The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
A Reply to Mr. Eyres tenth Chapter. My firſt Argument againſt Juſtification before faith, vindicated from all Mr. Eyres exceptions.
SECT. I.
HAving now aſſerted the antecedency of faith to Juſtification,§. 1. from many expreſſe teſtimonies of Scripture, and diſcovered the fruitleſneſſe of all Mr. Eyres attempts againſt them; We proceed to the Vindication of the Reaſons added in my Sermon, for proof of the ſame point. Theſe Mr. Eyre undertakes in his tenth Chapter. They are five in number: and the firſt is this.
If there be no act of grace declared and publiſhed in the Word, which may be a legal diſcharge of the ſinner while he is in unbelief, then no unbelieving ſinner is juſtified. But there is no act of grace declared and publiſhed in the Word that may be a legal diſcharge of the ſinner while he remains in unbelief. Ergo.
Mr. Eyre firſt denies the Aſſumption; For the Goſpel declares that God hath tranſacted all the ſins of the Elect on Jeſus Chriſt: and that he by his offering hath made a full and perfect atonement for them, whereby they are really made clean from all their ſins in the ſight of God as of old, carnal Iſrael were typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Prieſt, Lev. 16. 30.
Rep. 1. Suppoſing the tenour of the Goſpel or New Covenant to be ſuch a declaration as this: yet I deny, that this declaration hath the forme or force of a Law, to abſolve the ſinner from the ſentence of a former Law. The Reaſon's plain, becauſe it is but narratio rei geſtae, a meer hiſtorical narration of what hath been tranſacted between God and Chriſt. And doth not Mr. Eyre ſee, that if he yield it to have the nature and operation of a Law in diſcharging ſinners, he contradicts himſelf in his next anſwer? wherein he denies, that Juſtification is the diſcharge of a ſinner by a declared act, that is, by a Law. Indeed, ſuch a Goſpel as he here ſpeaks of, may declare the ſinner to be diſcharged by ſome former act: but it ſelfe cannot be his diſcharge, and therefore the anſwer is nothing to the purpoſe. 2. The atonement made by Chriſt, may be ſaid to be perfect two wayes. 1. In reſpect of it ſelf, and ſo it was moſt perfect, as wanting nothing that was requiſite to conſtitute or make it a compleat cauſe of our peace. 2. In reference to its effects, and ſo it is yet imperfect, and ſhall continue ſo till the Saints be glorified, becauſe till then they ſhall not have the full effect, or perfection of peace, purchaſed in the death of Chriſt. If Mr Eyre mean this latter ſenſe, when he ſayes the Goſpel declares a full and perfect atonement made by Chriſt: he begs the queſtion. In the former I grant it. 3. And ſo that the Elect were cleanſed from their ſins in the death of Chriſt quoad impetrationem, becauſe he obtained eternal redemption and cleanſing for them; but not quoad applicationem, till they do beleeve, becauſe the remiſſion purchaſed in the death of Chriſt, is not applied or given to us till we believe. 4. Though the Prieſt made an atonement for all the ſins of Iſrael upon the day of expiation, Lev. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themſelves, and humbling their ſoules on that day, ver. 23. otherwiſe they ſhould have no benefit by that atonement, Lev. 23. 29. Whatſoever ſoule ſhall not be afflicted on that ſame day, he ſhall be cut off from among his people. Is not this to teach us, that without faith and repentance, we ſhall not have remiſſion by the death of Chriſt?
Secondly, Mr. Eyre denies the Propoſition; which ſtands upon§. 2. this ground, That Juſtification is the diſcharge of a ſinner, by a publiſhed declared act.
Where note (Reader) that by a declared act, I mean, not an act of God, declaring and manifeſting to a ſinner that he is juſtified (as Mr. Eyre doth willingly miſtake me, and thereupon patcheth a nonſequitur upon me, which I intend not to unſtitch) but ſuch a declaration of his will, as is eſſential to make it a Law; for the very eſſence of a Law conſiſteth in this, that it is the declared will of the Law-giver, Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. which is the only rule that determines, both de debito officii, of what ſhall be our duty to do, and de debito poenae & praemii, of what rewards or penalties ſhall become due to us. Accordingly, the thing I maintain is, that our diſcharge from puniſhment due by Law, muſt be by the revealed will, that is, by ſome contrary Law or Conſtitution of God. And I very well remember, that in private conference with Mr. Eyre, about nine or ten yeares ſince, I told him my judgement was ſo then: and that our Divines were generally dark, in opening the nature of Juſtification, for want of taking notice of it: to which he then conſented. But Tempora mutantur, &c. the thing it ſelf I thus proved.
Sin is not imputed where there is no Law, Rom. 5. 13. Ergo, neither is righteouſneſſe imputed without Law.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. Though men will not impute or charge ſin upon themſelves, where there is not a Law to convince them of it, yet God may: for his hating of a perſon, is his imputing of ſin. The ſcope of Rom. 5. 13. is not to ſhew when God begins to impute ſin to a perſon, but that ſin in being ſuppoſeth a Law: and conſequently, that there was a Law before the Law of Moſes.
Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre indeed think, that when it is ſaid, Sin is not imputed where there is no Law, the meaning ſhould be, men will not impute ſin to themſelves where there is no Law? To impute ſin hath but two ſenſes in Scripture. 1. To puniſh it, 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and then the meaning is, that men will not puniſh themſelves where there is no Law; and becauſe the puniſhment which the Apoſtle doth here inſtance in, is death: therefore the full ſenſe will be this, that men will not kill themſelves where there is no Law: a very probable gloſſe. Or 2. To accuſe or charge the guilt of ſin upon a perſon. But the uſe of the Word will not allow us to underſtand it of a mans imputing or charging ſin upon himſelf. aVid Guil. Eſthi. in loc.For it is never uſed in all the Scriptures to ſignifie the act of a man upon himſelf, but perpetually the act of another, as Paul to Philemon, ver. 18. If he owe thee any thing, impute it to me: eſpecially when it is put paſſively, as here it is, ſin is not imputed. See Rom. 4. throughout. 3. And I do heartily wiſh Mr. Eyre would have given us a ſhort paraphraſe upon the thirteenth and fourteenth verſes, that we might have ſeen what tolerable ſenſe could have been made of them according to his Expoſition: and whether the Apoſtle do affirme or deny that men did impute ſin to themſelves before the Law; eſpecially if the Apoſtles ſcope be what Mr. Eyre ſayes it is, namely, to ſhew that ſin in being, ſuppoſeth a Law: how can it be conducible to that ſcope, to ſpeak of mens not imputing ſin to themſelves without a Law? 4. The grand deſigne of the Apoſtle is plainly to illuſtrate our ſalvation by Chriſt, by compariſon of contraries: and the ſimilitude in its full explication ſtands thus. As by the diſobedience of Adam, ſin and death entred upon all his children: ſo by the obedience of Chriſt, life and righteouſneſſe betides all his. The Propoſition is ſet down, ver. 12. Wherefore, as by one man ſin entred into the world, and death by ſin, and ſo death paſſed upon all men for that all have ſinned. This is proved, ver, 13, 14. and the ſumme of the proof (as I take it) is this. Sin was imputed, and that unto death, from the beginning of the world. Ergo, there muſt be ſome Law in being, according to which ſin was imputed: for it cannot be imputed where there is no Law, ver. 13. This Law muſt be either the Law of Moſes, or the Law given to Adam. The former it cannot be, for ſin and death were in the world long before that Law was given, even as long as from Adam to Moſes, ver. 14. Ergo, it muſt be the Law given to Adam. And ſo hath the Apoſtle his purpoſe, That it was by the diſobedience of one (namely Adam) that ſin entred into the world, and death by ſin. From whence it is manifeſt, that God doth never impute ſin without a Law: that is, doth neither charge perſons as guilty of ſin, nor puniſh them for it (other ſenſe the phraſe of imputing ſin hath none in all the Scripture) for from the imputation of ſin unto death, the Apoſtle infers the neceſſity of a Law, according to which ſin was imputed in the long tract of time between Adam and Moſes.
2. Gods hatred of reprobation is not his imputing of ſin, as being§. 3. antecedent to any act of the creature, whether good or evil, Rom. 9. 13. If Mr. Eyre think otherwiſe, why have we not one ſyllable of proof, neither from Scripture nor reaſon, to warrant us to call the acts of God by ſuch new names as they were never known by before ſince the world was made? The Apoſtle prayes, that the ſin of thoſe that deſerted him, be not laid to their charge, or imputed to them, 2 Tim. 4. 16. and the ſame ſenſe hath the prayer of Stephen for his murderers, Acts 7. 60. Lord, lay not this ſin to their charge, both which ſuppoſe the imputation or non-imputation of ſin to be a conſequent to it, not antecedent. And againſt the conſtant language of Scripture, and of all men, muſt we be forced, upon no other Authority then Mr. Eyres bare word, to beleeve the imputation of ſin to be from eternity; and when the Apoſtle ſays, ſin is not imputed where there is no Law; we muſt beleeve, (for Mr. Eyre ſayes it) that the meaning is, There is no ſin where there is no Law. Briefely, if ſin be imputed from eternity, men are miſerable from eternity, which is impoſſible; for he that is not, is not miſerable, Mat. 26. 24.
Therefore Mr. Eyre hath a ſecond anſwer, and that is, That§. 4. there is not the ſame reaſon of our being ſinners, and being righteous: ſeeing that ſin is our act, but righteouſneſſe is the gift of God.
Rep. What then? yet there may be, and is the ſame reaſon of imputing ſin, and imputing righteouſneſſe, which are both Gods acts. It is but changing the terme, and the matter will be clear. To impute righteouſneſſe, and not to impute ſin, are termes much of the ſame ſignification with the Apoſtle, Rom. 4. 6, 8. Now to impute ſin, and to non-impute ſin, are contraries, (though the latter be expreſſed by a negative terme) Ergo, they are both of them actions of the ſame kinde and common nature. Contraria ſunt oppoſita ſub eodem genere proximo. Ergo, there is the ſame reaſon for the one and the other, that if ſin cannot be imputed without Law, then neither non-imputed.
More particularly thus I argued, that as condemnation is no ſecret act or reſolution of God to condemn, but the very voice and ſentence of the Law, Curſed is he that ſinneth: ſo on the contrary, our Juſtification muſt be ſome declared ſentence or act of God, which may diſcharge the ſinner from condemnation.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, That as condemnation comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the firſt Adam: ſo our Juſtification deſcends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the ſecond Adam: which New Covenant, and not the Conditional Promiſe, (as Mr. W. would have it) is called the Law of faith, Rom. 3. 27. and the Law of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 9. 31.
Rep. The reaſon then is acknowledged to be the ſame on both§, 5. ſides. Ergo, as condemnation is by a Law, ſo muſt Juſtification be, which was before denied. To what is here ſaid for explication I reply, 1. That the former part of it ſuppoſeth that which I will never grant, nor Mr. Eyre ever prove: and that is, That there is no condemnation which comes upon ſinners for moral tranſgreſſions, but by the Law given to Adam. Indeed that Law condemned him as the head of mankinde for his firſt diſobedience: and ſo condemneth all his poſterity for original ſin. But his poſterity are not concerned in thoſe perſonal ſins which he committed after his firſt tranſgreſſion; nor in the condemnation which became due to him for them: no more then they are ſubject to condemnation for one anothers ſins. But that Law which was given to him at firſt as the common head of mankinde, and had effect upon him as ſuch; became afterwards of meer perſonal obligation, both upon him and all men elſe, for perſonal, actual ſins. So that no man now is, or ever was, ſince the firſt tranſgreſſion ſubject to condemnation by that Law, quatenus it was given to Adam as a publick perſon, for any perſonal ſins of their own: but as it was obliging immediately upon each man in his own perſon. And therfore the Law of M… ſes ſpeaks more perſonally. Curſed is every man that continueth not in every thing which is written in the Law to do it, Gal. 3. 9, 10. And by this Law is every tranſgreſſour condemned, not with a derivative condemnation, (ſuch I mean, as is derived, and as it were propagated from another) but ſuch whereof every ſinner in his own perſon is the firſt and immediate ſubject. And unto this condemnation is our Juſtification moſt frequently oppoſed in Scripture. The Argument therefore hath yet no anſwer, nor nothing like it. The condemnation of a ſinner for his own perſonal ſins, is an act of God, condemning by a Law: Ergo, the Juſtification which is oppoſed thereto, is an act of God by a Law in like manner. 2. I deny that condemnation comes upon any man, by vertue of the Law given to Adam, till himſelf be borne a childe of Adam. Ergo, from the acknowledged pnrity of reaſon it muſt follow, that no man is juſtified by the Covenant made with Chriſt, till himſelf be borne of Chriſt, that is, by faith, Gal. 3. 26. John 1. 12. 13. and 3. 5. ſo that in this reſpect the Argument is yielded. For clearing of the antecedent, note: That when it is wont to be ſaid, we were condemned in Adam, it is not to be underſtood properly, but with an foreign, an As I may ſo ſay, to uſe the Apoſtles expreſſion, in a caſe not much unlike, Heb. 7. 9, 10. As I may ſo ſay, Levi alſo paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loines of his father. Not as if we were then actually condemned, who then had no exiſtence: for he that is not, can be no more under Law, then he that is dead and free from Law, Rom. 6. 7. and 7. 3. and condemnation by Law, being a tranſient act, requires an object exiſtent upon which it may paſſe. But becauſe the very ſame ſentence which condemned him then, takes hold without any renovation of all his poſterity ſucceſſively unto the ſame condemnation. Even as when it is ſaid, in Adam all di…. 1 Cor. 15. 22. Not as if men could die before they are borne, but becauſe it was appointed and determined by the foreſaid Law, that all borne of Adam ſhould die, Heb. 9 27. And in this reſpect our ſpiritual being in the ſecond Adam, is as neceſſary to our partaking in his righteouſneſſe, as our natural being in the firſt Adam, to our partaking in his condemnation.
Yea. 3. It is a great deal more neceſſary: and therefore I deny§. 6 Mr. Eyres conſequence; for though it were yielded, that condemnation comes on men only by the Law of Adam: yet will it by no means follow, that Juſtification deſcends to us from Chriſt, as the immediate effect of that Law or Covenant by which himſelfe was juſtified. The reaſon is plain, becauſe Adam repreſented all mankind, as virtually in the ſame obligation with himſelf: (bVide Paul. Ferrium ſcholaſt. Orthod. ſpe c. 20 §. 3.) and his offence was the act of the whole humane nature, though it be not imputed to particular perſons, till they begin to exiſt: and his condemnation was ſo far forth the condemnation of all mankinde, it being the very ſame ſentence that condemneth both him and us. But Chriſt Jeſus repreſented no man as in the ſame obligation with himſelfe, either in his obedience or Juſtification: otherwiſe we are juſtified by works, or he by grace: for we muſt be acknowledged to have ſatisfied Gods juſtice in him, and to have merited eternal life in him, in the very ſame propriety of ſpeech, as we are ſaid to have ſinned and dyed in Adam: which I will never beleeve while I live: becauſe it excludes grace altogether from having any hand in the juſtification of a ſinner. The grace of our juſtification is uſually placed in theſe (cSee the Aſſemb. confeſ. cap. 11. §. 3.) two things. 1. In that Chriſt was given freely of the Father for us. 2. And his obedience and …tisfaction accepted in our ſtead. But in neither of theſe is there any grace at all, if we have merited and ſatisfied in him, as we are ſaid to ſin and die or be condemned in Adam. For the Law it ſelf will allow us to make ſatisfaction if we are able (for it inflicts the penalty but in ord…r to ſatisfaction: and the puniſhment of ſinners is not eternall, but becauſe they cannot ſatisfie by bearing it). But if we have ſatisfied in Chriſt, it ſeems we were able to do it. …b eſſe ad poſſe valet conſequentia. And juſtice it ſelf will accept of ſatisfaction being performed. And as God deals not more rigorouſly with us in condemning us, then he did with Adam in condemning him: ſo neither doth he deale any whit more mercifully with us in juſtifying us, then he did with Chriſt in juſtifying him, if his ſatisfaction and juſtification be ours in the ſame ſenſe, in which Adams ſinne and condemnation is ours. How much ſafer is it to ſay with the Scripture, He is the propitiation for our ſinnes, 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternall redemption for us, Heb. 9. 12. then to talke of our being in him a propitiation for our owne ſinnes: or of purchaſing in him redemption for our ſelves? The concluſion is; the Law that juſtified Chriſt cannot juſtifie us, though the law that condemned Adam, were yeelded to be the only law that condemneth us: (which yet I have already denyed) Erg…, there muſt be ſome other Law according to which ſinners are juſtified: and that is, that Law of grace preached in the Goſpel, whoſoever beleeveth ſhall be ſaved: called the law of faith, Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 9. 31.
4. No (ſaith Mr. Eyre) thoſe places are to be underſtood of the§. 7. new covenant made with Chriſt: not of the conditionall promiſe, as I would have it.
Rep. Which is ſpoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyres diſputing, that is dictating. I acknowledge my ſelfe unworthy to be compared with him in any reſpect: yet the truth (if he think himſelf in the truth) is worthy of a more laborious defenſe then a frigid ſo 'tis or 'tis not ſo, though I may not be worthy of a better anſwer. I am perſwaded himſelf will acknowledge that the propriety of the phraſes favours me: and he doth not ſo much as pretend to any Argument hat may compell me to underſtand them improperly. 1. For the law of faith, it is expreſly oppoſed to the law of works. Where is boaſting then? it is excluded. By what law? of works? nay, but by the law of faith. The law of works is the law that requires us to performe works that we may be juſtified. Ergo, the law of faith is the law which requires faith unto juſtification; even that doctrine which manifeſteth the righteouſneſſe of God which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, without the works of the law; as he had before deſcribed it, v. 21, 22. Thus Beza, Evangelium vocat legem fidei, id eſt, doctrinum quae ſalutem prop…nit ſub conditione, ſi credideris—oppoſ…tam doctrinae quae juſtitiam & ſalutem proponit cum conditione, ſi omnia feceris. To the ſame purpoſe Paraeus, Aretius, Hemmingius, &c. And therefore the Apoſtle having ſaid, that the law of faith excludes boaſting, he addes immediatly, v. 28. we conclude therefore that a man is juſtified by faith without the deeds of the law. To put faith for Chriſt is ſuch a piece of boldneſſe as I dare not adventure upon, as much as Mr. Eyre challength me for my forehead. The reaſons are mentioned before. 2. And as for the law of righteouſneſſe. Rom. 9. 31. it is called the righteouſneſſe which is of faith in the very next foregoing verſe, v. 30. And I would Mr. Eyre would tell us how we may otherwiſe make ſenſe of the Apoſtle, when he ſayes the Gentiles attained it by faith, v. 30. and the Jews fell ſhort of it by ſtumbling at Chriſt through unbelief, v. 31. And a few verſes below chap. 10. 6. the Apoſtle calls it the righteouſneſſe which is of faith, and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach: the voyce and tenour of which he deſcribes, v. 9. If th…u ſhalt confeſſe with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus and ſhalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved: and all this in oppoſition to the righteouſneſſe of the law which the Jews ſought after: the ſumme of which is comprehended in theſe words. The man that doth them ſhall live by them, v. 5. Hence it is manifeſt, that the law of righteouſneſſe, is that by which only righteouſneſs is attainable: and that is the Goſpel-promiſe of juſtifying them that beleeve in Jeſus, though they be not able to fulfill the Law of Moſes.
SECT. II.
IN the next place Mr. Eyre offers us ſome Arguments to prove§. 8. that juſtification is not the diſcharge of a ſinner by that ſignall conditionall promiſe of the Goſpel, he that believes ſhall be ſaved. Let us try then (for whereas he cenſures that ſaying of mine, every man is then condemned when the Law condemnes him, I ſtay not to anſwer him: he might have ſeen, if he would, that I intended no more then, that whoſoever is condemned, is condemned by a Law.)
What then are the Arguments? The firſt is crambe bis (ſhall I ſay, or) decies cocta, that it will inferre juſtification by works: for anſwer to which I referre the reader to chap. 4. and 5. having proved in the former, that it is the Act or grace of faith which the Apoſtle perpetually oppoſeth to works: and in the latter, that benefits may be given of grace, which yet are given upon condition.
His ſecond Argument therefore is this. If juſtification be by that ſignall promiſe, he that beleeves ſhall be ſaved, then none were juſtified before that gracious ſentence was publiſhed. But the Fathers of the old Teſtament were juſtified before the publiſhing of that gracious ſentence, or any like it, Ergo.
Rep. A particular explicite faith in Chriſt was not abſolutely neceſſary§. 9. to ſalvation, till the times of the Goſpel, and the doctrine of faith and remiſſion was in former times very ſparingly and darkly revealed: eſpecially in the time between Adam and Moſes. Yet was the faith of the ancients the ſame for ſubſtance with the faith of Chriſtians, and of a like neceſſity to juſtification and ſalvation. For Abel was juſtified by faith, Heb. 11. 4. and Enoc…, v. 5. and N…ah, v. 7. and Abraham, Rom. 4. & ſic de caeteris: and ſurely they could not believe without a Preacher, by whom they might heare of him on whom they beleeved. But ſuppoſing the promiſe of remiſſion to be ſuitable to thoſe times of darker diſpenſation, and the condition of that faith which was then required as ſufficient to ſalvation, I paſſe the propoſition. 2. I deny the aſſumption (which hath here no other proofe then the old Argument, ſo tis) namely that there was not a promiſe of forgiveneſſe preached unto the world upon condition of repentance and returning unto God (which is the ſubſtance of faith) before the incarnation of our Lord. There were many Preachers of righteouſneſſe in the old world. Noah dSee Dr Golls Sermon before the Aſtrologers. p. 28, 29. & Manaſſe Ben. Iſrael. Concil. in Gen. 4. 26. 3.is reckoned the eighth, 2 Pet. 2. 5. beginning at Enos, Gen. 4. 26. And he (no queſtion) preached faith and repentance to the world; that they might eſcape the deſtruction of ſoul and body at once: who notwithſtanding his preaching periſhed by their diſobedience or unbelief (the Greek word ſignifieth either) 1 Pet. 3. 20. and he by his faith is ſaid (in a comparative ſenſe) to have condemned them, Heb. 11. 7. And in the book of Job (who lived before the law) we finde the world had notice of ſuch a conditionall promiſe; though not from any written word, but by tradition, or by Preachers immediatly raiſed up, Job. 8. 4, 5, 6. If thy children have ſinned againſt him—If thou wouldeſt ſeek unto God betime, and make thy ſupplication to the Almighty; if thou be pure, and upright, ſurely now he would awake for thee, &c. and this he tells us was the faith of the Fathers many generations before, v. 8, 9. compare, v. 20, 21. So chap, 33. 27, 28. he looketh upon men, and if any ſay I have ſinned, he will deliver his ſoul from going down into the pit. So chap. 22. 21, 22, 23. Acquaint thy ſelf with God—lay up his words in thy heart. If thou returne to the Almighty, thou ſhalt be built up, &c. ſee alſo chap. 11. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. And what leſſe doth the Lord ſay to Cain? Gen. 4. 7. If thou doſt well, ſhalt thou not be accepted? namely, if thou doſt well as Abel did, ſhalt thou not be accepted as well as he? And wherein Abel's well doing conſiſted, the Apoſtle tells us, Heb. 11. 4. By ſaith Abel offered unto God a more excellent ſacrifice then Cain. So that from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Moſes, the world was not altogether without notice of the promiſe of ſalvation upon condition of faith and repentance.cVide Moſ. … myr… …. Spec. anima l…er. ſpecial. p…r. 3 & anima i. General. par 3. &. 4.
In Moſes's time the matter is clearer then to need proofe, Heb. 4. 1, 2. Let us therefore feare, leaſt a promiſe being left us of entring into his reſt, any of you ſhould ſeem to come ſhort of it: for unto us was the Goſpel preached as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, being not mixed with faith in them that heard it. Hence 1. it is manifeſt, that ſalvation was promiſed Iſrael under the type of reſt in Canaan. 2. That it was not promiſed them abſolutely, but upon condition (whether the condition were expreſſed, or underſtood) otherwiſe their non-entrance into Reſt muſt have been imputed wholly to Gods unfaithfulneſſe, and not to their unbelief: whereas the text ſayes expreſly, it was their unbelief which made the promiſe of no effect to them; and they could not enter in becauſe of unbelief, chap. 3, 19. 3. That the Goſpel is preached to us as it was to them: and therefore the ſame condition is required of us, as was required of them, namely faith: otherwiſe we alſo ſhall fall ſhort of the promiſed reſt, as they did, v. 1.
The third Argument is this. If juſtification be only by a declared§. 10. diſcharge, then elect infants that die in their infancy have no juſtification.
Rep. I deny the conſequence, where's the proofe? I can find no other but this, that infants are inſenſible of this declaration, and unable to plead their diſcharge from any ſuch promiſe: which is nothing in the world to the purpoſe. Cannot infants have right to a benefit by law, or the declared act of a Rector or Lawgiver, becauſe they are unſenſible of it, and cannot plead it? They are condemned by law whiles infants, Rom. 5. 14. They may be ſervants or free by law. Do not our laws provide for the rights of Minors, Pupils and Orphans, even in their infancy? 2. It doth alſo ruine the maine pillars of Mr. Eyres diſcourſe. All the places which I before alledged to prove juſtification by faith, according to him, are to be underſtood of the manifeſtation of juſtification to the conſcience. Give me leave then to retort his owne Argument. The juſtification ſpoken of in the places aforeſaid, Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. and 4. 24. Act. 10. 43. and 13. 39. &c. is, that without which no man can be ſaved. But ſome may be ſaved without juſtification manifeſted and declared to the conſcience: as infants. Ergo the juſtification mentioned in thoſe places is not juſtification in conſcience, or manifeſted unto conſcience.
The fourth Argument ſucceeds. The making juſtification a§. 11. declared diſcharge, detracts from the majeſty and ſoveraignty of God, for it aſcribes to him but the office of a notary or ſubordinate Miniſter (whoſe work it is to declare and publiſh the ſentence of the Court) rather then of a Judge or ſupream Magiſtrate.
Rep. If this Argument be caſt into forme, it runs thus. He that forgives ſin by a declared Act, is but a notary or ſubordinate Miniſter (for their work it is to declare and publiſh the ſentence of the Court.) But God (according to me) pardons ſin by a declared Act. Ergo (according to me) God in juſtifying or pardoning ſin is but as a notary or ſubordinate Miniſter. I can ſcarcely believe that there is any reader will need my help, to anſwer ſuch arguings as theſe. I deny the propoſition. The proofe of it is, à baculo ad angulum. It is the office of a notary to declare the ſentence of the Court. Ergo, he that pardons offences by a publique Act or Law, is a notary. 2. And yet if God publiſh his owne Laws, he doth nothing unbecoming his Majeſty and Soveraignty. He publiſhed his Law to Adam himſelf; and will publiſh the finall ſentence which ſhall paſſe upon all men at judgement: and our Lord Jeſus publiſhed the Goſpel with his owne mouth, Joh. 7. 37. and Rev. 22. 16, 17.
The fifth Argument is all one with the firſt, and ſo is anſwered already.
The ſixth and laſt Argument is à pari. Forgiveneſſe amongſt men is not neceſſarily by a declared diſcharge; Ergo, Gods is not, for we are bid to forgive one another, as God for Chriſts ſake hath forgiven us, Eph. 4. 32.
Anſ. Suppoſing that the Antecedent ſpeak of private men onelyonly§. 12. forgiving perſonal injuries one to another, I deny the conſequence. And one reaſon of my denial follows preſently. Eph. 4. 32. proves well that Gods forgiving us ſhould be a motive to us to forgive one another: but it doth by no means prove that our forgiveneſſe one of another, is an act of the ſame kinde and nature with Gods forgiveneſſe of us. 1 Joh. 4. 11. If God hath ſo loved us, we ought alſo to love one another: though our love one to another be not univocally the ſame with Gods love to us. And yet, as our love, ſo our forgiveneſſe may in ſome reſpects reſemble his: as in the freeneſſe, fulneſſe and dureableneſſe of it, and in the effects which it produceth on the perſons forgiven: but every way like it, it neither can nor ought to be. 1. God forgives none without ſatisfaction: we muſt. 2. No private man is Governour and Judge of his brother: Ergo, his forgiveneſſe cannot be ſuch as Gods is, who forgiveth as ſupreame Judge and lawgiver, Jam. 4. 12. 3. Nor can Gods forgiveneſſe be like mans, if it conſiſt in the act of his minde or will: for if we will ſpeak properly; a mans will not to proſecute one that hath injured him, is not called pardon and forgiveneſſe ſimply, becauſe it is an act of the will: but becauſe it is ſuch an act as ſuppoſeth on his part that is pardoned, ſome injury done; and on his part that pardoneth, ſome right to require or demand ſatisfaction: neither of which can be ſuppoſed to be the will of God, which was from eternity. 4. Private forgiveneſſe is no juſtification of the perſon forgiven. A man may forgive his murtherers (as Stephen did) yet neither the laws of God or man will permit them to go unpuniſhed. But Gods act of remiſſion is withall the juſtification of a ſinner. Ergo, is not ſuch an act as private mens remiſſion of perſonall injuries. Other differences it were eaſie to adde: but I ſhall inſiſt only on that which followes.
The forgiveneſſe of a Magiſtrate being an act of authority muſt§. 13. be by ſome formal act of oblivion. And ſo Gods forgiveneſſe being in like manner an act of authority muſt be alſo by ſome formall act of pardon that ſhall make the Law of condemnation to be of no force, &c.
Mr. Eyre anſwers. 1. That he ſees no reaſon why God ſhould not have as much power to forgive without a promulged Act, as man; and chargeth me with boldneſſe for limiting God to ſuch a way of forgiveneſſe: becauſe Gods forgiveneſſe is no leſſe an act of charity, then mans, Rom. 5. 8. Eph. 2. 4. And though God in the act of forgiveneſſe may be looked upon as a Judge, yet is he ſuch a Judge as proceeds by no other Law then his own will.
Rep. The firſt part of the anſwer is ridiculous: as if a private man had more power then the ſupream Magiſtrate, becauſe he forgives an injury without a promulged Act: or as if it were through defect of power in the Magiſtrate that he forgives by a Law or Act of grace. A private man remits an injury, as it is an injury and hurt to himſelf: but as it is a breach of the Law of God or man, he neither doth nor can remit it: as in the caſe before-mentioned of a man forgiving his murtherers. Therefore it is but a very imperfect pardon which a private man can give. But it argues eminency and perfection of power to pardon by an Act of grace: becauſe no Law can contradict it, but it diſannulls and invalidates them all: according to that of the Apoſtle, Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, the Law cannot diſannul to make the promiſe of no effect. The confirming of the Covenant (according to the ſignificancy of the Greek (f) words foreign and foreign) is an authoritative and authentique ratification of it: as humane teſtaments before, v. Budaeus, Com…ent. Grac ling. 1058. & Bea in 2 Cor. 2. 815. are then ratified or confirmed, when they want nothing which the Law of nature or particular Nations requires to make them valid. Therefore to argue for a power in God, to forgive as private men forgive, is to plead for a power in God to become weak, and to act imperfectly and unlike himſelfe. 2. When Mr. Eyre talkes of my boldneſſe in limiting God, I ſuppoſe it is for want of a better anſwer. I never heard before that it was a limiting of God, to determine his actions according to the relations which they flow from as their immediate principle. Thus do we diſtinguiſh the actions of God, as a Maker, a Soveraigne, a Father, a Lawgiver and Judge, as juſt, as merciful, &c. Belike if I ſhould ſay God cannot condemne men as a Father, I limit God: or that he cannot ſave ſinners as juſt, (oppoſing juſtice to mercy), or that he cannot act as the Governour and Judge of mankind in condemning and juſtifying, without a Law. 3, When he determines Gods forgiveneſſe to be an act of charity, if he mean of charity as oppoſed to authority (as he muſt do, if he ſpeak any thing to purpoſe) he overthrows wholly the neceſſity and uſe of Chriſts ſatisfaction. For if Gods forgiveneſſe of us, be meerly an act of charity (ſuch as private mens forgiveneſſe one of another) then ſatisfaction is no more neceſſary to Gods forgiving us then to our forgiveneſſe one of another. Nor can it be of any uſe: for it can neither put the beginning nor increaſe of love in God, which is in him without beginning or addition: nor doth it remove that which hinders the effects of his love from being communicated unto us: for that forgiveneſſe which is purely an act of charity is cedendo de jure ſuo, by bearing an injury, and parting with that right which a man hath to require ſatisfaction: and if God forgive after this manner, the caſe is too plaine to need proofe, that the ſatisfaction of Chriſt is of no uſe at all to make way for the forgiveneſſe of ſin, but rather a hindrance and contradiction thereunto. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that the whole weight of the cauſe between the Socinians & us, depends upon the truth of that which he here denies, namely, that condemnation and juſtification are the Acts of God as Rector, and ſupream Judge of men. If he will but review Cameron, Gerhard, Crotius, Suarez, or any other, Papiſt or Proteſtant, who is accounted to have wrote judiciouſly and orthodoxly upon that point, he will ſee that they fetch the foundation of their defenſe from this very principle.§. 14.
4. Rom. 5. 8. and Eph. 2. 4. The texts alledged to prove that Gods forgiveneſſe is no leſſe an act of charity then mans, prove it not. They ſhew indeed that our juſtification in actu exercito is an effect of the love of God; it being his love only which moved him to ſend Jeſus Chriſt to purchaſe juſtification for us, and thereupon to beſtow it on us, (but with the preſervation of the honour and authority of his Law). Nevertheleſſe the ſame juſtification is an Act compleat in its kind, nature, definition and eſſentiall conſtitution, without that love of God. Even as a King out of ſpecial affection to a malefactour condemned (ſuppoſe it be his owne ſonne) may find out. a way to ſatisfie for his offence, and conſequently to diſcharge him: here the diſcharge doth not exiſt but by virtue of the Kings love and good affection: yet the pardon it ſelfe, in actu ſignato, for its kind and nature, is a rectoral judicial act; not of private charity.
5. Mr. Eyre yeelds at laſt, that God in the act of forgiveneſſe§. 15. may be looked upon as a Judge: yet as ſuch a judge as proceeds by no other Law then his owne will. Where, either the former part contradicts all that hath been hitherto ſaid about Gods forgiving men, as private men forgive perſonal injuries; for as no man in the very ſame Act can be looked upon as a Judge, and a private perſon (for there cannot be two formal principles of the very ſame action) ſo neither can God: or the latter part contradicts the former: for he that hath no other rule but his own will, is neither a Judge, who proceeds gL. A divo Pio. ff. de re judic. & L. 7. ff. ad leg Jul. R…p… t…nd.exformula according to the preſcription of Law; nor an Arbitratour who determines ex aequo & bono, according to the equity of the cauſe depending. 2. When he ſays, God proceeds by no other Law then his own will: if he mean by no other Law then what is of his own making▪ it is true; but if he mean by his own will as diſtinguiſhed from a Law properly ſo called, the Apoſtle contradicts him. Jam. 4. 12. There is one Lawgiver who is able to ſave and to deſtroy. And hereby doth the Lord juſtifie the equity of his own diſpenſations in puniſhing and pardoning, becauſe he doth neither pro libitu, but according to his own declared Laws. Ezek. 18. 18, 23, 25, 29, 30. He doth not puniſh meerly to ſatisfy his own will, as if he delighted in puniſhment. ibid. v. 23, 32. Lam. 3. 33, 34, 35. but according to the exigency of mens demerits: ſo hath he declared that he will by no means cleare the guilty, Exod. 34. 7. Which yet by his abſolute liberty and ſoveraignty he is free to do, if he had not confined himſelf to a Law.
M. Eyre anſwers ſecondly, The promulgation of an act of§. 16. grace is for the direction and limitation of Judges and Miniſters of State. But in the juſtification of a ſinner God hath no need of ſuch an act, becauſe he is the ſole Judge and juſtifier himſelf: and therefore the purpoſe of his will ſecures the perſon ſufficiently, and makes the Law of condemnation of no force in regard of the reall execution of it.
Rep. If we can have no better anſwers then theſe, yet we muſt be content, for ought I ſee. 1. Doth Mr. Eyre mean that the onelyonly end of promulgation is the direction of inferiour officers? If ſo, why doth he mention another in his very next anſwer? If not, why doth he pretend that a Magiſtrate cannot pardon his ſubjects involved in common guilt, by a promulged Act, becauſe one end of promulgation is the direction of inferiour Miniſters of State? 2. hVid. Greg. Sayr. Clav. Reg. li…. 3. cap. 1. §. 12. & Azor. Inſtit. moral. par. 1. l. 5. cap. 3.Some degree of promulgation is eſſential to a Law. Will unrevealed, is will, not Law. It cannot rationally be imagined that Magiſtrates ſhould intend to oblige their ſubjects by that will which they never intend to reveale: and ſurely will without obligation, is no Law. And the firſt and immediate effect of this Law (if it be a Law of grace) is to give offendours a right to impunity, any Act or Law to the contrary in any wiſe notwithſtanding. The direction of inferiour Judges is but the ſecondary uſe of it (and in the caſe between God and us, of no uſe at all, becauſe himſelf is both Lawgiver and Judge; reſerving each mans cauſe to his own peculiar cognizance) for if it be for their direction, what doth it direct them in? ſurely in the adminiſtration of juſtice: which conſiſts in giving every man his due. But impunity is not due to offendours but by virtue of ſome Act of grace. Ergo, the firſt effect of ſuch an Act is to conſtitute ſuch a right. 3. It is neceſſary that ſuch a generall pardon as is the Act of the ſupream Judge and Lawgiver, ſhould be by a Law of grace: not that God needs it (as Mr. Eyre inſinuates) but becauſe the nature of the thing requires it. If God forgives by the purpoſe of his will, then he doth not forgive as a Rector. Mr. Eyre hath before granted that his purpoſe not to puniſh is included in the decree of election as part of it: but election is neither an Act of juſtice nor of mercy, but of abſolute dominion and liberty. So that the ſumme of theſe ſayings is this. Though God forgive as ſupream Judge, yet it is not neceſſary that he ſhould forgive as other Judges do, becauſe he may forgive as he is not a Judge, viz. by the ſecret purpoſe of his will. And yet as God may (very improperly) be ſaid to need that which is moſt conducible to the glory of his Government, ſo is it needfull in reſpect of himſelf, that his judgement, whether of juſtification or condemnation, proceed according to his revealed promulged Laws. Himſelf doth hereby vindicate the equity of his dealings and Government over men, as was before obſerved out of Ezek. 18. throughout, adde D…ut. 30 from v. 11. to the end of the chapter.§. 17.
4. And whereas Mr. Eyre tells us again, that the Purpoſe of Gods Will doth ſufficiently ſecure the ſinner, and make the Law of condemnation to be of no force, as to the real execution of it: we have before ſhewed at large the miſchievous conſequences of this doctrine. If this be ſo, to what purpoſe imaginable did Chriſt die? at leaſt, there was no need he ſhould die to redeem us from the curſe of an abrogated Law, which by an eternal Act was made of no force at all to condemne. Before, when the ſatisfaction and merits of Chriſt lay at ſtake for the credit of an eternal Juſtification, Mr. Eyre was content to yield them this honour, that they purchaſed the effects, (though not the act) of Juſtification, which effect he told us was our non-punition. But here he tells us, that the purpoſe of Gods Will doth ſufficiently ſecure us from puniſhment: which though (I confeſſe) it be more rationally ſpoken, becauſe that act is moſt unworthy to be called the cauſe of our non-punition, or noncondemnation, which is not able to effect it, without the help of another more ſufficient cauſe; yet is it moſt perniciouſly ſpoken, as not leaving ſo much as the effects of our Juſtification, and by conſequence excluding both act and effects from any dependance upon the merits of Chriſt for their exiſtence. 2. Were Adam and Eve, either or both, obliged by the Law to puniſhment upon their diſobedience, or no? If not, their ſin did them no harme, nor was there any truth in that ſevere commination, In the day you eat thereof, you ſhall ſurely die: and it is paſt diſpute; they died by force of that Law, and all their poſterity to this day. Rom. 5. 12, 13, 14. 1 Cor. 15. 22, 56. And if ſo, then was not that Law made of no force by the eternal purpoſe of God: for if that Purpoſe of God do not hinder, but that men are legally obliged to condemnation upon breach of the Law; neither will Gods Juſtice and Faithfulneſſe permit that they go unpuniſhed, unleſſe his Law be ſatisfied ſome other way, Numb. 23. 19. God is not a man that he ſhould lie, neither the Son of man that he ſhould repent: hath he ſaid, and ſhall he not do it? or hath he ſpeken, and ſhall he not make it good? Therefore it is, that we have before denied, that there is in God any purpoſe preciſely of not puniſhing. 3. The Supreme Magiſtrate may neglect the execution of Laws with impunity to himſelfe; becauſe if he be Supreme, he is not accountable to any other humane authority: but not without ſuch a Proſtitution of the authority of his Lawes, and the honour of his own Government to contempt and obloq…y, as God will never endure to be caſt upon Himſelfe or his Law, by men or devils. His Honour and his Lawes are dearer to him then a thouſand worlds.
M. Eyre anſwers thirdly, the publiſhing of an act of grace, is for the§, 17. comfort of an offendor, rather then for any need the Magiſtrate hath thereof: as the act of Oblivion was a real pardon, when it paſſed the Houſe. So the publication of the New Covenant was for the comfort of Gods Elect, and not for their ſecurity in foro Dei.
Rep. Our queſtion is not preciſely what is the end of promulgation, but what is the effect of the Law promulged: which (ſay I) is to give offendors a right to impunity, which Mr. Eyre cannot deny: though it be very true, that ſuch a Law be alſo for the comfort of an offendor, namely ſecondarily and conſequenter; for it comforts him, in that it gives him a right to deliverance from deſerved puniſhment. His right and his comfort are not oppoſites, but both the effects of the ſame Law, and the latter ſubordinate to the former: ſo that hitherto there is nothing that contradicts me. 2. It is alſo true, that it is not the Magiſtrate who needs an act of grace, but offendors need it: for if the ſame authority which bound them under puniſhment, do not alſo diſcharge them from it, they cannot legally eſcape it. 3. When it is ſaid the Act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it paſſed the Houſe, it hath reference to what I ſaid in my Sermon, That a Vote in the Houſe, or a Declaration that an Act of Pardon ſhall come out, is no legal ſecurity to a Delinquent: by which I intended to declare, that neither the Purpoſe of God within himſelf, but the Law of grace, which in time he eſtabliſhed, according to his eternal purpoſe, was that act which pardoned the ſinner: which if Mr. Eyre would have contradicted, he ſhould have affirmed, that the meer purpoſe or reſolution of the Houſe to make ſuch an Act, is that very pardon which diſchargeth Delinquents. The Act it ſelf being once paſſed, may be yielded to be a Law, as being the declared will of the Lawgivers conſtituting a right to impunity, though by printing, writing or proclamation it be afterwards made more publick. Nevertheleſſe, I expected ſome proof, that it is a compleat Law before publiſhing: if after the p…ſ…ng it had been iNic. vig. de Dr…iſ. Iuſt. Jur. c. 1. p. 8. &c. 2 p. 1….ordered not to be publiſhed, till ſome moneths or a yeare after, I much queſtion whether in that interim it had been Law or no: though I am not ſo well acquainted with the cuſtomes of our own Nation, as to determine peremptorily? The Senatus-Conſulta amongſt the Romanes had not the force of a Law before publiſhing. But it is quite beſides our queſtion, to debate what promulgation is neceſſary to the compleating of a Law? It cannot be denied, but that when ſubjects are involved in common guilt, (as all the world is before God) their pardon muſt be by Law: which is as much as I needed or intended for illuſtration of the way and manner of Gods forgiving us, by the Goſpel or Law of grace. He that believeth ſhall not periſh, but ſhall have everlaſting life: which becauſe Mr. Eyre denies, (not diſproves, for thats impoſſible, it being a truth of God) we ſhall yet farther evince by the following Arguments.
SECT. III.
ANd firſt, from Mat. 28. 18, 19. compared with Mark 16.§. 18. 15, 16. And Jeſus came and ſpake unto them, ſaying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth,—Go ye therefore into all the world, and preach the Goſpel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, but he that believeth not ſhall be damned; from hence I inferre, 1. That God hath given unto Chriſt the Kingdome and Government over all men. 2. That this Government containes a power of remitting ſins. 3. That this power is exerciſed in enacting that gracious Law, He that believes ſhall be ſaved, for ſo doth the Lord ſpeak, Go ye therefore into all the world, &c. (which particle therefore I have borrowed from Matthew; ver. 19. and put it into the words of Mark) arguing manifeſtly from the right and authority which he had received, to the lawful exerciſe of it in making and ordering to be publiſhed that Law or Act of Pardon, whereof he doth then and there appoint his diſciples to be Ambaſſadours. I confeſſe I cannot imagine what can here be ſaid, unleſſe it be one of theſe two things. Either, 1. That remiſſion of ſin is not contained in that ſalvation which is here promiſed to them that believe. But this (me thinks) ſhould be too harſh for any Chriſtians eares to endure: ſeeing it muſt contain all that good which is oppoſed to condemnation; and therefore primarily remiſſion of ſins: which is alſo expreſly mentioned by the other Evangeliſts, Luke 24. 47. John 20. 23. and by the Apoſtles, in the execution of this their commiſſion, as a prime part of that ſalvation which they preached in the Name of Chriſt, Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19, &c. Or 2. That thoſe words, He that believes ſhall be ſaved, are a meer deſcription of the perſons that ſhall be ſaved (which I think is the ſenſe that Mr. Eyre ſomewhere doth put upon them) but this to me is more intolerable then the former: partly for the reaſons mentioned before, chap. 5. and to be mentioned hereafter: partly, becauſe according to ſuch an interpretation, the words will be no more then a ſimple affirmation or relation of what ſhall come to paſſe: whereas by their dependance upon the foregoing, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth, it is manifeſt, that they are an authoritative Sanction of the Lord Chriſt's, an act of that juriſdiction and legiſlative power, which he hath received from the Father, and ſo the ſtanding rule of remiſſion of ſins.
2. If it be by the Promiſe of the Goſpel, He that believes ſhall not periſh, §. 19.but ſhall have everlaſting life; If (I ſay) it be by this Promiſe, that God gives ſinners a right to impunity and eternal life, then by this Promiſe he juſtifies them. But by the foreſaid promiſe doth God give ſinners a right to impunity and eternal life. Ergo. The Propoſition I paſſe as manifeſt by its own light. The Aſſumption is delivered in ſeveral Scriptures. Thus Paul, Gal. 3. 18. God gave the inheritance to Abraham by Promiſe. Ergo, it is by Promiſe alſo, that a right to life is given to all that have it. This Promiſe is either particular or general. The former it is not, for God doth not now make any particular Promiſes to particular men, ſuch as was his Promiſe to believing Abraham: Ergo, it muſt be the general Promiſe, wherein the ſame bleſſings as were given to Abraham, are propoſed to all men to be obtained by the ſame faith that Abraham had, and by the ſame Promiſe given them when they believe: which Promiſe is that before mentioned, of life and ſalvation by faith in Jeſus Chriſt, the Apoſtle himſelf being Interpreter, ver. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under ſin, that the Promiſe by faith of Jeſus Chriſt might be given to them that believe. The ſame doth he aſſert at large, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 16, 23; 24.
3. The Lord Jeſus ſayes expreſſely, John 12. 48. That the §. 20.Word which he ſpake, ſhall judge unbelievers at the laſt day. If a judgment of condemnation be aſcribed to the Word, in reference to unbelievers, how can it be denied a judgement of Juſtification, in reference to believers? Non potuit magis ſplendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas, quàm dum illi judici… poteſtas defertur. Conſcendet quidem ipſe Chriſtus Tribunal, ſed ſententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum ſe aſſerit, (ſaith Calvin upon the place.) Yea, the Lord aſcribes to the ſame Word a judgement of Juſtification, ver. 50. And I know that his Commandment is life everlaſting; that is, the cauſe of it, as Moſes alſo ſpeaks, Deut. 32. 47. iSee alſo Deu…. …. v 15▪ … ….It is your life; though God be the principal cauſe, and the Word but the kVid. Synopſ. p…r theol. diſp. …3. §. 10 & Down. of J… ſtif c. …. …. 5. & …libi paſſiminſtrumental: and therefore the power which it hath of judgement, it hath from hence, that it is the Word of God, ver. 49. For I have not ſpoken of my ſelfe, but the Father which ſent me, he gave me a Commandment what I ſhould ſay: as the inſtrumental cauſe works not, but in the vertue of the principal. To this plain teſtimony let me adde an Argument, as plainly deduced from it.
If judgement ſhall paſſe at the laſt day according to the Word, then the Word is that Law which is the rule of judgement, (and by conſequence, to one is given by the Word a right to life, and another is obliged to condemnation by the ſame Word.) But the antecedent is moſt true. Ergo, ſo is the conſequent. It is the work of judgement to give unto e…ery one according to what is due to him by Law: if then a judgement of Juſtification paſſe upon any, ſome Law of grace muſt be ſuppoſed, according to which it becomes due, for ſuch a gracious ſentence to paſſe upon him.
4. And this is that which the Apoſtle James ſaith, chap. 4. 12.§. 21. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to ſave, and to deſtroy. Beza obſerves, that in foure ancient Greek Copies, lAs alſo in the Kings MS. See D…. Hammond. Annot. in loc.as alſo in the Syriack and the Latine Interpreter, the word Judge is extant. There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to ſave and deſtroy: that is, to whom pertaines the ſoveraign right and power of ſaving and deſtroying. But whether the word be expreſſed or no, it is ſurely implied: for the Apoſtles ſcope is to diſſwade us from judging one another, ver. 11. becauſe there is one Lawgiver, to whom the power of judgment, and ſo of abſolving and condemning, of ſaving and deſtroying doth appertain. Now he that ſaves as a Lawgiver, ſaves by abſolution; and he that abſolves as a Lawgiver, abſolves by Law. Ergo, God abſolves men, that is, pardons and juſtifies them by Law. And when he ſhall judge all men at the laſt day; his judgement, whether of ſalvation or deſtruction, ſhall proceed according to Law.
5. Adde to this, that the Apoſtle commends the excellency and glory§. 22. of the Goſpel, that God doth thereby juſtifie, 2 Cor 3. 9. For if the miniſtration of condemnation he glory, much more doth the miniſtration of righteouſneſſe exceed in glory. The miniſtration of condemnation is that which ver. 7. he calls the miniſtration of death, written and engraven in ſtones. His ſcope is▪ to ſhew the excellency of that Goſpel, which himſelf and other Apoſtles did preach and publiſh to the world; above the miniſtration of the Law committed to Moſes. As then the miniſtration of death and condemnation was the miniſtration of that Law, which did condemn unto death, (the effect being put for the cauſe) ſo the miniſtration of righteouſneſſe is the miniſtration of that Law or Word that juſtifies, the effect being put for the cauſe in like manner. Ergo, Juſtification is by Law.
6. To this purpoſe ſpeaks the ſame Apoſtle, Rom. 1. 16, 17. I §. 23.am not aſhamed of the Goſpel of Chriſt, for it is the power of God unto ſalvation to every one that believeth, …o the Jew firſt, and alſo to the Greek; for therein is the righteouſneſſe of God revealed from faith to faith. That which I obſerve is, 1. That the Goſpel is here called the Power of God to ſalvation: that is, a mighty and effectual inſtrument of ſalvation (as Expoſitors agree.) 2. That the power for which the Apoſtle here extolls it is, in that it ſaves them that beleeve. 3. That Juſtification is here included (yea, and primarily intended) in ſalvation: in which large ſenſe the word ſalvation is often taken elſewhere, Rom. 10. 9, 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48, 50. for the reaſon why he calls it the Power of God to ſalvation, is, becauſe it reveales the righteouſneſſe of God upon all that beleeve. Hence 4. The Goſpel is the Power of God unto Juſtification, as it is the revealed declared Will of God, concerning the Juſtification of them that beleeve. mVid Calv. Com. in loc.Quia nos per Ev…ng lium juſtificat Deus, becauſe God juſtifies us by the Goſpel. I cannot better expreſſe my minde, then in the words of Beza. Hoc ita intelligo, &c. This (ſaith he) I ſo underſtand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Goſpel, becauſe therein is revealed and propoſed to view, that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of, (namely, that by faith in Chriſt we are to ſeek that righteouſneſſe, by vertue of which we obtain ſalvation of God) and the Jewes beheld afar off, and under ſhadows: but alſo becauſe it doth ſo propoſe this way of Juſtification, as that it doth alſo really exhibit it: that in this way it may appear, that the Goſpel is truly the Power of God to ſalvation, that is▪ a mighty and effectual inſtrument which God uſeth for the ſaving of men by faith. Thus he; ſimply and hiſtorically, to declare that ſome men are juſtified, is not enough to denominate the Goſpel the Power of God to ſalvation: but it is required withal, that it have authority to give right to ſalvation to them that beleeve it. Therefore the Goſpel, wherein is manifeſted the righteouſn…ſſe of God, which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, is called the Law of faith, Rom. 3. ver. 21. 22, 27. compared.
7. Juſtification by works ſhould have been by that Law, Do this §. 24.and thou ſhalt live: and if thoſe words cannot be denied to have authority, to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law; upon what pretence of reaſon is the ſame authority denied to the word of faith; Beleeve, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, Rom. 10. 5, 8, 9. To conclude, Therefore is the Goſpel called nHeb. …. 8.a Scepter of Righteouſneſſe, o2 Cor 5. 19.a Word of reconciliation, pEph. 1. …3.a Goſpel of ſalvation, qRom. 8. 2, 3. & Dav Par. ibid.a Law of the Spirit of life, that makes free from the Law of ſin and death, rIſa. 61. 1, 2, 3.an opening of Priſons, sSee the Reverend and moſt incomparable Dr Reynolds in Pſ. 110. p. 140.and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives, becauſe God doth thereby juſtifie ſinners.
I had alſo drawn up foure Reaſons from the nature of Juſtification, proving that it muſt be by Law▪ but becauſe I ſince finde the ſubſtance of them in Mr. Baxter, (Red. Digr. page 141. 142, 143.) I ſhall therefore deſire the Reader, to have recourſe to him for his farther ſatisfaction herein: and ſhall excuſe my ſelfe from the paines of tranſcribing my own Arg…ments.