is juſtified, doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is juſtified; for the former is general, and the latter is proper. And otherwiſe, every one in the world that believes that Propoſition, might thereby have the evidence of Peters Juſtification, as well as of his own. Even as we know by faith, that they to whom the Lord ſaid, Your ſins are forgiven you, were juſtified as well as themſelves. And all believers (one as well as another) know by faith, that the world was made by the Word of God, Heb. 11. 3. becauſe the Scriptures ſay ſo. Object. But the Spirit makes this general Propoſition to be particular unto Peter▪ Anſw. I ask, whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule p. 88of all mens faith? If not, then neither of their obedience: which will introduce Antinomianiſme with a vengeance. If ſo, (as moſt undoubtedly ſo) then this particular teſtimony of the Spirit, is no object of Peters faith: which I farther argue thus. It is no object of Pauls faith, that Peter is juſtified. Ergo, it is no object of Peters faith. The reaſon is, becauſe the rule of all mens faith, is one and the ſame equally. Therefore the faith of Chriſtians is called a common faith, Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect, ibid. ver. 1. which is but one, Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter beleeve upon the teſtimony of the Spirit, that which Paul cannot, or hath no ground to beleeve upon the teſtimony of Scripture, then Peters faith doth not act by the ſame rule that Pauls doth: but there will be as many rules of faith, as there be perſons in the world, that pretend to this particular teſtimony of the Spirit.

5. To conclude, to make a general Propoſition particular, is to§. 25. change the ſubſtance and nature of it: for it cannot be general and particular too, (though I readily grant, as before, that a truth propoſed in common may be made particular, in reſpect of its effectual operation upon one, and not upon another: but the Propoſition it ſelf remaines general ſtill.) Ergo, this particular teſtimony of the Spirit, muſt be ſome other then that of Scripture (unleſſe by being made particular be meant no more, then that a particular is inferred out of a general, which is a ſyllogiſtical evidence, not axiomatical, which Mr. Eyre now diſputes for). But I do wholly deny any ſuch particular teſtimony of the Spirit, for which there is not ſo muth as foreign in Scripture: and Mr. Eyre, I think, is of the ſame mind, for he produceth not one text for it. That which ſeemes moſt to favour it, is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witneſſe with our ſpirits that we are the children of God, (which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention, and therefore I anſwer it, for the ſake of ſome others.) Compare this verſe with the foregoing, and with a parallel place to the Galatians, and it will not be difficult to give the right ſenſe of it, Gal. 4. 6. Becauſe you are ſonnes, God hath ſent forth the Spirit of his Sonne into our hearts, crying Abba Father. So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father. Then it followes, ver. 16. foreign, That very ſame Spirit (ſo I render the words,) beareth witneſſe, &c. Hence I gather, that this witneſſe of the Spirit, is not any ſecret revelation of a Propoſition (as this, Thou Peter or Paul art juſtified) made by the Spirit to the ſoul. But the Spirits working in us liberty in our acceſſes p. 89unto God to call him Father, is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument, that we are the children of God. And becauſe Arguments by themſelves do not mmArgument… non arguunt extra diſpoſitionem.evidence actually, but virtually, therefore the Spirit by this work, helping us to conclude our ſelves the children of God, doth thereby witneſſe that we are Gods children.

SECT. VI.

MY ſecond Argument, to prove that faith doth not evidence Juſtification§. 26. axiomatically, was this. The faith which juſtifies, is that which is to be preached and preſſed upon the whole world. But we cannot preſſe it upon every man in the world to believe that he is juſtified, and that if he doth not beleeve this, he ſhall be damned.

Underſtand (Reader) that the direct tendency of this Argument is to prove, that juſtifying faith is not a mans aſſurance that he is juſtified: which I preſumed was Mr. Eyres judgement: becauſe that Juſtification which is in Scripture made an immediate conſequent of believing, is (with him) a knowledge that we are juſtified. I thought therefore that he had held faith to be an aſſurance: becauſe otherwiſe a man might beleeve, and yet not be juſtified by faith. And ſo the proving that faith was not an aſſurance, would withal have proved, that it doth not evidence Juſtification axiomatically or immediately. But now I perceive, that he doth not place the formality of faith in an aſſurance: but rather makes this an eſſential property and effect of that (if I underſtand him.) And ſo I confeſſe this Argument is not directly againſt him. Nevertheleſſe, it will not be amiſſe to examine his anſwer: for (if I miſtake not) either he muſt make faith to be an aſſurance tantamount: or elſe he contradicts himſelf. His anſwer therefore is this. We do not preſſe every man to believe that he is juſtified; but to beleeve, 1. Aſſenſu intellectus, to acknowledge that there is a ſufficiency of merit in Chriſt for the Juſtification of ſinners. 2. Amplexu voluntatis: to accept, embrace, and cleave unto Jeſus Chriſt.

Rep. I acknowledge this to be the very truth: but Mr. Eyre cannot§. 2…. own it, if he will be true to his own principles. 1. He hath told us before, that faith is eſſentially aſſenſus cum guſtu, an aſſent, with p. 90a taſte of ſweetneſſe in the Promiſe aſſented to. But this circumſtance muſt concurre, to make the Promiſe an object of my faith, namely, that I have right and intereſt therein; otherwiſe I can taſte no ſweetneſſe in it: that is, otherwiſe I could not truly beleeve it; for to taſte ſweetneſſe is eſſential to faith: Wherefore, when we preſſe all men to believe, and all men equally, and that with a true faith, it is ſuppoſed that all men have equally a right in the Promiſe; or elſe they are commanded to beleeve, without an object to be believed: for the object of faith is the Promiſe, in which I have right and intereſt, according to Mr. Eyre. And this is that which I ſay is tantamount, to a perſwading of all men to beleeve that they are juſtified. To argue it a little farther. The right which I have in the Promiſe, is either antecedent to my faith, or conſequent to it. If antecedent, I have what I would; for then, when in the preaching of the Goſpel, the Promiſe is propoſed as an object of that faith, which we perſwade all men to, the right of all men equally in that Promiſe muſt be preſuppoſed; it being not the Promiſe ſimply, but the Promiſe in which men have right, that is the object of faith. If conſequent, then the firſt act of faith cannot be a taſte of ſweetneſſe in the Promiſe; becauſe till I beleeve, I have no right in the Promiſe, and therefore can taſte no ſweetneſſe in it, according to Mr. Eyre.

To what he here ſayes, that we preſſe all men to believe, there is§. 28. a ſufficiency of merit in Chriſt, for the Juſtification of ſinners: becauſe it is the ſumme of that which the ſoul aſſenteth to, and taſteth ſweetneſſe in, and thereby immediately comes to know its own Juſtification, we muſt endeavour to underſtand more particularly. 1. By ſinners, he meanes all, or ſome only. 2. The ſufficiency of the merits of Chriſt muſt be underſtood, either as diſtinguiſhed from their efficiency, and then the meaning is, That Chriſt merited Juſtification for men ſufficiently, yet they are not thereby actually juſtified; or as including their efficiency: and then the meaning is, that men were actually, and moſt ſufficiently juſtified in the meritorious death of Chriſt. 3. The ſame ſufficiency of Chriſts merits may be conſidered either abſolutely and in themſelves, in reſpect of their own intrinſecal worth and value; or relatively and ordinatively, in reference to the ordination and intention of God in giving up his Son to death; and of Chriſt, in giving up himſelf: which diſtinctions being premiſed, it were an eaſie matter to ring the changes upon the foreſaid Propoſition, and vary it into innumerable formes: but I ſhall mention no p. 91more then I muſt needs. When then it is ſaid, that every man is to beleeve, that there is a ſufficiency of merit in Chriſt for the Juſtification of ſinners; the meaning muſt be either, 1. That the merits of Chriſt were of themſelves ſufficient to have purchaſed Juſtification for all ſinners, (though they did not purchaſe it de facto for any.) This is falſe. Or, 2. That Chriſts merits are indeed ſufficient for the Juſtification of all ſinners; but the effect (which is the actual Juſtification of ſinners,) is ſuſpended till we beleeve. Nor can this be propoſed to be believed by all men equally: for it is falſe in reſpect of the Elect, who (according to Mr. Eyre) were juſtified actually ſixteen hundred yeares ago in the death of Chriſt Or, 3. That the merits of Chriſt were ſufficient for the Juſtification of all ſinners: but were never ordained to be effectual to the Juſtification of all, upon any termes or conditions whatſoever. Nor can this be the Promiſe or Propoſition, which is the object of our juſtifying faith, according to Mr. Eyre; The reaſon is, becauſe ſuppoſing that every man in the world ſhould beleeve this, (which is no contradiction, and therefore may be ſuppoſed as poſſible) yet they ſhould not be juſtified notwithſtanding: ſeeing Chriſt never intended that every man ſhould be juſtified by his blood, upon any termes. Or, 4. That the merits of Chriſt were ordained of God and Chriſt, to the obtaining of Juſtification for every ſinner moſt ſufficiently, if they ſhould or would believe. This is moſt true, but Mr. Eyre rejects it, as too much gratifying thoſe that are for Univerſal Redemption in the groſſeſt ſenſe, which is a needleſſe feare: and the two Arguments which he here propoſeth againſt it, he might have ſeen long ſince anſwered by Reverend and Learned Biſhop Davenant, (of famous memory) in his Diſſertation De Morte Chriſti, cap. 3. page 22, 23, 30, 31. In ſhort, let Mr. Eyre ſtate his Propoſition how he will: To ſay, the merits of Chriſt are ſufficient, and but ſufficient (before faith) to Juſtification, is that which the Elect cannot believe without errour. To ſay they are ſufficient in reference to their own value, and intrinſeca… greatneſſe, nnVid. Job Raynoll Apolog. theſ parag. 14.can neither be a motive to an unbeliever to come to Chriſt for righteouſneſſe: nor can the believing it, ever evidence any mans Juſtification. I am perſwaded the devils beleeve it: and it cannot be denied, but that the merits of Chriſt were a price of themſelves ſufficient to have purchaſed ſalvation for them, (yea, and to have turned all the ſtones in the ſtreets into men, and to have glorified them in Heaven.) And it is very ſtrange, that a ſoule ſhould be drawn to Chriſt, upon a ground common to divels p. 92with himſelf; or have the evidence of his Juſtification by believing ſuch a truth, in which the devils have as much intereſt as himſelfe.

SECT. VII.

THe third branch of my Argument ſucceeds. Namely, that we§. 29. cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reference to faiths evidencing our Juſtification ſyllogiſtically. Two Reaſons I gave of this. The firſt is, becauſe there cannot be found out a medium before faith it ſelfe, &c. The farther Explication the Reader may ſee in my Sermon.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, That it is not needful. It is ſufficient that faith it ſelfe is the medium, as thus. He that beleeveth, was juſtified before faith. But I beleeve. Ergo.

Rep. The Argument remaines good for the purpoſe, for which I advanced it. For I not knowing certainly in what ſenſe Mr. Eyre would maintain that faith did evidence, could conjecture at none more probable, then that he placed the nature and being of juſtifying faith in the evidence, knowledge or aſſurance of our Juſtification. Upon which preſumption, as I had before proved, that it was not aſſenſus axiomaticus, an axiomatical and immediate aſſent to this Propoſition, I am juſtified; ſo in this Argument my intent was to prove, that neither was it aſſenſus ſyllogiſticus, an aſſent to the ſame Propoſition, deduced by way of Concluſion out of premiſſes. And this the Argument proves invincibly. Let us ſet Mr. Eyres ſyllogiſme before us, and the matter will be plain. He that beleeves, was juſtified before faith. But I beleeve. Ergo, I was juſtified before faith. Hence it is manifeſt, that the faith which I affirme of my ſelfe in the minor, cannot conſiſt eſſentially in my aſſent to the Concluſion: for then the Syllogiſme would conſiſt but of two Propoſitions. This is the manifeſt ſcope of the Argument, which now I know Mr. Eyres minde better, I ſee well enough, doth him but little hurt, and therefore I inſiſt not on the vindication of it. Nor yet may the Reader charge me for arguing impertinently; ſeeing it was neceſſary I ſhould ſuppoſe and confute what might be ſaid, when I did not know what would be ſaid. I know no other way I had to get out of Mr. Eyre his ſenſe of faiths evidencing. Yet becauſe I did eaſily foreſee he might p. 93give that anſwer, which here he doth, I added the next Argument, which meets with it to the full.

If we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, becauſe faith doth evidence§. 30. Juſtification ſyllogiſtically, then may we be ſaid as well to be juſtified by ſenſe and reaſon, as by faith: becauſe ſenſe and reaſon concurre with faith in a ſyllogiſtical evidence. As thus. He that believes is juſtified. But I beleeve, Ergo, I am juſtified. The Propoſition only is the aſſent or act of faith. The Aſſumption an act of ſenſe or ſpiritual experience. The Concluſion an act of Reaſon.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, That the Concluſion is of faith. As in this Syllogiſme. All men ſhall riſe from the dead. I am a man. Ergo, I ſhall riſe from the dead.

Rep. That the Concluſion is de fide, is ſaid, not proved (and I would that way of diſputing were leſſe frequent with Mr. Eyre). I acknowledge the Concluſion to be partly of faith, and partly of reaſon and experience, as Mr. (ooVindi…. grat. p…g 41. fol.) Pemble determines it. And that the Schooles determine otherwiſe, I will beleeve when I ſee. That it is not purely of faith, I thus prove. The aſſent of faith is grounded in the verity of divine teſtimony. But the aſſent to a Concluſion is grounded in the neceſſity of its (ppVid. Fr…. B…ur. Meneriz. d…f. P. R…dial. l. 2. c. 9. diſquiſ. 1 & 2.) conſequence upon ſuch and ſuch premiſſes, which forceth the underſtanding to aſſent to it: whether of it ſelf it be of neceſſary or contingent truth: or in what matter ſoever it be, whether grammatical, phyſical, theological, or the like. So that a Concluſion is ſaid to be de fide, becauſe it depends upon ſome principle of ſaith, in regard of its ſupernaturality: but formally, Et qu…tenus attingitur per actum Concluſionis: Reaſon is principium aſſentiendi proximum, the neareſt (qqDe Mend…z. loq. diſp 1…. de demonſtr. ſect. 3. …. 47.) principle and cauſe of my aſſent, otherwiſe we muſt have ſome other definition of a ſyllogiſme, then our Univerſities have hitherto been acquainted with. 2. In the preſent caſe, the matter is clearer then Mr. Eyre is aware of. We will ſuppoſe Peter to be the man that makes the Syllogiſme. He that believes, is juſtified. But I beleeve. Ergo, I am juſtified. When he faith in the minor, I beleeve; he is ſuppoſed to ſpeak, not only of that faith, which sin the Will, accepting and embracing a promiſed good: but of that ialſo, which is in the underſtanding aſſenting, omni credibili, to all truths propoſed to be believed. But (according to Mr. Eyre) it is a truth propoſed to Peters faith, that himſelf is juſtified. Let it be expreſſed then in the Syllogiſme, and it runs thus. He that beleeves all the objects of his faith, and particularly that himſelfe is juſtified, p. 94he is juſtified. But (ſaith Peter) I beleeve all the objects of my faith, and particularly that my ſelf am juſtified. Ergo, I am juſtified. If the Concluſion be here de ſide, then Peter beleeves he is juſtified, becauſe he believes he is juſtified: which Concluſion (I confeſſe) is no act of reaſon. Nevertheleſſe, if Reaſon be yielded, to be principium aſſentiendi, the principle of aſſenting to the Concluſion, there will be better ſenſe in his Argumentation: namely, that Peter knows that he is juſtified, or is perſwaded thereof with a certainty of Reaſon, becauſe he beleeves it with a divine Faith: and that he could not do, if he were not juſtified.

As to the Syllogiſme which Mr. Eyre propoſeth for Illuſtration,§. 31. All men ſhall riſe again. I am a man. Ergo, I ſhall riſe again. The Concluſion is partly of faith, and partly of reaſon. Of reaſon formaliter & elicitivè: of faith fundamentaliter & imperativè, (as I may ſo ſpeak) it being a particular knowledge grounded in a principle of faith: for I could not have this knowledge, unleſſe I did by faith aſſent to the Propoſition. But that it is not purely of faith, I thus prove. If a man be ſound in the faith of the Reſurrection, that believes all men ſhall riſe, though he do not believe that himſelf ſhall riſe; then to aſſent that himſelf ſhall riſe, is not purely an act of faith. Becauſe a man cannot at the ſame time be ſound and unſound in the faith of the ſame article. But he is ſound in the faith of the Reſurrection that believes all men ſhall riſe, though he do not believe that himſelf ſhall riſe; for he believes as much as the Scripture reports. If it be ſaid, that a man cannot aſſent to the one, but he muſt aſſent to the other. I think ſo too. But the ground of it is, becauſe it is againſt reaſon, not becauſe it is againſt faith: and therefore the Concluſion is partly of reaſon, not purely of faith: which was that I was to demonſtrate.

The Concluſion is; there can be no way imagined, in which faith may be ſaid to evidence our Juſtification, but one of thoſe three mentioned, (Mr. Eyre propoſeth a fourth: but we have ſhewed, that it muſt be reduced to one of theſe three, and ſo differs in name only, not in thing). But we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith, in reference to its evidencing our Juſtification either of theſe wayes. Therefore faith muſt be ſaid to juſtifie in ſome other reſpect, then that it doth evidence Juſtification: or elſe we cannot be ſaid to be juſtified by faith at all.

p. 95SECT. VIII.

MY third Argument comes next in place. That Interpretation§. 32. of the phraſe, which makes us, at leaſt concurrent cauſes with God in the formal act of our own Juſtification, is not true. The Reaſon is, becauſe our Juſtification by faith, in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us juſt, is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God, Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6, 8. But to interpret our Juſtification by faith, meerly for a Juſtification in our own conſciences, is to make us at leaſt concurrent cauſes with God, in the formal act of our own Juſtification. Ergo, it is not to be admitted.

Mr. Eyre, before he anſwers the Argument, reformes my expreſſions, and ſayes, That he doth not ſay that Juſtification by faith is meerly a Juſtification in conſcience: faith is ſometimes put objectively for Chriſt, &c.

Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly, is an impertinent quarrel: he doth it too frequently; and to thoſe moſt eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter, which ſpeak of Gods juſtifying ſinners by faith in Jeſus Chriſt, he anſwers meerly ſo. And as for his putting of faith objectively for Chriſt, we have already ſhewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God. But I muſt tell him, it is moſt intolerable dealing, to build ſo large a diſcourſe, as is the greateſt part of his book, upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to ſet their feet on. The one is, when he pleaſeth to interpret Juſtification for the manifeſtation thereof. The other, when he pleaſeth to put faith for its object, Chriſt. When ſuch a weight is laid upon theſe foundations, had it not been neceſſary to ſhew us the places, to clear and vindicate them, where theſe words muſt have this ſenſe and no other? But to the anſwer: (for this is nothing but a delay.) This it is.

The pronouncing of us juſt, is not the formal act of our Juſtification: but the imputing of righteouſneſſe, which is the Act of God alone: Miniſters may pronounce us juſt, without robbery done to God. So doth faith declare to our conſciences the ſentence of abſolution, &c.

Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded, and the ſinner thereby§. 33. made his own Juſtifier. 1. Let the formal act of Juſtification conſiſt p. 96in what it will, it matters not much in the preſent caſe. The Juſtification, which in Scripture is ſaid to be by faith, is wholly and only aſcribed unto God as the Juſtifier, Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6, 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22, 24, 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that ſpeak of Juſtification by faith: which all ſuppoſe it to be Gods peculiar Royalty, to juſtifie us through faith; therefore cannot be interpreted of Juſtification in our own conſciences, that is, of our juſtifying our ſelves, without ſetting up our ſelves in the Throne of God. Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world, as a friend to Papiſts, for maintaining faith to be the condition of Juſtification, becauſe he thinks it will follow thence, that men may be ſaid to juſtifie themſelves? But I ſee, one may better ſteal a horſe, then another look over the hedge. 2. My expreſſion of Gods pronouncing us juſt, I acknowledge to be a little too narrow, as moſt properly denoting that Juſtification which is by ſentence at the day of judgement: but I do therein alſo include Juſtificationem juris, the act of God by the Law of grace, that is, the Promiſe of the Goſpel, giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the ſake of Chriſt. And this is formaliſſimè, the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is imputed to believers in their Juſtification, inaſmuch as that for his merits they are reputed juſt before God, ſaith rrMedul theol. l. 1. c. 27 theſ 12.Dr. Ames. Now that Juſtification, which is in Scriptures ſaid to be by faith, is formally an imputation of righteouſneſſes and a non-imputation of ſin, Rom. 4. 2, 5. compared with ver. 6. 11, 24. Ergo, by Mr. Eyres conceſſion, it is only Gods act, and no creature can be joyned with him therein, without robbery done to him. But we do joyne with him by faith, in imputing righteouſneſſe to our ſelves, if imputing righteouſneſſe to believers, be their knowing by faith, that righteouſneſſe is imputed to them, as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before, in anſwer to Rom. 4. 24.

3. If there be any ſenſe wherein Miniſters may be ſaid to juſtifie§. 34. ſinners, yet it cannot be in that ſenſe wherein God is ſaid to juſtifie them that beleeve, for that is an act proper to himſelf. I acknowledge the Apoſtles are ſaid to remit and retain ſins, John 20. 23. namely ssVid. Calv. in loc. & Altham. concil. loc. pugn. cap. 194. & Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Diviſ. 3. pag. 65.becauſe it comes to paſſe upon every one according to the Word which they preached. He that believes ſhall be ſaved, and he that believeth not ſhall be damned. As the Prophet in a like ſenſe is ſaid to be ſet over Nations and Kingdomes, to root out and to pull down, to build and to plant, Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they, but p. 97the Word which they preached, which did juſtifie or condemn: and that alſo received all its efficacy immediately from God. So that remiſſion of ſins is aſcribed to the Apoſtles, but as moral inſtruments. Such as they alſo were in raiſing the dead, healing the ſick, converting of ſinners, and the like. All which works were wrought immediately by God himſelf, immediatione virtutis, without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man. But when we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, if the meaning be, that by faith we know our ſelves to be juſtified: in this caſe, faith hath a true, proper, immediate and real efficiency in our Juſtification. And it is every whit as proper, yea, and more proper, to ſay we know by faith that we are juſtified, then to ſay, we know by God that we are juſtified: the former expreſſing the effect from its relation to its particular cauſe; the latter, to the univerſal. I cannot ſee, unleſſe God give me an eye, and concurre with it in the act of ſeeing, yet is it more proper to ſay I ſee, then that God ſees; ſo neither can I know that I am juſtified, unleſſe God give me faith, and concurre with the act of it, to diſcover it to me; yet am I more properly ſaid to juſtifie my ſelf, then God to juſtifie me, if by my Juſtification be meant my knowledge, that I am juſtified.

And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the inſtrumental cauſe§. 35. of our knowing our ſelves to be juſtified, I ſee not how it can conſiſt with his Divinity. It is a principle with him, (as we ſhall ſee anon) that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace, which hath any cauſe in the creature. But to manifeſt to me that I am juſtified is an act of free grace. Ergo, my faith cannot be the cauſe of it, no, not inſtrumentally. The Aſſumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are juſtified by faith. All which ſpeak of Juſtification by free grace: and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifeſtation of Juſtification. And now we ſhould diſpute the great Queſtion, Whether faith be the condition of Juſtification? But becauſe there is one, and but one Argument more, proving that Juſtification by faith cannot be underſtood of the manifeſtation or knowledge thereof, I ſhall firſt make good my ground there, and then try out the other by it ſelf.

p. 98SECT, IX.

MY laſt Argument therefore was this. If Juſtification by faith§. 36. muſt be underſtood of Juſtification in our conſciences, then is not the word Juſtification taken properly, for Juſtification before God in all the Scriptures; for the Scriptures ſpeak of no Juſtification, but by faith or works; the latter of which is Juſtification before men, and the former in our conſciences, according to Mr. Eyre.

To this Mr. Eyre anſwers, chap. 9. §. 10, 11, 12. and his anſwer is, 1. That Juſtification in conſcience, is Juſtification before God. Yet himſelf told us Page 61.before, that the ſight of God, in this Queſtion, may not be underſtood of Gods making it, as it were, evident to our ſight, that we are juſtified: for then the diſtinction of Juſtification, in foro Dei & in foro conſcientiae, would be a meer tautologie.

Secondly, ſaith he, If faith be taken metonymically, then Juſtification by faith is Juſtification before God: for it is a Juſtification by the merits of Chriſt, to whom alone, without works or conditions performed by us, the Holy Ghoſt aſcribes our Juſtification in the ſight of God, Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7.

Rep. I deny, that faith is any where in Scripture put for Chriſt, in the Argument of Juſtification, though it include him as its object, whether his name be mentioned or no. In univerſalibus latet dolus. Give us ſome particular place or places, where the word muſt be neceſſarily ſo underſtood, and we will beleeve it. 2. Rom. 3. 24. ſpeaks not of any Juſtification by Chriſt without faith: but moſt expreſſely and ſyllabically of Juſtification by Chriſt through faith, ver. 25. whom God hath ſet forth to▪ be a propitiation through faith in his blood. And that faith here cannot be taken objectively, is already proved. Yet if it had not been mentioned, it will by no means follow that it muſt be excluded: ſeeing there are multitudes of places beſides where it is mentioned. The ſame I ſay to Eph. 1. 7. That the remiſſion of ſins there ſpoken of is by faith; for the Apoſtle having ſaid, that we have remiſſion of ſins, through the blood of Chriſt, according to the riches of the grace of God, he ſhewes the way in which grace communicates this bleſſing both to Jew and Gentile; namely, by the efficacy of the bleſſed Goſpel, calling them both to p. 99one and the ſame faith, and thereby to a common intereſt in the ſame bleſſings, ver. 8, 9, 10. though theſe bleſſings be given to the Jew firſt, and afterward to the Gentile, ver. 12, 13. and therefore Paul Bayne obſerves from ver. 8. That God giveth pardon of ſins to none, to whom he hath not firſt given wiſdome and underſtanding, that is, whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Chriſt. Howbeit, if faith had not been here mentioned, it muſt yet needs have been ſuppoſed: becauſe the Apoſtle writes to thoſe Epheſians, as unto Saints and faithful in Chriſt Jeſus, ver. 1. To whom as ſuch do all ſpiritual bleſſings belong, ver. 3. according to the purpoſe of Gods Election, ver. 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Juſtification before God mentioned in Scripture, but by faith.

His third anſwer is by way of retortion upon that expreſſion of§. 37. mine, That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it (namely, where there is any mention of Juſtification before God but by faith) He retorts, That I acknowledge a threefold Juſtification, and yet neither of them by faith, in my Sermon, page 23.

Rep. But I do not acknowledge, that either of them is properly and formally the Juſtification of a ſinner before God. Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Juſtification in Scripture: but only that our Juſtification may be conſidered as purpoſed of God, merited by the death of Chriſt, and exemplified in his Reſurrection.

2. He tells us, That we have no plain text for many of our dictates: As, 1. That juſtification doth in no ſenſe precede the act of faith. Anſw. Mr. Eyre knows well enough, that this is a dictate of his own, and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me; as I obſerved, page 1. and in his very laſt words mentions three ſenſes, in which I yield Juſtification may be before faith. But we ſeek a text of Scripture, wherein the true, proper, formal Juſtification of a ſinner is made antecedent to faith. If there be any ſuch text, why is it not produced? if there be none, why is it not yielded? Our ſecond dictate is, That Chriſt purchaſed only a conditional, not an abſolute Juſtification for his Elect.

But where is this ſaid? or by whom? it is by vertue of the Purchaſe of Chriſt that we are juſtified, when we have performed the condition of believing.

The third, that our Evangelical Righteouſneſſe by which we are iuſtified, is in our ſelves. Anſw. This refers to Mr. Baxter, whoſe p. 100judgement Mr. Eyre repreſents as odiouſly as he can. But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reaſons for proof of it: which Mr. Eyre ſhould have anſwered, before he had complained for want of a text.

The fourth, that the tenour of the New Covenant is, If thou believe, &c. Anſw. I am ſure, he knows, that many famous Proteſtants aſſert this as well as I, and we ſhall ſee proof ſufficient of it in due place: and of the laſt alſo, that none were to have any benefit by the death of Chriſt, till they beleeve.

But Mr. Eyre takes ſpecial notice of one paſſage in this Argument,§. 38. wherein I ſay, that neither Juſtification in conſcience, nor before men, are of much worth in the Apoſtles judgement, 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large anſwer, §. 11. which I am apt to think, he would have taken no notice of, but to acquaint the world with his good wiſhes concerning me. He refers me to ſome texts of Scripture, to learn what account the Apoſtle had of Juſtification before men, and in conſcience (though I cannot learn what account he had of the former, from any of the texts mentioned.) But be it what it will be, I give him this brief reply, That in compariſon of Juſtification before God, neither the one nor the other are much worth, (though they may be of ſome worth in theſe inferiour Judicatories) Not only children, but grown perſons (for ought I know) may be ſaved, without being juſtified of men, or of their own conſciences. And I will never beleeve, that that Juſtification is worthy of thoſe many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Juſtification by faith, which one may live and die without, and yet be ſaved. Who will prove to me convincingly, that a Chriſtian may not live many years, and die at laſt in melancholy or madneſſe (under which diſtempers the judgement of men, or of conſcience, is not much valued) and yet be ſaved? or that a ſoul may not, for ſome grievous ſin, go with ſorrow and darkneſſe to the grave, and never ſee light, till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light.