The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 8

The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners · Chapter 8

p. 171CHAP. VIII.

A Reply to Mr. Eyres twelfth Chapter. My third, fourth and fifth Argument, for the Antecedent of faith to Juſtification vindicated.

SECT. I.

A Third Argument by which I proved Juſtification to§. 1. be conſequent to faith, was taken from the ſeveral ſimilitudes by which Juſtification by faith is illuſtrated. I inſtanced particularly in two. The firſt was that of the brazen Serpent, John 3. 14, 15. As Moſes lifted up the Serpent in the wilderneſſe (ſupply, that whoſoever looked on him, might recover of the ſting of the fiery Serpent. See the ſtory it ſelfe, Numb. 21. 8, 9.) ſo muſt the Sonne of man be lifted up, that whoſoever beleeveth on him, ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life. And John 6. 40. It is the Will of God, that whoſoever ſeeth and believeth the Sonne, ſhould be juſtified.

Mr. Eyre doth utterly deny, that it was the intent of the Holy Ghoſt, to ſhew by theſe compariſons, in what order or method we are juſtified in the ſight of God.

Wherein he fights, not only againſt me, but againſt aaComparamus fidem cum intuitu ſerpentis aen. i. Intuitus ille vim medicam in ſe non habuit: ſed ut inſtrumentum & conditio eſt à Deo ad ſan… tatem impetr…ndam ordinata Anton. Wallaeus. oper. Tom. 1. p. 423.all men that I can read upon the place, and againſt common ſenſe: which upon the reading of the words, cannot but apprehend the order and method of our ſpiritual healing, repreſented by that bodily cure, wrought upon thoſe that looked up to the brazen Serpent. But it may be he intends to deny Juſtification to be included in the Promiſe of not periſhing, but having eternal life. Let us try it.

His ſecond anſwer therefore is, The ſtinging of the fiery Serpents, did plainly ſhadow forth the effects of the Law in conſcience. Now as the Iſraelites when they were ſtung by thoſe fiery Serpents, found no eaſe till they looked up unto the brazen Serpent: p. 172ſo the ſoule that is ſmitten and wounded by the Miniſtry of the Law, will never finde reſt, till it look unto him, in whoſe wounds and ſtripes is the healing of ſinners.

Rep. The effects of the Law in conſcience might very well be ſhadowed§. 2. forth by the ſtinging of the fiery Serpents, as part of that puniſhment which is due to ſinners: but that it ſhould repreſent no more is ſpoken gratis. Sin ſtings, becauſe it kills the perſon, as well as becauſe it diſquiets the conſcience, 1 Cor. 15. 55, 56. and a fiery ſting it is, becauſe it makes the ſinner obnoxious to the diſpleaſure of God, who is a conſuming fire, and whoſe wrath burnes to the very bottome of hell: not in the conſcience only▪ but upon the whole perſon, unleſſe it be prevented by faith and repentance. 2. Obſerve alſo (Reader) how Mr. Eyre is conſtrained to mince the matter, that he may make his Interpretation the more current. The Iſraelites (ſaith he) being ſtung of the fiery Serpents, could find no eaſe till they▪ looked up to the brazen Serpent. As if their wound had been only painful, but not mortal. And as if they had looked up to the brazen Serpent, not for life, but only for eaſe; whereas they were all mortally ſtung; many died actually, all had received their deaths wound, death was begun upon them all, and would unavoidably have grown on to the laſt and utmoſt degree, if it had not been prevented by the brazen Serpent. To teach us, (though Mr. Eyre will not learn it) that every unbeliever is in a ſtate of death and condemnation, nor can eſcape the laſt and ſoreſt part of this death, but by looking up to Jeſus Chriſt. 3. The reddition of the compariſon is this, in our Lords words. So muſt the Sonne of man be lifted up, that whoſoever believeth on him, ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life: which according to Mr. Eyres ſenſe is this, That whoſoever beleeveth on him, ſhould not be diſquieted in conſcience, but ſhould have reſt and eaſe in his Spirit. This indeed, for the moſt part, doth in ſome meaſure follow upon our Juſtification, (as no doubt, but the Iſraelites recovered life and eaſe together). But to be delivered from periſhing, and to have everlaſting life, (in right or poſſeſſion) is ſurely more then to have eaſe from preſent anguiſh of ſpirit. Should I take this liberty of interpreting Scripture, Mr. Eyre might juſtly have been angry with my forehead.

In the third place, Mr. Eyre tells his Reader, that this very compariſon§. 3. makes againſt me (I had need look to that). But how doth it make againſt me?

As (ſaith he) the Iſraelites were alive when they looked upon p. 173the brazen Serpent (elſe they could not have ſeen it): ſo they that look upon Jeſus Chriſt, i, e. beleeve in him, are ſpiritually alive, or elſe they could not put forth ſuch a vital act.

Rep. But wherein doth this make againſt me? The moſt that follows from hence is, either that the habit of faith is before the act, as the faculty of ſight before the operation of it (which is no part of the Queſtion between Mr. Eyre and me) or that a man is quickened internally by faith, before he is quickened morally by Juſtification and pardon; even as they put forth the vital act of ſeeing, before they received that healing which prevented their approaching death: which is the very thing I am proving. 2. But in every ſimilitude there is ſome diſſimilitude: and if Mr. Eyre will inſtance in things that do not come into the compariſon, he may as well inferre that faith is an act of natural power; becauſe their looking to the brazen Serpent (which repreſented faith) was ſo. I ſay therefore, that they that were ſtung with the fiery Serpents, though they were not dead, as to the utmoſt and laſt act of death, which conſiſts in the ſeparation of the ſoule from the body: yet they were dead in effect, and as much as the nature of the type, and the ſcope of the compariſon requires; as having received their deaths wound: which would ſoon have prevailed over the remainders of their life, if it had not been prevented by looking up to the brazen Serpent. And therefore of him that looked on the Serpent of braſſe, 'tis ſaid that he lived, Numb. 21. 9.

That is, (ſaith Mr. Eyre) he had eaſe from his anguiſh. And§. 4. ſo by looking up to Chriſt by faith, we finde eaſe and reſt to our wearied ſoules. A man is ſaid to live when he lives comfortably and happily.

Rep. Which is neither true in the Propoſition, nor Reddition of the compariſon. Not in the firſt: for in the type, the oppoſition is not between eaſe and paine. but between life and death, Numb. 21. 6. The fiery Serpents bit the people, and much people of Iſrael died, and ver. 9. It came to paſſe, that if a Serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the Serpent of braſſe he lived; as Hezekiah is ſaid to live, Iſa. 38. 21. when he recovered of a mortal diſeaſe: not only from the pain and anguiſh of it, but principally from the mortality of it. Nor in the ſecond: for though life in Scripture may ſometimes ſignifie a happy, proſperous and comfortable life; yet in our Saviours uſe of it, it hath not that ſenſe preciſely (though that may very well be included conſequently) partly, becauſe the life p. 174obtained by looking up to Chriſt is oppoſed (not to pain and ſickneſs preciſely, but) to the death and deſtruction of the whole perſon, John 3. 15. The Sonne of man muſt be lifted up, that whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life; partly, becauſe the ſame life is called ſalvation, ver. 17. God ſent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him ſhould be ſaved. Now though a man may be ſaid to live, when he lives comfortably, yet he is never ſaid to be ſaved in Scripture preciſely, becauſe he lives comfortably. When Paul ſayes, Now we live, if ye ſtand faſt, 1 Theſ. 3. 8. I think he is to be underſtood of a joyful comfortable life. But it had been very uncouth to expreſſe the ſame life thus. Now we are ſaved, if ye ſtand faſt.

But Mr. Eyre hath a ſad quarrel againſt me for reading that§. 5. text, John 6. 40. thus. It is the Will of God, that he that ſeeth and beleeveth the Sonne ſhall be juſtified; whereas the words are, That whoſoever ſeeth the Sonne, and beleeveth on him, may have everlaſting life. Herein he ſaith, I have corrupted and falſified the text.

Rep. What you pleaſe Sir: provided you take in all manner of Commentators as well as my ſelfe; for I know no man but you, that excludes Juſtification from being there contained in eternal life. As when the Law ſayes, Do this, and thou ſhalt live; the life promiſed includes Juſtification primarily: ſo when it is ſaid, He that believes ſhall have eternal life; life includes Juſtification in like manner. And though there be many more bleſſings included, then that ſingle one of Juſtification: yet that only being to my purpoſe, I thought I might mention it only, without being guilty o… corrupting or falſifying the text. I had thought alſo, the believer may be ſaid to have eternal life in right, as well as in poſſeſſion; as the Lord ſpeaks a little below, ver. 47. He that believeth on me, hath everlaſting life. And to have right to life, or life in right, is to be juſtified: and therefore is our Juſtification called Juſtification of life, Rom. 5. 18. And grace reignes through reghteouſneſſe unto eternal life, by Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, ver. 21.

p. 175SECT. II.

THe next compariſon I made uſe of for illuſtration and proof§. 6. of this matter, was out of John 6. 51, 52, 53, 54. where faith is compared to eating, and Juſtification to the nouriſhment we receive by our meat. As then we are not firſt nouriſhed, and then eat the meat that nouriſheth us, but we eat our meat that we may be nouriſhed by it: ſo neither are we firſt juſtified, and then beleeve on Chriſt that hath juſtified us, but we beleeve in Chriſt that we may be juſtified.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, That this is a miſtake like the former: for it is Chriſt himſelf, who throughout that Chapter is compared to bread and food: whom by faith we receive for our refreſhment, conſolation and ſpiritual nouriſhment.

Rep. As if Juſtification were none of that nouriſhment which we receive by faith, becauſe Chriſt himſelf is the meat on whom we feed! This anſwer is a plain yielding of the Argument, unleſſe Mr. Eyre intend, that it is only comfort and refreſhment, and not Juſtification and pardon, which is the nouriſhment we receive by feeding on Chriſt; which if he doth intend, we oppoſe from the text. 1. That Chriſt invites us to eat of his fleſh that we may live; not ſimply that we may be refreſhed and comforted; its in vain to talk of refreſhing and comforting him that is dead, ver. 33. The bread of God giveth life to the world, the very ſubſtance and being of life, not only the well-being, which conſiſts in refreſhment and conſolation. And though life may now and then, (though very rarely) ſignifie preciſely a comfortable life, yet here ſurely it ſignifies more; as being oppoſed to eternal death, under which the world is ſuppoſed to be till Chriſt give them life, ver. 50. (to be, I mean, in reſpect of guilt) and that very life, in the loſſe of which conſiſts the whole miſery of unbelievers, ver. 53. Except you eat the fleſh of the Sonne of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 2. And that Juſtification or pardon of ſin, is ſo far from being excluded, as that indeed it is the principal bleſſing included in the life here promiſed, is manifeſt from the Lords own words (almoſt the very ſame with thoſe uſed throughout this chapter) in adminiſtration of his Supper. This is my body which is broken for you, (as Paul p. 176hath it, 1 Cor. 11. 24.) This is my blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſins, Matth. 26. 28. Ergo, remiſſion of ſins is that life which the fleſh and blood of Chriſt gives to the world. 3. The life mentioned throughout the chapter, containes all the bleſſings which Chriſt hath purchaſed for believers. Ergo, it containes Juſtification and pardon of ſins, or elſe Chriſt never purchaſed that for them. If it be ſaid, that Chriſt purchaſed not the act of pardon, but that conſolation and refreſhment which is the effect of it: we have already ſhewed, that neither is that act worthy the name of pardon, which cannot of it ſelf produce the effects of pardon: nor was it needful, that where pardon is, ſo great a price ſhould be paid for the effects of it. What can hinder good things from us but ſin? and ſin, if it be pardoned, can no more hinder then if it never had been committed: that there would be no need for Chriſt to die, to purchaſe any good things for us, if he do not purchaſe the very act of pardon. 4. The life which the fleſh and blood of Chriſt gives to the world, is not life ſimply, but ſalvation from periſhing; as appears, by comparing ver. 40. with John 3. 16, 17. therefore ſurely containes more then a life of comfort and refreſhment preciſely, as was before obſerved. 5. And I leave it with Mr. Eyre to conſider, whether there be not ſome greater malignity againſt the grace of God, and ſalvation by Chriſt in his opinion, then in the doctrine of thoſe whom he oppoſeth (pretendedly as enemies to grace,) when for the maintaining of it, he is forced to bear us in hand, that God ſent not Chriſt, nor did Chriſt come to quicken a dead world, but to give eaſe to a ſick world, or healing to a wounded world: not to give life to them that were dead, but comfort and refreſhment to them that were alive; or not to reſtore them unto life, but to continue and perfect them in the life they had before, Eph. 2. 5. You that were dead in ſins hath he quickened; namely, by remiſſion, Col. 2. 13. If one died for all, then were all dead, 2 Cor. 5. 15. Ergo, a leſſer matter then the death of Chriſt wo…ld have ſerved turne for our Redemption, if our death had been any thing leſſe then a total privation of life: and the fleſh and blood of Chriſt, which ſo often in the Chapter is ſaid to give life to the world, is Chriſt dying, or Chriſt crucified.

p. 177SECT. III.

MY fourth general Argument, proving faith to go before Juſtification,§. 7. was this: What place and order works had to Juſtification in the Covenant of works, the ſame place and order faith hath to our Juſtification in the Covenant of grace. But works were to go before Juſtification in the Covenant of works. Ergo, faith is to go before our Juſtification in the Covenant of grace.

Mr. Eyre declames moſt tragically againſt the Propoſition, as no leſſe unſound, then the worſt point in Popery or Arminianiſme. Thus do wiſe mens paſſions ſometimes out-run the Conſtable: and ſo they may overtake their adverſary, care not how many innocent perſons they over-run in the way. This very Propoſition which Mr. Eyre diſclaims as a piece of Popery and Arminianiſm, have I received from as worthy oppoſers of both, as the world hath any. Bellarmine arguing againſt Juſtification by faith only, ſaith, That it did not pleaſe God to give Juſtification upon the condition of faith alone. bbBell enerv. l. 5. c 4. p. 3…3. in 12.Dr. Ames anſwers, Vel maximè hoc placuit Deo. It pleaſed him altogether: and addes, Apoſtolus e…iam, Gal. 3. 11, 12. clarè teſtatur, ſidem in Evangelio ita ſe habere, ut fac hoc in lege; which I cannot better Engliſh, then in the words of my Propoſition denied. Thus ccCom. i… Eph. p. 243. 244.Bayne. Look as in the Covenant of the Law, Do this and live; no deed, no life: ſo in this Covenant of the Goſpel, wherein the Lord promiſeth for Chriſt to pardon ſin, to juſtifie, to accept to eternal life; here it may be ſaid, No ſaith, no portion in the Pr…miſes of God, in the grace of God in Chriſt Jeſus: for look, as plaiſters unapplied ſo is Chriſt unbelieved. Nay more, haſt thou not ſaith? whiles thus thou art, God will not juſtifie thee, nor accept thee to life; for to pronounce thee juſt that doeſt not beleeve on Chriſt, were to pronounce the guilty innocent, which is an abomination with God. For hence it is, that Gods mercy and juſtice kiſſe (offering no violence to each other) becauſe God doth ſo of grace ſave us, (ſinners in our ſelves) that firſt he maketh through Chriſt applied, righteous, &c. Thus ddDe reco…cil. …ar. 1. l. 2 c. 1…. p 101.Wotton, Fides igitur eſt conditio: & quidem talis conditio ad Juſtificationem per Chriſtum in foedere grat…it…, qualis …rant opera ad Juſtificationem, ex operibus legis. The ſenſe of which is altogether the ſame with Dr. Ames. Thus Calvin, eeIn Rom. 10. 8Rom 10:8there quoted. Colligimus, ſicut lex opera exigit, Evangelium nihil aliud p. 178poſtulare niſi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam. Thus ffOf the Coven…nt part▪ …. ch. 6. p. 360.Mr. Bulkley, almoſt verbatim (though I did not know ſo much, till a Miniſter that had read the book told me of it); and were it worth the while, to tranſcribe teſtimonies in ſo known a caſe; I could confirme the ſame from the teſtimonies of Dr. Twiſſe, Pemble, Downham, Ball, Beza, and I think all the Proteſtant Authours I have (moſt of whoſe names are mentioned, chap. 1.) and that according to the conſtant language of the ggVid Gaſp. Laurent. Conſe…ſ Ortho…. v…t Art. 5. …. …. per ….Ancients. And becauſe I foreſaw that an adverſary might be ready to miſrepreſent me, as if I had compared faith and works in every reſpect, as the ſame for uſe and effect in their reſpective Covenants; I therefore ſaid, not that they had the ſame place meerly in the two Covenants, but the ſame place and order, putting in the latter word purpoſely as an Explication of the former, for preventing that very miſtake which Mr. Eyre is here run into: of which latter word notwithſtanding Mr. Eyre takes no notice in all he ſayes againſt me. My meaning therefore in the Propoſition is this. That as by the Covenant of works it was required that men ſhould fulfil the Law, that they might be juſtified; ſo by the Goſpel it is required, that men beleeve, that they may be juſtified: faith goes before Juſtification here, as works before it there. And this was plainly enough expreſſed in the Argument, to any one but Mr. Eyre. As to all the Arguments he hath againſt it; they are ſuch groſſe non-ſequitur's, that I know not whether it will be worth while to anſwer them; yet out of civility, I will take ſome notice of them.

Firſt, (ſaith Mr. Eyre) works were meritorious of eternal life:§. 8. faith is not.

Rep. Very true, (though the former part about the meritoriouſneſſe of works, Mr. Eyre himſelf contradicts in terminis, page 190. but that's common) and therefore we compare not faith and works in point of worth and value, but only in point of place and order; or we compare them in the general nature of a condition, (wherein they agree) not in the ſpecial nature, or in what is acceſſory to either, wherein they differ as much as buying with money, Rom. 4. 4. and buying without money, Iſa. 55. 1. If a commodity may be had for taking or buying, he that takes it hath as ſure a title as he that buyes it; yet taking is not buying. A genere ad ſpeciem non valet Argumentum affirmativè.

Mr. Eyre. 2. Works in the firſt Covenant are the matter of our§. 9. Juſtification: faith is not.

p. 179Anſw. This is all one with the former. If it were not, it would only ſhew another difference between faith and works, notwithſtanding their agreement in point of place and order, and in the geneneral nature of a condition in their reſpective Covenants. Works were ſuch a condition, as that withal they were that very righteouſneſſe for which a perſon was juſtified: but faith is the condition of our being juſtified by the righteouſneſſe of a Mediatour.

Mr. Eyre. 3. If faith hath the ſame place in the ſecond Covenant, as works in the firſt, then muſt God account ſaith to be perfect righteouſneſſe, which is contrary to his truth and juſtice.

Anſ. I deny the conſequence. What manner of Readers did Mr. Eyre promiſe himſelf, when he puts down ſuch ſayings as theſe, without one word or pretence of proof? that which made works man's perfect righteouſneſſe, was not the place and order which they had by the Covenant to his Juſtification: but their own eſſential natural perfection, as being a punctual and exact conformity to the rule of his Creation: the foreign of that rule of Divinity, which by Creation was implanted in the frame of mans nature. That it was the condition of his Juſtification, was ex accidenti; by vertue of the Covenant, promiſing a reward of life upon the doing of ſuch works. May not therefore faith have the ſame place and order, that is, be in like manner the condition of the Juſtification of a ſinner, becauſe it is not mans natural perfect righteouſneſſe? Titius will let Sempronius have a farme, if he will give him to the worth of it: He lets Maeveus have another, if he will ask him for it. Here, asking is the condition: there, the payment of the full price: both have the ſame place and order to the obtaining of the farme: yet ſurely begging is not the payment of the full price.

Mr. Eyre. 4. Then is the ſecond Covenant a Covenant of works:§. 10. ſeeing faith is a work of ours.

Anſw. 1. We have already ſhewed at large, that the grace or act of faith, is perpetually oppoſed to works in Scripture-language. 2. However this Argument is inconſequent; for it will by no means follow, that if faith have the ſame place and order in the New Covenant, as works in the old, then the New Covenant is a Covenant of works. Suppoſe God had made the world a promiſe of pardon, upon the condition of the exiſtence of ſome contingent event, v. g. That if Paul be converted within ſeven years after Chriſts Aſcenſion, all the world ſhall be juſtified. Pauls converſion in this caſe, would have the very ſame place and order to the Juſtification of p. 180the world, as workes had in the old Covenant (though it be not a condition of the ſame nature and quality) yet ſurely this latter promiſe could not therefore be proved to be a Covenant of workes.

M. Eyre. 5. This aſſertion makes faith to be not of grace, becauſe not from the Covenant of grace, ſeeing the Covenant it ſelf depends on it.

Anſ. 1. This aſſertion ſuppoſeth that nothing can be of grace, which is not by the Covenant of grace, Was not the Covenant it ſelf of grace? 2. Of the dependance of faith upon the Covenant, & of the Covenant upon faith, we diſpute purpoſely below. Here we ſpeak only of one bleſſing of the Covenant, namely juſtification. And as ſoon as ever Mr. Eyre hath proved that faith cannot be given us of grace, if it be the condition of juſtification; I will write a book of retractations as long as Auguſtines, if I live to it. In the mean time he deals not like a diſputant to charge ſuch a conſequence upon us, and never go about to prove it.

And whereas he ſuggeſts to his reader that my propoſition is contrary to all Proteſtants, 'tis a vaine and empty flouriſh (to ſpeak the beſt of it.) He that hath any acquaintance in their writings, cannot but know it to be ſo. Of all Proteſtants Mr. Eyre quotes two in his margine, Calvin and Pemble, of which the former in that very hhInſtit. l. 3 c. …. ſect. 2.place which Mr. Eyre refers to, ſpeaks as plainly to the overthrow of what he is brought to prove, as can be. Nam quum dicit Apoſtolus, &c. For when the Apoſtle ſaies, with the heart man beleeveth unto righteouſneſſe, and with the mouth confeſſion is made unto ſalvation: he ſhews that it is not enough, if a man beleeve implicitly what he underſtands n…t, nor makes any ſearch into: ſed explicitam requirit divinae b…nitatis agnitionem, in quâ conſiſtit noſtra juſtitia: but he requires an explicit ackn…wl…gement of the divine goodneſſe, in which conſiſts our righteouſneſſ…. This is ſomewhat more then is any where ſaid in my Sermon. P…mbl… alſo is as expreſly againſt him, as (I think) is poſſible: and that very frequently. I ſhall tranſcribe but iiOf juſt…. ſect. 4. c. 1. p: 1. 7 ….one place of multitudes. From hence (ſaith he) we conclude firmly, that the difference between the Law and the Goſpel, aſſigned by our Divines is moſt certaine and agreeable to Scriptures. viz. That the Law gives life unto the juſt upon condition of perfect obedience in all things: the Goſpel gives life unto ſ…nners, upon condition they repent and believe in Chriſt Jeſus. Mr. Eyr… the▪ is out, or Mr. Pemble, when the one ſayes this is the judgement of our Divines: and the other ſayes it treads Antipodes to the current of all our Proteſtant writers.

SECT. IV.

THe propoſition, namely that faith hath the ſame place, and order§. 10. to juſtification in the covenant of grace, as workes, in the p. 181covenant of workes, was proved in my Sermon in theſe words. If the tenour of the firſt Covenant, do this and live by the conſent of all people and Nations, Jews and Gentiles, will undeniably evince that works were neceſſary Antecedents of juſtification in that covenant: why then ſhould not, Beleeve in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, (which is the tenour of the New Covenant, Rom. 10. 6, 9.) plead as ſtrongly for the like neceſſity of the Antecedency of faith to juſtification in this Covenant.

Mr. Eyre anſwers. That Beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved, is not the tenor of the new Covenant, for. 1. It's no where called ſo. 2. In Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. The new Covenant runs quite in another ſtraine. That Text, Rom. 10. 6, 9. is not the tenour of the new Covenant, for that requires confeſſion as well as faith. The Apoſtle there deſcribes the perſons that ſhall be ſaved, they are ſuch as do beleeve and profeſſe the truth. His ſcope is to reſolve that queſtion, how a man may know that he ſhall be ſaved? &c.

Rep. The ſtreſſe of the Argument lies not at all on this, that Beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved, is the tenor of the new Covenant, as Mr. Eyre ſuppoſeth, (I think) that he may the more colourably wave an anſwer. If I had left out the word Covenant in the Argument and proofe of it, yet had the Argument been the ſame as to its principall intent. Do this and live, by the conſent of all the world proves undeniably, that works were to go before juſtification, according to the purport of that ſaying. Ergo, Beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved, will as neceſſarily inferre that faith is to go before juſtification: though we do not at all diſpute, whether that were the tenor of the Covenant of workes, or this of the Covenant of grace. Now judge (Reader) what weight there is in Mr. Eyre's anſwer. The tenor of the new Covenant (ſaith he) is not, Beleeve and th…u ſhalt be ſaved. Suppoſe it: yet is it that which the Apoſtles preached. v. 8. and one would think ſhould be as plaine to prove the antecedency of faith, as the other of workes to juſti…cation.

2. And that this is the tenor of the Covenant of grace appears, 1. That which the Apoſtle calleth the righteouſneſſe which is of the Law. v. 5. is the tenor of the Covenant of workes. Erg…, that which he calls the righteouſneſſe which is of faith. v. 6. is the tenor of the Covenant of grace, and that is this: If thou ſhalt confeſſe with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus, and ſhall believe in thy heart, that God hath raiſed him from the dead; thou ſhalt be ſaved. v. 9. 2. The doctrine whereof the Apoſtles were the ſpecial Miniſters, is the tenor of the new Covenant. 2 Cor. 3. 6. But, B…leeve in the p. 182Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, is the doctrine whereof the Apoſtles were ſpecial Miniſters. &c. Rom. 10. 8, 9. The word of faith which we preach, that if thou ſhalt believe and confeſſe. &c. This it ſeems is the ſumme of what the Apoſtles preached: and that according to the commiſſion and call they had received from God. v. 14. And that faith and repentance and ſalvation thereupon, was the ſumme of the Apoſtles Miniſtry, appears alſo from other Texts of Scripture, Act. 20. 21. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. &c. 3. The Goſpel and the Covenant of grace is all one. But this is the ſumme of the Goſpel, Beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved, Mark. 16. 15, 16. Go preach the Goſpel to every creature, He that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved. 4. Beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved, are words that have the forme of a Covenant. Ergo, they are either the Covenant of the Law, or of grace, or ſome third Covenant. Not the Covenant of the Law: for the Apoſtle expreſly oppoſeth them againſt that Covenant, Rom. 10. 5, 6. a third Covenant they cannot be. Ergo, they are the Covenant of grace.

Let us now ſee upon what grounds Mr. Eyre denies theſe words,§. 11. to be the tenor of the new Covenant. 1. Saith he, they are no where called ſo.

Anſ. Nor doth the name of the Covenant of workes appeare in Scripture (nor of the Covenant of grace neither) is it therefore a ſufficient ground to deny that do this and live is the tenor of the Covenant of workes? 2. If it be not called by the name of the Covenant, yet is it called by names of equipollent ſignification: as when it is called the Goſpel, the word of faith, the righteouſneſſe of faith, the Law of faith, Rom. 3. 27. the Law of righteouſneſſe, 9. 31. the promiſe, Heb. 4. 1. Gal. 3. 22. 3. But neither is the name wanting. Gal. 3. 15, 16, 17. If it be but a mans Covenant, no man diſannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his ſeed were the promiſes made—And the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, &c. Compare theſe expreſſions with, v. 22. [But the Scripture hath concluded all under ſin, that the promiſe by faith of Jeſus Chriſt might be given to them that believe, And v. 14. [That the bleſſing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jeſus Chriſt, that we might receive the promiſe of the ſpirit through faith:] And v. 9. [So then, they which be of faith, are bleſſed with faithfull Abraham.] Hence the Argument is. The promiſe of bleſſedneſſe through faith, is the ſumme and ſubſtance of the new Covenant. Beleeve in the Lord Jeſus and thou ſhalt be ſaved, is the promiſe of p. 183bleſſedneſſe through faith. Ergo, it is the ſumme and ſubſtance of the new Covenant, or of the Covenant of grace. (Theſe two tearms I uſe as of the ſame import, to expreſſe that Covenant which is oppoſed to the Covenant of workes ſtrictly ſo called.) The Minor is paſt denyall. The Major ſtands upon this foundation. That the ſame inheritance and bleſſing which was given by promiſe to beleeving Abraham (which promiſe is called the Covenant) is now propoſed to all the world, (Gentiles as well as Jews) to be obtained by the ſame faith that Abraham had, and given to them when they believe.

As to Mr. Eyres ſecond Argument, that when the new Covenant is mentioned, Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. it runs quite in another ſtraine: I muſt deſire thee (Reader) to have pati…nce till thou come to the particular debate of thoſe Texts which thou ſhalt meet with below: wherein thou ſhalt ſee it fully proved, that there is nothing ſpoken in them, but what doth confirme the truth of that which I here aſſert. I referre thee thither purpoſely, that I may forbeare tautologies.

But Mr. Eyre hath a ſpeciall reaſon, why this Covenant, Rom. 10.§. 12. 6, 9. cannot be the Covenant of grace, becauſe it requires confeſſion as well as faith: and ſo juſtification by the new Covenant would be juſtification by confeſſion, as well as by faith.

Rep. The Apoſtle anſwers this fully, v. 10. With the heart man beleeveth unto righteouſneſſe: and with the mouth confeſſion is made unto ſalvation. Hence it is manifeſt, that faith, and faith only, is requiſite to juſtification: but confeſſion alſo is required of them that are juſtified, unto ſalvation, according to what our Lord himſelf ſpeaks; whoſoever ſhall confeſſe me before men, him will I alſo▪ confeſſe before my Father: but whoſoever ſhall deny me before men, him will I alſo deny before my Father, Matth. 10. 32, 33. Luk. 12. 8. Indeed our compleat and final juſtification at the day of judgement, is no ſmall part of our ſalvation: but the Apoſtle here diſtinguiſhing juſtification as a thing going before, from ſalvation as a thing following after, teacheth us to underſtand him of our initial juſtification, or of the firſt right to the inheritance of life, which by the promiſe is given a man as ſoone as he believes; which yet is to be underſtood, not as if confeſſion were of as univerſal and abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, as faith it ſelf (for if a man believe in the very laſt moment of his life, when he hath neither opportunity, nor ability of body to make confeſſion, p. 184he ſhall be ſaved notwithſtanding) but that it is kkVid. Am…ſ. Caſ. Con. l. 4 c. 3. q. 2.neceſſary in its time and place: but faith only abſolutely, univerſally and indiſpenſably neceſſary: as the Apoſtle alſo intimates in his proofe ſubjoyned, v. 11. mentioning faith without confeſſion, whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhall not be aſhamed. Even as our llCha…. p…nſtrat. de Baptiſ. l. 5. c 9 §. 3. & Spanh…. dub. evang. part. 3. dub. 96. pag. 493, 494.Proteſtants argue againſt the Papiſts: that though it be ſaid, Mark. 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved; yet is not Baptiſme hereby made as neceſſary to ſalvation as faith it ſelf: becauſe it is not mentioned in the negative propoſition preſently added: He that beleeveth not ſhall be damned. Not, he that is not baptized ſhall be damned. Nor finally, is confeſſion required as by it ſelf, and in coordination with faith, but as in ſubordination thereunto; being indeed the natural effect thereof, and that wherein the truth and life of faith doth exert it ſelf.

To what is added, that the Apoſtles ſcope is to anſwer that queſtion,§. 13. how a man may know that he ſhall be ſaved? and that he doth deſcribe the perſons that ſhall be ſaved, by two markes or characters, faith and confeſſion; I reply, we have been too often impoſed upon by pretended ſcopes: and Mr. Shepheard is falſly alledged as a witneſſe, that the Apoſtles ſcope is to anſwer the foreſaid queſtion: for he ſaith it not: but is purpoſely arguing in that very place which mmSound beleev. p. 230.Mr. Eyre referres to, out of this very Text, that we are not juſtified before we beleeve. Yet is it moſt true, that a man may come by faith to know that he ſhall be ſaved: and the ground of it is, becauſe faith is appointed of God to be medium fruitionis, a means of obtaining ſalvation; and therefore cannot be denied to be medium cognitionis, a means by which a man may know that he ſhall be ſaved. Even as the ſame Law which made workes the means of life, do this and live, if a man had kept it, would have alſo bred the aſſurance and knowledge that he ſhould have lived. But, 1. As it is not the knowledge of life ſimply, but life it ſelf which is promiſed in thoſe words (for it were too groſſe to paraphraſe them thus, do this, and thou ſhalt thereby know that thou ſhalt live) ſo it is not ſimply the knowledge of juſtification and ſalvation, but ſalvation it ſelf which is promiſed in theſe, beleeve and thou ſhalt be ſaved. The righteouſneſſe which is of the Law ſayes thus, do this and live, v. 5. But the righteouſneſſe which is of faith ſayes this, if thou beleeve thou ſhalt be ſaved, v. 6, 8, 9. What can be more plaine? 2. When it is ſaid, v. 10. with the heart man beleeveth unto righteouſneſſe, and with the mout… conf…ſſion is made unto ſalvation: muſt we read it thus? with p. 185the heart man believeth unto the knowledge of righteouſneſſe: and with the mouth confeſſion is made unto the knowledge of ſalvation. What will become of the Scriptures, if men may interpret them after this rate? 3. And here (to ſee how it falls out) Mr. Eyre is forced to contend, that the Apoſtle mentioneth faith as that which evidenceth juſtification as a mark or character: which way of evidencing he could by no means approve of, when I urged it, p. 77. §. 3. and 4. of his book.

4. If thou beleeve, thou ſhalt be ſaved. That theſe words propound§. 14. the condition or means of ſalvation, and not only deſcribe the perſons that ſhall be ſaved, we have proved nnchap. … ſect. 1.before by ſeveral Arguments. And according to my promiſe there, I ſhall adde ſomething here, that if it be poſſible Mr. Eyre may ſuſpect the truth of that notion which he cannot defend, but by turning the Scriptures into a noſe of wax. And 1. I ſay, that if the foreſaid words do only deſcribe the perſons that ſhall be ſaved, then are they here uſed otherwiſe then the like words or manner of ſpeech is uſed any where elſe in Scripture. Mr. Eyre hath not yet produced us one place, where ſuch phraſe of ſpeech is a bare deſcription of a perſon (at leaſt, unleſſe we will take his bare word that ſo it is meant:) And though it be hard to be peremptory in ſuch a nicety, and deny univerſally that there is any example in Scripture of ſuch phraſe of ſpeech uſed in ſuch a ſenſe; yet upon the moſt diligent and critical obſervation which I have made on purpoſe to diſcover it, I can find none, neither in the Old nor New-Teſtament, and therefore ſhall deny it, till Mr. Eyre, not only ſay it, but prove it. For if the foreſaid words, If thou beleeve thou ſhalt be ſaved, do only deſcribe what manner of perſons they are that ſhall be ſaved: then do they not ſuſpend ſalvation upon the act of beleeving, but their meaning is this, If thou be one of thoſe who be or ſhall be believers, thou ſhalt be ſaved. Shew us the like in all the Scriptures. And hence, 2. It follows, that theſe words do not preſent believers as ſuch (reduplicativè) as the objects of ſalvation: but only Specificativè, the men that are believers; but under ſome other reſpect and notion. For example, Peter gives a legacy to Simon the Tanner that lives in Joppa by the ſea ſide. The meſſenger that carries the legacy knows not the man, but tells him, if he be the Tanner of Joppa, this legacy is his. Which words do not indeed propound the condition, but the deſcription of the Legatee from his place and profeſſion: and the legacy is not given him in reſpect of either of theſe circumſtances, but immediately as the perſon whom theſe p. 186circumſtances deſcribe, or it is not given the man Quatenus he is a Tanner; but it is given the Tanner Quatenus he is the man whom Peter meant in his will. In like manner, when it is ſaid, if thou beleeve thou ſhalt be ſaved, if the meaning be this; if thou be one of them that do or ſhall believe, thou ſhalt be ſaved; then ſalvation pertaines not to men as believers, but to believers as men, under ſome other notion and capacity. And that muſt be either. 1. As they are men ſimply, or, 2. As they are ſinful men, or finally (which I ſuppoſe Mr. Eyre will ſay: for to affirme either of the former were intolerably abſurd) as they are elect. And ſo the iſſue will be this: believers Quatenus they are elect (Specificativè) are the objects of ſalvation. Now ſee (Reader) what this will come to at the long runne. 1. Hereby is faith deveſted of all neceſſity, and uſefulneſſe in order to ſalvation, farther then it is a mark or ſ…gne (as all other ſaving graces are) of a man that ſhall be ſaved. Even as the profeſſion and place of the Tanner forementioned contributed nothing to his obtaining of Peters legacy: it ſerved only to deſcribe the perſon to whom it was given. And is this that precious faith, 2 Pet. 1. 1. more precious then gold, 1 Pet. 1. 7. the Chriſtians riches, Jam. 2. 5. by which he obtaines and inherits promiſes, Heb. 11. 33. & 6. 12. righteouſneſſe, Heb. 11. 7. ſalvation, Eph. 2. 8. and all good things whatſoever, 2 Pet. 1. 3. ſo highly every where commended in Scripture, and urged upon ſuch tearms of neceſſity? How can we be ſaid to obtaine promiſes, righteouſneſſe, and ſalvation by faith, if faith ſerve only to deſcribe the perſon? It may be this new divinity will ſhortly produce a new Rhetorick: and that is no more then needs. 2. If the elect had been deſcribed by their names, parents, time and place of their birth and habitation, they might be ſaid to obtaine promiſes, righteouſneſſe, ſalvation by theſe as well as by ſaith, if there be no other neceſſity of faith to righteouſneſſe and ſalvation, then as it is a deſcription of the perſons that ſhall be ſaved. 3. And according to this gloſſe, there can be no ground of exhorting, beſeeching, and commanding ſinners to believe on and accept of a Saviour: no more then of exhorting, or commanding them to be elected; as we have demonſtrated in the place before mentioned. 4. Nor have the words according to the ſame gloſſe, the forme and nature of a promiſe, but of a meer conne…e Axi me, affirming the conſequent upon ſuppoſition of the Antecedent. For, if thou beleeve, that is, if thou be ſuch a one as art or ſhalt be a believer, is but a periphraſis of election unto faith: for the down right meaning, without circumlocutions p. 187is this. If thou be one of thoſe whom God from eternity purpoſed to make a believer, thou ſhalt be ſaved. And why? not becauſe of the Promiſe by which God hath obliged himſelf to give ſalvation upon their believing, who before had no right to it, (that will infer a conditional Promiſe, which Mr. Eyre abhors) but becauſe he that purpoſed the one, purpoſed the other alſo: and this he commanded to be declared and publiſhed to the world. And I ſay in like manner; If the Sun riſe, we ſhall have light upon the earth: and if God make ſtones the children of Abraham, they ſhall be able to ſpeak. But we know from the Scriptures, that the inheritance of life and ſalvation is given by Promiſe, Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 13, 16, 20. Heb. 6. 13, 15. 5. And we know from the ſame Scriptures, that righteouſneſſe and ſalvation is not given to believers quatenus they are elect, but rather to the elect quatenus they are believers: that is, they are not only given to the men that are believers, but given to them as they are believers. It was Abrahams faith that was imputed to him unto righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4. 3. and the Promiſe was to him and to his ſeed through faith, ver. 16. Rom. 3. 22. The righteouſneſſe of God which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt unto all, and upon all them that beleeve; where we have diſtinctly ſet down the righteouſneſſe which juſtifies us. The perſons juſtified, They that believe. The means or condition of their Juſtification, By faith of Jeſus Chriſt. The ſame diſtinction is accurately obſerved, Gal. 3. 22. That the Promiſe by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, might be given to them that beleeve. The Promiſe is that of ſalvation and bleſſedneſſe. Compare, ver. 6. 9, 18. Here then we have again the perſons to whom the Promiſe is given, namely, believers; the condition or meanes, by faith. To teach us, that the Promiſe of life and ſalvation is not only given to men that are believers, but given to them as believers. Righteouſneſſe, not only upon them that are faithful, but righteouſneſſe by faith: a Promiſe not only to them that do beleeve, but a Promiſe by believing. 6. If thou beleeve, th… ſh…lt be ſaved: or, Beleeve, and thou ſhalt be ſaved. Life and ſalvation is here promiſed as the reward of faith: a reward, I mean, not properly, but metaphorically, as the word is uſed in Scripture often, not for a reward of debt, but for a reward of grace. Now I would ask, why it is called a reward? Mr. Eyre will tell me, becauſe it follows faith. Be it ſo, (though I think there is much more in it.) But faith may be con…dered, either as an act required of us, or as the work of God in …s. Now I would know, whether life and ſalvation be the p. 188reward of faith as it is our act, or as it is Gods work? If the former, (as moſt certain,) then Mr. Eyre muſt quit his beloved gloſſe: for if ſalvation by the Promiſe, be made conſequent to faith, as an act required of us, and performed by us, then faith is the condition upon which we are entitled to ſalvation by the ſame Promiſe: and ſo ſalvation pertaines to us as believers formaliter, and not only as to the men, whoſe property and priviledge it is to be believers ſooner or later. If the ſecond be ſaid, namely, that ſalvation follows faith, and ſo is the reward thereof, as it is the work of God in us, then God rewards himſelf, he doth not reward us. Even as if I ſhould call Gods preſerving the world the reward of his creating it; or the deſtruction of the world the reward of his preſerving it: or his gloriſying our bodies, the reward of his raiſing them out of their graves: or his calling us unto faith the reward of his predeſtinating us: for each of theſe actions is conſequent to the foregoing. And yet I doubt not, but if a man ſhould talk after this rate, he would be accounted to utter ſtrange kinde of tropes. 7. Mr. Eyre may do well to remember that he hath yet given me no ſimilitude of Anſwer to the main Argument. When the Law ſayes, Do this and live: or, If thou do this, thou ſhalt live: or, He that doth theſe things ſhall live: all the world …cknowledgeth, (and Mr. Eyre dares not deny it) that the words do not only deſcribe the perſon, but propound the condition of life. When then the Goſpel ſayes, Beleeve and thou ſhalt b…ſaved: or, If thou beleeve thou ſhalt be ſaved: or, He that believes ſhall be ſaved; wherein doth this forme of words oppoſe the other, that theſe muſt be interpreted as a deſcription of the perſon rather then the other? 8. To conclude, Mr. Eyre by this gloſſe hath diſcovered the nakedneſſe of thoſe two Reaſons he gave, why the Apoſtle here did not deſcribe the tenour of the New Covenant, viz. Becauſe he requires confeſſion as well as faith: and when the New Covenant is deſcribed, J…r. 31. and Heb. 8. it runs quite in another ſtraine, whereas if, when the Apoſtle ſayes, If thou beleeve thou ſhalt be ſaved, his meaning be this, If thou be a perſon that doeſt or ſhalt beleeve, thou art alſo a perſon that ſhalt be ſaved: or in ſhort, if his meaning be only to deſcribe the perſon that ſhall be ſaved, what manner of man he is; I ſuppoſe Mr. Eyre himſelf will grant, that there is no ſtraine in the New Covenant, whereſoever deſcribed, that will exclude the neceſſity of faith and confeſſion, if this be the whole uſe of them. And therefore this may be the tenour of the New Covenant, notwithſtanding p. 189any thing that is in either or both thoſe Reaſons to the contrary.

My next Argument to prove, that faith hath the ſame order to§. 15. Juſtification in the Covenant of grace, which works had to Juſtification in the Covenant of works, was this; elſe Juſtification by works, and Juſtification by faith are not oppoſed.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, That faith is put objectively for the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt.

Rep. ooChap. … ſect. 3.Which we have ſhewed before, doth involve the Apoſtle in the guilt of ſuch intolerable non-ſenſe and ſelf-contradiction, that I ſhall need adde no more now. If the Arguments there advanced do not firmly prove, that faith is to be taken properly, not objectively, for Chriſt or his righteouſneſſe; I am content to come to the penance of a publike recantation of all I have written.

SECT. V.

MY fifth and laſt Argument for the antecedency of faith to Juſtification,§. 16. was aken from 1 Cor. 6. 11. Such were ſome of you; but you are waſhed, but you are ſanctified, but you are juſtified in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, &c. where there is an evident oppoſition between the time paſt and preſent, in reſpect of their Juſtification.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, That the Apoſtle ſayes, In times paſt they were unſanctified: He doth not ſay they were unjuſtified before Converſion.

Rep. The Apoſtle ſays neither the one nor the other in ſo many words: but if that which he doth ſay, will not infer that they were unjuſtified, as well as unſanctified, before the time he ſpeaks of, what can be thought of the Scriptures, but that they are a ſealed book, which no man can open? Compare the ninth verſe with this Know you not that the unrighteous ſhall not inherit the Kingdome of God?—And ſuch were ſome of you, but ye are juſtified. The Apoſtle in the ſame verſe, having mentioned fornicatours, idolaters, &c. addes, And ſuch were ſ…me of you, but you are ſanctified. I appeal to common ſenſe, whether the former word will not as forcibly infer that they were unjuſti…ed in times paſt; as theſe latter, that they were unſancti…ied in times paſt? But the matter is too clear to be diſputed, that in their unconverted eſtate, there was a barre againſt their entrance into the Kingdom of God, which was now removed in their Juſtification. Ergo, They were before unjuſtified. Hence 2. I argue thus. He that in the condition he is in, cannot enter into the p. 100Kingdome of God, he in that condition is not juſtified. Theſe Corinthians, in the condition they were in before their Converſion, could not enter into the Kingdome of God. Ergo, Theſe Corinthians in their unconverted condition were not juſtified. The Aſſumption is the words of the text, No unrighteous can inherit the Kingdome of God.—And ſuch were ſome of you. The Propoſition ſtands upon this ground, That he that is juſtified is an heire of the Kingdome: and therefore it is ſo far from being impoſſible, that being juſtified he ſhould inherit the Kingdome, as that he cannot be excluded from it without being diſinherited, Tit. 3. 7. That being juſtified by his grace, we ſhould be made heires, according to the hope of eternal life. Compare Gal. 3. 26, 29. Rom. 8. 30. and 5. 17, 18, 21.

Therefore Mr. Eyre tells us. 2. That if any man will ſtrain§. 17. this conſequence from the words (ſtrain it?) then he will owne his former anſwer, That they were not juſtified before converſion in foro conſcientiae, or, in foro Eccleſiaſtico.

Rep. 1. Which he doth well to profeſſe not to maintain, but upon ſuppoſition of the foreſaid inference; for if Juſtification here be meant, that which is in conſcience, or before the Church (which laſt member of the diſtinction we heard not of till now:) ſurely Mr. Eyre's principles will not permit him to account it a ſtraining; if a man ſhall infer that theſe Corinthians were not juſtified in conſcience before, becauſe the Apoſtle ſayes, Now you are juſtified. 2. Mr. Eyre remembers me (when he hath no reaſon in the earth for it: as the Reader ſhall ſee when we come to the place) that Anal…g…m perſe poſitum ſtat pro famoſiori ſignificate. That which may be ſpoken analogically of many things, is yet to be underſtood in its moſt native, ſimple, proper ſenſe, when it is put by its ſelfe: Ergo, when it is here ſaid, You are juſtified, it is to be underſtood of Juſtification ſimply ſo called, and not of Juſtification in conſcience, or before the Church. 3. The Argument but now mentioned here returnes. The Juſtification here ſpoken of, is that which gives right to the Kingdome of God. But Juſtification in conſ…ience or before the Church, is not the Juſtification which gives right to the Kingdome of God. Ergo, neither of theſe is the Juſti…cation here meant. The Aſſumption is out of queſtion; the Propo…tion manifeſt. Two things the Apoſtle affirmes of theſe … in the time of their …entil…ſme and unbelief. 1. That the … 2. …at therefore they could not then … p. 191Now that they were believers, their condition is altered in both reſpects; and in oppoſition to the former, he tells them they were ſanctified; and in oppoſition to the latter, they were juſtified.

4. If when it is ſaid You are juſtified, it muſt be meant of Juſtification§. 18. manifeſted in conſcience, or in the Church: when it is ſaid, You are ſanctified, why ſhould not ſanctification be underſtood of that which is declared or manifeſted?

In anſwer to this, Mr. Eyre dilates upon the differences between Juſtification and Sanctification; and concludes, that when I ſay, Nothing can be alledged for Juſtification before beleeving, which will not hold as ſtrongly for ſanctification before beleeving: it hath nothing but my confidence to ſupport it. If I had ſaid, Nothing could be ſaid againſt ſanctification before beleeving, which will not hold as ſtrongly againſt Juſtification before believing, there had been the more appearance of reaſon for this cenſure: but as my words lay, I appeal to himſelf for judgement: for Juſtification before believing he layes theſe two foundations; namely, the eternal Will and Purpoſe of God to juſtifie, and our Juſtification in the death of Chriſt. And it cannot be denied, but that the Scriptures ſpeak every whit as much, concerning the Will of God to ſanctifie, Eph. 1. 4. 2 Theſ. 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Chriſt, Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore ſeeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to ſay for Juſtification before faith, I was no more confident then true, in affirming, that as much might be ſaid for ſanctification before faith.

As to the differences which here he puts between Juſtification and§. 19 Sanctification, I own them as readily as any man, (except what ſhall be below excepted.) As, 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us: the other is the operation of God within us, &c. But he ſhould have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things, but the likeneſſe of expreſſions. Now ſuppoſe we ſhould ſay as ſome (whom ppEpiſt. dedi…. fol. 3.Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage) qqDe…r… and E…ton &c. quo…. …. Chriſt dyin… 99.That our m…rtification is nothing elſe, but the apprehenſion of ſin ſlain by the body of Chriſt; or, we m…rtifie our ſelves only declaratively in the ſight of men: If Mr. Eyre ſhould urge the text under debate, 1 Cor, 6. 11. againſt this notion, and ſhould ſay, the Apoſtle tells the Corinthians, Such and ſu…h they were in times paſt, but now they were ſanctified. Ergo, They were not ſanctified before: Doth not the a…ſwer…ly as faire for the foreſaid Authours, That they were now ſanctified in their own apprehenſion, or declaratively in the ſight of men, as for Mr. Eyre himſelfe, p. 292who interprets Juſtification in ſuch a ſenſe? And if it be law: ful for him to fancy a diſtinction between the act and effects of Juſtification, and obtrude it upon us without one ſyllable of Scripture to countenance it: let others be allowed on their own heads, to fancie ſome ſuch like diſtinction of ſanctification, and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour, to prove, that men are ſanctified (as well as juſtified) before they beleeve.

The ſecond difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Juſtification and§. 20. Sanctification is this, That the ſentence of Juſtification is terminated in conſcience: but Sanctification is diffuſed throughout the whole man, 1 Theſ. 5. 23.

Rep. The intent and ſenſe of this, I own alſo. But 1. I reject the terme of Juſtification, terminated upon conſcience. Paſſio (as well as actio) eſt ſuppoſiti. It is the man, not his conſcience, which is juſtified. Again, the meaning of it is, that a mans Juſtification is manifeſted or declared to him. But this manifeſtation is either by immediate revelation, and that is not to the conſcience (properly), but to the underſtanding: or by the aſſiſtance of the Spirit enabling the conſcience to conclude a mans Juſtification; and then it is the conſcience that terminates, not upon which Juſtification is terminated. 2. Aſſurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of ſanctification, and may very well be included in the ſanctification of the Spirit, 1 Theſ. 5. 23. as diſtinct from ſoule and body. If then the Juſtification ſpoken of here (and in other places of Scripture) be our aſſurance that we are juſtified, then the diſtinction here propoſed between Juſtification and Sancti…cation falls to the ground.

A ſecond Argument which I mentioned, to prove, that Juſtification§. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conſcience, is this. The Juſtification which they now had, was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God, which right and title they had not before: for if they had this right before, then whether they believed or no, all was one, as to the certainty of their ſalvation: they might have gone to heaven, though they had lived and died without faith.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to ſalvation after their beleeving, then they had before: for their right to ſalvation was grounded only upon the Purpoſe of God, and the Purchaſe of Chriſt. 2. Yet it will not follow, that they might have gone to heaven without faith: ſeeing Chriſt hath p. 193purchaſed faith for his people no leſſe then glory: and God hath certainly appointed, that all that live to yeares of diſcretion, whom in his ſecret Juſtification he hath adjudged to life, ſhall have this evidence of faith.

Rep. The former anſwer is ſuch as I never read before, in any writings of God or man, viz. That ſome men that live in adulteries, idolatries, blaſphemies, murders, and all manner of ungodlineſſe, yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven, as the moſt faithful, humble, mortified, laborious Chriſtian or Apoſtle that lives upon the earth; the height of whoſe bleſſedneſſe it is, that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God, Rev. 22. 14. If this bleſſedneſſe may be had in the ſervice of ſin and Satan, in the fulfilling of the luſts of the fleſh, and of the minde, in the unfruitful works of darkneſſe; Let us eat and drink, for to morrow ſhall be as to day, and much better. 2. None have right to heaven, but under the notion of a reward; wicked and …ngodly men, that live in contempt of God and all good, have no right to heaven as a reward. Ergo, whiles ſuch, they have no right to it at all. Shall I need to prove the Aſſumption? If ungodly Atheiſtical wretches have right to heaven as their reward, as the reward of what? of the good ſervice they do to the devil? for grace they have none: The Propoſition is undoubted: for heaven or the inheritance, and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language, words of the ſame import, and reciprocal. Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well obſerved by Dr. Twiſſ, rrDe …raedeſt. Digr. 3. c. 5. p. 34. f.Deum intendiſſe manifeſtationem, &c. God intended the manifeſtation of his mercy upon mankinde,—ex congruo, juxta obſequium ejus qui ſalvandus eſt, ſuum. The ſenſe of which he delivers ssAgainſt Mr. Cotton. p. 41.elſewhere. God will beſtow ſalvation upon all his elect (of ripe years,) by way of reward, and crown of righteouſneſſe, &c. for which he quotes at large, 2 Theſ. 1. 6, 7, 8, 10. and then addes, It is pity, this is not conſidered (as uſually it is not) eſpecially for the momentous conſequence thereof, &c. 3. And of be…ievers the Apoſtle ſayes, 1 Theſ. 1. 6, 7. It is a righteous thing with God to recompence to them reſt: and on the contrary, that God were unjuſt if he ſhould not ſave them, Heb. 6. 10. Now take righteouſneſſe and unrighteouſneſſe in any ſenſe; the words will bear according to their uſe in Scripture, I appeal to the conſcience of any man that is acquainted with the Scriptures, whether it be agreeable to them, to ſay, that God is unjuſt if he doth not ſave them that live in all manner of ungodlineſſe and debauchery, (ſuppoſing p. 194them to be elect.) If there be any expreſſion in Scripture that doth ſound to ſuch a ſenſe: if they do not ſay the contrary, that the juſtice of God is engaged to take vengeance of ſuch, unleſſe they repent and bring forth fruits of righteouſneſſe, then muſt we reade them backward, and underſtand them in a ſenſe contrary to what the words pretend to, See Ez…k. 18. 20, 25, 26, 27. to the end. Exod. 34. 7. Rom. 3. 9. Eph. 2. 3. and other places without number. 4. But let us examine the text: The unrighteous ſhall not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, &c. ſhall inherit the Kingdome of God. And ſuch were ſome of you, but you are waſhed, but you are ſanctified, but you are juſtified. The inference in the affirmative is this. Ergo, now they might and ſhould inherit the Kingdome. That which made them uncapable of inheriting the Kingdome before, was not only the filth of ſin (from which they were now waſhed in ſanctification) but the guilt of ſin, from which they were now alſo waſhed in Juſtification. Hence the firſt Argument, That Juſtification which waſheth away the guilt of ſin, upon the removal of which they were made capable of inheriting the Kingdome, that Juſtification gave them right to the Kingdome. But the Juſtification which they now had, and not before, was that which waſhed away the guilt of ſin, upon the removal of which they were capable of inheriting the Kingdom. Ergo, This Juſtification is that which gave them right to the Kingdom. The Propoſition is neceſſary, as conſiſting of termes immediately contrary. Guilt is obligatio ad poenam, an obligation to puniſhment: that which is contrary to it, and deſtroys or expels it, is a right to impunity: if the loſſe of heaven be part of that puniſhment to which they are obliged; that which is contrary to it and expells it, is a right to heaven. The Aſſumption is ſo plain in the text, as nothing more. Time was when you could not have inherited the Kingdome of God, becauſe of the fearful ſins you lived in; but now you are juſtified, and therefore may inherit it. 2. The ſame barre which lay againſt the entrance of other ſinners into the Kingdome of God, lay againſt theſe Corinthians alſo. No fornicatours, idolaters, &c. ſhall inherit the Kingdome of God. And ſuch were ſome of you. But ye are juſtified. But the want of Juſtification and pardon is a barre or hindrance againſt the entrance of other ſinners into the Kingdom of God. This, I think, will not be denied; and if it be, it is eaſily proved: becauſe the Juſtification of theſe Corinthians is mentioned p. 195by the Apoſtle▪ as that which changed the caſe, and put the difference between them and other Gentiles yet unconverted, in reſpect of their capability of inheriting the Kingdome. Now he that periſheth for want of Juſtification or pardon, periſheth but for want of a right to heaven: Ergo, he that may now inherit heaven becauſe he is juſtified, or by vertue of his Juſtification, may therefore inherit it, becauſe he hath now a right to it by his Juſtification.

And whereas Mr. Eyre ſayes, that their right to ſalvation was§. 22. grounded only in Gods Purpoſe, and in Chriſts Purchaſe: I thought the Scriptures had mentioned a third, and a more immediate ground then either of theſe, and that is the Promiſe, Gal. 3. 18. a Promiſe made not only to them that be believers, but through believing, ver. 22. and Rom. 4. 13, 16, 23, 24. though I confeſſe Mr. Eyre is concerned to take but little notice of it; for if the right to heaven be given by the Promiſe, then they that are without the Promiſe (as theſe Corinthians were ſometimes no leſſe then the Epheſians; Eph. 2. 12.) are alſo without a right to heaven. As for Gods Purpoſe; if that give a right to Heaven, it muſt be proved either from Scripture or Reaſon. There is not a word in Scripture to proveit. Reaſon is againſt it. Men may purpoſe many benefits to others, without any ttVid. Leſſ. de Juſt & Jur. l. 2. c. 40. dub. …. & Azor. Inſtit. moral. par. 3. l. 1… c. 15.intention of obliging themſelves thereby, to give them: and if they be not obliged to give, others have no right to receive. Adde, if Purpoſes eſſentially do give right, then the donation of right is a thing of its own nature uncapable of being purpoſed; for the right is given eo ipſo, that it is purpoſed to be given: & nihil agit in ſimile. The Purchaſe of Chriſt may with much more reaſon be ſaid to give a right to heaven. But the Purchaſe of Chriſt, (though it was made for our good, yet not in our names (for Chriſt in purchaſing, was neither our Mandatory, Proxie nor Delegate) and therefore gives right immediately to none, but by the intervention of that Covenant which was ſealed and eſtabliſhed in his blood, even the Promiſe through faith in Jeſus Chriſt, as we ſhall ſhew more particularly hereafter.

And as to the ſecond anſwer, wherein Mr. Eyre denies my conſequence,§. 23. viz. That if the Elect have right to heaven without faith, then they may inherit heaven without faith; we ſhall make this good, and then enquire into the reaſon of his denial. The conſequence therefore is thus proved. To deny heaven to him that hath p. 196right to it, is to deny a man his right (a thing moſt unworthy to be thought of God. uuVid. Sebaſt. à Coſta. Com. in loc. & Decret. Greg. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 7 §. Si vero a… er c…nnot. … Alciat. ib. cum in mu…is c…ſib.Lam. 3. 35.) Ergo, if wicked men, any of them, have right to heaven, they muſt have it, whether ever they beleeve or no. Here of neceſſity Mr. Eyre muſt diſtinguiſh of right: but whatſoever diſtinction he apply, he muſt quit his aſſertion. That the elect have no more right to heaven after they beleeve, then before He will not ſay, the right which the wicked have to heaven is conditional, and ſo may be loſt for non-performance of the condition: and if it be abſolute from eternity, it admits of no condition in time: xxL. Perfecta C. de donat. quae ſub modo.a perfect donation admits of no after-conditions: at leaſt, unleſſe they be added yyVide Covar ruv. var. Reſol. l. 1. c. 14.in continenti, preſently. If he ſay this right is given them ſub termino, or in diem, as if I give Titius ten pounds, when he comes to the age of twenty one; ſo God gives ungodly men a right to heaven, but they cannot enjoy it till they beleeve: yet even thus it muſt be acknowledged, that they have more right when they beleeve, then they had before: as Titius hath more right to what I gave him, at the age of twenty one, then he had before: for he had before but a remote right (jus ad rem), and at that age he hath an immediate right. But neither will this, (which Mr. Eyre muſt ſtick to, or to nothing) ſalve the ſore: partly, becauſe the day when a wicked man ſhall repent and beleeve, is in it ſelf contingent and uncertain, (in its ſelf, I ſay, becauſe it is known to God: but Gods knowledge alters not the nature of things, he knows what events ſhall come to paſſe contingently, and what neceſſarily). Now dies incerta aequiparatur conditioni, what is given upon an uncertain day, is all one as if it were given upon condition, according to the determination of the zzI. Stipulatio iſta. §. inter certam ff de verb. oblig.Civil Law: as if I promiſe ten pounds to Titius upon the day of his marriage: it is all one as if I promiſed it upon condition he marry: and if God promiſe ungodly men to give them heaven when they beleeve, it is all one as if he promiſe it on condition they beleeve: which Mr. Eyre cannot away with. Partly and principally (which alſo is my ſecond Argument for proof of the conſequence) becauſe the right which is given a man to the Kingdome by Juſtification, according to Scriptures, is independent upon time, ſo that if he die the very next moment that he is juſtified, he ſhall and muſt be ſaved: yea, ſuch an immediate and neceſſary dependance there is of the Kingdome upon Juſtification, that nothing more is required to make a man morally and immediately capable of inheriting the Kingdome, but that he be juſtified, Rom. 8. 30. Whom he juſtified, them he glorified. p. 197See alſo Rom. 5. 9, 10, 17, 18, 21. Tit. 3. 7. and other texts before mentioned: all importing ſuch an immediate connexion between Juſtification and the inheritance, that though no other change be made in a mans ſtate, yet being juſtified he ſhall be ſaved. Ergo, if the elect have right to heaven while they are ungodly, they muſt be ſaved, whether ever they be converted to the faith of Chriſt, or no.

No, (ſaith Mr. Eyre) it will not follow: becauſe Chriſt hath§. 24. purchaſed faith, and God hath purpoſed to give it as well as glory.

Rep. Both which I grant in theſi: but if Mr. Eyre will take in the hypotheſis too, and tell us that God did purpoſe, and Chriſt did purchaſe faith for a people that had right to heaven before, I ſhall deſire him to prove it; for I am not like to beleeve it. Yet I am out of doubt that God never purpoſed faith to any ſuch perſon, but to ſuch as are aliens, ſtrangers and forreigners, that they through faith might partake in the rights, and liberties and immunities of his Kingdom, Eph. 3. 5, 6, 9, 11. For, 2. Give me leave to ask, To what end ſhould God purpoſe to give faith, if men have right to the Kingdom without it? It muſt be purpoſed either as a means to the obtaining of righteouſneſſe and life, (and then I have what I would; for then no man hath a right to heaven but by faith: and if any man hath right without it, the gift of faith as to them, in order to that end, is utterly needleſſe and ſuperfluous;) or it is purpoſed as part of the natural eſſential perfection of mans nature, unto which he is reſtored by Chriſt: and this I deny: at leaſt, I am very doubtful of it, and deſire it may be proved. aaVide … in Sent l. 4 diſt. 14 …. 19. ad. 3.There are ſome things, which in themſelves are perfections of mans nature, as love to God and our neighbour, and all the vertues pertaining to the firſt or ſecond table: that faith which Adam had in his innocency, and the frame of righteouſneſſe in which he was created. Other things are no vertues at all, but upon ſuppoſition of ſin, and do alwayes imply imperfection: as ſhame for ſin, brokenneſſe of heart, repentance, and faith in a Mediatour, as it ſignifies an abnegation of our own righteouſneſſe, and a dependance upon another for righteouſneſſe. Theſe of the latte… ſort are no part of the eſſential perfection of man, yea, they do eſſentially ſuppoſe imperfection; for faith in a Mediatour is at an bbVide Aquin. 1. … ae q. 9… art 3… o & … ….end, when we ſhall be perfected in glory, 1 Pet. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 7. there being no farther uſe of it, nor object for it; for even Chriſt himſelf (as it ſeem…) … p. 198….ceaſe to be a Mediatour, after he hath brought all his redeemed ones unto God, 1 Cor. 15. 24, 27, 28. though the vertue and effects of his Mediatourſhip abide for ever. Faith it ſelfe therefore being no part of our inheritance, nor meanes of obtaining it upon Mr. Eyres ſuppoſal, that it is no meanes of obtaining right to it, it remaines, that it is not neceſſary to any mans ſalvation: and then what ſhould hinder, but that men may be ſaved without it? 3. If this be the true reaſon why the elect in their ungodlineſſe cannot inherit heaven; though then they have right to it, namely, becauſe they have not that, as yet, which God is purpoſed to give them before they go to heaven; then their incapacity of heaven, even while they live in all manner of wickedneſſe, is not at all privative or poſitive, but purely negative: that is, they are therefore uncapable of heaven, not becauſe the Law, or ſin, or any thing they do, deprives them of the poſſeſſion of heaven; but becauſe God hath not done what his purpoſe is to do, in all whom he intends to glorifie. Wilt thou ſee (Reader) what are the iſſues of this Goſpel? 1. Hereby ſin is made of a like neceſſity to the enjoyment of Heaven, as faith? for he that purpoſed to bring the elect to heaven, purpoſed alſo that they ſhould be ſinners, ipſo permittente, by his permiſſion: And ſo (for example) Adam and Eve, while they were innocent, had a right to heaven, but they could not enjoy it till they had ſinned: becauſe he that purpoſed to give them heaven, purpoſed alſo to permit them firſt to ſin. 2. Yea, ſo far was ſin from being their hindrance, that it was their furtherance rather: for having ſinned, the more was over and paſt of thoſe things which God had appointed ſhould go before their ſalvation: and ſo by their ſin they became nearer heaven then they were before. 3. And on the contrary, the purpoſe of giving faith, is rather a hinderance then a furtherance of their happineſſe, for they have right to heaven even while they live in all manner of ungodlineſſe: only that which hinders their enjoyment is that there is a purpoſe of giving faith, which muſt be accompliſhed before they can inherit; were it not for that purpoſe they might go to heaven preſently, and as they are. 4. And that without all gain-ſaying of the Law: which though it be a bug-beare, even to the elect themſelves, to terrifie and affright the conſcience, while they live in ſin and ungodlineſſe; yet hath no authority (it ſeemes) to debarre them from entrance into heaven, no more then if it never had been violated. And ſo, if it might be ſuppoſed (per p…ſſibile vel impoſſibile,) that an unrighteous man might go to heaven, yet were this no p. 199impeachment to the juſtice of Gods government, but would argue at moſt ſome kind of mutability in God, in not doing according to his purpoſe. Whereas the Lord himſelf profeſſeth, that if he ſhould give life to an impenitent ſinner, it were againſt his equity. The waies of the Lord are equal, Ezek. 18. throughout: Fiftly,

If ungracious men have a right to heaven, onelyonly they cannot§. 25. poſſeſſe it till they have the evidence of faith; either this evidence is of ſuch neceſſity, that if they have it not, they ſhall loſe that life to which they are adjudged, or no. If not; then whether they believe or no, they ſhall be ſaved: if ſo; then there is no abſolute juſtification before faith, and juſtification muſt be conditional.

To this Mr. Eyre anſwers. 1. By this Argument not only faith, but all other works of ſanctification, and perſeverance in them muſt be the conditions of our juſtification: and then we may be ſaid to be juſtified and ſaved by them: but this is no good Argument. No man is ſaved or glorified without works. Ergo, men are ſaved by works. 2. This reaſon makes as much againſt abſolute election before faith, as againſt abſolute juſtification. 3. The anſwer is, election and juſtification are abſolute, becauſe they depend upon no antecedent condition: not becauſe they are without conſequents that depend on them.

Rep. To the firſt we reply. That if the queſtion be concerning our firſt entrance into a ſtate of juſtification; we have already (with the Apoſtle, Rom. 10. 10.) excluded works from being at all neceſſary thereunto. But if the queſtion be of our laſt and univerſal juſtification at the day of judgement, which the Apoſtle there calls ſalvation, Mr. Eyre knows we maintaine, that perſeverance in the faith to the end, and in a Chriſtian converſation, is a neceſſary condition of ſalvation; according to Scriptures, Rev. 2. 17. and 22. 14. Col…ſ. 1. 23. 2 John. 8. Heb. 10. 26, 36. and the places quoted by M. Eyre, Prov. 28. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Matth. 24. 13. And the conſent of ccAmeſ. Bellar. enervat. tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 6. de n…ceſ. oper. ad ſalut. ad obj. ex Rom. 8. 13. Mortific. tio igitur eſt conditio a… vitam: quis negat? Gerhard. de bon… operib. c. 9. §. 55. 4. Zanchius Gry… Sohnius, Piſcator. ibid. §. 45. Chamier. …. de bon Oper. Nece… cap. …. ſect. 7. 11, 15, 17, 20 … &c. appellat … quibus non …. …. … Davenant de … Act cap. … 5. & 6. & ….Rom 8:13Acts 5Proteſtants. But when he infers, then we may be ſaid to be ſaved by works; I deny the conſequence: partly becauſe of the ambiguity of the word works, which in our uſe generally hath another ſenſe then with the Apoſtles, who oppoſe them, not only to faith (as we have largely proved before) but ſometimes alſo to ſanctification, Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteouſneſſe which we have done but by the renewing of the holy Ghoſt: partly, becauſe the works of ſa…ctification are not the condition properly of our obtaining, but of not loſing our right to the heavenly Kingdom. As if Titius upon … p. 200his intreaty give him a farme, to be held by him jure feudi: the nonperformance of that homage and fidelity which the feudatory is bound to, forfeits his right: nevertheleſſe his title is grounded in the Donors benevolence. In like manner we are ſaved by grace through faith: though if we do not by the ſpirit mortifie the deeds of the fleſh, we forfeit our life, Rom. 8. 13.

To the ſecond I reply, That there is no compariſon between§. 26. election and juſtification, as is at large above demonſtrated. Let us ſet Mr. Eyres parallel before us, that the diſſimilitude may the better appeare. Thus then he argues. Faith is of ſuch neceſſity, that they that have it not ſhall loſe the life to which they are elected, or not: if not; then whether the elect believe or no, they ſhall be ſaved: if it be, then there is no abſolute election before faith.

Here, 1. The compariſon is between an Act that giveth a right to life (ſuch is juſtification) and an Act which giveth none, ſuch is election: which indeed doth make the donation of right to be a thing future, but is not it ſelfe the Act which giveth it, as we have ſhewed before. Now if a ſinner have a right to the inheritance, and yet it be neceſſary for him to believe that he may inherit, then is his inheriting ſuſpended upon believing; that is, faith is the condition of his inheriting, and ſo the right he had to it before, muſt needs be conditional: more then this, neither reaſon, nor the civil Law requires, to denominate a gift to be conditionall. In election the caſe is otherwiſe: which, becauſe it doth not tranſmit or conveigh any right, but is only a preparation or preordination in the mind of God, of thoſe cauſes by which it ſhall be made to exiſt in time, therefore may the purpoſe it ſelf be abſolute? yea though it be of things which do not exiſt but upon condition. Thus Dr. ddIn Co…vin. dofenſ. Armin. Cont. Tilen pag. 355.Twiſſe. Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici poſſe conditionata: quatenus ſcil. neque vita aeterna niſi ſub conditione fidei conferenda ſit; nec damnatio, &c. and particularly of juſtification or pardon of ſin he addes: Remiſſionem peccatorum & ſalutem omnes conſentiunt nemini contingere niſi ſub conditione fidei. i. e. All agree, that pardon of ſin and ſalvation betides none, but upon condition of faith. God may abſolutely will or purpoſe to give a right to life upon condition of faith: but he cannot abſolutely give a right to life, and yet afterwards require us to believe under a penalty of forfeiting, or loſing that life: for then the gift is not abſolute, but conditional. 2. The word neceſſary muſt be diſtinguiſhed: for it may be underſtood, either in reference p. 201to God; and ſo whatſoever he purpoſeth is neceſſary, becauſe his purpoſes being immutable, and his power irreſiſtable, it muſt needs be, that whatſoever he purpoſeth muſt come to paſſe: or in reference to us; and ſo that is neceſſary which is enjoyned us by precept, as a means appointed and ordained of God for ſuch or ſuch an end. The neceſſity of faith in the former ſenſe will by no means inferre that it is a condition; but in the latter ſenſe it will and if God give a right to life, and yet our believing remaine neceſſary, as a means appointed for the obtaining of life; then the right we had before was but conditional. The neceſſity of faith compared with election, is only a neceſſity of exiſtence, upon ſuppoſition of a powerful and immutable cauſe. Obj. But I my ſelf grant (will it be ſaid) that faith is neceſſary as a means of obtaining life; yet are we elected unto life: ſo that hitherto the caſe is ſtill the ſame. Anſ. Therefore we diſtinguiſh farther. Gods giving life may be conſidered either ſimply as it is Gods act, and the execution of his eternal purpoſe; or as withal it is our bleſſedneſſe, & reward. In the former reſpect, faith hath no other order to life, then purely of an antecedent: becauſe he that purpoſed to give life, purpoſed alſo to give faith before it: but it is neither means nor condition nor cauſe of life no more then Tenderton ſteeple was the condition or cauſe or means of Godwin ſands: or an earthquake over night of the ſuns riſing the next morning. It is in reference to life, only as by the promiſe it is made our reward, that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it. Now, if faith according to the conſtant language of Scripture, be neceſſary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward; then whatſoever juſtification adjudgeth us to life before faith, muſt be conditional. But upon ſuppoſition of election, both unto faith and unto life, if there were no other act of God which made faith neceſſary to us, …, it would be only neceſſary in regard of its preſence or exiſtence, but not at all neceſſary as a means to be uſed by us, in order to our receiving of righteouſneſſe and ſalvation; and ſo election will nevertheleſſe be abſolute.

And therefore the third anſwer which Mr. Eyre gives as moſt direct§. 27. to the Argument, namely that juſtification is abſolute, though faith be neceſſary, becauſe faith is neceſſary only as a conſequent, is without ſtrength. For, 1. If by conſequent he mean that which is purely and only ſo, ſin and death will put in for as neceſſary an intereſt in juſtification as faith it ſelf. 2. If by conſequence he mean an effect, then is it againe ſuppoſed that faith is an effect of juſtification. p. 202which ſhould be proved and not unworthily begged. I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteouſneſſe: of being juſtified unto beleeving, I read not a word. 3. Mr. Eyre himſelf when he would diſtinguiſh juſtification from election, determined the former preciſely to a non-punition. If now it lay claime to faith too, as it's genuine proper effect, his diſtinction evaporates into a nullity. 4. Nor doth he aſcribe any thing more to faith in the matter of juſtification, then all our Divines with one conſent aſcribe to works, namely a neceſſity of preſence, for the neceſſity of faith as a conſequent is no more. Which they indeed aſcribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture: he, to faith, without any evidence at all.

And ſo much for the defence of the Arguments, which I advanced to prove, that we are not juſtified till we beleeve.