THE METHOD OF GRACE. in the JUSTIFICATION OF Sinners.  
Being a REPLY to a Book written by Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury: Entitled, Vindiciae Justificationis Gratuitae, Or the Free Justification of a SINNER justified.  
Wherein the Doctrine contained in the said Book, is proved to be Subversive both of Law and Gospel, contrary to the consent of Protestants. And inconsistent with itself.  
And the Ancient Apostolic Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith asserted.  
By Benjamin Woodbridge Minister of Newberry.  Rom. ●. 16 
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.  Exod 24. 7. 
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.  
LONDON, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Edmund Paxton in Paul's Chain, right over against the Castle Tavern, near Doctor's Commons, 1656.   

THE EPISTLE to the Reader.  
Reader,  
BEfore thou enter upon the ensuing Discourse, it is necessary that I premise something for thy information, 1. Concerning my Sermon. 2. Concerning Mr. Eyre's answer. 3. Concerning this Reply.  
1. For the first, Mr. Eyre having already acquainted thee with the time when it was preached, I shall only give thee a more faithful account of the occasion of preaching it, and of some passages in it. The Providence of God, which ruleth all our ways and motions, directed me to the City of New Sarum at such a time, when it fell to Mr. Thomas Warrens turn to preach the weekly Lecture there; whose Sermon, (as it well deserves) is since printed; and in it thou mayest read those certain, necessary and important truths which he then insisted on. Mr Eyre withstood him vehemently, not without the great disturbance and grief of many, to whom the Word of Truth is precious and amiable. I had formerly been a Preacher in that ●ity, for some time together; but was at that time detained there full ●ore against my will, by the surprisal of a Chronical distemper, which gave time and occasion to many of my acquaintance to visit me, and to desire me, (as I then could) to set my seal publicly to the truth of the Gospel, which accordingly I did in that Sermon, which is here vindicated against Mr Eyre I was earnestly importuned by many worthy Ministers & Christians to print my Sermon; whose desires nevertheless, I refused to gratify; partly, because I could not be wrought to esteem of it, as they did: principally, out of respect to Mr. Eyre himself whose weaknesses I was unwilling should be made so public by my means. One Copy indeed I promised for the private use of some Christians, which accordingly, when I was returned home, I wrote hastily, and sent to them, reserving no Transcript of it in my own hands. After some weeks, (how many, I cannot now justly tell) I was informed, that they, who had the perusal of that Copy, were resolved to send it up to London; and if it found the like Approbation there, as in the Country, to commit it to the Press: When I heard this, considering how many judicious Ministers had solicited me to print it, and how many more might pass judgement upon it before it should be printed; I was resolved to meddle nor make no more in the business, but leave it wholly to the judgement of others; which I speak for the vindication of Reverend Mr. Cranford, (who was pleased to give himself the trouble of prefixing an Epistle to my Sermon; for which respect to me, than altogether a stranger to him (as I yet also am, having never seen his face, nor he mine, as I know of) I do hereby return him that acknowledgement which I own him) when he tells the Reader, that it was not by my means that my Sermon was printed. And whosoever he was that assured * Mr Eyre of 
In his book p. 38.  any other hand that I had in the printing of the said Sermon, then as I have here related, spoke without book.  
Soon after the printing of mine, Mr. Eyre published a Sermon of his own preached at the following Assizes. In his Epistle to the Reader he complains much of my unchristian language, especially that I should say he was obstreperous; and produceth a Certificate under six witnesses hands, living (as I am informed, for I know not all the men) in the County of Dorset, the County of Wilts, and the City of Sarum, of his saire deportment in that opposition which he made against me in the public meetingplace, after Sermon was ended. I acknowledge the word to be somewhat homely, and such as if I had printed against Mr. Eyre, I should have forborn; and seeing it gives him such offence, do publicly recant it; (for, it is not only there, but, as I remember, thrice in his book that he takes notice of it, with a most sufficient Talio,) Nevertheless, if he will give it another term, I shall own the accusation, and be content that it be tried by number of witnesses too. I do therefore assure thee (Reader) that many Christians in that City, (whom Mr. Eyre would heretofore have accounted worthy of belief, though now I think he will allow them no better testimony then that they go for Professors) having considered in what formality Mr. Eyre proceeded against me, took themselves bound in conscience to testify what they had seen and known, and sent me of their own accord a large letter, subscribed with all their hands, (which were very many more than those which Mr. Eyre procured to certify for him▪ a●●esting fully and particularly the thing I charged him with; assuring me also, that if need had been, they could quickly have doubled their numbers in the same testimony. This letter I also showed to some of my neighbouring Ministers, that they might be my witnesses, (if called thereto) that I report the truth. Yet, though I acknowledge myself beholding to them that sent me the letter, for their love and respects to me, I will by no means make use of their testimony; as not esteeming my credit worthy to be redeemed with the least damage that may befall them, by the evil eye of others on the weather-side of them.  
But out of my own mouth will Mr. Eyre condemn me; because when he broke off the conference, I used those words of the Apostle, Gal. 4. 12. Be ye as I am, for I am as you are; you have not wronged me at all; which words I understood, when I spoke them in no other sense then Dr. Presto● somewhere gives of them, as not reckoning of his opposition against me, or his unfair dealing therein, so as to entertain any enmity in my heart against him. Forgive me this wrong.  
2. Yet if I in this word have been uncivil with Mr. Eyre, he hath made himself a sufficient recompense in his Answer to me: having drawn the lines of his grave censures quite through me, and round about me, characterizing, (as he sees fit) my 
b Page 165. sect. 8  heart, 
c Page 100 sect. 11.  intentions, soul and body, my very 
d Page 165.  face, and 
e Epist ●● the Reader, page 1, 2. & ●●bi passion.  stature not excepted. All which things trouble me the less, because I have such companions in these reproaches, as I do not dare to compare myself with the meanest of them. As not only Mr. Cranford, Mr. Baxter, my brother, but all that stand in his way, that is, the main body of Protestants, who have wrote upon this subject, ever since the name of Protestant was known upon the earth. But it is somewhat strange to me, to observe what measure Mr. Eyre meeteth to all that cannot veil to his judgement. If Mr Baxter lay down principles inconsistent with his, he must be represented as an Arminian, a Papist, a Socinian, and what not? If a faithful Christian, (and that in Mr. Eyre's own judgement, though none of the meanest rank of Christians neither) do but ask him a question, and that with all due respect, he must be bid to 
f Page 9, 10. — I will not english the words for very shame. The Profession there following will never be believed after such premises; nor will they be any salve for such a public putting to shame, and spitting in the face of a member of Christ. If my brother declare himself against his notions, he must be 
g Page 84.  printed as a desertor of his Church in New-England, for the love of a better Parsonage in old. Durus Sermo I could name many Ministers, that since these times have returned from thence hither, and have gained ten times more by their return then my brother hath, or is ever like to do; were they all desertors of their Churches for fatter morsels? If a man should print of Mr. Eyre, that he is of late grown an enemy to 
h Epist dedic. the Council of War before his Sermon.  Tithes, that (if they be sold) he might add some of them to his former Purchases: or if they be put into a public treasury, he might take of them more liberally, in the more reformed way of a State maintenance; or because he envies bread to every Minister that cannot hold pace with him in the way he goes, and would have them all at his mercy: If (I say) a man should print these things of Mr. Eyre, I should verily account him a slanderer, unless he were able to prove it better, than (I am sure) Mr. Eyre can prove his charge against my brother. He finds fault with my brother's argument, because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia: and yet is his own practice faultless, in judging of that which the Church may not judge of, I mean the intentions of a man's heart? It concerns not me to praise my brother; his own innocency in many year's Profession of Christ, is a sufficient defence to him against a thousand such calumniations; nor is he mindful to take so much notice of Mr. Eyre's language, as to give him an answer; but content, without envying Mr. Eyre his great yearly revenues, to serve God with cheerfulness in his poverty; only for his arguments, Mr. Eyre hath taken them up upon trust, (which was not fair dealing) and his informer hath misrepresented them. I had them, and a Vindication of them under my brother's hand, and was intended to have printed them, as not fearing what Mr. Eyre or any man else could rationally have excepted against them: but finding my book to be of itself grown beyond that proportion which I intended, I have omitted it.  
In his answer to me, (to leave these personal matters, which can be neither grateful nor profitable to the Reader,) how often be dasheth himself against himself; and in the whole scope of his Discourse, opposeth himself against the body of Protestant Divines, the Reader may in some measure see in this Reply. So little cause hath he to charge the doctrine, which myself or others maintain against him, with a compliance with Popery. If I delighted in recriminations, I could tell him, that his doctrine of eternal reconciliation is Socinianism: that his denial of the elect to be at any time punished for their sin is 
i Calv. instr. advers. Lib ●ti● cap ●4 pag. (mihi) 181.  Libertinism: as also that God is well pleased with some men in the midst of all their ungodliness. That his denying of the 
k Chap 1 § 1. p. ●10. compared with §. 7.  Law, any power to hold the transgressors of it under an obligation to the punishment which it threateneth, is Antinomianisme. 
l Page 152. §. 6.  That the death of Christ tends not to the procuring of our Justification. 
m Page 62.  That sins are pardoned in nature and time before Christ's satisfaction. 
n Page 122.  That sinners have no more right to salvation after their believing then before: with many other Paradoxes of like complexion, are Anti-Gospelism, and may (for aught I know) outvie the most pernicious doctrines amongst the Romanists. As for his other charge of Arminianism, the Lord knows, and my own soul knows, to my daily shame and sorrow, I have as little reason as any man to expect Justification in a Popish or Arminian way. Nevertheless, I am altogether proselyted to renowned Bp. Davenants judgement, concerning the extent and effects of the death of Christ, (if that be Arminianism) especially since I read Daylee's late Vindication of Amyrald against Spanhemius. And the chief reason that inclines me to it, besides the evidence of truth, is the advantage I have thereby to give a clear and smooth answer to all the Scriptures, which the Arminians are wont to use in defence of their cause.  
It is true, Mr. Eyre allegeth the testimonies of some Divines, as speaking seemingly for him. But that the same Divines do elsewhere more plainly speak against him, hath been so fully evidenced by Mr. Baxter, Mr. Warren, and blessed Mr. Graile, that I cannot account it worth while to take a particular view of his testimonies. Only I intended to take some special notice of two of his Authors, viz. Robert Parker, (my Reverend Grandfather,) and renowned Dr. Twisse. As to that passage which Mr. Eyre hath picked out of my Grandfather's book, De descensu Christi ad inferos, it hath been already so cleared both by Mr. Warren and Mr. Baxter, that I am persuaded if Mr. Eyre were to write his book again, he would quit the hold he takes on those words. Much less would he have declared so tragically against me, as if I had no less than justified my Grandfather's persecutors in all their injurious and unworthy deal against him, in writing for that truth which he never denied. But if I do anything unworthy of the name and memory of that Reverend man, (who yet was never persecuted for his book De descensu; much less for being supposed to be an abettor of the Justification of impenitent and unbelieving sinners,) Mr. Eyre might have thought it no greater fault in me, then in his own and only son, my Reverend and much honoured Uncle Mr. Thomas Parker, (vir omni exceptione major) who hath taught me long since, that 
o De traduct. peccat. ad vitam. thes. 5. 6.  Conditio (reconciliationis) a part nostra, est Christi receptio, the condition of reconciliation on our part, is our receiving of Christ, which must first be done,— Cum ex ea tanquam medio praerequisito reconciliatio ineatur, because it is a means praerequisite to our reconciliation. As for Dr. Twisse, if he were capable of receiving any addition of honour by my testimony, I should be more ambitious to perform it then Mr. Eyre could be desirous of the favour of his 
p Ep. dedic.  most noble Senators. I may not deny that I had bestowed some pains in comparing the Doctors expressions in several places: but it pleased God to stir up a far better hand, 
q In his Preface to Mr. Grails book.  Mr. Constant Jessop, a learned, faithful, suffering servant and Minister of Jesus Christ, to do the Doctor the honour of vindicating his judgement and doctrine, from those general misreports and misapprehensions that went abroad of him.  
Something I should alsospeak concerning Mr. Eyre's marginal quotations, which are many of them false, as I was once intended to have showed the Reader in a List. But considering that the difference of Volumes or Editions, in which his Authors are extant, may breed a mistake of some; and that the Printer tells us, Mr. Eyre was not able to overlook the Press; and so through the error of that, others might be mistaken, I have thought fit to forbear.  
3. As for this my Reply, though the Authors above mentioned, and Mr. Eedes besides, (who yet hath misrepresented me, in reporting that I deny faith to be an evidence of our Justification) coming all out so long before me, may seem to make my undertaking needless; yet I was loath to deceive the expectations of so many, as had so long waited for my Reply. The truth is, I had soon drawn up the sum of my answer, so far as I was sure that I understood Mr. Eyre aright. That I made no more haste to the Press, the Reasons were, 1. The incessant employments I have had, both at home and abroad, which have made me uncapable of following works of this nature so close as they should be. 2. The frequent and long-continuing bodily infirmities, which have kept me from writing many weeks together. 3. While the controversy was hot, I was willing to see whether any thing would come out pro or con, that might occasion any new inquiries. I hear of none but Mr. Robertson, (who threateneth us with a few pedantic Scoticismes) and Mr. Crandon against Mr. Baxter, whom (for the report I had heard of the man) I greedily desired to read. But lighting by accident upon his discourse, about the afflictions which befall the godly in this life. I found him vox & praeterea nihil, and so leave him to those Readers, who can be edified by his melody.  
Mr. Eyre's Comment upon the title page of my Sermon I pass over. His digression in chap. 2. about public disputes with the Ministers, will have some more cautions before it pass for canonical, if ever it be his lot to be exercised in that way, as much as some worthy Ministers have been, in some Churches which I have known. In my Reply to his Arguments I have faithfully set down the strength of his argument, though not every word in every place. And so (Reader) I commend thee, and this my writing, unto the blessing of him, who will one day own it for his truth, and thee for a child of truth, if thou walk in it.  
BENJAMIN WOODBRIDGE.   

THE METHOD OF GRACE. IN THE JUSTIFICATION OF SINNERS.  

CHAP. I.  
An Answer to M. Eyre's 6. chap. The Question stated. Justification what. Justification by Faith what. The consent of Protestants in making Faith the condition of Justification. Or an instrumental cause thereof. Proved also by the confessions of several Churches.  

SECT. I.  
IN our entrance upon the discussion of the present Question, namely, whether a sinner be justified in 
§. 1.  the sight of God before he believe, or not till he believe, I must crave leave to digress a little from Master Eyre's method: who first gives his answer to those Texts produced in my Sermon, for proof of our Justification by Faith, in his fifth Chapter: and then states the Question in his sixth and seventh. I shall therefore first examine those two Chapters (beginning here with the former) and so proceed to the entire Vindication of my Sermon by itself.  
In the stating of the Question, these three things are to be dispatched, 1. What Justification is? 2. What it is to be justified by Faith: or what is the office of Faith in Justification? 3. What is meant by the phrase In the sight of God, or before God, when we inquire concerning the Justification of a sinner before God, or in God's sight?  
For the first, when we inquire what Justification is, it is supposed 
§. 2.  that the word Justification is taken properly, & in sensu formali, not in a diminutive, comparative or tropical sense, Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato. The Reason why I observe this, is, because Master Eyre pretends to his Reader, that I have no less than yielded the cause, when I grant a Justification purposed of God, and merited by Christ before Faith: So then (saith he, pag. 147.) by his own confession, Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith: which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed, & pag. 101. challengeth some one text of Scripture to prove that Justification doth in no sense precede the act of Faith.  
Whereas I doubt not but the world may be said to be from eternity in some sense, namely in reference to the counsel and purpose of God. And he that is never justified at all, simply, may yet notwithstanding be said to be justified in some sense, that is, comparatively, as being less unjust than another, Jer. 3. 11. And many of those who are now alive, and never yet tasted of death, may nevertheless be said to be already risen from the dead in some sense, to wit, in Christ, the first fruits of them that slept. And Justification itself may be called condemnation in some sense for the Scots say a man is justified when he is hanged: and the word seems to be used in a sense not much unlike, Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead, is justified from sin. If Master Eyre do indeed think (which I am persuaded he doth not) that the Question between him and me is, whether the wit of man cannot invent some sense wherein Justification may be said to go before Faith: he should have acquainted his Reader with it here, in the ●stating of the Question: and not have kept him ignorant of any such controversy between us, till he is come towards the later end of his book.  
Wherein the particular nature and formality of this glorious blessing 
§. 3.  of Justification doth consist, is more particularly debated in the following discourse. Yet that the Reader may know what Justification it is which we speak of, I shall here speak something briefly for explication of it: leaving whatsoever is controverted, to be proved in its proper place. Justification then by our late Reverend 
a Larger Catech. pag 94. in 12.  Assembly is thus defined. An act of God's freegrace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight, not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by Faith alone. This for substance, is the Justification which the Question speaks of: if thou wouldst have it (Reader) more particularly, take it as followeth.  
The efficient (ut quod) of our Justification is God himself that justifieth: 
§. 4.  and his grace the efficient ut quo, for he justifies us freely of his grace, Rom. 3. 24. Jesus Christ also as King and Lord of life, is joined by special commission with the Father in his great Act of justifying sinners, John 5. 22. 26, 27. Acts 5. 31. Matth. 28. 18, 19 with Mark 16. 15, 16. and Luke 24. 47. The righteousness and obedience of Jesus Christ is the only meritorious cause of our Justification; but whether his active or passive obedience, either, or both, I do not dispute, nor do I account it needful: because all the active obedience of Christ was passive (for it was part of his humiliation, that being 
b See Bp. Usher. Imman. pag. 10, at the end of his Body of Divinity.  a Son, he would subject himself to the payment of that tribute of obedience which was due only from servants) and all his passive obedience was active: for he laid down his life of himself, John 10. 18. The formality of Justification consists (as I take it) in a legal discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment, and a donation of right and title to eternal life: which discharge and gift, because it was merited by the obedience of Christ, without any contribution of merit from the sinner himself, is truly called the 
c Christi justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur, quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur. Ames. Medul. Theol. l. 1. c. 27. th'. 12.  imputation of Christ's righteousness: and this is the sense of that phrase in the use of our Divines. And these things I here take for granted, reserving the proof of what is disputable in them to its proper place.   

SECT. II.  
THe second and more material labour is to explain, in what sense 
§. 5.  we are said to be justified by Faith. Mr. Eyre gives us five senses of the phrase; first, of those that take Faith in a tropical and figurative sense, as thus: We are justified by Faith, i. e. by the obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ, in whom we believe, and upon whom we rest for life and righteousness. Secondly, of those which say we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively. Thirdly, Of the Papists, who ascribe a meritoriousness to Faith, and do also make our Justification to be by inherent righteousness, or doing of righteous actions. Foutthly, of the Arminians who explode the word Merit, and deliver their opinion to this effect. That God in the legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments: but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith; which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law, which we ought to perform. Fifthly, of those that say that Faith doth justify as a condition or Antecedent qualification, by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God.  
The last of these is that which I contend for, according to the explication given of it in my Sermon, pag. 9 & 10. which why Master Eyre should account a new opinion, and charge it here upon Master Baxter, and elsewhere upon Doctor Hammond as the first parents and patrons of it, I know not; much less, why he should so very often accuse it as a piece of Arminianism and Popery, seeing it is a thing so well known, that the Synod of Dort, and almost all our Protestants do very frequently call Faith the condition of our Justification. (
d De reconcil. pecc. par 1. l. 2. cap. 18. pag. 99 100 ) Mr. Wotton doth purposely dispute for it: and hath saved me the labour of transcribing the testimonies of many famous Protestants, who say the same: either in express terms; as Fox, Perkins, Paraeus, Trelcatius, G. Downham, J. Downham, Scha●pius, Tho. Mathewes: or equivalent, as Calvin, Aretius' Sadeel, Olevia●, M●lancthon, Beza, to whom I might add, (
e Disser. de morte Christi. pag. 63. Est autem hic ordo stabilit●s, haec conditio expresse posita in ●vangelio, quod reconciliationis gratia & beneficium vitae aeternae ad peccatores ex morte Ch●isti redundaret, si crederent. Idem in praelect. de Just. Habit. & act. pag. 395 & 396. ) Davenant, (
f Collat. cum Till pag. 6●7. ●taque in vocatione aliam habet fides rationem quam in Justificatione: nam in Justificatione conditio est praerequisita (ut ita dicam) in vocatione gignitur: & fusius, in Disput. de satisfact. pag. 365. ) Cameron, (
g Praelect. Controu. 2. de not. Eccles. Q. 5. pag. 331. in 4. Cum primùm credo, tum justus sum: & cum justus sum, tum credo: veluti si malefico cuiquam veniz cum hac conditione proponatur, si eam amplecti velit, etc. & Praelect. de Sacram. cap. 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est, requirit enim fidem, etc. ) Whitaker, (
h De vocat pag. 16, 17. Reliquum est, ut videamus foederis gratuiti conditionem, ea au●em sola est sides. Deus promittit justificationem & vitam sub conditione fidei: & passim. ) Rollock, (
i Syntag. Theol. l. 4. c. 10. de Evang. pag. 1106. Promissiones Evangelii de remissione peccatorum & vita aeterna pertinen: quidem ad omnes homines, non tamen ab●olutè, sed sub conditione apprehensionis per fidem: & infra ibid. verum absolutae tamen non sunt, sed hac conditione circumscriptae, ut credant in Christum. ) Grotius, (
k De Evang Decad. 4 ●. 1. pag. 238, Proposuit enim Deus Christum propitiationem, nimirum ut is esset r●conciliatio nostra, propter quem placatus nos adoptat in filios Dei. Verum non alia ratione quam per fidem in ejus sanguinem, id est, si credamus, etc. ) Bullinger, (
l De remiss. peccat. cap. 6. pag (mihi) 621. Discernendum inter eam gratiam Dei quae nullas haber adjectas conditiones, qualis est, quòd s●lem suum producit super bones & malos, pluitque super gratos & ingratos: & eam quae conditionaliter confertur, ad quem modum peccatorum nobis remissio contingit & cap. 4. Quibus condition bus peccata remittantur, per tot. & passim. ) Musculus, (
m System. Theol. tom. 2. pag. 247. ad obj. 5. Promissiones Evangelii semper requirere Conditionem fidei, d●mus. ) Brochmand, (
n These Salmur. par●. prior. de Justif. Thes. 37. fide igitur justificamur, non tanquam parte aliqua Justitiae. etc.— sed tanquam Conditione foederis gratiae, quam à nobis Deus exigit loco conditionis foederis legalis. ) the Professors of Somers in France, (
o S●hol. in Luc. cap 11. Deus promisit nobis remissionem cum hac Conditione, si nos prius remiserimus proximo, etc. ) Piscator, (
p Ope●. Tom. 1 pag. 420. & 4●3. vide loca. ) Wallaeus, (
q In Thoms. Diat●ib. pag. 148. Promissiones de fine sunt conditiona●ae, etc. vide locum & passim. ) Abbot, (
r Christ. Theol. lib. 1. cap 22. add Thes 2 Promissio remissioni● peccatorum & vitae aete●●ae sub conditione fid●i, etc. ) Wendeline, (
s Of the Covenant, pag 66. and elsewhere frequently, only mislikes the term in some respect, because it seems to take away all causality from Faith in the matter of Justification, and therefore chooseth rather to call it an Instrument than a Condition. ) Ball, (
t Treatise of Justif. S●ct. 2. cap. 1. ) Pemble, (
u In Eph. 2. pag. 250. ) Bayne, (
x Vorst. loc. come. ●x cap. 3. ad Rom. pag. 23 Tit. 6. Mr. Blake of the Covenant cap. 6. pag. 26. Mr. Bulkley of the Covenant, part. 4. cap. 1. ) and many others.  
All which being considered, I shall neither account it Popery nor Arminianism to maintain, that Faith is the condition of our Justification before God: till Master Eyre hath proved, that it cannot be made a condition, but it must withal be made a meritorious cause: or that to make it the condition of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to a sinner, be to deny that Christ's righteousness is at all imputed to a sinner: or to affirm, that God of his grace doth accept of Faith as our legal righteousness (which is a palpable contradiction.) None of which he hath performed in his book, nor ever will do.  
When he distinguisheth those that take Faith objectively, from those that make it an instrument in Justification, it is a distinction without 
§. 6.  a difference, on purpose to impose upon the Reader, as if they were two sorts of Authors, whereas the very same men that take Faith objectively, for Christ believed on, do yet universally make Faith an Instrument in our Justification. Our Protestants do indeed maintain against the Papists (and that most truly) that the righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification; or the righteousness for which we are justified: but the same Authors do as unanimously affirm: that Faith is the instrumental cause thereof, (though otherwhile they call it a condition, and most use the words promiscuously.) Thus (
y Instit. l. 3. c. 14. §. 17. ) Calvin, (
z Epist. 45. p. 210. ) Beza, (
a Loc. come. clas. 3. cap. 4. §. 47, 48. ) Peter Martyr, (
b Explic. cat. par. 2. q. 61. 3. pag. 399. ) Vrsine, (
c Thes. Theol. cap. 35. 11. ) Junius, (
d Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 36. p 456. ) Polaenus, (
e De Justif. per. fid. cap. 4. §. 64. & Sect. 6. §. 153. ) Gerhard, (
f Enchyr. Theol. p. 134. ) Hemmingius, (
g Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 33. 27. ) the four Leyden Professors, (
h In Heb. pag. 486. ) Hyperius, (
i Meth. Theol. p. 227. ) Sohnius, (
k Harm. Evang. p. 279. & Exam. Conc. Trid. ses. 6. ) Kemnitius, (
l Loc. Com. 31. 33. ) Bucanus, and all the rest that ever I read, both Lutherans and Calvinists: voting concurrently for Faith's antecedency to Justification.  
At last Mr. Eyre gives us his own sense of Justification by Faith, in 
§. 7.  these words.  
My sense of this Proposition (we are justified by Faith) is no other than what hath been given by all our ancient Protestant Divines, who take Faith herein objectively, not properly, and explain themselves to this effect. We are justified from all sin and death by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ, who is the sole object or foundation of our faith: or, whose righteousness we receive and apply to ourselves by Faith. Yet I say, it doth not follow that it was not applied to us by God, or that God did not impute righteousness to us before we had Faith.  
If Mr. Eyre had concluded as he began, leaving out the exception which brings up the rear, and understanding our ancient Protestants in their known sense: this one sentence had confuted all his book, and saved me the pains of such an undertaking. It is most true, that our Protestants maintain that we are justified by the obedience of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification: and it is as true, that they maintain a sinner to be justified by Faith as the instrument or condition of his justification. Nor can I find one amongst the ancient Protestants, that did ever dream of a Justification by the righteousness of Christ without Faith: no, though for the most part they place Faith in a particular assurance. To the single testimonies already mentioned, let us add a few more out of the Confessions, that the difference between our Protestants and Master Eyre may the better appear.  
We begin with the (
m Orthodox. Tig. eccles. Minist. confess. Tract. 2. fol. 43, 44. ) Tigurine Confession. Nullis humanis vel operibus 
§ 8.  vel meritis, sed per solam Dei gratiam, id est, per sanctam illam crucifixi filii Dei passionem, & innocentem mortem, homines justitiam consequi, & peccatis mundari docemus: & quod mortis Christi innocentiae & meriti participes tunc reddamur, cum Dei filium nostrum esse, & propter peccata nostra, ut nos nimirum justos & beatos redderet, mortem subiisse, vera & constanti fide credimus. To the same purpose the (
n Corp. & Synt. Confess. fid. p. 45. ) Helvetian Confession, Propriè ergo loquendo, etc. To speak properly, God alone doth justify us, and justifies us only for Christ's sake, not imputing to us our sins, but imputing to us his righteousness. But because we receive this justification, not by any works, but by faith in God's mercy, and in Christ; therefore we teach and believe with the Apostle, that a sinner is justified by Faith alone in Christ, not by the Law or any works.— Therefore because Faith receiveth Christ our righteousness, and attributes all to the grace of God in Christ, therefore Justification is ascribed to Faith, principally because of Christ, and not because it is our work: to the same purpose, pag. 89. §. 13. The (
o Gallic. confess. ibid. p. 105, §. 20. ) French Confession agrees, Credimus nos, etc. We believe that by Faith alone we are made partakers of this righteousness: as it is written, that he suffered to obtain salvation for us, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish. The (
p Ibid. p. 128. ●. 11. ) English consent. Tantùm propter, etc. Only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, not for our works and merits, are we reputed just before God. So (
q Ib. p. 157. 25. ) Scotland, Sed qui cord, etc. They that do in heart sincerely believe, and with their mouth confess Jesus Christ, do most certainly receive those blessings: First in this life remission of sins, and that by Faith alone in the blood of Christ. The (
r Ib. p. 173, 22, ) Belgic Confession in like manner, Meritò igitur jureque dicimus, etc. We do therefore well and rightly say with Paul, that we are justified only by Faith: or by Faith without the works of the Law. But to speak properly, we do by no means understand Faith itself, by itself, or of itself to justify us: as which is only, as it were, an Instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousness. Christ then himself is our righteousness, who imputes to us all his merits: but Faith is the Instrument by which we are coupled unto him in the society and communion of all his good things, and are continued therein. Of the same Faith are all the other (
s Argent p. 223 c. 3. Pa●t. 2. August. p. 22, c. 1. Sax●n. p. 79, 80, 81. Wi●●emberg. p. 14● c de justif.  p. 210. si ●emissionem. ) Church's whose Confessions follow. Thus (
t Just. lib. 3 c. 11. §. 10. ) Calvin, Fateor hoc tam incomparabili beno nos privari, donec Christus noster fiat.— Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur, ut nobis imputetur ejus jus● itia: sed quia ipsum induimus & insiti sumus in ejus corpus, unum denique nos secum efficere dignatus est, ideo justitiae societatem nobis cum to esse gloriamur. Thus 
u Ubi supra, Epist. 45.  Beza. Quae obedientia (Christi, viz.) nobis per fidem Christo unitis datur, nostraque fit per imputationem. 
x Loc. come. clas. 3. c. 4. §. 65.  Thus Peter Martyr. Si quid Deus condonat vel remittit, id facit hominibus jam regeneratis, non autem à se alienis & filiis irae, quales necesse est eos esse qui nondum sunt justificati. Istis (inquam) nihil remittitur. Quare obligati sunt ad ●mnia. And thus all our more ancient Protestants, that I can read: but it is a tedious thing to me to transcribe so much of humane testimony: and what is written is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Eyre differs from our ancient Protestants (notwithstanding his pretended agreement) almost as fare on the one hand, as the Papists do on the other, in the very foundations of his discourse.  
For first, it is manifest by the testimonies produced, that our Protestants, when they plead for Justification by the righteousness of Christ, intent the very first act of Justification: which Mr. Eyre rejects, and ascribes no more to the righteousness of Christ, then that it obtains the effects of our justification, but not the Act, pag. 62. §. 4. 2. Our Protestants do so plead for Justification by the righteousness of Christ, as that they require and assert the necessary existence of Faith in us, as the instrument, or condition or antecedent of our Justification. Mr. Eyre contends for a Justification by the righteousness of Christ, without Faith at present coexisting. 3. They plead for a Justification which gins upon believing, and therefore must needs be a transient, not an immanent act of God. He, for a Justification which is an 
y Augustan. Confess. de fide. p. 21. Non est hic opus disputationibus de praedestinatione aut similibus.  immanent act, and included in the decree of election as part of it, pag. 65. §. 5. 4. They when they speak of Justification by Faith, mean Justification before God: He, the manifestation and declaration thereof only to the conscience. So that Mr. Eyre's opinion, and that of the ancient Protestants look so little like Countrymen, that it may not expect to be owned by them, though it challenge kindred of them.    

CHAP. II.  
An Answer to Mr. Eyre's seventh Chapter. What is meant by God's sight. Two parts or degrees thereof. Mr. Eyre's Exposition contradicts itself and the Truth. God's Will or Purpose never called by the name of Justification in Scripture. The consequences which Mr. Eyre denies to follow, upon his doctrine, necessary and unavoidable. A large enquiry, whether Justification consist in Gods Purpose not to punish. Imputation and non-imputation, what in the use of Scripture. God's electing love no Justification, Rom. 8. 33. answered. Several Arguments, proving, that Justification is not God's purpose of not punishing. The four objections which Mr. Eyre makes against himself, not answered by him. Not the first. Nor the second. Nor the third. Nor the fourth of Mr. Eyre's second and third Proposition.  

SECT. I.  
NExt we shall inquire, what it is to be justified before God, or in God's sight. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. 3. 11. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 3. 20. by which the Septuagint render the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 143. 2. a word that hath many faces and significations in 
a Drus observat. cap. 17.  Scripture: But in the matter of Justification, (which is a forensical term, unless the whole body of our Protestants be mistaken) it signifies as much as God's judgement. As to be justified in man's sight, or before men, is to be justified in man's judgement, or for man to justify, and to be righteous in a man's own eyes, is to be righteous in a man's own judgement, or to justify a man's self: In like manner, to be justified in God's sight, is to be justified in God's judgement, or for God to justify. Compare 1 Cor. 4. 4. Luke 16. 15. Numb. 32. 22. and many other places. Now this judgement of God, is either a judgement of justice, by which no flesh living shall be justified, Psal. 143. 2. or a judgement of mercy and grace, 2 Sam. 22. 25, 26. Col. 1. 22. Heb. 13. 21. by which only a sinner can be justified; or stand in the sight, presence and judgement of God.  
In this judgement of God, we consider these two degrees or parts. 
§. 2.  The first is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Apostle calls it, Rom. 1. 32. Jus 
b Vid Joh. Dried. de capt. & Redempt. c. 2. mem. 3. & de Reg. & dogmat. Sac. Script l. 3. p. 96, 97.  Dei, that Rule, Law, or Constitution of God, determining of rewards and penalties, (whence Gods Precepts, Statutes, Threaten and Promises, are so often called in Scripture his judgements) The second is the sentence, which God the righteous Judge shall pass upon all men, according to this Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the day of judgement. Accordingly, my opinion is, that a sinner is justified in God's sight, either ipso jure, by the Law or Constitution of grace, the immediate effect whereof is to give the sinner a right to impunity, and to the heavenly inheritance; or by the sentence of the Judge at the last day, by which he is adjudged unto the immediate, full and perfect possession of all those immunities and blessings, which were given him in right by that grand Promise of the Gospel, John. 3. 16. He that believeth on me, shall not perish; but shall have everlasting life. Even as amongst men, an Act of grace and pardon gives imprisoned rebels a right to deliverance from their present, and legally future punishments: though the effects of this right he do not possess (any otherwise then in hope) till his cause be tried, and himself absolved in Court, by the sentence of the Judge. In reference to the former, a sinner is justified presently upon believing: in reference to the latter, he is not justified till the day of judgement. Therefore Peter exhorts the Jews to repentance, that their sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of God, And he shall send Jesus Christ, Acts 3. 19, 20. And Paul prays for Onesiphorus, that God would grant him, that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day, 2 Tim. 1. 18. which (questionless) is meant of the day of judgement: of which himself also speaks a little before, ver. 12. I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day. And in the name of all Christians he tells us, Gal. 5. 5. That we by the Spirit do wait for the hope of righteousness by faith: that is, Justification through faith, as it stands in opposition to Justification by works, ver. 4. and throughout the whole Epistle. So doth the Lord Jesus promise to him that overcometh, a white stone, Rev. 2. 17. 
c Vid. Paraeum Aretium. Brightman. D●od Eng. Annot. in loc.  which having allusion to the custom of the Romans in judgement, condemning by a black stone, and absolving by a white, doth therefore signify that eminent, eternal and universal absolution from all guilt, which shall be given to the Saints that overcome, and continue faithful to the end. So Rom. 2, 13, 16. Not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of the Law shall be justified,— In the day when God shall judge the secrets of me● by Jesus Christ (the 14. and 15. verses are to be read in a parenthesis.)  
This is my opinion in this matter: which I have therefore set down the more distinctly, that Mr. Eyre may understand, how ignorant or impudent his Informer was, that told him, I maintained, that we were not justified till the day of judgement, page 19  
Now to Mr. Eyre, he gives us a threefold sense of the sight of 
§. ●.  God in the Question.  

1. As it signifies God's knowledge.  
2. As it signifies his legal justice.  
3. As it signifies his making of us to see.   
To which, I shall need to give no other answer then his own words, in the same paragraph: of the last thus he speaks. This phrase must have some other meaning in this debate: for else that distinctiction of Justification in foro Dei, & in foro Conscientiae, would be a mere tautology. Of the first thus. Although in articulo Providentiae, in the doctrine of divine Providence, seeing and knowing are all one: yet in articulo Justificationis, in the doctrine of Justification, they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture, and never promiscuously used, the one for the other. Thus of three senses of the phrase, himself rejects two, as impertinent to the matter in hand, and yet states his answer thus. If we take God's sight in the last construction, (viz. for his making us to see) than we are not justified in God's sight before we believe. 2. If we refer it to the justice of God, we were justified in the sight of God, when Christ exhibited, and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood. 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God, we were justified in his sight, when he willed or determined in himself, not to impute to us our sins, etc.  
As who should say, If you take God's sight in such a sense, in which it is never taken in all the Scripture, by Mr. Eyre's own confession (such is the first sense, which is here the last) then thus. But if you take it in such a sense, in which it may not be taken in the present question (such is the last of the three, which is here put first) than so. If some other senses of the sight of God, (as when it signifies his favour, his assistance, his approbation and witnessing, etc.) had been set down, that we might have known when we are justified in God's sight, in those senses; it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question. As first, to tell us, that God's sight doth never signify his knowledge in the matter of Justification; and then to add in the same breath, that to be justified in God's sight, is to be justified in his knowledge. 2. Nor is it a lawful distinction, because the members thereof do interferre, for Justification in the death of Christ; and in our own consciences, is Justification in God's knowledge: for surely he knows both these no less than his Purpose and Determination within himself. 3. We shall see by and by, that Mr. Eyre maintains, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to sinners, by the eternal Act of God's Will: I ask then, whether that imputation be Justification in Gods legal justice? if it be; then there is a farther implication in the members of the distinction: if it be not, I would know how God doth justify us in his legal justice, and yet not by imputing the righteousness of Christ to us. 4. God knows us not to be justified till we be justified, for it is impossible that the same thing should be and not be. Indeed he may well know, that he intends to justify us; but if he know that, than he knows we are not yet justified: for he knows that what he intends to do is not yet done.  
But because Mr. Eyre refers us to his following discourse; for the better understanding of these mysteries, I attend his motion, that I may spare tautologies as much as I can.   

SECT. II.  
He therefore delivers his judgement in three Propositions. The first is this, Justification is taken variously in Scripture. 
§. 4.   
1. For the Will of God, not to punish or impute sin unto his people.  
2. For the effect of God's Will, to wit, his not punishing, or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law. That Justification is put for this latter act, he supposeth none will question. The only scruple is concerning the former, which he confesseth he hath been sparing to call by the name of Justification, because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression. As  
1. That absurd conceit, that Christ came not to satisfy the justice, but only to manifest the love of God: whereas (saith he) we say, that notwithstanding the Will of God, not to punish his Elect, the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins, no less then for the sins of others. And  
2. Their notion, who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature, etc.  
Answ. Here is the foundation of all the following obscure discourse: which I perceive Mr. Eyre had rather we should take for granted, than he be put to prove. I do therefore deny  
1. That Justification doth any where in Scripture signify God's eternal Will or Purpose not to punish: of which more, presently.  
2. That it is any where in Scripture put pro re volitâ, for the thing willed, formally, and under that habitude or relation. Justification is the discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment: whether it were willed or not willed from eternity, is but  and accidental to the Act itself.  
3. That Justification is any where used in Scripture for the effects of Justification: though I deny no man the liberty of making use sometimes of such a trope: but we are now enquiring the nomine, concerning the use of the Word. The Apostle makes that one Act of Election the cause of all spiritual blessings, Eph. 1. 3, 4. of which our Justification is one, ver. 6, 7. no less than Adoption, ver. 5. which is an Act of the same common nature with Justification, and by some eminent 
d See Dr. Reignolds Life of Christ page 402.  Divines made a part of it: and that suitably enough to Scripture phrase, even when it is made consequent to our faith, John 1. 12. Gal. 3. 25. with 4. 5, 6.  
4. Our discharge from the curse is, either our discharge from an obligation to it, or from our actual suffering it. In this latter sense it is indeed an effect of Justification, but in the former sense it is the very life, being and form of it, unless it be understood passively, and so that also may be called an effect of Justification: because the immediate effect of a discharge active, is a person discharged. These observations (Reader) thou wilt find useful, in the following debate.  
That absurd conceit (as he calls it) that some have inferred upon 
§. 5.  an eternal Justification, (viz. that then Christ came not to satisfy the justice, but only to manifest the love of God) is so natural a consequence of his doctrine, that it will never be put off with a cold Negatur. And I presume Mr. Eyre is not ignorant, that it is a main principle, upon which the Socinians deny the satisfaction of Christ. And if he will own what himself hath wrote in this book, he must join with them. He affirms, that God's eternal Will not to punish, is the very essence of Justification, page 64. 2. That by this Will men are secured from wrath, and discharged and acquitted from their sins, that it is a real discharge from condemnation, an actual and complete non-imputation of sin, page 67. §, 6. upon which premises, I demand, Whose debt did Christ pay? his own? That's little less than blasphemy. Ours? why, our bond was canceled long before, and ourselves discharged and acquitted from all sin and death, really, actually, completely, if Mr. Eyre's doctrine be true. And where then is any place left for satisfaction? 
e De satisfact. p. 119.  Grotius hath well observed. Obligationis destructio liberatio dicitur. Hanc praecedere potest solutio, sequi non potest: quia actus nullus versari potest circa id quod non existit amplius. To the same purpose 
f In tert. Tho. tom. 1. disp 4. sect. 8. p. 58. edit. Venet.  Suarez, Propriè non dicitur satisfactio quae post remissionem debiti sit: sed quae fit ad debiti remissionem. Est enim remissio debiti terminus satisfactionis, non principium, ut communi sensu omnium hominum constat. Nec dici potest eandem peccati remissionem quae facta fuit gratis ante satisfactionem, postea etiam fieri per satisfactionem: quia repugnat idem debitum gratis remitti & per justam solutionem. But what need we the testimony of man? the testimony of God is greater. The text is plain, Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sin is, there is no more offering for sin; Ergo, if sin were remitted from eternity, Christ neither did nor could make any satisfaction. If it be said, that God did discharge us upon the foresight of Christ's satisfaction: I believe it to be most true of all the godly that lived before Christ: but Mr. Eyre, that makes this discharge to be an immanent (not a transient) act in God, will not, may not endure, that it should be caused by the foresight of Christ's satisfaction.  
The next gross mistake which Mr. Eyre tells us some have fastened 
§. 6.  upon the doctrine of eternal Justification is theirs, who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature, thus. If men are justified from eternity, they are from eternity. And I confess Mr. Eyre hath well removed this consequence, if his principle be good, that esse justificatum is a term of diminution. But verily, if the Scriptures have rightly informed us in the nature of Justification, I do not see how the consequence can be avoided, for Justification is one of the most eminent blessings contained in that Promise, I will be their God. So Paul, Rom. 3. 29, 30. Is he the God of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles also? yea, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Now God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Matth. 22. 32. And if not the God of the dead (who yet live as to their souls) then much less is he the God of them that are not, nor never were. Ergo he doth not justify them that are not. Again, He that is justified is blessed, Rom. 4. And he that is blessed from eternity, is from eternity: for he that is not, is neither blessed nor miserable. To say, he is blessed from eternity in God's intention, is no more, then that there was a preparation of blessedness for him in God's intention: which I readily grant, and it profits Mr. Eyre nothing. But it little concerns me to make good the foresaid consequence: something more of it the Reader shall find a little below; in the mean time we come to the great Question, whether Justification consist formally in the Will or Purpose of God, not to punish?   

SECT. III.  
THe Will of God, as Divines are wont to distinguish, is either 
§. 7.  voluntas beneplaciti, or voluntas signi. The former is the Intention, Decree or Purpose of God, concerning some Act of his own, to be done by himself in his due time. The latter (to confine it to our present use) is his signal, legislative, revealed, royal Will, by which he determines as supreme Governor of the world, what shall be our duty to do or not to do, and what shall be due to us, according to our doing or not doing of this Will. Hence the Word and Laws of God are called in Scripture his Will, in hundreds of places. By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity, which is their proper Justification: whereof his not punishing them the facto is the effect. This I shall prove (God willing) when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre. In the mean time, the thing which he undertakes to prove is, That the very essence and quiddity of a sinner's Justification, is God's Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him. I deny it, and shall subjoin some reasons against it by and by, besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book. But first, let us see what he hath to say for it. Thus than he gins.  
Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin, and imputing of righteousness to a person, Psal. 32. 1, 2. Rom. 4. 6, 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person, is his non-imputing sin to him. Ergo.  
Answ. I grant the major, but I do very much long to see what 
§. 8.  definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification, that may include Justification in God's knowledge, and in his legal justice, and in our consciences, that I might know whether these three be three several sorts, or only three degrees of one and the same Justification, but let that pass. I deny the minor.  
For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeals to the Original words, both Greek and Hebrew, both which (saith he) doth signify an act of the mind or will.  
Mr. Eyre is to prove, that they signify the purpose or resolution of the will: in which sense they appear, not so much as once, neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Greek Interpreters: nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense: and therefore that observation might have been spared. 2. An act of the understanding they signify often: but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation, but thinking, devising, esteeming, or the like: for example, Isa. 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We render it. Neither doth his heart think so. Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendered. Neither doth his heart impute see. In like manner, Psal. 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt: where the words are the same, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint. And cannot be rendered, Against me do they impute my hurt. So Isa. 53. 3. He was despised, and we esteemed him not, (where the words are still the same.) It would be worthy sense, to render them, He was despised, and we imputed him not. Multitudes of like instances might be given. But when the words will bear to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation, they then signify, not an immanent act of the understanding or will, but a transient act, containing an objectum Quod, or something that is imputed; and an objectum cui, some person to whom it is imputed: who also is thereby changed physically or morally. And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture. 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another, Numb. 18. 27, 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned (or imputed) to you, as though it were the corn of the threshing slo●re, and ver. 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it, than it shall be counted, (or imputed) to the Levites, as the increase of the threshing floor, etc. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corn of the threshing floor: (for that had been a fiction, or an error and imperfection of the understanding) but because by the determination of the Law, it was made equivalent thereunto, or equally available to all effects and purposes. This is a transient act. 2. When a man is charged as the Author of such or such a fact, 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris. Junius. This also is a transient act. 3. The giving of a reward to a man, whether the reward be of debt or of grace, is Imputation, Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin, 2 Sam. 19 19 because punishment is the wages of sin, and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law, is the non-imputing of sin, Psal. 32. 1, 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action, which otherwise he might have expected, that action is said to be non-imputed to him, Leu. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him. This also is a transient act. In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament. Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe, Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quibus futurum est ut imputetur. Beza. (Mr. Eyre's gloss upon that text we shall meet with in due place) and Paul prays for them that deserted him in his troubles, that their sin may not be imputed to them, 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act, and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God. See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter. So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyre's Argument upon himself. If Justification be a non-imputation of sin, than it is a transient act (and not an immanent act of Gods Will.) But the first is true, ex concessis. Ergo so is the last. And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weakness of his proof. The original words note an immanent act, when they signify some other thing than imputation: Ergo imputation is an immanent act. So much for the first Argument.  
The second is this: that which doth secure men from wrath, and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins, is Justification. But by this immanent act of God, all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins, and secured from wrath and destruction. Ergo.  
Answ. The Proposition I readily grant: the Assumption I deny 
§. 9 ●  and detest. For 1. It makes void the death of Christ: for what says the Apostle? Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness come by the Law, than Christ is dead in vain. The case is altogether the same, as to any other way, by which men may be said to be justified: for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ, then was it a vain, needless thing, that he should die for our Justification. 2. Nor was there any need, as to our Justification, that he should rise again from the dead: whereas the Scripture saith, Arose from the dead for our Justification, Rom. 4. 25. And therefore, saith Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen, ye are yet in your sins: he speaks to those that did confess his death: but he was out when he told them, If Christ were not ris●n, they were yet in their sins, seeing they were discharged and acquitted from them so long before. 3. His intercession is also vain, for he lives to intercede for us, to save us from wrath, Rom. 5. 9, 10. Heb. 2. 17. and 7. 25. We are secured from wrath before, says Mr. Eyre. 4. Our preaching is vain: for we are to preach to every creature under Heaven, That except they believe, they shall be damned, Mark 16. 15, 16. and multitudes (even all the Elect) are secured from wrath before. 5. It doth also imply a contradiction, that a man should be acquitted from sin, who was never a sinner: or discharged from condemnation, who was never condemned. If it be said, the Elect were sinners, and condemned in God's foreknowledge: Mr. Eyre is better read in Dr. Twisse, then to be ignorant of what inextricable inconveniences that answer is liable to. But let us hear Mr. Eyre's proofs of his Assumption: God (saith he) loved the Elect from everlasting, and his love is velle dare bonum, etc.  
Answ. Which (as was observed before) is one of the 
g Vid. Croll. Cont. Grot. cap 5. par. 6. & 7. & cap. 1 p. 1.  Socinians weapons, by which they attempt the ruin of Christ's satisfaction: against which our Divines have provided sufficient armour. A love of benevolence or good will, moving God to seek out a way of satisfaction to his own Justice, and of Justification of a sinner, we readily grant. 
h Vid Joh. Cameron oper. p. 361. f.  But his love of friendship, and well-pleasedness with a sinner, was not from everlasting, but in time: as being a consequent of the death of Christ, in whom he hath made us accepted, Eph. 1. 6. as Mr. Eyre doth not only yield, but contend below, from Mat. 3. 17. and so saith the Apostle, Rom. 9 25. I will call her beloved, who was not beloved: out of the Prophet, Hos. 2. 23. and as for the text which Mr. Eyre quotes, Ezek. 16. 6. I cannot divine to what end it is, unless it be to find me work: seeing the love there spoken of is manifestly temporal, ver. 8. and the life mentioned, ver. 6. in the latter, is the flourishing and honourable condition unto which God had raised Israel, both in respect of their Politic and Church-State, who were originally the fewest and meanest of all people: and in a spiritual sense, is the life which he breathes into sinful souls. But what Mr. Eyre would infer from hence, himself best knows. In short, I readily grant that Gods eternal love doth concur, ut causa universalis prima, as the first universal cause, not only to our Justification in time, but to all other our spiritual blessings: but an universal cause produceth nothing without particulars: and the quality of the effect is not to be ascribed to the universal, but to the particular cause. 2. Mr. Eyre is proving, that God's velle non punire, is that act, by which we are discharged and acquitted from sin, and secured from wrath. I wish he had showed me how this Conclusion issues from these premises. His Argument in form must run thus. God's eternal love discharges the Elect from sin, and secures them from wrath. God's velle non punire, is his eternal love. Ergo. The major is already disproved. The minor, if understood of the love of God in whole, confounds Election and Justification, (which yet Mr. Eyre is careful to distinguish a little below) for what is God's Election, but his Love, or his velle dare bonum? If of the Love of God in part, the Argument will run thus. That which is part of God's eternal love, is a sinners discharge from sin. God's velle non punire, is part of his eternal love. Ergo. If the major be true, God's purpose of giving Christ, of calling sinners, of sanctifying them, yea, of afflicting them, and of administering any Providence towards them, which in the issue proves for their good, may as well be called their Justification, as his velle non punire. 3. Mr. Eyre hath already granted (at lest verbo tenus) that, notwithstanding the Will of God, not to punish the Elect, the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins, no less then for the sins of others. If this be true, than the eternal act of God's Election in itself considered, gives the Elect themselves no more security from wrath, then if they had not been elected. Surely, that concession will never be reconciled with the doctrine here delivered.  
But we come on to Mr. Eyre's second proof, and that is from 
§. 10.  Scripture, Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? The Proposition is either an universal Negative, No Elect person can be justly charged with sin: or an universal affirmative, All elect persons are free from the charge of sin.  
Answ. Mr. Eyre should have put in the Apostles answer to the Question, and then he had prevented mine. The words are these, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? It is God that justifieth. Hence it follows, either negatively, that no elect person being justified, can be effectually charged with sin: or affirmatively, that all the elect that are justified, are free from such a charge: free (I say) not because elect, but because justified: for the charging of sin is manifestly opposed, not to their Election, but to their Justification: but that their Justification is their Election, or any part of it, or contemporary with it (as I may so speak) is an inference, without any foundation in the text. 2. Yea, it cannot be inferred according to Mr. Eyre's principles, though we should grant the Election here spoken of, to be that which is from eternity, (of which presently) for the Justification here spoken of, is that which is grounded in the death of Jesus Christ: Who shall condemn? it is Christ that died. But the eternal Justification, which Mr. Eyre is pleading for from the text, is not grounded in the death of Christ, (for it is an Act in God from eternity.) Now observe (Reader) that Mr. Eyre denies Christ to have merited the Act of Justification, but only the effects. I would know then, whether the Apostle speak of the Act or effects of Justification in those words, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? if of the Act, than the Elect were from eternity unchargeable: and whose charge then did Christ bear? and why doth Mr. Eyre all along tell us, that our discharge from the curse is the fruit of Christ's merits? yea, and what more (as to the t●rminus à quo of our salvation) I say, what more could Christ merit possibly, then that we should not be chargeable with sin? And if that were done before by an eternal act, there will be no effects of Justification left for Christ to merit, as to our deliverance from sin. But if the Justification here spoken of be meant, not of the act, but of the effects, Mr. Eyre will grant me, without farther disputing, that this place is insufficient to prove, that God's eternal purpose of not punishing is our Justification. 3. But I am out of doubt, that the Elect here, are not so called in reference to Election from eternity, but rather in reference to election temporal, (as our 
l Dr Twisse. in ●orv. defence. Arm. Cont. Til. pag. 202.  Divines distinguish:) namely, in respect of their effectual separation unto God, and forsaking the conversation of the world, and their admittance through faith, into a state of favour, and precious esteem with God: as election doth sometimes signify in Scripture. See 1 Cor. 1. 26, 27, 28. James 2. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 4, 6. The reason is plain: because such Elect are here meant, who were the present objects of the world's reproaches, injurious sentences, false accusations and slanders, etc. for whose comfort, in this their suffering condition, the Apostle speaks these words: to assure them, that all the malice and abuses of the world should do them no harm, so long as God justified them, and approved of them▪ Compare ver. 21, 35, 37. And this also is the intent of the words in the Prophet, who speaks them as in the Person of Christ, when he was delivered up into the hands of wicked men, Isa. 50. 8, 9 Now the Elect themselves before Conversion, have their conversation according to the course of the world, and are not the objects of persecution from the world, Eph. 2. 23.   

SECT. iv  
WE have heard what Mr. Eyre can say for himself. Before I 
§. 11.  go any farther, I shall set down a few Arguments to prove, that the essence of Justification doth not consist in Gods eternal Will or Purpose of not punishing. And first, from the efficient cause. Justification is such an act, whereof Jesus Christ our Mediator, as Lord and King, is the efficient cause with God the Father. (He is also the meriting cause as Priest, by the offering or sacrifice of himself: But of this we speak not now) Acts 5. 31. John 5. 19, 22, 26, 27. Luke 24. 47. and other places before quoted. But Jesus Christ our Mediator, as Lord and King, doth not will or purpose with God from eternity not to punish sinners. The reason is plain: because himself from all eternity was purposed of God to be Lord and King. Ergo Justification doth not consist essentially in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish. 2. Justification is an act of God purposed. Ergo it cannot consist in his purpose. The reason is, because else God must purpose to purpose, which is inconvenient. The Antecedent is almost the words of the Apostle, Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before, the Gospel to Abraham We have scarce more evidence of any truth, upon which we lay the weight of our salvation, than this text affords us of the point in hand, saying, that God would justify, in the future tense: making Justification the object of divine foresight: affirming the Gospel to have been preached to Abraham, many years before it. 3. If there be no such act in God (at least that we may conceive of) as velle non punire, precisely and formally, than our Justification cannot consist in that act: the reason is plain, because than our Justification were precisely nothing. But there is no such act in God that we may conceive of, as velle non punire precisely Ergo. For proof of the Assumption. (Reader) thou must remember that the foregoing Argument proves, that there was in God from eternity a will to justify believers in time: that is; 1. To discharge them from the obligation of the Law: by which that punishment becomes legally undue, which before was legally due: and hence it follows, 2. That they are not punished de facto, so that impunity simply is no part nor effect of Justification: but as following upon a legal disobligation: otherwise every sinner in the world that were not presently punished, were justified. The impunity of a sinner therefore, that it may be an effect or part of Justification, must be considered with its modus, as the impunity of a person discharged from the obligation of the Law: for God doth so free us from punishment, as may be without the least prejudice to the truth, or justice or authority of his Law. Accordingly I affirm, that God never purposed not to punish; precisely, praescindendo à modo, as impunity is severed from the manner in which it is given: but he purposed not to punish modo congruo, in a congruous way: by disobliging, first from the threatening of the Law, and thereby giving them a legal right not to be punished: and not to let them go unpunished, while the Law stands in full force against them. 1. That which was never executed, was never purposed. But never sinner went unpunished, while the Law stood in full force against him. Ergo. The Proposition is unquestionable. In the Assumption Mr. Eyre will agree with me, for he contends that all the Elect were discharged from the Law, and had a right given them to impunity in the death of Christ, and no elect person ever had, or shall have impunity in any other way. Ergo, it was never purposed that they should have it in any other way: that is, that it was never purposed precisely that they should not be punished. 2. God's Purpose and his Laws will else be at enmity one with another: for if he purpose not to punish precisely (praescindendo à modo) and yet do punish; then he crosseth his purpose: and if he do, not punish, the Law being supposed to remain in full force, he is unfaithful, if not also unjust, as some 
k Dr. O●en. wiatr. de Just. vind  learned men think. 3. If non-punition 
l Vid. T●oiss. ●ind. d● pr●dest. lib. 1. par. 1. digr. 9 c. 1, 2, 3. 4.  precisely tend not to the glory of God's grace, than did he not will precisely not to punish (for such a will were neither of the end, nor of the means,) but non-punition precisely, is no congruous means to glorify God's grace. Ergo. For if a man had continued obedient, and had never broken Gods Laws in the least tittle, his impunity had not been of grace, but of debt, Rom. 4. 4. as it is with the holy Angels at this day. Therefore we cannot conceive of any act in God, purposing precisely not to punish, in which yet Mr. Eyre placeth the very formality of our Justification.  
4. If Justification be velle n●n punire, then condemnation is v●ll● 
§. ●●.  punire: for oppositorum eadem ●st ratio. But condemnation is not velle punire. Shall I need to prove this? who ever said that God's eeternal purpose of punishing men for sin was condemnation? 'Tis an expression that neither God nor man will own, so fare as I can find. Dr. Twisse is known to reject it often, not without some passion and detestation. Condemnation is every where in Scripture made an act of justice, Rom. 3. 8. and 2. 2. Matth. 23. 33. 2 Pet. 2. 3. and multitudes of other places. But God's purpose of punishing is no act of Justice. Both these Propositions doth Dr. Twisse prove. Vind. lib. 1. par. 1. digr. 10. cap. 1, 2, 3.  
5. That which destroys not a sinner's obligation to punishment, is not his Justification. The reason is, because Justification is causa c●rrumpens obligationis ad poenam: a discharge and acquittance from sin and condemnation, saith Mr. Eyre, see Rom. 8. 1, 33, 34. and 5. 8, 9 But Gods velle non punire destroys not a sinner's obligation to punishment, which I thus prove. The obligation which this Will of God destroys, either is that which lies upon them from eternity, by some immanent act of God: (I speak now in Mr. Eyre's Dialect: for to me 'tis very absurd, to talk of an actual obligation upon a person not existing) but this will never be endured, that God's immanent acts should destroy one another, or else it is the temporal obligation which comes upon them by the Law: other obligation in time there is none. Now the foresaid Will of God destroys this legal obligation, either from eternity, or in time. How it should do it from eternity I cannot imagine: because neither the Law, nor the sinner▪ nor the obligation do exist from eternity: and what it is to destroy an obligation that is not, nor never was; upon a person that is not, nor never was; by a Law that is not, nor never was; is a mystery beyond humane comprehension. If in time, I would know when? either as soon as the Law is made, or as soon as it is broken, or in some period of time after? Not as soon as the Law is made, for a sinner is not obliged to punishment by the Law, till he hath broken the Law: and where there is no obligation, there can be no destruction thereof. If as soon as the Law is broken, I would know how? for if notwithstanding the foresaid Will and Purpose of God, the Law have power to oblige the sinner to punishment; it hath power also to hold him under the same obligation; notwithstanding the same purpose. If it can oblige him for a minute, then for two, then for ten, then for an hour, then for a year, then for ever, unless there be some other act besides the bare purpose of God, to abrogate or relax the Law. Causa eadem semper facit idem. God's purposes make no changes immediately upon his Laws, or any other external objects.  
6. If there may be a will or purpose not to punish, where yet there 
§. 13.  is no Justification or pardon, (for these two words are of the same importance in this debate) than Justification doth not consist essentially in a purpose not to punish. But there may be a will not to punish, where there is no pardon. Ergo. The Assumption is manifest. There may be hundreds of men at an Assizes: suppose they all resolve, not to punish the Malefactors that are then and there to be tried. Are the said malefactors therefore pardoned? No. Then there may be a will not to punish, which is no pardon. Ergo. Pardon is not essentially a will not to punish. Definitio reciprocatur cum definito. If it be said, that pardon is not an act of the will, as a natural power or faculty, but as the will of a man under some other moral condition or qualification, namely, as having jus ad poenam exequendam, a right to inflict punishment: which because it is peculiar to the Judge, therefore his will not to punish is pardon, but not the will of the rest that may be present in the Court: this is as much as I expect: for hence it follows (if the case be applied to God) that the name of Justification cannot be given to his eternal Will or Purpose. I will not meddle with the Question, An Deus possit creaturam immerentem affligere? But jus puniendi, a right of punishing accrues to none, whether God or man, but upon supposition of some offence committed. But from eternity there was no sin. Ergo, the will or purpose of not punishing, was not voluntas habentis jus ad poenam infligendam. Ergo, it may not be called by the name of Justification. When I speak of a right of punishing, which results from an offence committed, understand it not the jure potestatis, as if the said offence gave any authority to God or man, which they had not before; but de jure exercitii: inasmuch as that authority cannot be justly exercised in the punishment of a person, but upon such offence committed by him. 7. If notwithstanding this velle non punire, God be bound in justice to punish the Elect for their sins, unless his justice be satisfied some other way, than his velle non punire is not their Justification. The reason is, 1. Because God's justice doth not bind him to punish those whom he hath justified: but rather not to punish them. 2. Because his justice doth not bind him to punish another for their sins, whom he already hath justified, (supposing their Justification to be as well in order of nature as of time, before the others punishment) But God's justice binds him to punish the elect for their sin, unless his justice be satisfied in some other way: as namely, by the death of Christ. This appears, because de facto Christ bore that punishment which in justice was due to sinners. Erg●, this velle non punire was not their Justification. One thing more I long to know, Whether velle non punire do define Justification in general, as it contains these two notable species, Justification by works, and Justification by faith or grace? or whether it define Justification by grace only, particularly, and in specie? If the former show us that special form, by which Justification by works, and by grace, are immediately differenced and opposed; If the latter show us the genus, or common nature wherein they agree; If neither of these can be done, (as it is impossible either should) than we have here a definition without genus and forma, that is, a thing defined without a definition, or a definition that defines nothing.   

SECT. V  
BEsides these Arguments, there be found more, which Mr. Eyre 
§. 14.  objecteth against himself, as disproving his position, that Justification is the Will or Purpose of God not to punish: which though they be not of my making, yet because they are all very material for support of the truth, I shall here undertake their defence.  
The first objection then, which Mr. Eyre proposeth against his own doctrine of eternal Justification is this, viz. That it confounds Justification and Election.  
His answer is. That Election includes the end, and all the means: but Gods Will, not to punish precisely and formally, only some part of the means.  
Reply. 1. Then the act of Justification is precisely nothing▪ as we have above demonstrated. 2. And the effects of this act are like itself, just nothing; for never man was, nor ever shall be the better for this supposed Will of God precisely, of not punishing; for if it produce us any good, it is either from eternity, or in time. Surely from eternity we are never the better for it: if in time, what is that good? I suppose, it will be said, freedom from punishment. Well▪ But, doth it effect this freedom mediately, or immediately? mediately it can do nothing: for it is determined precisely to a non-punition, and contains not a preparation of any subordinate cause, for the effecting of our deliverance: Election indeed may very well concur to our discharge, wrought by the death of Christ: because it is a pre-ordination of Christ himself, and of all other more immediate causes, that work in their several orders and dependences for our discharge. If immediately, than the death of Christ interposeth no causality for the effecting of the said freedom: of which notwithstanding Mr. Eyre asserts it to be the adequate and immediate cause in his next Proposition. 3. To give a peculiar name to the volition of one part of the means, as distinct from the volition of all the rest, unless there be some special reason of such denomination, is but to impose upon our understandings: for why may not Gods Will of sending Christ, of publishing the Gospel, of renewing our natures, of raising our bodies, of glorifying our whole man, each of them deserve a more proper and significant name, than Election, as well as his Will not to punish? for as to the act of this Will, e●dem m●do se habet circa omnia objecta volita, it respecteth all the means willed equally and in the same manner: the persons to whom this impunity is willed, lay under no other consideration as the objects of this will, then as they are the objects of the will of calling, sanctifying, glorifying: so that neither from the act nor the object is there any reason of such denomination. Indeed the objects (I mean, the media volita) of election and reprobation, being contraries in the utmost degree, and irreconcilable in the same person, our weak understandings do therefore conceive of those acts, as differing specie, and accordingly we diversify their names. But the objects of Election being amongst themselves consentanies, and subordinate in their execution one to the other, and having no other entity or modality before their own existence in time, then precisely ut volita; it is altogether beyond the reach of my understanding, to imagine any reason, why the volition of one means should have a name proper to itself, incommunicable to the volition of any other means, willed by the same act, & to the same end. 4, But the answer yields as much as the objection seeks: for it grants Justification to be part of election, namely, Electio ad impunitatem. Whereas, 1. Scripture-Justification is a forensical act, say all our Protestants against the Papists. I spare quotations, because the thing is too well known to be denied. This cannot be affirmed of Election. 2. The object of Election is neither a sinner nor a righteous person precisely, but one that is not: for we are chosen before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1. 4. before we have done good or evil, Rom. 9 11. but the object of Scripture-Justification is a sinner, Rom. 4. 5. whether believing or unbelieving, we dispute below. 3. Election is not properly an act of mercy, but of absolute dominion and liberty: Scripture-Justification is every where reported as an act of mercy, Psal. 51. 1. Luke 1. 78, 79. Matth. 18. 33. Luke 18. 13, 14. Heb. 8. 12. Eph. 2. 4, 5. Ergo, Justification is not Election, nor any part of it. If it be said, that the name of pardon and Justification in these and other places, signifies not the act, but the effects; I shall refer to my vindication of the next objection, which is as followeth.   

SECT. VI  
THe second objection therefore is this: Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum. Which cannot be 
§. 15  attributed to the decrees of God. I shall divide Mr. Eyre's answer into two parts.  
First, (saith he) if Justification be taken for the thing willed, viz. the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law, than there is a great change made thereby: he that was a child of wrath by nature, hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish, than we say Justification doth not suppose any such change: as if God had first a Will to punish his Elect, but afterwards he altered his Will, to a Will not to punish them.  
Rep. Plain dealing is best in a good cause. If Mr. Eyre had told me roundly, that the effects of Justification make a change in a persons state, but the act doth not; I had then known what I had to do. But I know not very well what to make of these lines. 1. The objection in form is this. Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum. But velle nen punire, or any other eternal purpose of God, makes no such change of a persons state. Ergo, To say now, that the Will of God not to punish supposeth no such change, is to yield the Conclusion, that therefore it is not Justification. 2. What means he by a sinner's delivery from the curse of the Law? either it. supposeth that a sinner doth actually suffer the curse of the Law, or some part of it, till Justification deliver him: but this he denieth of such persons for whom Christ hath satisfied (namely the Elect) page 60. 61. §. 2. or it supposeth an obligation of such persons by Law unto future punishment, till they be justified. But this he denieth too of the same persons, page 110. 111. §. 2, 3, 5. and what it is to deliver a s●nner from the curse, which he neither suffers at present, nor is obliged to suffer for future, I want an Interpreter to tell me. 3. Nor can I tell in Mr. Eyre's sense, what it is to have peace and reconciliation with God. If he mean it of peace of conscience, through the sense of reconciliation, himself will deny that that is the immediate effect of our delivery from the curse: for faith apprehending reconciliation doth intervene, and that as a true proper cause of such a peace. If he mean it of a state of peace and reconciliation before God, he should not need to ascribe that to the thing willed: seeing the erernal Will of God is most sufficient unto that (according to him) as being a real discharge from condemnation: an actual and complete non-imputation of sin; and he lays it down for an undeniable truth, That the Elect were in Covenant with God before the foundations of the world, page 170, 171. 4. The great change which he speaks of, made by this delivery from the curse of the Law, viz. That he that was a child of wrath by nature, hath peace and reconciliation with God, this great change, I say, is a huge nothing: for (saith he a little below) to be just and unjust is not properly a different state before God, but a different consideration of one and the same person. The Elect themselves then, even when believers, are children of wrath by nature, yea, of the Saints in glory, considered according to what they are by nature, it may be said, that they are children of wrath. And is not that a great change, from wrath to reconciliation, which leaves a man every whit as much a child of wrath as he was before? 5. I believe (with Mr. Eyre) that the Will or Purpose of God makes no change in a persons state: but I wonder what he means by the reason added. As if (saith he) God had first a Will to punish his Elect, but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them.] As if God could not will a mutation in the creature, without a mutation in his own Will. He made the world by his Will, and he also wills the dissolution of it, after such a period of time: this is a mutation in the world, but none in God. In like manner, he may will that the elect for a time shall stand obliged by Law, to the suffering of condemnation: and yet also will, that after a time this obligation shall cease, and all this without any change in his will. But we shall prove hereafter, that is not the Will of God's purpose, but his declared Laws by which a sinner is constituted just or unjust.  
But let us come to a more close encounter. Justification (saith the 
§. 16.  objection) imports a change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum. And if Scriptures be intelligible by the sons of men, it cannot be denied, Rom. 5. 8, 9 While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us: much more then, being now justified in his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Whether we are justified by the blood of Christ without faith, or through faith, we reserve to be debated in its proper place; for the present it sufficeth us to observe from hence, that Justification makes a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum in sensu forensi. And what can man's reason require more for proof of it, than these words afford? Had the Apostle said, You were sometimes cold, but now you are hot: you were sometimes servants, but now you are free: you were sometimes enemies, but now you are friends: he would scarcely be accounted a reasonable creature, that should deny such expressions, to import a mutation from one term to another. And must not then the like change be signified, when he saith, You were sometime sinners, but now you are justified? especially if we consider (which I perceiv● all men do not observe) that the word sinners, by which the Apostle expresseth their state before Justification, doth not signify precisely transgressors of the Law: for even they that are justified are in that regard sinners, 1 John 1. 8, 10. Nor yet only and precisely such as are under the reigning power of sin: though it be true, that all the unjustified are so, because their sinful condition is here opposed, not to Sanctification formally, but unto Justification. And they of all men that maintain Justification to be perfect in the death of Christ, may not so understand the word sinners in this place. For these Romans (for example) were not sinners after their Justification, in that sense, in which the Apostle tells them, they were sinners before their Justification: for the time of their being sinners is directly opposed to the time of their Justification. But if they were justified immediately in the death of Christ; it is beyond dispute, that sin might and did reign in them after this Justification, even until the time of their Conversion unto the faith. By sinners therefore in this place, are meant such sinners as were by Law bound over to condemnation, and had not at present any right to deliverance from wrath: for that right was given them in their Justification, as appears by the Apostles arguing à majori ad minus, being now justified, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much more shall we be saved from wrath. Nor is it unfrequent in Scripture, by the word sinner, to signify a ma● obliged to punishment, see 1 Kings 1. 21. Gen. 43. 9 Rom. 5. 15 Gal. 3. 22. especially (as (
m In●i●. l. 3. c. 11. ●. 3. ) Calvin well observes,) according t● the Hebrew Dialect, Vbi etiam scelesti vocantur, non modò qui sibi conscii sunt sceleris, sed qui judicium damnationis subeunt. Neque enim Bersabe (1 Reg. 1, 21.) dum se & Sol●monem dicit fore scelestos, crimen agnoscit; sed probro se & filium expositum iri conqueritur, ut numerentur inter reprobos & damnatos. Hence the Hebrew (
n Vid. Jo●. Mer●er. & H●u. A●n w. i● G●r. 43 9 ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin, doth sometimes signify precisely an obligation, yea, when it results from a fact which is not sinful. As the Nazarite that was defiled against his will by the touch of a dead body, is yet commanded to offer a sin-offering (the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the reason is added, because he sinned by the dead, Numb. 6. 11. that is, Reus est tacti cadaveris. And what was offered for the cleansing of lepers, and of men and women for natural and unavoidable defilements, is called an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Leu. 14. 19 and 15. 15, 30.  
If now Mr. Eyre shall say, that when the Apostle says, much more 
§. 17.  being now justified; etc. he speaks not of the act, but of the effects of Justification; I reply, 1. It is not lawful for man to teach the Holy Ghost to speak. The Apostle tells us, that God commendeth his love towards us, in giving Christ to die for us while we were sinners, that we might be justified in his blood, ver. 8, 9 therefore that which in God is the cause of our Justification, in the blood of Christ, is his love, and so to be called. 2. If yet it shall be said, that that love of God is our Justification; then whereas it is said, God so loved us, as to justify us in the blood of his Son; it must be said henceforward, God so justified us, as to justify us in the blood of his Son, which is ridiculous. 3. If temporal Justification in the blood of Christ, be but the effect of a former Justification which was from eternity; what an empty noise hath the Apostle made, in amplifying the love of God, in giving Christ to die for the Justification of sinners and enemies? whosoever is justified is not a sinner, (in the Apostles sense of that word) but righteous: not an enemy, but reconciled. 4. The Apostle (if his judgement may be taken) doth thus distinguish the act and the effects of Justification: that the act is that, by which of sinners we are made just: the effect which follows upon it is; that we shall therefore be saved from wrath. It seems, the distinction between the velle and the res volita in the matter of Justification was unknown to him. 5. And his discourse supposeth, that the love and grace of God is nothing so much commended by giving the effects, as by putting forth the act of Justification: for herein God commends his love towards us, that while we were yet sinners, he gave his Son to death for our Justification: and then (as a lesser matter) he infers, much more being now justified we shall be saved from wrath. So also, ver. 10. Now if by Justification in Christ's blood be meant the effects, and not the act of Justification; then the love and grace of God is nothing near so great in justifying us through the blood of Christ, as in justifying us before without his blood. But this is most notoriously false; as is manifest, not from this text only, but from all the Scriptures, which proclaim that temporal Justification, which we have through the blood of Christ, to be an act of greatest love, and richest grace, Rom. 3. 24, 25. and 5. 20, 21. Eph. 1. 6; 7. and 2. 4, 5, 6, 7. 1 Tim. 1. 14. Tit. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 6. The effects of Justification follow upon the act by moral necessity, and without impediment. Ergo; the Justification here spoken of, is not the effect precisely, but the act. The reason of the consequence is, because the Justification mentioned in the text, follows not upon any simple precedent act of Justification, but is set forth as an act of such moral difficulty, that it required no less than the precious blood of the Son of God, to remove the obstructions and hindrances of its existence, and to make it to exist. The Antecedent is proved from his manner of arguing à majori ad minus: being now justified, much more shall we be saved: implying that salvation follows, as it were, necessarily, upon the position of the act of Justification. Yea, and I appeal to Mr. Eyre himself, or any man else, whether that act be not unworthy of the many glorious titles and epithets, which are every where in Scripture put upon Justification, and consequently unworthy of that name: which being put in actu completo, can yet produce no good effect to a sinner, nor set him one degree farther from wrath than he was before, unless some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects. This minds me of another Argument, and that is this. 7. Justification is not an act of grace simply, but of powerful grace, or of grace prevailing against the power of sin: for this is that which creates the difficulty, and so commends the excellency of the grace of Justification, that it is the Justification of sinners. Were it the Justification of such as had never sinned, but had been perfectly righteous, there were no such difficulty in that. And therefore in the following part of the Chapter, the Apostle expressly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us, in that it abounds, and is powerful to justify, above the ability of sin to condemn, ver. 15, 17, 20, Ergo the Justification here spoken of, is the very act of Justification, or there is no such thing at all: for if we place it in a simple eternal volition, there could be no moral difficulty in that, (no more then in the will of creating the world,) because from eternity there could be no opposition or hindrance, for an act of grace to overcome. 8. The Justification merited by Christ, is not the effect, but the act. The reason we shall show anon, because it is absurd to make Christ the meritour of the effects, when the act is in being before his merit. But the Justification here spoken of is that which is merited by Christ. Ergo, I might also argue out of the following part of the Chapter, from the opposition between Justification, and the act of condemnation, which passeth upon all men, by virtue of the first transgression: (and therefore sure cannot consist in any eternal act of Gods will) and from the method there used in comparing Adam and Christ, and of our partaking first in the image of the first Adam, in sin and the effects thereof, before we be conformed to the image of the second Adam, in Justification and the effects thereof: but these Arguments out of the text itself shall suffice.  
Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testify, that Justification 
§. 18.  doth make a change in a persons state, ab injusto ad justum. As Col. 2. 13. You being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. To be dead in sins in this place, is clearly to be dead in Law, that is, to be obliged by Law to the suffering of death for sin; for it is opposed to that life which consists in remission of sin or Justification; so 1 Cor. 6. 11. such were some of you, but ye are justified: of which place more hereafter. See also Rom. 3. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. and 5. 18, 19, 20, 21. Eph. 2. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. And indeed all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods justifying sinners. If there be found out a new Justification which the Scriptures are not acquainted with, may they have joy of it that have discovered it. But I hasten to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer.  
The change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum, ariseth from the Law, and the consideration of man in reference thereunto: by whose sentence the transgressor is unjust: but being considered at the Tribunal of grace, and clothed with the righteousness of Christ, he is just and righteous: which is not properly a different state before God, but a different consideration of one and the same person. God may be said at the same time to look upon a person, both as sinful and as righteous: as sinful in reference to his state by nature, and as righteous in reference to his state by grace. Now this change being but imputed, not inherent, it supposeth not the being of the creature, much less any inherent difference, etc.  
Answ. These words are mysteries to me, and I confess have occasioned 
§. 19  me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts, than all the book besides. Before I can give any answer to them, I must make some enquiry into the meaning of them. And for avoiding of confusion in the words just and unjust, their importance in this place is no more, then to have or be without a right to salvation and life. Now to be unjust by nature, or in ourselves, may be understood in a threefold sense. 1. Positively, and then the meaning is, that for the sin of nature, or for men's sinfulness in themselves, they stand obliged before God, to the suffering of eternal punishment. This is so far from being Mr. Eyre's meaning, that I suppose it is the very thing which he intends to deny by these obscure expressions: as he also often doth in other parts of this book: for it is impossible that a man should stand before God, obliged to punishment, and disobliged at the same time. 2. Or purely negatively, as denying nature to be the cause of our Justification. But neither do I think this to be Mr. Eyre's meaning, because the sense will be so pitifully jejune: for thus to be just by grace, and unjust by nature is no more, then that it is grace and not nature which justifies us: and he that says a man is justified by grace, and not by a piece of bread and butter, or by the flying of the clouds over his head, speaks every whit as much to purpose. 3. Diminutively, in sensu diviso & secundum quid: that if we suppose there were no act of grace to hinder, men must needs be condemned: there being in themselves sufficient cause of condemnation, and in the Law sufficient power to oblige them to it: but the grace of God doth hinder both the one and the other from coming forth into act, so that they never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment, notwithstanding their own sinfulness, and the Law's rigour. This if any thing, must be our Authors meaning, as best suiting with what he says here and elsewhere, as page 111. §. 5. By nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam, the Elect were children of wrath, they could expect nothing but wrath from God. And again, believers considered in themselves, and as they come from the loins of Adam, are sinful and cursed creatures. And again, page 113. §. 7. The Law shows not who are condemned of God, but who are guilty and damnable in themselves, if God should deal with them by the Law. Let us see then what Mr. Eyre would have: this I think it is. That there is in all men, even the Elect themselves, sufficient cause of condemnation: that is, sufficient cause on their part, why they should lose all right to salvation and life; and be actually damned: and also that there is nothing wanting in the nature and constitution of the Law, which is required in a Law, to make it able to bind or oblige men (even the Elect themselves) unto punishment. And all this is true questionless. But it is withal affirmed, that the Elect, by the gracious and eternal act of Gods Will, are absolutely just before God: and by the same Will is the Law (though broken by them) disabled from binding them actually unto punishment. So that they are said to be unjust by the Law, or in themselves, or by nature, not that they are at any time absolutely unjust, or without all right to life (for they are supposed to be absolutely just from eternity) but as it were materially, because if the foresaid act of God's Will had not prevented, they had been unjust simply and absolutely.  
Against which doctrine I have several things to oppose. 1. In 
§. 20.  general, whereas the intent of it is to prove that a sinner may be justified and unjustified both at once, it is manifest that these words are used in some other sense, than what the Scriptures are wont to take them in: because to be a sinner and to be righteous, to be justified and to be condemned, to have one's sins retained and remitted according to Scripture are contraries, and never agree to the same person at the same time, John 3. 17, 18. Rom. 8. 1, 33, 34. and 5. 8, 9 John 20. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 11. and many other places. 2. If an elect sinner be never unjust, but in this respective, diminutive sense, than it is impossible for the act or effects of Justification, to make any change upon him: because it is impossible but that he who is justified merely of grace, should be unjust in himself: even glorified Saints are to all eternity unjust by nature, or of themselves, or in reference to their state in the first Adam. 3. If this be the whole of a sinner's unrighteousness, then by the Law of nature sinners are not unjust simply and universally, so as to have no right at all to life: but only in some respect, so as to have no right by that Law which they have transgressed. But all sinners are universally unjust by the Law of nature, which I thus prove. 1. If Adam, while he continued obedient, had by his obedience a right to life, and had no right at all, but by his obedience according to the Law, then upon his disobedience he became universally unjust by the same Law. The reason's plain, because if there be but one rule of righteousness in being, than he that is not righteous by that rule, is not righteous at all. Sublat â causà totali, tollitur effectus totaliter. But Adam whiles he continued obedient, had by his obedience and by the Law a right to life, and had no right at all, but by his obedience. Ergo. The Assumption is thus confirmed. If Adam had any other right then by the Law, than it must be by some grace of God. But this cannot be according to Scripture: because to have a right by grace and works too, is inconsistent according to Scripture, Rom. 11. 6. If by grace, than not of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. If by works, than not of grace, otherwise work is no more work. How long Adam continued innocent, I cannot tell. If but half a day; if but half an hour, it is all one to my purpose: it being concluded by Divines, that Adam and Eve, one or both, were saved, and therefore were elect: and Adam's case was then the case of all men, one as well as another, he being as it were the epitome of all mankind in what he did, and in what befell him. 2. The Apostle also witnesseth, that the Gentiles, whiles they continued in their Gentilism, were all of them equally alienated from God, Col. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separate from Christ, strangers from the Covenant of Promise, and without hope, Eph. 2. 11, 12. till by the faith of that Gospel which the Apostles preached, ver. 20. they ceased to be any more strangers and foreigners, and became fellow-Citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God, ver. 19 Had the Apostle spoke these words concerning reprobate Gentiles, I am persuaded it would never have come into any man's mind, (no, not Mr. Eyre's himself) to deny, but that they did signify those Gentiles, to be without all right to life and salvation, and other privileges, immunities and dignities, given by the great Charter of the Gospel, to the City and Family of God. But the Apostle doth here describe the miseries of a Gentile state, and therefore of every one that was a Gentile: for their condition is equally the same, till they turn Christians. Ergo, these Gentiles that now believed, were yet sometimes without all right to life, that is, they were universally unrighteous or unjust: and that by the Law of nature, Rom. 2. 12, 14, 15.  
4. If the Elect were never simply and absolutely unjust, then Christ is not their Saviour. But Christ is most surely the Saviour of the Elect. Ergo. The reason of the Proposition is, because if Christ be properly a Saviour, than he saves either from that wrath which they do actually suffer, (which neither Mr. Eyre will grant, nor myself without limitation) or from an actual obligation to the suffering of wrath when the time is come: and this Mr. Eyre denies. But tell me then how is Christ called a Saviour? seeing none can be properly saved, but such as are subject to perishing, either de jure, or de facto. If Adam had continued righteous, he might well have propagated life to his children, but not salvation, because they had never been in danger of death. And he that is simply and absolutely just, though in some respect unjust, is not in danger of perishing, and therefore not capable of being saved. If it be said that Christ saves us from wrath, because we should have been obliged to wrath, if some act of grace in God had not prevented, there being matter enough in us, for which we should have forfeited our right to life. The answer is, 1. Let that act then which prevents our obligation, be called our Saviour, and not Christ. 2. And let the thing itself be proved, viz. That supposing the Elect do now at no time stand obliged before God to punishment, for any or all their sins: that yet they should have been so obliged, if God's purpose had not hindered, that is, supposing the Law hath now no effect upon their persons, as to the binding of them under wrath for sin, that yet it should have had, if the foresaid purpose had not prevented. I deny it: and if it be true, yet I conceive it impossible for man to prove it. But we must of necessity speak something more of these matters in another place, and therefore here I supersede any farther arguings.  
Let us therefore a little farther demur upon Mr. Eyre's words, as 
§ 21.  he here presents them to us, and I pass on to the next Argument. 1. Whereas he saith, that the change ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the different consideration of a person, he may be pleased to consider, that considerations make no changes. Things are to be considered as they are, and not by consideration made what they are not. Our understanding will conceive of a man as clothed with, or abstracted from all moral qualifications: and so consider him sometimes as just and not unjust: sometimes as unjust, and not just: sometimes as neither just nor unjust. But to consider an unjust man as he is just, or a just man as he is unjust, is to consider a man as he is a horse. Obj. A man is not a horse, therefore I cannot so consider him. Answ. No more is a justified man unjust, nor an unjustified man just before God. Obj. Yes that he is, for he may be unjust by nature, and yet justified of grace at the same time. Answ. True. But then observe (Reader) that to be unjust by nature in this sense, is terminus diminuens: and so to consider a man as unjust by nature, is not to consider him as unjust simply; because to be unjust by nature, is not to be unjust simply (for a man is supposed to be just by grace at the same time) therefore when it is argued, a man may be unjust by nature, and just by grace at the same time; Ergo, he may be just and unjust at the same time: I deny the consequence. He that hath nothing else to do, may (if he will) consider the same man as just before God, and unjust before man: and according to the variety of humane Law, multiply the notions of injustice, and say he is unjust by the English Law, but not by the Roman Law: or by the Roman Law, but not by the Grecian Law, etc. and when all this is done, he may say he hath proved, that a man is just and unjust at the same time before God: but I will not believe him. 2. And as it is contrary to reason, so to the manner of speech in Scripture (as was noted before) Rom. 5. 8, 9 we were sinners, but now we are justified. He doth not say, we are sinners, but are or were justified, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 11. You were unrighteous, but now you are justified. Must we read it thus, you are unrighteous, but you were or are justified? Eph. 2. 3. you were the children of wrath. He doth not say you are the children of wrath, Col. 1. 21. You were alienated, but now are reconciled. In all which places we find a state of righteousness, succeeding a state of unrighteousness: but of being righteous and unrighteous at the same time, we have no mention. 3. And what is it to consider a man as just or unjust? either it is a mere speculative consideration, apprehending in a man rationem justi, without apprehending rationem injusti, or è contra: but how unreasonably is it said, that the change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum, ariseth from such a consideration as this is, which is as compatible to man as unto God, and altogether  and accidental to a man's being just or unjust: or else it is a practical, judicial consideration, in order to Gods dealing with a man as just and unjust: but surely Mr. Eyre will abhor (as well he may) that God should intent to deal with his Elect as unjust. 4. And to what he speaks of an imputed change, 'tis an expression I never heard before. I have read of an imputed righteousness, which makes a real change (real I mean, not as opposed to moral or relative, but to mental or notional) but an imputed change is a mere fiction, and good for nothing as I know, but to give just ground to the Papists, to reproach us with a putative righteousness, as they call it in a jeer. But there be no fictions in God at all: and by how much the more they are found in men, by so much the more fantastical we account them, (unless they be rhetorical fictions used for doctrine, or illustration, or the like.) 5. And much like all the rest it is, that he saith to be just and unjust is not a different state: whereas himself so calls it but just before; and immediately after tells us, that men are accounted just in reference to their state by grace, and unjust in reference to their state by nature. Is a state of nature then, and a state of grace different states? if they be not, why doth Mr. Eyre call them so? if they be, than a state of nature is a state of unrighteousness, and a state of grace is a state of righteousness: and so to be righteous and unrighteous is a different state: or else there is no man in the world unrighteous before God, or the unrighteous are in as good a state as the righteous. But I will puzzle myself no longer with these ambiguous Oracles.   

SECT. VII.  
THe third objection succeeds, and that is this. If justification be 
§. 22.  an immanent act in God, it is antecedent, not only to faith, but to the merits of Christ: which is contrary to many Scriptures, that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood, as the meritorious cause.  
Mr. Eyre answers, That although Gods Will not to punish, be antecedent to the death of Christ, yet for all we may be said to be justified in him, because the whole effect of that Will, is by and for the sake of Christ. As though electing love precede the consideration of Christ, John 3. 16. yet are we said to be chosen in him, Eph. 1. 4. because all the effects of that love, are given by, and through, and for him.  
Reply. Here again I must complain of Mr. Eyre's mincing. Had he said, the Act of Justification goes before the death of Christ, but the effects follow, he had spoken plainly. But when we are disputing, that Gods Will is not our Justification, because our Justification according to Scripture is a fruit of Christ's merit, which an immanent act of God's Will cannot be: to tell us now, that indeed Gods Will is antecedent to Christ's merits, is to yield the Argument, that therefore it is not our Justification: for nothing more certain from Scripture, then that our Justification is the fruit of the merits and blood of Christ; Rom. 3. 24, 25. and 5. 8, 9 and 4. 25. and 8. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 5. 19, 21. Gal. 3. 13, 14. Eph. 1. 7. Col. 2. 13, 14. Heb. 9 12, 22. and 10. 14, 18. and sundry other places. 2. It is also unworthy of the precious blood of the Son of God, to ascribe no more to it, then that it merits the effects of our Justification: seeing it is a fare less matter to purchase the effects, then to purchase the act which is the cause of them: as I have before observed from the Apostles manner of arguing, Rom. 5. If while we were sinners Christ died for us, much more than being now justified, shall we be saved from wrath. 3. It is also no little undervaluing of the glorious blessing of Justification, to suppose it so impotent, as that it cannot produce its own effects, nor do the sinner any good at all unless the Son of God interpose by his death to make it effectual. I desire to speak of spiritual things with fear and trembling: But I am not afraid to say, such a Justification as this is not worth gramercy. If it be objected, that I may say as much of God's electing love, for neither doth that produce its effects without the death of Christ: I answer, no such matter, for the death of Christ itself, and all other particular causes of our salvation, are the effects of election, which itself produceth in their respective subordinations. But Justification is a particular cause, determined precisely to a non-punition, which yet it cannot effect. Nor doth Mr. Eyre himself make the death of Christ an effect of Justification, and if he did, he must read the Scriptures backward, but of this more by and by. 4. I deny, that the effects of Justification can be merited without the act; for this eternal Justification (according to Mr. Eyre's theology) is an actual and real discharge from all sin and condemnation: a complete non-imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness. Therefore it is impossible, but that by this act the Elect must have a right given them to deliverance from wrath: which is so evident, that himself contendeth, that the Elect (even whiles they are in actual rebellion against God) have a right to salvation, grounded in the Purpose of God, page 122. And what then did Christ merit for them? Not a right to deliverance from wrath, for that they have already: and 
o Vid. Aqui● 1. q. 62. 4. ●. & 12. q. 1 ●4. 5. ●, & 3. q. 19 3. ●.  Nullus meretur quod jam habet, what one hath already, that cannot be afterwards merited. Christ is dead in vain, as to the purchasing of this right, if they had it before. Upon this ground do our 
p Jun. Animad. in Bell. l. 5. c. 10.  Divines deny that Christ merited any thing for himself, because there was no advancement of soul or body, but was due to him upon an antecedent title. Nor yet doth Christ merit the continuance of this right: for it is impossible it should be forfeited, for a man can forfeit nothing with God but by sin: and sin, if it be pardoned, (as here it is supposed to be, even all sins, and that from eternity) hath no strength to work such a forfeiture, no more than if it never had been committed. Nor doth he merit the possession of that which they have a right to, for the effect of merit is properly acquisitio juris, the acquiring or obtaining of the right itself. 
q Duran●. ● 2. dist. 5 q 3. 8.  Nullus meretur id quod est suum: sed per meritum facit quilibet, ut aliquid efficiatur ei debitum, & per consequens suum, quod ei prius non erat debitum, nec suum. Indeed men may by violence be kept out of the possession of that which is their own. But God is not wont to deny possession where himself hath given a right; and if sinners have from eternity a firm and valid right to life and salvation, Christ should not need to have put himself to the expense of his blood to have purchased possession. Wherefore, the effects of Justification, being inseparable from the act, Christ merited the act as well as the effect, or else he merited neither.  
The comparison brought in for illustration makes the matter worse 
§. 23.  than it was before. For, 1. It is utterly false, that all the effects of Gods electing love, are given for the merits of Christ: for the giving of Christ to death is an effect of God's electing love; and yet Christ did not merit his own sending into the world. 2. That the parallel may consist, it must be first supposed that the intention of particular means have particular names, as so many particular acts or causes, and then determined that Christ merited not those acts, but their effects; As for example, That God's intention to make us his children, is our▪ Adoption, and Christ merited not our Adoption, but the effects thereof. His intention to sanctify us is our sanctification; and Christ merited not our sanctification, but the effects of it. His intention to glorify us is our glorification, and Christ merits its effects: even as his intent to pardon us is our Justification: and Christ doth afterward merit the effects, but not the act. Thus must the comparison run, or it leaves the matter darker than it found it. If Mr. Eyre will not allow of this, let him acknowledge his doctrine to be without parallel. 3. The effects of Christ's merits are also the effects of Gods electing love: because the merits of Christ themselves, are the effects of the same love: and the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused. But if our Lord's death had been only from his own will, not preordained of God in the decree of election; all the benefits purchased by it, must have been ascribed to it as the first cause; and Gods Will of bestowing them had not been causal, but merely concomitant or consequent. Now his will not to punish, contains not a preparation of any subordinate cause, for the effecting of this impunity. Ergo, if Christ merited it, it must be ascribed to him as the principal and only cause, and not to Gods Will of not punishing, because that Will of God is not the cause of the merits of Christ, as being determined precisely to a non-punition. And so there will be the effects of Justification without an act: or the act of Justification produceth its own effects but by accident; or rather doth not produce them at all, but stands by without efficacy, whiles another cause doth the work. Therefore herein also the comparison halts.  
The fourth and last objection which Mr. Eyre makes against himself, 
§. 24.  is this: We may as well call Gods Will to create, Creation; and his Will to call, Calling; and to glorify, Glorification; as his Will to justify, Justification.  
His answer is, Creating, calling, and glorifying import an inherent change in the person created, called, glorified, which forgiveness doth not, it being perfect and complete in the mind of God.  
Rep. 1. The answer contradicts itself; for it yields it to be a proper speech, to say, that God doth will or purpose to justify: (even as proper, as to say, he doth will or purpose to create, to call, to glorify) and yet bears us in hand, that Justification is perfect and complete in the mind of God. Whatsoever is purposed is future. If it have already an actual existence, it is not capable of being purposed to exist. But the immanent acts of God's mind are not future, but from eternity. 2. Though Justification do not make an inherent change, yet it makes an adherent change, (as was largely proved from Scripture but now) even as if a Malefactor be condemned, and afterwards pardoned: his condemnation and pardon make an adherent change, that is, a relative: though he remain the same man that he was, and be not changed inherently and really. And I wonder, why the purpose of an act which makes an adherent, relative change, should be called by the name of that act: rather than the purpose of such an act, which makes an inherent real change, should be called by its name. Ars posterior utitur prioris oper●. Morality supposeth nature. 3. It is true, that Creation, etc. do make an inherent change. But the question is, whether we have not as much ground from Scripture to understand those words, as signifying not the act, but the effect of Creation, etc. as Mr. Eyre hath to interpret the word Justification in Scripture, for the effects, not for the act. Suppose a man should be so void of sobriety, as to say, the words, Creation, Vocation, Glorification, and what of like nature, signify not those several acts, but their effects; what could Mr. Eyre say against it? To say, Creation, etc. makes an inherent change, is to say nothing: for it will quickly be answered, that the effects of Creation, Vocation, etc. do make an inherent change, not the acts. If he tell me, the words are never used in Scripture, but as importing such a change; I answer still as he doth of Justification, that the words, wherever they are to be found in Scripture, are to be understood of the effects, not of the act. If he yet say, that it is contrary to all our Protestant Divines, I say so too. Et nomine mutato narratur fabula de te. Thus much for the vindication of the four objections, which Mr. Eyre proposeth against himself. He concludes this discourse thus.   

SECT. VIII.  
HOwever, were it granted, that there was in God from everlasting, 
§. 25.  an absolute, fixed, and immutable will, never to deal with his people according to their sins, but to deal with them as righteous persons, this controversy were ended.  
Answ. Such a purpose I acknowledge in God, to justify his Elect, when they should believe, and being justified, not to deal with them as sinners but as with righteous persons; yet so, as that they are equally with others obliged by the Law to punishment, till they do believe, and subject actually to the bearing of the temporal penalties of sin. If this will satisfy Mr. Eyre, let him make his most of it. But let us see how it ends the controversy.  
First, (saith he) God's non-imputation of sin to his Elect, is not purely negative, but privative, being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse: as the imputation of righteousness is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentia. 2. This non-imputation of sin is actual, though the ●●n not to be imputed be not in actual being. So is the imputation of righteousness. 3. This act of justifying is complete in itself.  
Answ. If the begging of the question be the ending of a controversy, we have done. It is here supposed, that the aforesaid Purpose of God is the imputation of righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin: which should have been proved, and not begged. And therefore the foundation failing, there needs no more to be done to demolish the superstructure; yet a word or two of that also: 2. I say therefore, that an eternal, actual, privative non-imputation of future sin, is either nonsense, or a contradiction, (let Mr. Eyre take his choice, and consider withal, what he is like to make of Justification at last) for that which is only future, can be deprived of nothing but its futurity: and if it be ab aeter●o deprived of its futurity, than it is ab aeterno non futurum: and if ab aeterno non futurum, than it is ab aeterno undepriveable of its futurity: for that which is never future, is never capable of being made non-future, unless we could in eternity conc●●e one moment wherein it is made future, and another moment wherein it is made non-future: which cannot be, because in eternity there is neither prius nor posterius. Now this privative non-imputation of future sin, what doth it privare? Not the futurity of sin: for then there never was nor shall be any such thing as sin in the world: for nothing exists in time, which before its existence was not future. That than which this non-imputation is privative of, must be the imputation of sin to a person, cui debitum est imputari. (for that is the habit which only is contrary to it): for as the privative non-imputation of sin present, and in actual being is privative only imputationis nunc debitae; so the like non-imputation of sin future, is privative only imputationis futurae debitae. The Argument therefore returns: for if this imputation be ab aeterno non-futura, then is it ab aeterno undeprivable of its futurity: for nothing but that which is future can be deprived of its futurity: and if it be future ab aeterno, than it cannot be made ab aeterno non-future: for to be future and non-future ab aeterno is a contradiction. 3. But if Mr. Eyre, by his privative non-imputation, mean no more than a positive act, by which that punishment is kept off, which is, or will become due to a sinner, I answer farther. That the very essence of the pardon of sin, consists in making that punishment undue which before was due, and consequently, in freeing the sinner from all actual suffering for sin, (for the remission of sin is opposed to the retaining of it, John 20. 23.) or else in preventing, that that punishment shall never become due, which otherwise would be due. If in the former sense sin be pardoned from eternity, (for non-imputation and pardon are all one, both in Mr. Eyre's sense, and of the Scriptures, Rom. 4. 7, 8.) then cannot punishment become due in time: but it is from eternity, non futurum debitum, even as the pardon of sin present and actually committed, makes that punishment remains no longer due to a person, which till then was due. And if it be from eternity a non-futurum debitum▪ then neither can it be pardoned from eternity, (pardon being essentially a discharge from punishment, due actually, or in futurition) nor if it could, can that pardon be an act of grace: because it is no grace to pardon him, who neither is, nor never will or can be punishable. Yet here, Reader, distinguish of the dueness of punishment: which may arise, either from the nature of sin in itself: and in this sense it is impossible that sin should be pardoned, either from eternity or in time; because it is impossible, but that sin should be in itself punishable, or worthy of punishment: even as on the contrary, virtue is in itself essentially laudable or rewardable: Or it may be the act of God by his Law, making punishment due to the sinner, or obliging the sinner unto punishment for his sin, and in this sense only is it pardonable: and if it be actually pardoned from eternity, then is punishment made from eternity non debita, which, as I said before, destroys both the substance and grace of pardon: let us see if we can clear it by Mr. Eyre's comparison. This Will of God (saith he) is like the will of a man, not to require that debt, that shall, or is about to be contracted. Come on then. Titius knows, that Caius will be indebted to him: and his purpose is beforehand not to require this debt. I ask, Is this purpose the pardon of the debt or no? if not, the cause is yielded; if it be, we will suppose that Titius makes this purpose within himself in the moment A: the debt will be contracted in the moment C. All the space of time that is between A and C, the debt is not actually a debt, but only future. If then this future debt be forgiven in the moment A, then from thenceforth it ceaseth to be future, and so cannot exist in the moment C, because for a debt to be forgiven, is to be made no debt: if it be forgiven at present, it is none at present; if it be forgiven for the future, it is not in futurition to be a debt. 4. I will only add this. That according to Mr. Eyre's own principles, punishment doth never become due to the Elect, so as that they stand obliged before God, to suffer for any of their sins: for that which in the protases of the similitude, is a debt between man and man, is a sinner's obligation to punishment in the reddition. Now Mr. Eyre denies, that an elect sinner is at any time unjust simply and absolutely, but only in a diminutive sense: that is unjust by nature, or of himself (but positively just by grace at the same time) which is but the carcase of unrighteousness, making the sinner unrighteous, no otherwise then as it were materially, he doing that which on his part is sufficient to oblige him to condemnation: but he is never formally unjust, because the grace of his Judge prevents his actual obligation. Erg●, he doth never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment, nor is ever actually and formally indebted. And whose debt than it was that Christ paid, or what debts they are which we are to pray for forgiveness of, Matth. 6. 12. I must confess I cannot tell; which is all I shall need to speak of that second sense, in which some may take the pardon of sin. Nor will I add any more animadversions upon these passages (though I had once intended it) because some have been mentioned already before, and others we must make use of in that which follows   

SECT. IX.  
SO much for Mr. Eyre's first Proposition: upon which I have been 
§. 26.  necessitated to dwell the longer, because his discourse is so perplexed and intricate. In that which follows I shall be more brief. His next Proposition is this.  
If Justification be taken not for the Will of God, but for the thing willed, to wit, our discharge from the Law, and deliverance from Punishment; so it hath for its adequate cause and principle, the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ.  
Answ. The substance of this Proposition I could gladly close with▪ but something is first necessary to be animadverted. 1. Whereas Mr. Eyre here makes the satisfaction of Christ the adequate, and (as in his Explication he tells us often) the immediate cause of our Justification: if by adequate and immediate he mean only in genere causae meritoriae, I consent, because there is no other meritorious cause that comes between the death of Christ and our Justification. But if he mean, that the death of Christ is simply the adequate and immediate cause, than I deny it: because the act of God as Justifier, comes between the death of Christ and our Justification, Rom. 3. 25. 26▪ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,— that he might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus. And the Lord Jesus himself also, as Lord of souls, and having all judgement committed to him by the Father, joins in putting forth the same act of Justification, which was merited in his blood, as we before observed. 2. Mr. Eyre hath been disputing hitherto, that Gods Will not to punish is our Justification: That by which we are secured from wrath, discharged and acquitted from all sin and wrath: yea, that it was a real discharge from condemnation: an actual and complete non-imputation of sin. But now he tells us, that the death of Christ is the adequate and immediate cause of our discharge from the Law, and freedom from punishment. I think (for my part) it is beyond man's ability to invent or utter more palpable contradictions. To be secured from wrath, and not secured: acquitted, and not acquitted: discharged and not discharged: what can be more contradictorious? or who can conceive what is that security, discharge and acquittance from all sin, wrath, punishment, condemnation, which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law, and without freedom from punishment, till Christ buy it with the price of his blood? 3. Our discharge from the Law, and freedom from punishment may be understood, either de jure, in taking off our obligation unto punishment; (and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ; for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God, to the suffering of punishment, as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3.) or it may be understood de facto, in the real and actual removal of all kinds and degrees of punishment: but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ, by itself, or with the former. The Purpose of Gods Will (saith Mr. Eyre, chap. 10. §. 10. pag. 108.) secures the person sufficiently, and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force, in regard of the real execution of it. So that what is left for the death of Christ to do, I must profess I cannot imagine; seeing the act of our Justification, and our disobligation from wrath, and our real impunity do all exist by virtue of another cause. But for further confirmation of this Proposition, Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him, and say no more to it till we come thither: His third Proposition is this.  
Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and 
§. 27.  forgiveness: and thus God is said to justify men, when he reveals and makes known to them his grace and kindness within himself.  
Answ. Understand (Reader) that when we say, Justification is a declared sentence of absolution, it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned: but of that public declared Law of faith, namely, the Gospel itself, which is to be preached to every creature under heaven, He that believeth shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life. By which Promise, whosoever believeth, shall receive remission of sin. 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book, so much as one text, wherein Justification must signify a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified: and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken. If he mean, it is so taken in God's language, let him show where: if in man's, I will not dispute with him how men take it. And as to that text, Gen. 41. 13. me he restored, but him he hanged, (which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in, to prove that things in Scripture are said to be, when they are only manifested) if he had consulted Junius, he would have told him, that the word (He) relates not to Joseph, but to Pharaoh. Me Pharaoh restored, but him (that is, the Baker) he hanged.  
The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning 
§. 28.  the several times and ways in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people. In which there is nothing of distinct controversy, but what hath its proper place in the following debate, some where or other. And most of what he says may be granted, without any advantage to his cause, or prejudice to th● truth; there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time, but declares something of his gracious purpose, as every effect declares and argues its cause. And so our Justification itself declareth, that there was a purpose in God to justify, because he acteth nothing, but according to his purpose. I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter (though there be many things therein, which I can by no means consent to) but set down in the following Propositions, how far I consent to each of his. 1. I consent, that God hath declared his immutable Will▪ not to impute sin to believers▪ in his Word: and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents. The seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head. 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins, and his raising of him up for our Justification, doth manifest yet more of the same purpose▪ 3. That baptism, sealing to a believer, (in act or habit) the remission of sins past, and entering him into a state of remission for the future, doth also further declare something of the same purpose. 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested, to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit. But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himself: or any, immediately upon their first believing (at least in these days) I am in doubt. 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement, doth most fully, perfectly and finally declare the same purpose, as being the most perfect, complete and formal justification of all. And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyre's doctrine: I come next to a vindicaiton of my own.    

CHAP. III.  
My Reply to Mr. Eyre's fifth Chapter. His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered, Rom. 5. 1. vindicated. And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved, from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture.  

SECT. I.  
FOr proof of our Justification by faith, (the doctrine 
§. 1.  insisted on in my Sermon) I advanced several places of Scripture: to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter: which we shall here take a view of, that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for. But before he gives his answer to particular places, he thinks fit to inform the Reader, that I began my Sermon, and concluded it with a great mistake. The mistake in the beginning is, that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romans was to prove, That we are justified by faith, i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe; and that faith is the condition on our part, to qualify us for Justification: which is a mistake I intent to live and die in by the grace of God. The Apostle tells us himself, that his scope is to prove, that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, Rom. 3. 9 and that by the deeds of the Law, neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in God's sight, ver. 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith, ver. 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith, I know not what is. And that faith here is to be taken properly, we prove at large below. If this be not the Apostles scope, what is? Why (saith Mr. Eyre) to show that we are justified, not by works or righteousness in us, but by the righteousness of Christ freely imputed to us: which we apprehend and apply by faith. Very good: and this is as much as I stand for: namely, that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith. But know (Reader) that when we speak of apprehending Christ's righteousness, we mean not an intellectual apprehension, when a man comes to discern and know that he is justified, (as Mr. Eyre doth) but the right and interest which is given us by the Promise in the righteousness of Christ, when we believe. And in this sense are our Protestants to be understood, when they say, the righteousness of Christ is apprehended by faith. Therefore when 
a De instit. lib. 1. cap. 16. pag. 992. in 80.  Bellarmine denies, that it is the office or property of faith to apprehend: our Protestants reject him as a Quibler. 
b Ames Bill. ener. page 314. in 12●.  Non enim ignoravit Bellarminus longè aliud intelligere per apprehensionem, quàm speculationem intellectus. Rectè Contarenus. Accipimus Justificationem per fidem, Gal. 3. 14. Hanc acceptionem Thomas appellat applicationem. Protestants appellant apprehensionem: non eâ significatione quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus; sed quâ illud dicimur apprehender quo pervenimus, & quod post motum nostrum attingimus. This I thought good here to observe once for all, that the Reader may not be deceived with the ambignity of the word apprehend, but might know the different use of it in our Protestants writings, and Mr. Eyre's.  
The mistake in my Conclusion was, that I told unbelievers, that 
§. 2.  Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them, and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto: which Mr. Eyre denies to be true. If he mean, they may appeal by faith, I consent; but that is nothing to his purpose. If, that they may appeal without faith, or that Christ intercedes that their sins may be forgiven, who yet live in impenitency and unbelief, let him prove it. Of this also I shall speak more, when I come to debate how fare we are reconciled in the death of Christ. In the mean time, I wonder why Mr. Eyre should quarrel with Mr. Baxter, for asserting universal Redemption in the sense of Davenant, Cameron, Testardus, Crocius, Amyraldus and others, when in the words following he yields the main foundations of their judgements in this point; namely, when he says, Our duty is to exhort all men every where to believe in Christ: we were as good bid the devils to believe, as those for whom Christ is not a Highpriest. I infer, Ergo, Christ died for all men, (though I say not for all equally) or else we were as good preach the Gospel to devils as to men. But let that pass. After Mr. Eyre hath leapt from one end of my Sermon to the other, he comes to the middle, which indeed doth most concern him. And whether he hath convinced me of error in that also, is our next enquiry.  
And first, he considers that place, (which was then my text) Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. His answer is double.  
First, (saith he) we may, without any violence to the text, place the comma after justified: as thus, Being justified, by faith we have peace with God.  
Reply. And yet gives us no intelligence of any one copy, former or 
§. 3.  latter, printed or manuscript, to warrant such a punctation. As to the division of the sentence, the Syriack, the Ancients, 
c Lib. 5. advers. Martion. c. 13. Si in eum competit pax cum quo suit belsum ei & justificabimur: & ejus e●i● Christus, ex cujus fide justificabimur.  Tertullian, 
d Trans. lat. cdit. Loud. 1636. Justificati ergo ex side, pacem habeamus Et Ex●os. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  Theophylact, 
e Edit. Henr. Savill. & Fronto. Duc. Paris. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  chrysostom, 
f In loc.  Origen, and our Protestant Commentatours, both Lutherans and Calvinists, agree with our Translation. And if Mr. Eyre will be just, and allow the same liberty to others, which he takes himself, as small a matter as a comma is, the mis-placing it may unravel a whole texture of Scripture. The Psycopanycists and some Papists, when they are urged with the words of the Lord Jesus, To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, elude the place, by putting the comma after day; and so read the words thus, 
g Vid. Hag. Grot. Annot. in Luc. 23 43.  Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise. 2. I accept of Mr. Eyre's observation, that the illative particle therefore, shows, that this place is a corollary or deduction from the words foregoing; and that the Apostles scope in the whole chapter foregoing, is to prove, that we are justified by faith, is more plain then to need proof. So that these words are the Conclusion of the former dispute, issuing into this doctrine, That we are justified by faith. The uses whereof the Apostle immediately subjoins. But this way not taking, Mr. Eyre is provided of another, which is this.  
If (saith he) we take the words, as commonly they are read; the sense comes all to one, s●il. That being justified by Christ, we have peace with God: who by the faith he creates in us, causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation.  
Rep. This is somewhat worse than the former. The Apostle saith, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Mr. Eyre, to turn out faith from its office in Justification, will have the words read by transposition, Being justified by our Lord Jesus Christ we have peace with God through faith: Or the word faith in the beginning of the verse, must signify our Lord Jesus Christ; and the Lord Jesus Christ in the latter part of the verse must be put for faith: which, as it is an intolerable liberty of interpreting Scriptures, so is it without all precedent in Scripture, which is neither wont to put faith for Christ, nor Christ for faith, (though both are often included, where but one is mentioned). Some (I know) do fasten such a sense on a text or two, but without any necessity or compulsory reason.   

SECT. II.  
THe next place is Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Jesus Christ, 
§. 4.  that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law.  
Mr. Eyre answers, 1. That this doth no more infer that we are not justified before we believe, then that of our Saviour, Matth. 5. 44, 45. Love your enemies, etc.— that you may be the children of your Father in Heaven, infers, That works do go before Adoption. Things in Scripture are then said to be, when they are known, manifested, and declared to be, Rom. 3. 26. That he might be just, i e. that he might be known and acknowledged to be just. So John 15. 8. and 13. 35, etc. So here, That we might be justified, is, that we might know that we are justified. Not the being of our Justification, but the knowledge and feeling of it is a consequent of faith.  
Rep. 1. I would never desire that any Argument of mine should conclude more firmly, than that text, Mat. 5. will infer, that none are the children of God in the sense there meant, before they love their enemies, and perform the other duties there enjoined: for it is manifest the Lord there speaks of becoming the children of God, not by adoption, but by similitude of manners. Reader, see ver. 46, 47, 48. and give judgement impartially. Now in this way it is impossible to be a child of God, till these things be done, and therefore that part of the answer strengthens my Argument. 2. To Rom. 3. 26. where God is said to have set forth his Son, etc.— that he might be just; I answer, that there is no necessity of understanding the word just, of being known and acknowledged to be just: for it will be a kind of tautology. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, That he may be declared to be righteous. Nor yet will it follow, that God was not just before; but that he had not been just now, if Christ had not suffered for sinners. But if by the word just, be meant, declared to be just, it will not reach our case. We seek such a sense of the word Justification, when God is the justifier, and man the object, (which throughout all Mr. Eyre's book is a non-inventus;) when man is the justifier, and God the object, such a sense is necessary: because God is capable of no other Justification from man, as man is from God. 3. As to the thing itself, I acknowledge it readily, That things are many times said to be in Scripture, when they are only manifested and declared to be; but such an interpretation is seldom warrantable, unless the subject-matter invite to it, as in John 15. and 13. where the Lord speaking to those that were already disciples, that if they brought forth much fruit, they should be his disciples; it is most natural to understand it of being manifested, or of continuing his disciples. But we may not therefore interpret Justification by faith, of a manifestation or declaration that we are justified: not only because the texts wherein that phrase is used, suppose no Justification before it; but also, 1. Because other Scriptures deny them that believe not, to be justified, John 3. 18. Rom. 3. 19, 22, 23, 24. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 11. Eph. 2. 3. and other places. And 2. Because when to be in Scripture, signifies to be manifested or declared, it is understood perpetually of an external public manifestation or declaration to many; not of an internal, spiritual, private discovery to the soul or conscience of a particular person: for proof of which, I desire no other witness then these very texts, which Mr. Eyre hath here mentioned, supposing them all to be understood as he would have them. Our love to our enemies declares us to be the children of God: our bringing forth much fruit, declares us to be the disciples of Christ, both publicly and in the sight of many witnesses: God is declared to be just, still publicly, and in the judgement of many: yea, of all, good or bad, men or devils. But this sense will by no means fit Mr. Eyre's turn, for he contends for no more then, that Justification is manifested upon faith, to the believers own conscience: nor do I think he will so much as pretend, that he that believes, is by his faith publicly declared to the world to be a justified person. So that neither can Justification by faith be allowed, to be understood of a declarative Justification; nor if it might, could it yet at all gratify his design.  
Of all places it cannot have that sense in this text. 1. Because 
§. 5.  Justification by faith is expressly opposed to Justification by works. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. But it is most certain, and Mr. Eyre confesseth it roundly, that works do manifest and declare our Justification, page 79, 80. Ergo, by Justification here, is not meant the declaration or manifestation that a person is justified. 2. Justification in regard of its common nature is the same, whether it be by faith or works: namely, as it signifies a constituting of us just before God; for Christians attain that righteousness by faith, which the Jews sought after by works: as the Apostle doth more largely express it, Rom. 9 31, 32. Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness, have not attained to the Law of righteousness: Wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. Ergo, Justification, when ascribed to faith, must be taken in the same sense, as when it is denied to works. But the Jews by their works sought to be justified before God, and not simply, that it should be manifested to them, that they were justified before their works were wrought: for they sought to be justified by works, as the matter for which they should be justified. And therefore when the Apostle opposeth himself directly to their principle, it is in these words. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh living be justified; that is, in the sight of God: as it is expressed by the Psalmist, Psal. 143. 2. and by this Apostle in this Argument, Rom. 3. 20, 21. Gal. 3. 11. Ergo, to be justified by faith in this place, is not simply to be assured of a man's Justification, but to be justified before God. 3. And because Mr. Eyre doth use to oppose Justification by faith, to Justification by Christ; I desire him to consider, that Justification by faith, is here the very same with Justification by Christ; for after he had said, ver. 16. We have believed in Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, he adds, ver. 17. but if while we seek to be justified by Christ. But to be justified by Christ, is not merely to have it by Christ declared that we are justified. This is not only a concession, but a main principle of Mr. Eyre's. Ergo, to be justified by faith here, is not simply to have the knowledge of our Justification.  
But Mr. Eyre hath another answer, a very strange one, and that 
§. 6.  is this. In the text it is, We have believed, that we might be justified by faith: so that from hence it can be inferred only, that we are not justified by faith before believing.  
Rep. As if the question between the Jews and the Apostle were not, whether a man be justified simply by faith, or works? But whether a man were justified by faith, by faith or works? and the Apostles answer is to this effect; That indeed if you speak of Justification by faith, we are justified by faith, and not by works. He that hath nothing else to do, may exercise his wits farther upon this acumen, if he please. If Mr. Eyre mean no more, then that we are not justified in conscience before we believe, (as the latter words of his answer seem to import) then is this second answer a mere tautology, as being the very same with the former.   

SECT. III.  
THe next Scripture alleged is, Rom. 8. 30. Wh●m he predestinated, 
§. 7.  them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. From whence it is manifest, that as glory follows Justification, so doth Justification follow vocation unto faith.  
Mr. Eyre answers, 1. That the order of words in Scripture, doth not show the order and dependence of the things themselves, 1 Sam. 6. 14, 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9 2. The Apostles scope here, is not to show in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us; but how inseparably they are linked to our predestination. 3. The Apostle here speaks of Justification, as it is declared and terminated in our consciences.  
Rep. Mr. Eyre is the first of all Authors, that ever I met with, or heard of, ancient or modern, Papist or Protestant, Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant, that ever denied the Apostles scope in this place, to be principally to show the order in which the benefits mentioned are bestowed upon us. And though I will not build my faith on humane authority; yet neither do I account it ingenuous to desert the sense of all men gratis, without pretending at least some reason for my singularity: but to the matter. I acknowledge, that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact, do frequently use a Hysteron pr●teron, reporting those things first, which it may be were acted last, or è c●ntra, as in 1 Sam. 6. 14, 15. Also that in a copulate axiom, where many things are attributed to one subject, the order many times is not attended, but the connexion only: as if I should say of God, (as the Apostle doth of the Law) that he is holy, and just and good: or the latter is exegetical of the former: as in that of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 1. 9 He hath saved us, and called us. But 2. I do utterly deny, that such manner of speech as is here used (Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation) where several Propositions are linked together, the predicate of each former being the subject of the latter, is any where else to be found, but where the Speakers Purpose is to declare, not only the connexion, but specially the order of the things themselves. 
h Vid. V●ss●um. instit. orat. lib. 5 cap. 8. & And. Tal●um. Rhetor. ●x P. R. cap. ●1.  Examples hereof, out of Poets, Orators, (Greek and Latin) and Ecclesiastical Writers; the Reader may see in almost every Rhetorician. Ovid. Mars videt hanc, visámque cupit, potitúrque cupitâ. Cicero. In urbe luxuries creature: ex luxuri● existat avaritia necesse est: ex avaritiâ ●rumpat audscia, etc. But let the Scriptures determine it, Rom. 5. 3, 4, 5. Affliction worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed: that is, (for the words are a Meiosis) giveth boldness and joy, which is the thing the Apostle is proving; ver. 3. so Rom. 10. 14, 15. (where the order is retrograde) How can they call on him, on whom they have not believed? how can they believe on him, of whom they have not heard? how can they hear without a Preacher? how can they preach, unless they be sent? The wit of man cannot digest words more methodically, to show the orderly dependence of things one upon another. As in the former example, of patience on affliction: experience on patience: hope on experience: joy on hope. And in the second example, of invocation on faith, faith on hearing, hearing on preaching, preach 〈…〉  
3. In the present text, the matter is yet more clear, because Predestination, 
§. 8.  Vocation, Justification and Glorification, are all of them actions of one and the same efficient, tending unto one and the same end: and every second action cumulative to the former, as the partitle also doth evidence. Whom he predestinated, them he also called: whom he called, them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified. And though one and the same person be the object of all these acts; yet from the termination of each former act upon him, he becomes the more immediate object of the succeeding: as appears by the relative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Whom, Them. So that the object of vocation is a person predestinated: of Justification a person called: of glorification a person justified: or else those particles are utterly superfluous, and the whole sentence ridiculous. 4. Mr. Eyre will also acknowledge, that in two of these Propositions, not only connexion, but order is observed: namely, in the first; whom he predestinated, them he called: and the last; whom he justified, them he glorified. Yet hath he as much reason to deny both these, as the middlemost. And if Arminians, who acknowledge no absolute election before faith, should deny the first; and a Sadducee, who confesseth no resurrection but what is passed already, should deny the last: he could not vindicate the text against either, but by the same Arguments, which will convince himself of error in denying the second.  
5. But what doth Mr. Eyre mean to make us believe, when he 
§. 9  tells us, he can see no inconvenience at all, in saying the Apostle here speaks of Justification, as declared in conscience; whereas one would think it had been easy to see, that he is liable to a double shrewd inconvenience in so saying: the one is of contradicting himself; the other, of abusing the text. 1. The Apostles scope here (saith he) is not, to show in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us. I wonder in which of them he breaks order. In the first and last Proposition (as was but now observed) it will surely be granted, that he keeps order punctually: and when he saith in the second Proposition, whom he called, them he justified; I am sure Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge, that he hath hit the order as right as can be, if by Justification be meant that which is terminated in conscience (as he speaks.) And why then doth he deny, that the Apostle intends to declare the order of these benefits? belike, though his scope were not to do it; yet he had the good hap to stumble upon it, quite besides his purpose and intention. 2. But neither can it be understood of Justification in conscience; for the Justification here spoken of, is only and entirely God's act: no less than Predestination, Vocation, and Glorification: But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience, reasoning and concluding a man's self to be just: and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience, let me here once for all declare against it; not only as not being Scriptural, but as not being very rational. For that upon which Justification is terminated, is that which is justified. But it is the man, and not his conscience, which is justified. Erge, it is the person, and not the conscience properly, upon which Justification is terminated. Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi.   

SECT. iv  
ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to 
§. 10.  be consequent to faith is, Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that righteousness was imputed to him, but for our sakes also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe.  
Mr. Eyre answers, that the particle (if) is used sometimes declaratively, to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong: as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour. And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we, if we holdfast our confidence, and the rejoicing of hope, etc.  
Rep. Which observation is here misplaced: for I am not yet disputing the conditionality, but merely the antecedency of faith to Justification. Now suppose the particle (if) be used sometimes declaratively, yet is it always antecedent to the thing which it declares, or rather to the declaration of that thing. As suppose (which yet I do wholly deny) that a man's purging himself, do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour; yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation. As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God. Yea, and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousness in the text, of our knowing righteousness to be imputed to us: of which knowledge, himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent, yea, and more than an antecedent, even the proper effecting cause. And therefore to tell us beforehand, that the particle (if) doth not always propound the cause, when by his own interpretation it must signify the cause (which is a great deal more than a mere condition or antecedent) was a very impertinent observation. His sense of the text he thus delivers.  
His righteousness is imputed to us if we believe, q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, if God hath drawn our hearts to believe.  
Rep. To whom righteousness shall be imputed, if we believe, saith 
§. 11.  the Apostle. We shall know that righteousness was imputed to us before we believed, saith Mr. Eyre, (for that is his sense, though I do a little vary the words) This is an admirable gloss. Whereas, 1. Our knowledge, that righteousness is imputed to us is our own act: but the imputation of righteousness in the text is God's act, not ours, ver. 6. Yea, (saith Mr. Eyre himself, page 87. §. 13.) it is the act of God alone, and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever, whether Ministers of the Gospel, or a man's own conscience, or faith. But it is like when he wrote that, he had forgotten what he had said before in this place. 2. Nor doth the text say, righteousness is imputed to us if we believe (as Mr. Eyre renders the words) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quibus futurum est ut imputetur. To whom it shall come to pass that it shall be imputed, if we believe. 3. And that this imputation of righteousness cannot signify our knowing it to be imputed, should (methinks) be out of question with Mr. Eyre. He disputes against me a little below, that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith, the word faith must be taken objectively, for Christ: because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works, forasmuch as faith itself is a work of ours. And (saith the Apostle) in this chapter, ver. 4. To him that worketh, the reward is not imputed of grace, but of debt. Hence it follows, that that imputation is here meant, which hath no work of ours for its cause. But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousness to be imputed: and that as it is a work of ours. Ergo, the imputation of righteousness here spoken of, is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed.  
4. To impute righteousness in this verse, must have the same 
§▪ 12.  sense, as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter; and particularly, when it is said, that Abraham's faith was imputed to him (not for righteousness, as we render it) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto righteousness, ver. 3. 9, 22, 23. and unto every son of Abraham's faith, ver. 5. 11, 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousness? I know, that learned and godly men give different Expositions. I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken. I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousness is an Hebraisme, and signifies properly, to reward the believer with righteousness, or more plainly, 
i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6● & Maymon. more Nevoch. 3. 53. & O●cum. in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Tertull advers. Martion. lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidi● & deputatum est justitiae: a●que exi●de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupa●i. Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham, & vitam proinde consequimur.  to give the believer a right to blessedness, as his reward: the word Reward being taken in that more lax and metaphorical sense, in which the Scriptures use it, when they call Heaven by glory, and eternal life by that name. And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two terms, to wit, They shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life, John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment, (which is the terminus à quo,) in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin: of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David, ver. 6. 7, 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise, (which is the terminus ad quem) in which respect it is called Justification of life, Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham, ver. 13. for the Promise, that he should be heir of the world, etc. In reference to which part or term of Justification, it is in special manner, that Abraham's faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousness: for though those Promises were things, which in the letter were carnal; yet in substance and signification they were spiritual, and so did he understand them, Heb. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15. and 11. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase, (imputing faith unto righteousness) namely, a rewarding of the believer with a right to blessedness, I gather from ver. 4, 5. To him that worketh, the reward is not imputed of grace, but of debt: but to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is imputed to him unto righteousness. Where the imputing of faith unto righteousness, is directly opposed to the imputing a reward according to works. Ergo, as the imputing works unto righteousness, were to give a right to blessedness according to works, sub ratione mercedis: so on the contrary, to impute faith unto righteousness, is to give the believer a right and title to blessedness, sub ratione mercedis. The difference only is this: the former is of debt, the latter of grace, as we shall further show anon. 2. Thus also we find the Apostle interpreting the phrase; for after he had said, that Abraham was made the father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also, ver. 11. he explains himself, ver. 13. for the Promise was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law, but by the righteousness of faith. The reason whereof he renders, ver. 16. That it might be by grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the seed. So that the establishing of the Promise to Abraham, and all that walk in the steps of his faith, (by which a right to life is given both to him and them) is the imputation 
Vid. Dav Paraeum Dub. exilic. in Rom. 4. Dub. 3.  of righteousness to them. 3. The same phrase is used of Phineas, Psal. 106. 30, 31. Then stood up Phineas, and executed judgement,— And it was imputed to him unto righteousness, unto all generations for evermore. The meaning of which words is easy to be learned from the story itself, Numb. 25. 12, 13. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my Covenant of Peace. And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood. The Promise of the continuance of the Priesthood in his line, from one generation to another, as the reward of his zeal, is that which the Psalmist calls, the imputing it to him unto righteousness to all generations. Indeed the phrase there is not altogether so comprehensive as it is here, because the Promise made him was but of one particular blessing, and so could not constitute him righteous universally, but only in part, and as to that particular blessing which the Promise gave him right to. Yet it shows the Scripture-sense of the phrase as sufficiently, as when the same phrase is used with reference unto faith, to show, that thereby we obtain the reward of an universal righteousness. 4. The imputation of righteousness, in respect of the terminus à quo, is all one with the non-imputation of sin, ver. 6, 8. and what is it to non-impute sin, but not to render the wages of sin, by destroying the guilt and punishment of it? 2 Sam. 19 19 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo, to impute faith unto righteousness, is to reward it with a right to impunity and blessedness: though this reward be not of debt, but of grace. This therefore being the sense of the phrase throughout the whole Chapter, we leave Mr. Eyre's gloss to go seek entertainment where it can find it.   

SECT. V  
THere remain three texts more, which I mentioned in my Sermon; 
§. 13.  to prove, that Justification follows faith: namely, Acts 10. 43. Through his Name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sin. And 26. 18.— To turn them from darkness to light, and from the Power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sin, and an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified through faith. And 13. 39 By him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses.  
To the two former Mr. Eyre answers. That the giving of remission, and receiving it, are two things. The former is God's act, and the latter is ours. A Prince may pardon a Malefactor, and he thereby is secured from punishment, though it come not to his hands for a good while after.  
Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken sometimes actively; as when we are said to receive God and Christ, and his Word, Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely, by believing. Sometimes it is taken passively, in which sense, giving and receiving are not two acts, but one and the same; as when we are said to receive the reward of inheritance, Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life, Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold, Matth. 19 29. In all which (and the like) places, our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance, eternal life, a hundred fold. And thus to receive remission of sin, is all one with Gods giving remission, or to have our sins remitted and pardoned. In this sense do our Protestants understand Receiving remission through faith, as was before observed out of Contarenus. So do the Scriptures also, Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under sin, That the Promise (to wit, of Justification) by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. In which place, Gods giving righteousness by the Promise, and our receiving it, are one and the same act: compare ver. 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life, etc. Whence also it is manifest, that Gods giving, and our receiving, are both one act. Therefore this giving or receiving of righteousness, is called, the coming of grace or righteousness upon us, ver. 18. As by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto Justification. 2. The receiving of remission must be understood in the same sense, as the receiving of the inheritance: for they are joined both together in the text, Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgiveness of sin, and an inheritance. But for us to receive the inheritance, is no more, then to be made partakers of the inheritance: not by any act of ours, but by the free and effectual gift of God. 3. To receive remission, what act of ours is it? Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly, but by his answers to former texts, and his instance here of a Malefactor pardoned before he knows it. I presume he means, that it is our knowledge of our sins being remitted. But such a knowledge is not wont to follow so presently and immediately upon believing, as pardon of sin is every where in Scripture supposed to do: (unless it be in those who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their first Conversion unto God.) But most Christians attain not to such a knowledge, till after long search and experience: and it is very improper to say, a man receives such an act of his own, which himself works out with much labour and travel of mind: if our knowledge of remission were by immediate revelation, or enthusiastical inspiration, the expression were much more tolerable. 4. To the instance of a Malefactor that may be pardoned, though he do not know it till a great while after; I answer in the words of 
k Christ set forth p. 26, ●7.  Reverend Dr. Godwin. God's Promises of forgiveness are not as the pardons of a Prince, which merely contain an expression of his royal word for pardoning;— But as if a Prince should offer to pardon a Traitor, upon marriage with his child, whom in and with that pardon he offers in such a relation. So as all that would have pardon, must first seek out for his child: and thus it is in the matter of believing.— The Promises hang all upon Christ: and without him there is no interest to be had in them. He that hath the Son, hath life. 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor.  
To Acts 13. 39 Mr. Eyre answers. That the Apostle shows 
§. 14.  the excellency of the Gospel above the Law, in that 1. The Law did not cleanse from all sin. 2. And but in an external, typical manner. 3. And that by sacrifice after sacrifice, etc.  
Rep. All which things I readily grant. Yet, 1. Some kind of pardon there was under the Law, which did necessarily suppose a coming unto those sacrifices, Heb. 10. 1. The people were not first pardoned, and then came to the offering of sacrifice, or to the Priest. So doth also the more perfect pardon under the Gospel, necessarily presuppose a coming by faith to the true Highpriest, the Lord Jesus, that sinners may partake therein. 2. When the Scriptures do so constantly require faith unto Justification, and faith only: (for proof of which, Mr. Eyre confesseth, my Concordance would furnish me with many more places than I have taken notice of) I will never be brought to believe, that it is required as a consequent of Justification: for all Christian graces and duties are required as consequents, as well as faith, (even by Mr. Eyre's grant.) Nor yet that by Justification is meant our knowledge and assurance, that we are justified: because unto that also many other things may be required, and not faith only. As for example, self-examination, and proving of ourselves, 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence, in adding one grace to another, 2 Pet. 1. 5, 6, 7, 10. a good conscience towards God and man, and a keeping of the Commandments of Christ, 1 John 3. 20, 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren, 1 John 3. 18, 19, 14. and the like.  
And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts, proving Faith's antecedency to Justification. By all which the Reader may see, that when I said, the only answer made to these Texts was, That Justification is to be understood of that which is evidenced in conscience; this account is true and perfect, though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect; there being not one of all the places mentioned, but what he answers to by such a temperament of the word Justification. It was therefore necessary that I should prove, that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith, he is to be understood of Justification before God, and not of that which is in the Court of Conscience. To which end I advanced four Arguments in my Sermon: the asserting of which against Mr. Eyre's exceptions, is my next undertaking.    

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

SECT. I.  
THe first Argument proving, that when the Apostle 
§. 1.  pleads for Justification by faith, he is to be understood of Justification before God, or in the sight of God: and not in the Court of Conscience, is this. The Question between him and the Jews was not, whether we were declared to be justified by faith or works, but whether we were justified by faith or works in the sight of God. And he concludes, that it is by faith, and not by works, Rom. 3. 20, 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants; but will have the Apostle by the word faith to understand, not the act or habit of faith, but the object; scil. Christ's righteousness, or righteousness imputed. His reason is, because else there were no opposition between faith and works: seeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no less than love. Yet when the Apostle disputes for Justification by faith, Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct opposition to works, and for the imputation of faith unto righteousness, Rom. 4. still as opposed to works, ver. 4, 5. we were told that justifying and imputing were the manifestation of Justification and Imputation: But now we have another answer, which overthrows the former; namely, that faith is to be taken for Christ and his righteousness? What aileth thee, O Jordan, that thou art turned backward? Yea, he will not allow, that the Apostle hath any question with them about the time when, or the conation upon which we are justified. Yet I think all men besides himself will grant, that his design is to show the way and means, by which a sinner may come to be justified. Though I confess I see not how Mr. Eyre can grant this. For if the Justification of all that are justified, be absolute and perfect in the death of Christ, (as he supposeth) then from that time there can no way be prescribed to a sinner, no counsel given him, what course to take, that he may be justified. Only he may be told, that if he be justified, the way to know it, is to believe. And when the Jews say, We must be justified by works, and the Apostle, By faith: they are both out, for we are justified by neither. And the Gentiles were in an error, in seeking to be justified by faith, as well as the Jews in seeking it by works: if they seek any thing more than to know that they are justified.  
But because Mr. Eyre doth so often take Sanctuary at this notion, 
§. 2.  that saith is put for its object, Christ and his righteousness, (though he give us not one text that may convince us of it) we must of necessity examine the truth of it. And yet when I consider, how presumptuous and irrational the conceit is in itself: and how solidly already confuted by Mr. 
a De re● on● p●c par. 2. l 1. c. 15.  Wotton: who also hath set down the testimonies of no less than forty Authors, Fathers and Protestants, besides Papists, all consenting with him: I confess, I can hardly think it worth my labour; yet something must be done, this only being premised, (which hath also been before observed) That when our Protestants sometimes say, the word faith, (in this Proposition, we are justified by faith) is to be taken objectively: they intent not to exclude faith itself from its concurrence to our Justification: (as Mr. Eyre doth) for we have showed in the first Chapter, their unanimous consent, in making faith the instrument or condition of our Justification. But only to deny it to be the matter or meritorious cause of our Justification: which they truly say is only the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who is the object of our faith. So that we are justified by Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification: and yet by faith as the instrument or condition, upon which the righteousness of Christ hath effect upon us, to our Justification. And so I come to prove, that faith is to be taken subjectively, for the grace or act of faith, not objectively for Christ, throughout the Apostles discourse for Justification by faith.   

SECT. II.  
1. SUch an Interpretation of the words, as makes nonsense of most 
§. 3.  of the Scriptures, which speak of Justification by faith, is not to be admitted. But to put faith for Christ believed on, makes nonsense of most of those texts, which speak of Justification by faith. Ergo. For proof of the minor, we shall begin, where the Apostle gins to dispute for Justification by faith, Rom. 3. 21, 22. But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ: put faith for Christ believed or, and the words run thus, Even the righteousness of God, which is by Christ of Jesus Christ: or put it for the righteousness of Christ, and they run thus, Even the righteousness of God, which is by righteousness of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that believe. Almost the very same words doth this Apostle use, Phil. 3. 9 That I may be found in him, not having my own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Where, in like manner, if faith be put for righteousness, we must read the words thus, Not having my own righteousness, but that which is through the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through righteousness. I hope the Reader doth not expect, that I should spend time in confuting these absurd paraphrases: I count that sufficiently done in mentioning them. In the same Chapter to the Romans, ver. 25. Whom God h●●h set forth, to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. According to Mr. Eyre we must read it, Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Christ in his blood; or at best, through righteousness in his blood. But his blood being here set forth, as the object of the faith mentioned in the text: the blood of Christ must be made the object of his righteousness, if by faith be meant righteousness: which will resolve the words into a pretty piece of sense. Again, ver. 26. God through the death of Christ, is said to be the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. What's that? of him that christeth in Jesus? or what is it? It is an easy matter to say, that faith is put for Christ or his righteousness: but the mischief is, the substantive cannot be varied into a verb or participle, to make an intelligible Proposition; for example, We are justified by faith: that is, (will Mr. Eyre say) by Christ, or his righteousness. But then change the substantive into a verb or participle, and give me the sense of it. As, He that believeth in Christ is justified. If faith be put for Christ, what is it to believe in Christ? or what do we mean, when we say, We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ? We are justified by Christ in Jesus Christ? or by righteousness in Jesus Christ? This latter, I confess, hath a more tolerable sound, but not a grain more of sense. For when we say, We are justified by faith in Christ, Christ in that Proposition is the object of faith, and we the subject. But if faith signify righteousness, than Christ is the object of his own righteousness. Of the nonsense of this Interpretation, the Reader shall see more in that which follows. 2. Justification by Christ or his righteousness was finished in his death, (according to Mr. Eyre) Ergo, if faith signify Christ or his righteousness, we were justified by faith, as soon as Christ was dead. But many years after Christ's death, there were many who were to be justified by faith, Rom. 3. 30. It is one God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the future tense) which shall justify the circumcision and uncircumcision, (that is, Jews and Gentiles) by faith, which is the application of the general Conclusion, ver. 28. We conclude, That a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Ergo, they were not justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead.  
3. But because Mr. Eyre, by his marginal Annotation, refers us 
§. 4.  to Rom. 4. let us make some enquiry into that Chapter. And if we prove, that faith in that Chapter, is meant of the act, not of the object, this controversy is ended. We begin with the third verse, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him unto righteousness. What can be more plain, then that it was abraham's believing which was imputed to him, (of the sense of that phrase we have spoke already) even as when it is said of Phineas, Psal. 106. 30, 31. Then stood up Phineas, and executed judgement.— And it was imputed to him unto righteousness. I appeal to common sense, whether his executing of judgement were not the thing that was imputed to him unto righteousness? or if something be to be understood which is not expressed: let every man's fancy be left to its liberty, to supply what he sees sit, and we shall be much the better for the Scriptures. 2. The same is also delivered more generally of all believers, ver. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is imputed to him unto righteousness. If there had been no more spoken in all the chapter, this had been enough to prove, that by faith here is meant the act, not the object. For 1. It is the express letter of the text, To him that worketh not, but believeth. 2. That faith is here meant, which is a man's own, before it be imputed. His faith is imputed to him unto righteousness. But the righteousness of Christ is no man's before it be imputed. If it be, let us know what act that is, distinct from imputation, and antecedent to it, by which Christ's righteousness is made ours. 3. That faith is here meant, which is so a man's own, as that in individuo it is no bodies else. But Christ's righteousness is not so any one man's, as to be no bodies else: for than should be but one man in the world, to whom the righteousness of Christ were imputed. The Proposition is manifest: because the faith here spoken of, is determined to the person of the believer. To him that believeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS faith is imputed. And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumcision, ver. 11. And the truth is, that otherwise (I mean, if His faith be His Christ) Abraham's faith, or David's faith, or any other Christians faith may be said to be imputed unto us, with the very same propriety of speech, as it is said to be imputed to him or them. 4. If faith be here put for Christ or his righteousness, the words are nonsense. Put faith for righteousness, and the words run thus. But unto him that believeth, his righteousness is imputed to him for righteousness. What sense is that? or put it for Christ, and they run thus, But unto him that believeth, his Christ is impured to him unto righteousness. But what is it to impute Christ unto righteousness? I know he is said to be made unto us righteousness; 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wisdom and Sanctification, that is, the Author of both: but to impute him unto righteousness is a barbarism. To say nothing of the insolency of that phrase (His Christ) in Scripture; and of making Christ, as distinct from his righteousness, the object of justifying faith.  
3. We have already proved, that to impute faith unto righteousness, 
§. 5.  is to reward the believer with a right to life. If then faith be put for Christ; to impute faith unto righteousness, is to reward Christ with righteousness. And if for righteousness, it is to reward righteousness with righteousness: both which are absurd. 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteousness, was the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, ver. 10, 11. If faith do here signify Christ's righteousness, the words sound thus, The righteousness of Christ, which he had in his uncircumcision, was imputed to him unto righteousness. And because he could not have it but by imputation, therefore the full sense will be this. The righteousness of Christ, which was imputed to him in his uncircumcision, was imputed to him unto righteousness. Spectatum admissi, etc.  
5. Consider we also what is said, ver. 9, 10, 11, 12. from whence 
§. 6.  we advance three Arguments more. 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful, and the father of the faithful, was the habit or grace of faith, not the object. A conjugatis. Even as it is the habit of wisdom, goodness, temperance, etc. from whence a man is denominated wise, good, temperate, etc. but the faith which was imputed to him, was that from whence he was denominated faithful, and the father of the faithful; for faith was imputed to him unto righteousness, saith the Apostle, ver. 9 and that in his uncircumcision, ver. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he might become the father of all the faithful, that are in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, ver. 11. (for so stands the connexion of the sentences: and the beginning of this, ver. 11. And he received Circumcision, etc. is answered immediately by ver. 12. And the father of circumcision, etc.) The like Argument doth this Apostle use elsewhere, Gal. 3. 9 They which be of the faith, be blessed with faithful Abraham. 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing, than Abraham's faith signifies his believing, and not Christ's righteousness. The reason is, because to be a child of Abraham's faith, is to follow or imitate him, in that which is called his faith (as when Mr. Eyre calls me a son of Mr. Baxters' faith). And if we are like him by believing, then believing is the quality wherein the similitude consists, between him the Father, and us the children. But we become the children of Abraham's faith, (even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteousness) by believing, ver. 10. The father of all them that believe, ver. 11. That walk in the steps of father Abraham's faith, Who are also called the seed of the faith of Abraham, ver. 16. 3. And I would, that Mr. Eyre or some body else, would make sense of the Apostles words, if faith be put for Christ's righteousness, ver. 12. Abraham became the father of Circumcision, to them that walk in the steps of his faith. What is that? Why to them that walk in his Christ's righteousness. I am even sick of this nonsense: let me add one word more, that I may rid myself of this nauseous work.  
6. The faith spoken of throughout this chapter, is that which is 
§. 7.  described at large from ver. 18. to the end, where it is said, that Abraham against hope, believed in hope. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own nor Sarahs' age, ver. 19 That he staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, ver. 20. And was fully persuaded, that what God had promised, he was able also to perform, ver. 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteousness, is manifest from the very next verse, ver. 22. And therefore it ●as imputed to him unto righteousness. To make this the description of Christ's righteousness, would render the sense so beyond measure ridiculous, that I profess (Reader) I am afraid to represent it to thee in a paraphrase, lest some profane wits should take occasion to make this blessed Word of God the object of their derision and contempt.  
I might add, that by the same reason that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteousness of Christ, another may make as bold to interpret it, of the Wisdom, Power, Goodness, Faithfulness, or any other Attribute of God, (for these also are the objects of faith) and so to be justified by faith, is to be justified by the Wisdom of God, or by his Goodness, etc. every line in Scripture that speaks of Justification by faith, will be as good sense thus expounded, as if faith be put for Christ's righteousness, unless it be in those places, where faith is particularly and expressly determined to Christ as its object, and in all such places Mr. Eyre himself will surely interpret faith for the act, not for the object.   

SECT. III.  
NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre opposeth, to 
§. 8.  prove, that faith must be put for its object, the righteousness of Christ. Else (saith he) the Apostle contradicts himself, in opposing Justification by faith, to Justification by works: because faith itself is a work of ours.  
Answ. But by his favour, I will rather believe that he contradicts the Apostle, (and that as perfectly, as if he had studied to do it on purpose) then that the Apostle contradicts himself. For it is as manifest as light can make it, that it is the act of believing which the Apostle opposeth to works, Rom. 4. 4, 5. To him that worketh, the reward is imputed of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth, etc. Not working is opposed to works. Believing is not working (with the Apostle) Ergo, believing is opposed to works. Judge then who will (for I am indifferent in so just a cause) whether the Apostle contradict himself, or Mr. Eyre him. 2. The opposition between faith and works in the matter of Justification, stands thus according to Scripture, That he that worketh, doth himself effect that righteousness for which he is justified: personal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man, to make him just before God. And hence righteousness by works, or by the Law, is called our own righteousness, Phil. 3. 9 Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth, doth by the gift of God partake in the righteousness of another, even of the Lord Jesus Christ, for which only he is justified. And hence righteousness by faith is opposed to our own righteousness, Phil. 3. 9 Not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. So that he that is justified by works, is justified for his own sake: but he that is justified by faith, is justified for another's sake. 
§. 9   
But because this is the total sum of all Mr. Eyre hath to say, for the abuse of the word Faith, from its own native sense, to a tropical; I shall set down my answer more fully. I distinguish therefore, 1. Of works. 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action; and so no doubt but faith is a work; so is laughing, crying, speaking, reasoning and the like. 2. Strictly, for that obedience by which the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled, (really, or in conceit) and so they are uncapable of an ordinability to, or of being made the conditions of our Justification, by the righteousness of another. In this sense doth the Apostle take works, when he opposeth them to faith, 
b Vid, Conra●. Vorst. Scholar in loc.  Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh, the reward is imputed of debt; and ver. 2. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory. Both which Propositions were false, if works were any thing less than perfect legal righteousness: for he had said before, that there is no glorying for a sinner before God, 
* Vid. Joh. Piscat. Scholar in loc. ex Olev. Calvin.  Rom. 3. 23. (Not that I think the Jews themselves, (who sought righteousness by works) did conceive they were able so to keep the Law▪ as not at all to sin: but rather thought (such was their blindness) that the Law was sufficiently kept to Justification, if they forbore the outward acts of sin, and performed the outward act of duty, 
c Joseph. Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. & Joh. Reynol. Co●f. with Hart. ch. 7. D. 4. p. 264.  neglecting the inward purity▪ of heart:) 
d Sic M●rmon. in 〈◊〉 Te 〈…〉.  or if their good works were more than their evil works: or finally, if they did perform those ceremonial observances, which were required in the Law for the expiation of sin, Mat●h. 19 18, 19 and 23. 25, 26, 27, 28. Luke 18. 11, 12. Phil. 3. 6. Against which conceit of theirs, the grand Argument which the Apostle opposeth is this, That all had sinned against the Law. Rom. 3. 19, 20, 23. and therefore none could be justified by the Law; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them, Gal. 3. 10, 11.) Now works being taken in this strict sense, it is manifest, that faith is not works: no 
e Fidem non es●e opus▪ Vi●. C●m●ron▪ prelect. in M●●. 16. ●7. op●r p. 47, 48.  nor a work, as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous: as the Apostle expressly witnesseth, Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith (that is, requires not faith in order to Justification) but the man that doth them, shall live in them.  
2. When we speak of Justification by works, and of Justification 
§. 10.  by faith, the particle (By) hath not the same sense in both Propositions. But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteousness for which a person is justified: in the latter, it denotes faith to be the means or condition, upon which we receive the gift of Christ's righteousness. Of the use of that particle in such a sense, the Reader shall find many instances in answer to Mr. Eyre's ninth Chapter. When then he disputes, that if we are justified by faith in a proper sense, we are justified by works, because faith is a work; I deny the consequence with the proof of it. The former, because to be justified by faith, is to be justified by the righteousness of another through faith, as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us: but to be justified by works, is to be justified by and for a righteousness wrought by ourselves. The latter, because faith is not a work, as the Apostle useth works: that is, no part of that righteousness for which we are justified. What can be objected against this, the Reader will meet with in the following discourse. In the mean time, I desire him to have recourse hither for answer to this Argument, in all the following places (which are very many) wherein it is objected against me: that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies, even unto nauseousness.   

SECT. iv  
THe second general Argument proving, that Justification by 
§. 11.  faith, is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Justification, is this. It cannot be imagined how faith should evidence to us our Justification but one of these three ways. Either as an Argument affected to prove it, or axiomatically, or syllogistically, (which terms, because Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obscurity, we shall endeavour to explain as we come to them). But we cannot be said to be justified by faith, in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification in any of these three ways. Ergo, we cannot be said to be justified by faith, because of faiths evidencing our Justification. This (Reader) is the sum and scope of my second Argument: which I have here set down distinctly, that thou mayest not be lead into a mistake, common to Mr. Eyre, with some of my own friends (as themselves have told me) as if I had denied all use of faith, in evidencing Justification: which is as fare from my judgement, as the East is from the West. I confess I have little cause to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus mistaken: because there is an ellipfis in my words, which might give some occasion of such a misapprehension; for whereas it is said (in my Sermon, page 3.) It is a most unsound Assertion, that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith. The full sentence should have been this. It is an unsound Assertion, that we are said to be justified by faith, because that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith. The proof of this is the manifest tendency of every branch of this Argument, and of each Argument under each branch. And I am apt to think Mr. Eyre himself so understood me, when he comes to particulars; for he doth not once charge them with impertinency, (which he might have done with advantage enough, if it had not been clear, that they were all leveled at another scope, then simply to prove, that faith is of no use to evidence Justification.) As to the thing itself, I am so far from denying faith to evidence our Justification, that I do assert as followeth. 1. As the word evidence signifies, that which is affected to argue another thing, so faith doth evidence our Justification, yea, and is the first thing that doth evidence it. 2. Faith doth also evidence Justification axiomatically to all those that have a particular testimony from God, that they are justified. As those whom Christ tells in the Gospel, that their sins were forgiven them, Matth. 9 2, 5. Luke 5. 20, 23. and 7. 47, 48. If any man now living hath the like testimony from God, that his sins are forgiven, he hath no better way to evidence it to himself, then without any more ado, to believe that they are forgiven. 3. Faith doth also concur to the evidencing of Justification syllogistically, but then the whole evidence is not of faith, as we shall show by and by. I do therefore acknowledge the use of faith in evidencing Justification, in all those ways by which it may be evidenced; though not of faith only in the last, nor at all in the second; unless there be any man that hath heard God saying to him, Thy sins are forgiven thee.  
Come we on then to the proof of particulars. And first, that we 
§. 12.  cannot be said to be justified by faith, in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument, or particularly as an effect thereof. To evidence Justification as an Argument, is no more than for faith to have such a relation unto Justification, as that where the one is, the other must needs be also: and he that knows the relation they have to each other, cannot but know that where faith is, there Justification must needs also be. Even as laughing and crying may be said to evidence reason in a child (though it may not evidence it to the child himself, because he knows not the dependence of these actions upon his reason) so we say, where there is smoke there is some fire. Groan argue some ill affection in the body, and generally every effect doth argue and evidence its cause, to them that know the connexion between the cause and effect. Mr. Eyre disclaims faiths evidencing in this way: though in answer to Rom. 4. 24. above debated (of his Book, pag. 44. §. 6.) he hath as plainly yielded it as can be, in these words, Hereby we may know and be assured, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, that we, whether Jew's or Gentiles, are the persons to whom this grace belongs; if God hath drawn our hearts to believe and obey the Gospel: in regard that none do or can believe, but such as are ordained to life, and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ. What is this, but that faith doth evidence our Justification as an Argument: seeing that where one is, the other is also: where there is faith there is Justification. It seems the same thing is good Divinity out of Mr. Eyre's mouth: but out of mine, an error. Yet though Mr. Eyre will not own, that faith doth evidence Justification in this way, he thinks fit to give his Reader, his sense of my Reasons.  
There are therefore three Reasons in my Sermon, why we cannot be said to be justified by faith, in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument. The first is this. Because than Justification by faith, is not necessarily so much as Justification in conscience. A Christian may have faith, and yet not have the evidence that he is justified. As a child may laugh and cry, and yet not have the evidence or clear knowledge, that himself hath reason, etc.  
Mr. Eyre answers, 1. By intimating, that this agrees not with what I allege out of the Apostle, 1 John 3. 20. to prove, that if our hearts condemn us, God doth much more condemn us. 2. If faith did evidence only as a sign, it would be a dark and unsatisfying evidence. 3. Nothing that precedes faith, doth prove a man justified: nothing that follows it, is so apt to prove it as faith itself. 4. Wheresoever there is faith, there is some evidence of this grace. In the least spark of fire, and the least twinkling star, there is some light.  
Rep. To the first I say, that it never came into my mind to prove, that God condemns every one, whom his own conscience condemns: but that if conscience condemns truly, than the judgement thereof is according to the judgement of God, and so God condemns as well as conscience. But if a believers heart shall tell him that he is not justified, and his sins not pardoned; his conscience is erroneous and judgeth otherwise then God judgeth. 2. The two next answers are like chips in pottage, that do neither good nor hurt, as I see. When I can understand, whether they make with me or against me; I shall consider them farther. 3. The fourth answer, that whosoever hath faith, hath some evidence of his Justification, (for that he means by grace, or else it's nothing to the purpose) I deny utterly: if by evidence he mean, not that which would prove it, if it were rightly understood: but a man's actual knowledge that he is justified. And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it? why, the least spark of fire hath some light, and the least twinkling star. True. So the least degree of true faith hath that in it, which if it were rightly apprehended would make some discovery that a man were justified. But these sparks of fire give no light at all, when they lie buried under heaps of ashes: and such black and dismal clouds may cover the face of the Heavens, that we cannot see, not only the lesser stars, but not those of greatest magnitude. And the Scripture testifieth, not only positively, that a gracious soul may walk in darkness; but to express the greatness of this darkness, adds an universal negative. And may see no light, that is, (as 
f Child of light. page 5. 6, 8, 9, 10.  Dr. Godwin hath excellently proved) he may be without all evidence of his Justification, of which the said Doctor gives several instances, in David, Job, Heman, and Christ himself; and proposeth largely the causes and cure of such darkness: in all which, he hath bestowed a great deal of excellent and acceptable pains to no purpose, if Mr. Eyre's doctrine here be true. How many souls have I known, and 
g See Mr. Tho. Brookes, Heaven upon earth. page 65, 66.  heard of in such a condition? If it be said, we may be mistaken in men; I acknowledge it. But withal, I am not bound to believe impossibilities and contradictions. If I must believe that it is possible for them to have true faith, even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love: then I cannot believe Mr. Eyre's affirmation to be universally true; That wheresoever there is faith, there is some evidence of Justification. And (me thinks) he should not have expected, that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both. 2. Yet if all this were granted, it comes not up to our case, when the Scriptures say, He that believes shall be justified: it surely speaks of a Justification, which is the same equally unto all that believe. And for Mr. Eyre to say, every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification, though it may be not so much as another, is to say, one believer may be more justified than another, which we desire him to prove, the Scriptures imply the contrary, Romans 3. 29, 30. and 4. 23, 24. and 10. 12.  
The second Argument, to prove that we are not said to be justified 
§. 13.  by faith, in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect, was, because faith is not the effect of Justification: for if it be, than we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification, as to be justified by our faith: and in stead of saying, Believe and thou shalt be justified; we must say henceforward, Thou art justified, therefore believe.  
Mr. Eyre answers, That he sees no absurdity at all, in saying, That faith is from Justification causally. That grace which justifies us, is the cause and fountain of all good things, and more especially of faith, 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29.  
Rep. Is it then no absurdity, to set the Scriptures upon their heads? we are said in Scripture to believe unto righteousness or Justification, Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say, we are made righteous, or justified unto believing? when the Apostle saith, Heb. 10. 39 we are not of them who draw back unto perdition: but of them that believe unto the saving of the soul. Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence: in the former, perdition of drawing back: in the latter, salvation of believing. 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification: if Justification be what Mr. Eyre says it is, namely, the eternal Will of God, not to punish, precisely; for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith, unless Gods not punishing be our believing. 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification? That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things, and particularly of faith. Ergo, Justification is the cause of faith. This is Logic of the game. The grace that justifies us, is also the grace that glorifies us: shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith?  
I did therefore truly say, that according to this doctrine, we must 
§. 14.  not say, Believe, and thou shalt be justified; but rather, thou art justified; Ergo believe.  
No (saith Mr. Eyre.) because 1. It is not the privilege of all men. 2. We know not who are justified, no more than who are elected. Though faith be an effect of Election, yet we may not say, Thou art elected, therefore believe. 3. When the cause is not noti●r effectu, we must ascend from the effect to the cause.  
Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the privilege of all men: yet Justification is to be preached as a privilege attainable by all men, if they will believe: which yet it cannnt be, if Justification be the cause of faith, and not the consequent. 2. It is also true, that we cannot say, Thou art elected, therefore believe; neither may we say, Believe, and thou shalt be elected. But we may and must say, Believe and thou shalt be justified; therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same. The third answer I understand not, nor I think no man else; at least, how it should be applied to the present case: and therefore I say nothing to it.  
My last, and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position, 
§. 15.  namely, that we cannot be said to be justified by faith, in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument, or particularly as an effect, is this; because than it will unavoidably follow, that we are justified by works as well as faith: works being an effect evidencing Justification as well as faith.  
Mr. Eyre answers, 1. By retortion. That this follows from my opinion; for if we be justified by the act of believing, we are justified by a work of our own. For answer to which, I refer the Reader, to the second and third Sections of this chapter. If works be taken largely, for any humane action, faith is a work; but it is (as I may so call it) an unworking work; for to believe and not to work, are all one with the Apostle, as we have showed before out of Rom. 4. 4, 5. His second answer is a large grant, that works do declare and evidence Justification; and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it, wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience. Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely: and have proved, that the Apostles words, We have believed that we may be justified, cannot have this sense, we have believed that we may know ourselves to be justified. And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again, at the common rock of contradicting himself, in alleging that text. He here acknowledgeth, that works do evidence our Justification: but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of. Ergo, The Justification there spoken of, is not the evidencing of Justification. The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these. Therein (namely in the Gospel) is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith. That is, (as the Apostle expounds himself, chap. 3. 21, 22.) In the Gospel is manifested the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that believe: from believing Jews to believing Gentiles; for that questionless is the meaning of those words, from faith to faith; as is manifest, by comparing them with the foregoing, ver. 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation, to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. But how this proves, that to be justified by faith, is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences, I cannot divine.  
At last, Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer, or rather something 
§. 16.  like an answer, and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith: where note (Reader) that the words (as well) are not a note of parity (as Mr. Eyre mistakes them, I doubt, not unwillingly) but of similitude: for I do not mean, that works do evidence with an equal degree of clearness or certainty; but in the same way or manner, or that they are an evidence of the same kind and nature as faith is, if faith evidence barely as an effect. And so we may be said to be justified by works, by the very same reason as we are said to be justified by faith; if to be justified by faith be no more, then by faith as an effect, to know that we are justified: which is that which Mr. Eyre will never be able to answer while he lives. But let us see what he says for his denial of works to evidence as well as faith.  
First (saith he) they do not evidence so clearly and certainly as faith doth: because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality. 2. Works do evidence in the judgement of charity and before men: but not in the judgement of infallibility, or with that clearness and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires.  
Rep. All this is nothing. Majus & minus non variant speciem. If works evidence Justification in the same way and manner as faith doth, though not with such a perfect degree of evidence as faith doth; then are we justified by works as well as by faith: if to be justified be to know that we are justified. 2. The Scriptures tell us that works (Christian and spiritual works) are a very clear and certain evidence, 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. So 2 Pet. 1. 5, 6, 7. with ver. 10, 11. It is true, there may be works like good works, which are not so in truth; and there may be faith like true faith, which yet is not faith unfeigned: but when works are brought to the light, and manifested that they are wrought in God, they are a very sure evidence: as sure (for aught I know) as faith itself, though I will not dispute it, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. I have fought a good sight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousness, etc. 3. What he says in the second place, that works do evidence before men, but not with that clearness and certainty which the conscience requires, is point blank against the Scriptures, 1 John 3. 18, 19 My little children, let us not l●ve in w●rd, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth: And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 4. Observe also (Reader) that Mr. Eyre doth here, (as also in other places) distinguish between faith and works: and yet, to oppose me, will not allow that we are justified by faith, because faith is a work.  
Before I pass to the next branch of this Argument, I must acquaint 
§. 17.  thee (Reader) that in the close of this, I added these words: Whether works be the first effect (namely of Justification) or the second, and by consequence the first evidence or the second, is not at all material in this case: because the Apostle, when he denies Justification by works, excludes works altogether, Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 5. The Reason why I added, this, was, Because when Mr. Warren proposed this Argument against Mr. Eyre, all the answer he could get was this Question; Whether Works were the first evidence, or the second? The impertinency of this Question I thought fit to discover, by observing that the Apostle denies to works any influence at all, into that Justification which he speaks of: and therefore he speaks not of Justification by way of evidence, whether first or second. But the principal intent of the Argument, was to prove the main Conclusion, That the Apostle, when he disputes for Justification by faith, cannot be understood of Justification declared in couscience, for works have an efficiency in producing that Justification. But the Apostle rejects works from having any hand at all in that Justification which he disputes for. Therefore he means not Justification in conscience. To this Mr. Eyre hath held it his wisest course to say nothing. If he should have distinguished of works (as that he must do, if he do any thing) he knows well enough what advantage he had put into my hands against himself. Whether this be an Argument of a mind desirous to advance the truth, the day will make manifest.   

SECT. V  
I Come now to the second branch of my Argument, and that is, 
§. 18.  That we cannot be said to be justified by faith, in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification, immediately or axiomatically; which before I prove, I must speak something by way of Explication. By an axiom we mean a sentence or Proposition, manifest by its own light, & worthy to be believed for its own sake: so that it is no sooner proposed, but the mind (
h In intellectione perfecta reperiuntur tria. Primum est conformitas actus cum objecto: secundum, necessitas assentiendi tertium, impotentia ad falsita●em. P●imum vocatur veritas. Secundum evidentia. Tertium certitudo. P. H●rt. de Me●doz. de Anim. d. 8. sect. 1. §. ●. ) assents to it presently, that it is true. As (in natural things) that every whole is more than its part. That man is a reasonable creature. That two make four, or the like. These things are evident to our reason at first view, without any farther proof. And there is a double evidence in all such assent. The one is the evidence of the object, or the truth assented to, which must be clearly represented in the Axiom or Proposition. The other of the subject, which is the light of reason within us, by which we assent to a Proposition of evident truth, and have the clear knowledge thereof. Even as unto our seeing of any thing, there must concur an external light to make the object visible; and internal sight in the eye, to evidence the same object to each man in particular; for though the light shine never so clearly, a blind man can see nothing: nor the most quicksighted, without outward light. The case is the same in supernatural verities: as, That Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that he is come into the world to save sinners; that whosoever believeth on him shall be saved, and the like. Which things, because they are above the reach and comprehension of natural reason, therefore our minds assent not to them, nor have the evidence of them, till they be informed with a more supernatural light and principle, namely faith, which is the eye and sight of the soul, Heb. 11. 26, 27. Hence the Apostle in that chapter, ver. 1. describes faith to be the evidence of things not seen; and says, ver. 3. By faith we know the world was made by the Word of God. That God made the world is evidenced objectively by the Word, which saith; that God made the Heavens and the earth, Gen. 1. 1. but it is not evidenced unto us, unless we believe that Word. And so in the present case, if any person (suppose Peter) have by faith the evidence of his Justification, immediately or axiomatically, it must be by assenting to some Axiom or Proposition of divine revelation. Thou Peter art justified.  
These things being premised, we come now to prove, that we 
§. 19  cannot be said to be justified by faith, because of faiths evidencing our Justification axiomatically. Two reasons I gave of it. 1. Because such an immediate evidence of a particular man's Justification cannot be had without a particular testimony from God, Thou Paul, or Peter, or Thomas art justified. But there is no such thing written in Scripture, Ergo, no such evidence can be had.  
Mr. Eyre saith, I mistake the nature of justifying faith, conceiving it to be a bare intellectual assent to a Proposition: which yet is quite against my judgement, and that which I do purposely oppose in my next argument. I consent to Mr. Eyre, in placing faith, partly in the understanding, and partly in the will. But our question is now concerning that faith which is in the understanding, how Peter (for example) comes to know, or to be assured by faith immediately that he is justified? And this (say I) must be by the assent of faith to some such Axiom, Proposition, or Word of God, as was but now mentioned, Thou Peter art justified. Even as Paul was assured, that neither himself, nor any that were in the ship with him should perish, by believing the testimony of God sent him by an Angel, Acts 27 25. And because there is now a days no such testimony of a particular man's Justification, therefore there is no evidence thereof to be had this way, (at least ordinarily) and if there were, yet I would not call that faith justifying faith, but rather evidencing faith.  
His Answer to the Argument is large, and (to me) very confused. He excepts against my term of an axiomatical evidence (I would change it, if I could devise any term more significant) but at last, yields it me; yet thinks it fit to say, faith evidenceth organically as it is the organ or instrument whereby we do apprehend and adhere to Christ. But we shall show fully, that this organical evidence, must be reduced to one of those three by me mentioned, and cannot make a fourth way of evidence, distinct from them. The sum of his answer is,  
That faith is such an assent to the truth of the Gospel, as that withal the soul tastes an ineffable sweetness in the same: and he that tastes the sweetness of Gospel-Promises and grace, knows his interest and propriety therein: for all manner of sweetness is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing which causeth it.— And so faith doth evidence our Justification axiomatically, by assenting to, and withal tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions, Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospel, which by a secret and unscrutable work of the Spirit, are applied and made particular to the soul of a true believer: for otherwise he could never taste any sweetness in them.  
Rep. How truly did I say, that Mr. Eyre's doctrine would at last 
§, 20.  leave the poor doubting Christian without all evidence of his Justification? I need no other confirmation of it then these words: wherein are many things delivered, not only without any other authority then Mr. Eyre's bare word; but directly against experience, reason and Scripture. 1. I deny that faith is always accompanied with such a taste of sweetness in the Promises of the Gospel, as will give an evidence to the soul of his Justification: The reasons are set down already in this chapter, §. 12. I remember what holy (
i Neither the letters nor pages are numbered, and therefore I cannot direct the Reader to the particular place. ) Bayne says of himself in one of his letters. I thank God, in Christ sustentation I have, and some little strength: suavities spiritual I taste not any. But indeed I often tell myself, Physic purgative and restorative are not to be taken at the same time, etc. Neither do I dare to deny, but that it may be the case of one that is saved, to die in as much darkness as Spira himself: if any man can prove the contrary, let him. Yea, so separable is sweetness from faith, that sometimes on the contrary, excess of sweetness hath hindered and overcome faith: as it was in the disciples, who for very joy believed not, Luke 24. 41. and with old Jacob in a like case, Gen. 45. 26. 2. I also deny, that there can be no manner of sweetness tasted in the Gospel, but by such as have interest and propriety in the grace thereof. A propriety in conceit, though not in truth, or an interest possible and attainable, though not actually obtained, may make the Gospel taste not a little sweet. The Scriptures tell us, that some may be enlightened, and taste of the heavenly gift, and of the good Word of God, Heb. 6. 4, 5. and receive the Word with joy, Matth. 13. 20. who yet were not justified nor pardoned. 3. A taste of sweetness in the Gospel, doth evidence to the soul sensibly and experimentally, that God and his Word are good: which may be an Argument to prove that he is justified. But it neither doth nor can actually evidence it to him, unless there intervene another act of the mind, concluding himself to be justified, according to the Promise made to such a faith. Sugar will evidence its sweetness to my taste: but my tasting will not evidence to me actually that I am a living creature, unless I conclude it by the discourse of my mind: because according to the rules of Philosophy, None can taste but a living creature. Beasts can taste as well as men, yetthey do not know that they are living creatures: because they cannot compare their act with the rule according to which they act: which ability in the reasonable soul, is usually called a power of reflecting upon its own act. The case is much the same in Infants. Therefore Mr. Eyre's organical evidence is the very same with that which I call faiths evidencing as an Argument: or if he understand it of that which is not only affected to prove, but doth actually prove, than it is the same with that which I below call syllogistical: as being an act of the soul, concluding its own Justification, from the sweetness it tasteth in the Promises. 4. But the truth is, it is a most preposterous course, to send the soul for its evidence of right and interest in the Promises, to a taste of sweetness in them: which will quickly appear, if Mr. Eyre's metaphorical expressions be made more grammatical. Wherefore, to taste sweetness in the Promises, is either an act of the understanding, judging of the Promise sub ratione b●ni convenientis, as a most suitable good: and thus, it is a knowledge antecedent to faith, or at most but the beginning of faith itself, Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we have believed, Or it is an act of the Will, embracing, delighting, and taking complacency in the Promise, as his best good: and then it follows immediately, not upon our right and interest in the Promise, but upon our knowledge of that right: for as we desire not that which we do not know; so neither can we rejoice in a right which we know not. The Question then returns, viz. how the soul comes to know its right and interest in the Promise? To say, it knows it by taking complacency in it, is to say it delights in it knows not what; for the will follows the judgement: and to take complacency in a good, which we do not know we have a right in, is naturally impossible. Mr. Eyre therefore may speak truly, when he says, He that tastes the sweetness of Gospel-grace knows his interest therein (such the taste may be); but we are never the wiser in the understanding of the main question: viz. How the soul comes to the knowledge of his interest in that Promise, in which he tastes so much sweetness? from answer to this, Mr. Eyre makes an escape under the darkness of his metaphorical expressions. 5. I desire also to know, whether it be the Promise of pardon and Justification, in which the soul tastes such sweetness, as thereby to have the evidence of his Justification, or some other? If some other, how is it possible that faith should evidence to me my pardon and Justification, by tasting sweetness in that truth which promiseth no pardon or Justification at all? If it be the Promise of pardon, let Mr. Eyre see that he consist with himself. Promises are essentially boni futuri, of a future good. Therefore according to Mr. Eyre, there can be now no Promise of pardon or Justification. Not of the Act, for that is passed from all eternity: not of the Effect, for that is passed as long as since the death of Christ: and therefore neither the one nor the other can be the object or matter of a Promise. It remains then, that it is the Promise of manifesting and declaring Justification. But then behold the sense. My faith doth evidence to me that I am justified, by relishing the Promise which God hath made of manifesting and declaring Justification. Hence it follows, that I have the evidence of my Justification by believing that I shall have it. And then either my faith must be false, or the Promise must be false; for if I do already know that I am justified, that knowledge cannot be future: else the same thing might be and not be at the same time. But there can be no falsehood either in a divine faith, or in a divine testimony. And I desire also Mr. Eyre to reconcile what here he speaks of faiths evidencing, with the Interpretations given before of those say in Scripture, whosoever believes shall receive remission of sins, Acts 10. 43. and 26. 18. That receiving (saith he) is our act, not Gods; namely, our knowing ourselves to be justified. Here he makes it  to faith to beget assurance, as it is a taste of sweetness in the Promise, that is, in the Promise of manifesting Justification: for no other Justification is capable of being promised. Lay all this together, and one or both these two things must be the result, either that I know I am justified, before God manifest it to me (for I believe, and thereby know that I am justified: and the Promise which I believe is, that God will manifest my Justification to me. Ergo, he hath not yet manifested it,) or else the great Promise of justifying them that believe must be resolved into this ridiculous piece of nonsense. He that hath the evidence of his Justification, shall have the evidence of his Justification; for in that he believes he hath this evidence: and the thing that is promised is, that he shall have this evidence.  
Therefore Mr. Eyre doth not limit the evidence of faith, to its relishing 
§. 21.  the sweetness of indefinite and general Promises: but there must concur withal a secret and inscrutable work of the Spirit, to make these general Promises particular. It is not the first time I have been acquainted, both at home and elsewhere, with Pretenders to assurance in such a way; whose lives and ends I have known so well, that I shall (for their sakes) esteem it no other whilst I live, than a carnal, groundless, enthusiastical presumption. Two Authors Mr. Eyre quotes in his margin, as countenancing his doctrine, namely (
k Of faith. sect. 1 cap 9 ●. 4. ) Dr. Jackson, and (
l Sound Bel. pag. 220, 221. ) Mr. Shepherd. But the former hath not a word of making the general Promise particular, but saith only, That the particular manner of the Spirits working this alteration in our souls, (namely, that now we relish spiritual things, which naturally we taste no sweetness in) is a mystery inscrutable, to which I consent. The latter (whose memory is very honourable and precious to me) was the most violent opposer of this doctrine of any man on earth, that ever I knew or heard of: his works show something of it; but they that knew him can testify more. I hearty consent to him, that in vocation the Spirit makes the general call particular, according to the sense in which he explains himself in the place quoted. The soul (saith he) at this instant, feels such a special stirring of the Spirit upon it, which it feels now, and never felt before: as also its particular case so spoken to, and its particular objections so answered, and the grievousness of its sin, in refusing grace so particularly applied, as if God spoke only unto it. All this I believe to be true, but it is nothing in the world to our purpose. To make the common motives and invitations unto faith, to become in this manner particular in their operation, upon particular persons, doth neither affirm nor deny any thing concerning the state and condition of those persons. But to evidence to a man immediately that he is justified, must be by a particular testimony: and that as distinct from the testimony of Scripture (which saith only that believers are justified) as a proper or particular Proposition from a general.  
I say therefore, 1. That the Spirit evidenceth to no man that he is 
§. 22.  justified, who hath not at the same time the evidence of his faith: and so is this evidence of the Spirit always, (at least) implicitly syllogistical. And the soul can have no settled comfort in it, but by analysing the crypsis, and resolving the whole evidence into its parts, after the manner below specified. He that believeth is justified. But I believe, Ergo I am justified. The case is so plain to me, that I appeal to Mr. Eyre himself for judgement. If a man shall come to him and say, Sir, I am assured by the Spirit of God that I am justified, and that all my sins are pardoned, but whether I believe or no, or ever did, that I cannot tell: Would he allow this persuasion to be of God? If not, then doth not the Spirit testify to any man immediately that he is justified: but the evidence of the Spirit (as I said before) is, if not expressly, yet implicitly syllogistical. If so, I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyre's principles. He that doth not believe, cannot be assured that he is justified. But thou dost not believe, Ergo thou canst not have assurance (from the Spirit) that thou art justified. What will be here denied? Not the major, for that's an undoubted truth, grounded in Mr. Eyre's interpretation. Not the minor: for the man whom we are now convincing. of his error, in pretending to assurance by the Spirit, is supposed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo, he cannot truly say he hath faith, though he have it: because to affirm that for truth, which we do not know to be true, is a lie, though the thing should be so as we say. Ergo he must yield to the Conclusion, that his assurance is not from the Spirit: else the testimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture.  
Secondly, Mr. Eyre's words do also contradict themselves notoriously. 
§. 23.  First, he tells us, that faith evidenceth our Justification, by assenting to, and tasting the general Propositions of the Gospel: then he tells us that those general Propositions are made particular by the Spirit to a believer: otherwise he could taste no sweetness in them. To tell us, that faith evidenceth by tasting general Propositions, and then to say in the same breath, that it can taste no sweetness in general Propositions, but they must be first made particular by the Spirit, is to say and unsay. 3. Accordingly the general Propositions in the Gospel, must first be made particular by the Spirit, before the soul can taste any sweetness in them, for which I confess there is all the reason in the world: for the object apprehended must be before the act apprehending: the Proposition assented to and tasted, must be before the act assenting and tasting. But then hence it will follow, that a man before he believes hath a particular testimony from the Spirit, that he is justified. For this Proposition, thus made particular by the Spirit, is the object of his assent and taste, that is, of his faith, Ergo, it exists before his faith; even as the general Promises in the Word exist before we can believe them. But to say, it is evidenced to any man before he believes, that he is justified, is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto disowned, as well he may.  
A man's faith (suppose Peter) can evidence no more to him subjectively, 
§. 21.  than the Word doth evidence to him objectively; even as the eye can see no other thing then what the light makes manifest. But this Proposition, He that believes is justified, doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is justified; for the former is general, and the latter is proper. And otherwise, every one in the world that believes that Proposition, might thereby have the evidence of Peter's Justification, as well as of his own. Even as we know by faith, that they to whom the Lord said, Your sins are forgiven you, were justified as well as themselves. And all believers (one as well as another) know by faith, that the world was made by the Word of God, Heb. 11. 3. because the Scriptures say so. Object. But the Spirit makes this general Proposition to be particular unto Peter▪ Answ. I ask, whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule of all men's faith? If not, then neither of their obedience: which will introduce Antinomianism with a vengeance. If so, (as most undoubtedly so) than this particular testimony of the Spirit, is no object of Peter's faith: which I farther argue thus. It is no object of Paul's faith, that Peter is justified. Ergo, it is no object of Peter's faith. The reason is, because the rule of all men's faith, is one and the same equally. Therefore the faith of Christians is called a common faith, Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect, ibid. ver. 1. which is but one, Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter believe upon the testimony of the Spirit, that which Paul cannot, or hath no ground to believe upon the testimony of Scripture, than Peter's faith doth not act by the same rule that Paul's doth: but there will be as many rules of faith, as there be persons in the world, that pretend to this particular testimony of the Spirit.  
5. To conclude, to make a general Proposition particular, is to 
§. 25.  change the substance and nature of it: for it cannot be general and particular too, (though I readily grant, as before, that a truth proposed in common may be made particular, in respect of its effectual operation upon one, and not upon another: but the Proposition itself remains general still.) Ergo, this particular testimony of the Spirit, must be some other then that of Scripture (unless by being made particular be meant no more, then that a particular is inferred out of a general, which is a syllogistical evidence, not axiomatical, which Mr. Eyre now disputes for). But I do wholly deny any such particular testimony of the Spirit, for which there is not so muth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture: and Mr. Eyre, I think, is of the same mind, for he produceth not one text for it. That which seems most to favour it, is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God, (which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention, and therefore I answer it, for the sake of some others.) Compare this verse with the foregoing, and with a parallel place to the Galatians, and it will not be difficult to give the right sense of it, Gal. 4. 6. Because you are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father. So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father. Then it follows, ver. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That very same Spirit (so I render the words,) beareth witness, etc. Hence I gather, that this witness of the Spirit, is not any secret revelation of a Proposition (as this, Thou Peter or Paul art justified) made by the Spirit to the soul. But the Spirits working in us liberty in our accesses unto God to call him Father, is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument, that we are the children of God. And because Arguments by themselves do not 
m Arguments non arguunt extra dispositionem.  evidence actually, but virtually, therefore the Spirit by this work, helping us to conclude ourselves the children of God, doth thereby witness that we are Gods children.   

SECT. VI  
MY second Argument, to prove that faith doth not evidence Justification 
§. 26.  axiomatically, was this. The faith which justifies, is that which is to be preached and pressed upon the whole world. But we cannot press it upon every man in the world to believe that he is justified, and that if he doth not believe this, he shall be damned.  
Understand (Reader) that the direct tendency of this Argument is to prove, that justifying faith is not a man's assurance that he is justified: which I presumed was Mr. Eyre's judgement: because that Justification which is in Scripture made an immediate consequent of believing, is (with him) a knowledge that we are justified. I thought therefore that he had held faith to be an assurance: because otherwise a man might believe, and yet not be justified by faith. And so the proving that faith was not an assurance, would withal have proved, that it doth not evidence Justification axiomatically or immediately. But now I perceive, that he doth not place the formality of faith in an assurance: but rather makes this an essential property and effect of that (if I understand him.) And so I confess this Argument is not directly against him. Nevertheless, it will not be amiss to examine his answer: for (if I mistake not) either he must make faith to be an assurance tantamount: or else he contradicts himself. His answer therefore is this. We do not press every man to believe that he is justified; but to believe, 1. Assensu intellectus, to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners. 2. Amplexu voluntatis: to accept, embrace, and cleave unto Jesus Christ.  
Rep. I acknowledge this to be the very truth: but Mr. Eyre cannot 
§. 2●.  own it, if he will be true to his own principles. 1. He hath told us before, that faith is essentially assensus cum gustu, an assent, with a taste of sweetness in the Promise assented to. But this circumstance must concur, to make the Promise an object of my faith, namely, that I have right and interest therein; otherwise I can taste no sweetness in it: that is, otherwise I could not truly believe it; for to taste sweetness is essential to faith: Wherefore, when we press all men to believe, and all men equally, and that with a true faith, it is supposed that all men have equally a right in the Promise; or else they are commanded to believe, without an object to be believed: for the object of faith is the Promise, in which I have right and interest, according to Mr. Eyre. And this is that which I say is tantamount, to a persuading of all men to believe that they are justified. To argue it a little farther. The right which I have in the Promise, is either antecedent to my faith, or consequent to it. If antecedent, I have what I would; for then, when in the preaching of the Gospel, the Promise is proposed as an object of that faith, which we persuade all men to, the right of all men equally in that Promise must be presupposed; it being not the Promise simply, but the Promise in which men have right, that is the object of faith. If consequent, than the first act of faith cannot be a taste of sweetness in the Promise; because till I believe, I have no right in the Promise, and therefore can taste no sweetness in it, according to Mr. Eyre.  
To what he here says, that we press all men to believe, there is 
§. 28.  a sufficiency of merit in Christ, for the Justification of sinners: because it is the sum of that which the soul assenteth to, and tasteth sweetness in, and thereby immediately comes to know its own Justification, we must endeavour to understand more particularly. 1. By sinners, he means all, or some only. 2. The sufficiency of the merits of Christ must be understood, either as distinguished from their efficiency, and then the meaning is, That Christ merited Justification for men sufficiently, yet they are not thereby actually justified; or as including their efficiency: and then the meaning is, that men were actually, and most sufficiently justified in the meritorious death of Christ. 3. The same sufficiency of Christ's merits may be considered either absolutely and in themselves, in respect of their own  worth and value; or relatively and ordinatively, in reference to the ordination and intention of God in giving up his Son to death; and of Christ, in giving up himself: which distinctions being premised, it were an easy matter to ring the changes upon the foresaid Proposition, and vary it into innumerable forms: but I shall mention no more than I must needs. When then it is said, that every man is to believe, that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners; the meaning must be either, 1. That the merits of Christ were of themselves sufficient to have purchased Justification for all sinners, (though they did not purchase it de facto for any.) This is false. Or, 2. That Christ's merits are indeed sufficient for the Justification of all sinners; but the effect (which is the actual Justification of sinners,) is suspended till we believe. Nor can this be proposed to be believed by all men equally: for it is false in respect of the Elect, who (according to Mr. Eyre) were justified actually sixteen hundred years ago in the death of Christ Or, 3. That the merits of Christ were sufficient for the Justification of all sinners: but were never ordained to be effectual to the Justification of all, upon any terms or conditions whatsoever. Nor can this be the Promise or Proposition, which is the object of our justifying faith, according to Mr. Eyre; The reason is, because supposing that every man in the world should believe this, (which is no contradiction, and therefore may be supposed as possible) yet they should not be justified notwithstanding: seeing Christ never intended that every man should be justified by his blood, upon any terms. Or, 4. That the merits of Christ were ordained of God and Christ, to the obtaining of Justification for every sinner most sufficiently, if they should or would believe. This is most true, but Mr. Eyre rejects it, as too much gratifying those that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sense, which is a needless fear: and the two Arguments which he here proposeth against it, he might have seen long since answered by Reverend and Learned Bishop Davenant, (of famous memory) in his Dissertation De Morte Christi, cap. 3. page 22, 23, 30, 31. In short, let Mr. Eyre state his Proposition how he will: To say, the merits of Christ are sufficient, and but sufficient (before faith) to Justification, is that which the Elect cannot believe without error. To say they are sufficient in reference to their own value, and intrinsical greatness, 
n Vid. Job Raynoll Apolog. thes parag. 14.  can neither be a motive to an unbeliever to come to Christ for righteousness: nor can the believing it, ever evidence any man's Justification. I am persuaded the devils believe it: and it cannot be denied, but that the merits of Christ were a price of themselves sufficient to have purchased salvation for them, (yea, and to have turned all the stones in the streets into men, and to have glorified them in Heaven.) And it is very strange, that a soul should be drawn to Christ, upon a ground common to devils with himself; or have the evidence of his Justification by believing such a truth, in which the devils have as much interest as himself.   

SECT. VII.  
THe third branch of my Argument succeeds. Namely, that we 
§. 29.  cannot be said to be justified by faith, in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification syllogistically. Two Reasons I gave of this. The first is, because there cannot be found out a medium before faith itself, etc. The farther Explication the Reader may see in my Sermon.  
Mr. Eyre answers, That it is not needful. It is sufficient that faith itself is the medium, as thus. He that believeth, was justified before faith. But I believe. Ergo.  
Rep. The Argument remains good for the purpose, for which I advanced it. For I not knowing certainly in what sense Mr. Eyre would maintain that faith did evidence, could conjecture at none more probable, then that he placed the nature and being of justifying faith in the evidence, knowledge or assurance of our Justification. Upon which presumption, as I had before proved, that it was not assensus axiomaticus, an axiomatical and immediate assent to this Proposition, I am justified; so in this Argument my intent was to prove, that neither was it assensus syllogisticus, an assent to the same Proposition, deduced by way of Conclusion out of premises. And this the Argument proves invincibly. Let us set Mr. Eyre's syllogism before us, and the matter will be plain. He that believes, was justified before faith. But I believe. Ergo, I was justified before faith. Hence it is manifest, that the faith which I affirm of myself in the minor, cannot consist essentially in my assent to the Conclusion: for then the Syllogism would consist but of two Propositions. This is the manifest scope of the Argument, which now I know Mr. Eyre's mind better, I see well enough, doth him but little hurt, and therefore I insist not on the vindication of it. Nor yet may the Reader charge me for arguing impertinently; seeing it was necessary I should suppose and confute what might be said, when I did not know what would be said. I know no other way I had to get out of Mr. Eyre his sense of faiths evidencing. Yet because I did easily foresee he might give that answer, which here he doth, I added the next Argument, which meets with it to the full.  
If we are said to be justified by faith, because faith doth evidence 
§. 30.  Justification syllogistically, then may we be said as well to be justified by sense and reason, as by faith: because sense and reason concur with faith in a syllogistical evidence. As thus. He that believes is justified. But I believe, Ergo, I am justified. The Proposition only is the assent or act of faith. The Assumption an act of sense or spiritual experience. The Conclusion an act of Reason.  
Mr. Eyre answers, That the Conclusion is of faith. As in this Syllogism. All men shall rise from the dead. I am a man. Ergo, I shall rise from the dead.  
Rep. That the Conclusion is de fide, is said, not proved (and I would that way of disputing were less frequent with Mr. Eyre). I acknowledge the Conclusion to be partly of faith, and partly of reason and experience, as Mr. (
o Vindi●. great. p●g 41. fol. ) Pemble determines it. And that the Schools determine otherwise, I will believe when I see. That it is not purely of faith, I thus prove. The assent of faith is grounded in the verity of divine testimony. But the assent to a Conclusion is grounded in the necessity of its (
p Vid. Fr●●. B●ur. Meneriz. d●f. P. Radial. l. 2. c. 9 disquis. 1 & 2. ) consequence upon such and such premises, which forceth the understanding to assent to it: whether of itself it be of necessary or contingent truth: or in what matter soever it be, whether grammatical, physical, theological, or the like. So that a Conclusion is said to be de fide, because it depends upon some principle of saith, in regard of its supernaturality: but formally, Et qu●tenus attingitur per actum Conclusionis: Reason is principium assentiendi proximum, the nearest (
q De Mend●z. loq. disp 1●. de demonstr. sect. 3. ●. 47. ) principle and cause of my assent, otherwise we must have some other definition of a syllogism, than our Universities have hitherto been acquainted with. 2. In the present case, the matter is clearer than Mr. Eyre is ware of. We will suppose Peter to be the man that makes the Syllogism. He that believes, is justified. But I believe. Ergo, I am justified. When he faith in the minor, I believe; he is supposed to speak, not only of that faith, which sin the Will, accepting and embracing a promised good: but of that ialso, which is in the understanding assenting, omni credibili, to all truths proposed to be believed. But (according to Mr. Eyre) it is a truth proposed to Peter's faith, that himself is justified. Let it be expressed then in the Syllogism, and it runs thus. He that believes all the objects of his faith, and particularly that himself is justified, he is justified. But (saith Peter) I believe all the objects of my faith, and particularly that myself am justified. Ergo, I am justified. If the Conclusion be here the side, than Peter believes he is justified, because he believes he is justified: which Conclusion (I confess) is no act of reason. Nevertheless, if Reason be yielded, to be principium assentiendi, the principle of assenting to the Conclusion, there will be better sense in his Argumentation: namely, that Peter knows that he is justified, or is persuaded thereof with a certainty of Reason, because he believes it with a divine Faith: and that he could not do, if he were not justified.  
As to the Syllogism which Mr. Eyre proposeth for Illustration, 
§. 31.  All men shall rise again. I am a man. Ergo, I shall rise again. The Conclusion is partly of faith, and partly of reason. Of reason formaliter & elicitiuè: of faith fundamentaliter & imperatiuè, (as I may so speak) it being a particular knowledge grounded in a principle of faith: for I could not have this knowledge, unless I did by faith assent to the Proposition. But that it is not purely of faith, I thus prove. If a man be sound in the faith of the Resurrection, that believes all men shall rise, though he do not believe that himself shall rise; then to assent that himself shall rise, is not purely an act of faith. Because a man cannot at the same time be sound and unsound in the faith of the same article. But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise, though he do not believe that himself shall rise; for he believes as much as the Scripture reports. If it be said, that a man cannot assent to the one, but he must assent to the other. I think so too. But the ground of it is, because it is against reason, not because it is against faith: and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason, not purely of faith: which was that I was to demonstrate.  
The Conclusion is; there can be no way imagined, in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification, but one of those three mentioned, (Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth: but we have showed, that it must be reduced to one of these three, and so differs in name only, not in thing). But we cannot be said to be justified by faith, in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these ways. Therefore faith must be said to justify in some other respect, then that it doth evidence Justification: or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all.   

SECT. VIII.  
MY third Argument comes next in place. That Interpretation 
§. 32.  of the phrase, which makes us, at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification, is not true. The Reason is, because our Justification by faith, in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just, is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God, Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6, 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith, merely for a Justification in our own consciences, is to make us at least concurrent causes with God, in the formal act of our own Justification. Ergo, it is not to be admitted.  
Mr. Eyre, before he answers the Argument, reforms my expressions, and says, That he doth not say that Justification by faith is merely a Justification in conscience: faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ, etc.  
Rep. Whether merely or not merely, is an impertinent quarrel: he doth it too frequently; and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter, which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ, he answers merely so. And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ, we have already showed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God. But I must tell him, it is most intolerable dealing, to build so large a discourse, as is the greatest part of his book, upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on. The one is, when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof. The other, when he pleaseth to put faith for its object, Christ. When such a weight is laid upon these foundations, had it not been necessary to show us the places, to clear and vindicate them, where these words must have this sense and no other? But to the answer: (for this is nothing but a delay.) This it is.  
The pronouncing of us just, is not the formal act of our Justification: but the imputing of righteousness, which is the Act of God alone: Ministers may pronounce us just, without robbery done to God. So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution, etc.  
Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded, and the sinner thereby 
§. 33.  made his own Justifier. 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will, it matters not much in the present case. The Justification, which in Scripture is said to be by faith, is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier, Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6, 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22, 24, 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith: which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty, to justify us through faith; therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences, that is, of our justifying ourselves, without setting up ourselves in the Throne of God. Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world, as a friend to Papists, for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification, because he thinks it will follow thence, that men may be said to justify themselves? But I see, one may better steal a horse, than another look over the hedge. 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just, I acknowledge to be a little too narrow, as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement: but I do therein also include Justificationem juris, the act of God by the Law of grace, that is, the Promise of the Gospel, giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ. And this is formalissimè, the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification, inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God, saith 
r Medul theol. l. 1. c. 27 thes 12.  Dr. Ames. Now that Justification, which is in Scriptures said to be by faith, is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin, Rom. 4. 2, 5. compared with ver. 6. 11, 24. Ergo, by Mr. Eyre's concession, it is only God's act, and no creature can be joined with him therein, without robbery done to him. But we do join with him by faith, in imputing righteousness to ourselves, if imputing righteousness to believers, be their knowing by faith, that righteousness is imputed to them, as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before, in answer to Rom. 4. 24.  
3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justify 
§. 34.  sinners, yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justify them that believe, for that is an act proper to himself. I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins, John 20. 23. namely 
s Vid. Calv. in loc. & Altham. council. loc. pugn. cap. 194. & Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis. 3. pag. 65.  because it comes to pass upon every one according to the Word which they preached. He that believes shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, to build and to plant, Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they, but the Word which they preached, which did justify or condemn: and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God. So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles, but as moral instruments. Such as they also were in raising the dead, healing the sick, converting of sinners, and the like. All which works were wrought immediately by God himself, immediatione virtutis, without any contribution of virtue or efficacy from man. But when we are said to be justified by faith, if the meaning be, that by faith we know ourselves to be justified: in this case, faith hath a true, proper, immediate and real efficiency in our Justification. And it is every whit as proper, yea, and more proper, to say we know by faith that we are justified, then to say, we know by God that we are justified: the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause; the latter, to the universal. I cannot see, unless God give me an eye, and concur with it in the act of seeing, yet is it more proper to say I see, then that God sees; so neither can I know that I am justified, unless God give me faith, and concur with the act of it, to discover it to me; yet am I more properly said to justify myself, than God to justify me, if by my Justification be meant my knowledge, that I am justified.  
And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause 
§. 35.  of our knowing ourselves to be justified, I see not how it can consist with his Divinity. It is a principle with him, (as we shall see anon) that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace, which hath any cause in the creature. But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace. Ergo, my faith cannot be the cause of it, no, not instrumentally. The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith. All which speak of Justification by free grace: and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification. And now we should dispute the great Question, Whether faith be the condition of Justification? But because there is one, and but one Argument more, proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof, I shall first make good my ground there, and then try out the other by itself.   

SECT, IX.  
MY last Argument therefore was this. If Justification by faith 
§. 36.  must be understood of Justification in our consciences, then is not the word Justification taken properly, for Justification before God in all the Scriptures; for the Scriptures speak of no Justification, but by faith or works; the latter of which is Justification before men, and the former in our consciences, according to Mr. Eyre.  
To this Mr. Eyre answers, chap. 9 §. 10, 11, 12. and his answer is, 1. That Justification in conscience, is Justification before God. Yet himself told us 
Page 61.  before, that the sight of God, in this Question, may not be understood of Gods making it, as it were, evident to our sight, that we are justified: for then the distinction of Justification, in foro Dei & in foro conscientiae, would be a mere tautology.  
Secondly, saith he, If faith be taken metonymically, than Justification by faith is Justification before God: for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ, to whom alone, without works or conditions performed by us, the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God, Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7.  
Rep. I deny, that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ, in the Argument of Justification, though it include him as its object, whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus. Give us some particular place or places, where the word must be necessarily so understood, and we will believe it. 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith: but most expressly and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith, ver. 25. whom God hath set forth to▪ be a propitiation through faith in his blood. And that faith here cannot be taken objectively, is already proved. Yet if it had not been mentioned, it will by no means follow that it must be excluded: seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned. The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith; for the Apostle having said, that we have remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of the grace of God, he shows the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile; namely, by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel, calling them both to one and the same faith, and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings, ver. 8, 9, 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first, and afterward to the Gentile, ver. 12, 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver. 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none, to whom he hath not first given wisdom and understanding, that is, whom he hath not taught to know and believe on his Christ. Howbeit, if faith had not been here mentioned, it must yet needs have been supposed: because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians, as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus, ver. 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong, ver. 3. according to the purpose of God's Election, ver. 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture, but by faith.  
His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of 
§. 37.  mine, That the Antinomians may read their eyes out before they produce us one text for it (namely, where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith) He retorts, That I acknowledge a threefold Justification, and yet neither of them by faith, in my Sermon, page 23.  
Rep. But I do not acknowledge, that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God. Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture: but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God, merited by the death of Christ, and exemplified in his Resurrection.  
2. He tells us, That we have no plain text for many of our dictates: As, 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith. Answ. Mr. Eyre knows well enough, that this is a dictate of his own, and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me; as I observed, page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses, in which I yield Justification may be before faith. But we seek a text of Scripture, wherein the true, proper, formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith. If there be any such text, why is it not produced? if there be none, why is it not yielded? Our second dictate is, That Christ purchased only a conditional, not an absolute Justification for his Elect.  
But where is this said? or by whom? it is by virtue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified, when we have performed the condition of believing.  
The third, that our Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified, is in ourselves. Answ. This refers to Mr. Baxter, whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can. But he knows Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it: which Mr. Eyre should have answered, before he had complained for want of a text.  
The fourth, that the tenor of the New Covenant is, If thou believe, etc. Answ. I am sure, he knows, that many famous Protestants assert this as well as I, and we shall see proof sufficient of it in due place: and of the last also, that none were to have any benefit by the death of Christ, till they believe.  
But Mr. Eyre takes special notice of one passage in this Argument, 
§. 38.  wherein I say, that neither Justification in conscience, nor before men, are of much worth in the Apostles judgement, 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large answer, §. 11. which I am apt to think, he would have taken no notice of, but to acquaint the world with his good wishes concerning me. He refers me to some texts of Scripture, to learn what account the Apostle had of Justification before men, and in conscience (though I cannot learn what account he had of the former, from any of the texts mentioned.) But be it what it will be, I give him this brief reply, That in comparison of Justification before God, neither the one nor the other are much worth, (though they may be of some worth in these inferior Judicatories) Not only children, but grown persons (for aught I know) may be saved, without being justified of men, or of their own consciences. And I will never believe, that that Justification is worthy of those many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Justification by faith, which one may live and die without, and yet be saved. Who will prove to me convincingly, that a Christian may not live many years, and die at last in melancholy or madness (under which distempers the judgement of men, or of conscience, is not much valued) and yet be saved? or that a soul may not, for some grievous sin, go with sorrow and darkness to the grave, and never see light, till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light.    

CHAP. V.  
An Answer to Mr. Eyre's ninth Chapter, whether faith be the condition of Justification? The Affirmative proved from Scripture. Mr. Eyre's Arguments to the contrary all invalid.  

SECT. I.  
TO Mr. Eyre's Argument, That if we were justified by 
§. 1.  faith, we were not purely passive in our Justification, I gave this answer; That to believe is a formal vital act of thesoul in genere physico: but the use of it in Justification is to qualify us passively, that we may be morally & orderly capable of being justified by God: or though physically it be an act, yet morally it is but a passive condition, by which we are made capable of being justified, according to the order and constitution of God. As the reading of the book, or acceptance of a pardon amongst men, is a condition without which an offendor is not pardoned. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely, that faith is not the condition of Justification: wherein I do the more gladly join issue with him. because upon this assertion of ours doth he take occasion to asperse the received doctrine of Protestants, with the reproachful names of Popery and Arminianism. Here therefore I shall show three things. 1. What a condition is? 2. That faith according to Scripture is the condition of Justification. 3. That all Mr. Eyre's Arguments 
§. 2.  to the contrary are most miserably inconclusive.  
A condition than is diversely described by divers Authors. Some describe it thus. 
a Navar. En●h●r. page ●8,.  Conditi● est suspensio ali cujus dispositioni●, tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat. Others thus, 
b Baldus apud Joh. Baptist. in verb  Conditio est adjectio quaedam per quam disp●situm habet in sui esse pendentium existentiam vel defectum. Others thus, 
c Pet. de Perus. ibid.  Est verb●rum adjectio in futurum suspendentium, secundum quam d●●ponens vult dispositum regulari. 
d In L. 1. F. de ●oud & demonstr.  Bartolus thus, Conditio est quidam futurus eventus, in quem dispositio suspenditur. Any of these will serve my turn, these things being agreed. 1. That it pertains to him that disposeth of any thing, to propound upon what condition his will is that it be disposed of, or not disposed of. 2. That the nature of a condition consists mainly in suspending the actual obligation of the disposer, until the condition be performed. 3. That it is the will of him that makes the condition, which is the cause of the obligation that comes upon him when the condition is performed: of which we shall see more anon.  
Now that faith is the condition upon which God hath suspended 
§. 3.  his actual donation of righteousness to a sinner, is so plain and evident to me, that I confess, I cannot but wonder that men acquainted with the Scriptures, should so much as question it. Several expressions there are, taken notice of by 
e Vide Bartelum. late in L. 1. F. the cond. & Demonstr. & Azor. Inst. Moral. par. 3. l. 4. c. 24.  Civilians and Moralists, as signs or notes of a condition: and scarcely one can I find, which the Scripture doth not use somewhere or other, in describing the order and habitude of faith to our Justification. But I shall instance but in one or two. I begin with that Rom. 10. 6, 9 The righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. That salvation here includes Justification, appears from the very next words, ver. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. And I appeal to common sense, whether the particle If in this place be not a manifest sign of a condition upon which Justification is suspended, or whether it be possible for mortal men to invent any words, that can more plainly express the matter of a condition. Try it by comparison with other Scriptures, Gen. 43. 4, 5. If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down; but if thou wilt not send him, we will not go down; and Gen. 34. 22. Only herein will the men consent to us.— If every male amongst us be circumcised. Herein will they consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, upon this condition will they consent: as we render that word, 1 Sam 11. 2. on this condition will I make a Covenant with you. See Gen. 18. 26. 28, 30. Exod. 4. 23. Prov. 2. 1, 4. Jor. 18. 8, 10. and hundreds of other places. In all which the particle If is manifestly conditional: nor upon the strictest observation, which I have made in reading the Scriptures, am I able to espy so much as one place, wherein the said particle hath any other use, when it supposeth to any thing that is future, by virtue of a Promise. Indeed Mr. Eyre did 
f Chap. 5. §. 6.  before mention two places, wherein he will have the particle If, not to propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained, but only to describe the person to whom it belongs, viz. 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, and Heb. 3. 6. whose house are we, if we hold fast our confidence unto the end. As to the former place, it should have been proved, and not said only, that the particle If is not a note of a condition; if to be a vessel of honour be, to be glorified in heaven. Or if to be a vessel of honour do signify a man specially and eminently serviceable unto God, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work (as the Apostle in the same verse expounds it) than the particle If is a note of more than a condition, even of a true proper cause, of an effect that follows naturally, and not by Promise: for the more a man purgeth himself from spiritual defilements and defilers, the more prepared and disposed he must needs be to every spiritual employment. The next place, Heb. 3. 6. is nothing to the purpose, if the particle If be there granted to be merely a description of the person; because the consequent part of the Proposition is not promissory, but simply affirmative. The text saith not, whose house we shall be if we hold fast, but whose we are if we hold fast. Nevertheless 
g Parall. l. 3. in loc.  Junius upon ver. 14. (which in sense is much the same with this) doubts not to affirm the holding fast of our confidence to be a condition. A nobis verò conditionem unicam desiderat (scil. Christus) nempe ut maneamus in ipso— atque hanc conditionem n●tat Apostolus his verbis: siquidem principium illius subsistentiae, etc. which testimony I quote the rather, that Mr. Eyre may know that Junius was no enemy to faiths being a condition, as he doth somewhere represent him: yea, and on this verse he is express, that continuance in the faith, is the condition of our continuing to be God's house. 
§. 4.   
And that the words, Rom. 10. 9 If thou believe with thine heart, &c. cannot be a description of the person merely, I prove largely below, in a particular debate of that place. I have here only one word to speak against it. Either it describes the person from his faith, to signify that as such (that is, as a believer) he is the subject of Justification, and then faith must needs be antecedent to Justification: and if it be antecedent as an act required of us in point of-duty, to a blessing consequent by virtue of a promise, then is it antecedent as a condition. Or it is a mere description of the person, showing, that that is the man that shall be justified: though his faith have no order nor tendency to his Justification, but may as well follow after it as go before it. But 1. This cannot be current sense, if Justification be either from eternity, or immediately in the death of Christ, or at any time before this description be made: for example, Is it sense to say, If thou be the man that dost, or at any time shalt believe, thou shalt be elected, or Christ shall die for thee; when both election and the death of Christ are long since past? or if a man should say, If thou shalt be glorified, thou shalt be justified, would not such a speech suppose, that the person to whom those words are spoken, was as yet not justified? though the Scripture is not wont to speak after this manner in any place. 2. Let us take some parallel place, and see how it will accord with it. As the words of Christ, to the father of the child that was possessed, Mark 9 23. If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. Or the same words to his disciples, Matth. 17. 20. If you have faith as a grain of mustardseed, nothing shall be impossible unto you. If faith do here only describe the person, and not propound the condition, then whether the father had at present believed or no, his child must have been presently healed notwithstanding; supposing him to be a person that at any time should believe: and whether the disciples believe or no at present, all things are possible to them presently, they being the persons whose property it is to believe some time or other. But more of this hereafter.  
Another note of a condition is the particle if not, or except: which 
§. 5.  we find also used in Scripture in this matter: for men are threatened, that they shall not be justified except they believe, John 8. 24. If you believe not, or except you believe, you shall die in your sins: when men are threatened with damnation except they believe, are they threatened absolutely, or conditionally? if the first, than all the men of the world shall be damned: for this is to be preached to all men, that if they believe not, they shall be damned. If conditionally, than faith is the condition of deliverance from damnation. And is not God to be thus understood in all his speeches of like nature? Gen. 44. 23. Except your youngest Brother come down with you, you shall see my face no more. Josh. 7. 12. Neither will I be with you any more, except you destroy the accursed from amongst you. Can the Sun shine more bright in the firmament, than it is clear from hence, that their destroying the accursed from amongst them, was a necessary condition of their enjoyment of God's Presence? Acts 27. 31. Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved. See also Luke 13. 3, 5. Rev. 2. 5, 22. and multitudes of other places. In all which the same particle is a note of a condition, unless we shall have the modesty, to think that the Scriptures were penned on purpose to puzzle and confound our understandings.  
All those texts of Scripture which promise remission of sins to 
§. 6.  them that believe, prove the same thing particularly, Mark 16. 15, 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned, John 3. 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life; and 6. 40. This is the Will of him that sent me, that whosoever seethe the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, with many places of like nature. To all which I guess what Mr. Eyre's answer will be, by what he saith of the last of these, chap. 13. §. 14. pag. 135. This text (saith he) and others like it, do only show who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ, to wit, They that believe.  
Many such cathedral determinations we have from him, without 
§. 7.  so much as a pretence to proof: especially in his answers to Scriptures alleged against him; yet might he very well think that we would expect some solid reason for this his perpetual wresting and abuse of words from their obvious and common sense. 1. It cannot indeed be denied, but that the same words which propose the condition upon which a benefit is obtained, may also consequentèr declare the persons to whom the said benefit doth belong, but that such manner of speech as is used in these texts, doth only show the persons who, and not the condition or means by which a benefit is obtained, is contrary to the perpetual sense of Scripture. Let us transcribe a few texts of many, Numb. 21. 8. And it shall come to pass, that overy one (or whosoever) is bitten, when he looketh upon it, (namely upon the brazen Serpent) shall live. I do the rather instance in these words, because the Lord illustrateth the method of Redemption by them, John 3. 14, 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, etc. If the protasis had been full, it had run thus. As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wilderness, that whosoever looked on him might be healed: even so, etc. And do those words (that whosoever looked on him) only describe the person that was healed, but not propound the condition or means of healing? common sense cannot endure it. Their looking up to the brazen Serpent was antecedent to their healing: and a means ordained for them to use, that they might be healed: and their healing followed by virtue of God's power and faithfulness. Ergo, it was a condition of their healing. And the distributive particle whosoever, doth sufficiently show, that it was every one promiscuously, one as well as another, for whose healing the Serpent was lifted up, through their looking on it; and not a note of distinction to difference one from another. So Mark 11. 23. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain (believingly) Be thou removed, he shall have whatsoever he saith. Is this also a description of the person, but not a propounding of the means by which those works may be obtained to be wrought? see the like expressions, Matth. 13. 12. and 16. 25. and 18. 4. Mark 9 41. Rev. 22. 17. and other places without number. To all which, if Mr. Eyre can oppose but one that will admit such a sense, as here he puts upon the texts under debate, he shall do more than any Author else that I can yet meet with. 2. If these and the like places do only describe the persons that shall be saved, then do they ascribe no more to faith in reference to salvation, then unto works. Works of righteousness being as proper and peculiar to them that shall be saved; as faith itself: and therefore the description of the person might as well be taken from them, as from faith. 3. That which serves only to describe a person in specie, cannot be proposed to another person as a means by which he may enjoy a like benefit, no more than if the said person had been described in individuo; for example, suppose the Lord had described them that shall be saved, not from faith, (their specific quality) but by their proper names, and had said, God gave his Son to death, that Peter, and Paul, and James, and John, etc. might be saved: were it not against all sense and sobriety to go to Geofry, Roger and Anthony, and tell them if they will be Peter and Paul they shall be saved? or suppose the description had been from the species, and the words had run thus, God gave his Son, that whosoever is borne of Jewish Parents should be saved: were it not ridiculous, with all seriousness, earnestness and tenderness of compassion, to exhort and beseech, and charge the Gentiles to be borne of Jewish Parents, that they might be saved? yea, suppose they had been described from their Election, (as they might have been more properly then from their faith) had it not been absurd to exhort men that they would be elected, that so they might be saved? I conclude therefore▪ that the texts before us are not a description of the person, but a proposing of a condition, upon which only salvation is attainable, words that are merely descriptory, can never be resolved into a command or exhortation.   

SECT. II.  
LEt us now see whether Mr. Eyre hath done any thing towards 
§. 8.  a proof, that faith is not the condition of Justification.  
His first Reason is this, That interpretation of the phrase, which gives no more to faith in the business of Justification, then to other works of sanctification, cannot be true. But to interpret Justification by faith merely thus, that faith is a condition to qualify us for Justification, gives no more to faith, then to other works of Sanctification; as to repentance, charity, new obedience, etc.  
Answ. 1. If the Proposition be true, (as I believe it to be most true) Mr. Eyre hath hitherto deluded us grossly in interpreting Justification by faith, for a knowledge or evidence that we are justified: seeing works concur to such an evidence, (and that by his own concession) as was above demonstrated. 2. The Assumption also (I presume) proceeds upon the supposed principles of those whom he opposeth, and not according to his own sense: for I think, he will not say, that any works of Sanctification do qualify us for Justification. 3. I deny the Assumption. And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it? Why Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond say so. Yet are neither of these Authors of such authority with Mr. Eyre in other cases, as that their word should pass for a proof. And yet hath he not fairly represented them neither. Dr. Hammond, I confess, is to me less plain and intelligible: but if Mr. Eyre will undertake that his notion is the same with Mr. Baxters, he might have seen in very many places of Mr. Baxters' writings, that he makes works but the secondary less principal conditions at most, and denies them to be any conditions at all, in reference to our first entrance into a state of Justification. And must we yet believe against an Authors own words, that he ascribes no more to faith then unto other works of sanctification, in the matter of Justification? 4. I also do make repentance a necessary condition of remission of sins, because the Scripture doth so, Luke 24. 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins, and 3. 19 Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, etc. But I conceive withal, that the one is included in the other, and that their difference is rather respective then real, if we speak of faith as it is in the will; partly, as to the object, faith respecting Christ immediately, and repentance God, Acts 20. 21. partly, as to the terms: the same motion of the soul, in respect of the terminus à quo, (namely, dead works) being called repentance: and in respect of the terminus ad quem, (namely God in Christ) more peculiarly faith, Heb. 6. 1. Repentance also in its formal notion, includes shame, and sorrow, and self-abhorrency, etc. which faith precisely doth not. As to the Conclusion of this paragraph, which concerns my subscription to the testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, (a book so called) I do not remember that ever I subscribed it in this or any other County.  
The second Argument is this. To interpret Justification by faith, 
§. 9  that faith is a necessary antecedent condition of Justification, gives no more to faith then to works of nature, as to sight of sin, legal sorrow, etc. for if these be conditions disposing us to faith, and faith a condition, disposing us to Justification, then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification; for causa causae est causa causati.  
Answ. This Argument at the long run overthrows all humane contracts: at least, it fights as strongly against them as against us. Titius gives a hundred pounds per annum to Sempronius, upon conditon he give two pence a week to Maevius. This two pence cannot be paid, unless the silver be digged out of the mines, and melted, and stamped, and delivered out of the Coiners hand, etc. Ergo▪ S●mpronius his giving two pence a week to Maevius, is not the condition of his holding his 100 li. per annum: at lest no more than the mine or bank is. Is not this gallant Logic? 2. I deny that legal sorrows, and the sight of sin, etc. are necessary conditions disposing to faith: because God hath not promised to give faith, if we be convicted or legally sorry. These Preparations are necessary physically, not morally: because the soul cannot seek out for life and salvation in another, while it hath confidence of sufficiency in its self. If any man believe without these, he shall be saved notwithstanding. 3. The answer therefore is, that the things which are necessary naturally, are not the conditions of gift, but those only which are made necessary by the will of the Donour; 
h L. conditiones eztrinsec. F. de cond. & demonstr.  and so doth the Civil Law determine. Caius gives Seius all the fruits that grow upon his farm the next year: it is necessary that fruits grow upon the farm, or else Seius cannot have them: yet Caius his gift is not conditional, but absolute. 4. As to that logical axiom. Causa causae est causa causati. Mr. Eyre knows it must have more limitations than one, or else 'tis dangerously false. But in the present case 'tis altogether impertinent; for neither are legal preparations the cause of faith, nor faith the cause of Justification, but the condition only, and so the causa & causatum may go whistle.  
The third Argument is this, that by which we are justified is the 
§. 10.  proper, efficient, meritorious cause of our Justification. Faith as a condition is not so. Ergo.  
Answ. I deny the major. Mr. Eyre proves it by a threefold Argument. 1. By the use of these Propositions (particles he would have said) by and through in ordinary speech, which note a meritorious or instrumental cause. As when we say, A soldier was raised by his valour; a tradesman lives by his trade. 2. From the contrary phrase: as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works, and by the Law, he excludes works from any causal influx into our Justification. Now that which he denies to works, he ascribes to faith. 3. From other parallel phrases in Scripture, where we are said to be redeemed, justified and saved. Per Christum, per sanguinem, per mortem, per vulnera.  
Answ. These are 
i De Justif. l. 1. c. 17.  Bellarmine's wise Arguments, to prove that faith doth justify per modum causae, dignitatis aut meriti; by way of causality, worth or merit; which it seems Mr. Eyre accounts unanswerable, otherwise he would not have brought them again upon the stage in an English dress, when our Protestants have beat them off so often in Latin. 1. To the first, I deny that the particles By or Through are always the notes of a cause meritorious or instrumental. How many times do we find them in one Chapter, where they are not capable of any such signification? Heb. 11. 5. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and ver. 11. Through faith Sarah received strength to conceive seed, ver. 30. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, ver. 33. By faith they stopped the mouths of Lions, ver. 35. Women by faith received their dead raised to life again, with many other passages in that Chapter. That it is the grace of faith which is here spoken of▪ appears from the description of it, ver. 1. will Mr. Eyre grant the Papists, that faith was the meritorious cause of these effects? I hope than he will no more reproach me as popishly affected. It may be he will say it was the instrumental cause: But let him show how. What instrumental efficacy did faith put forth in enoch's Translation? did it either subtilise or immortallize his body? or how was faith an instrument in throwing down the walls of Jericho? It is naturally impossible agere in distans, to act upon an object which the Agent toucheth not, formally or virtually: or what efficiency did faith put forth upon dead bodies, to raise them to life again? These effects are no otherwise ascribed to faith, then as the condition upon which they were wrought, and without which they could not have been wrought, according to God's ordination. As it is said concerning the Lord Jesus, That he could not do many mighty works in his own country, because of their unbelief, Mark 6. 5, 6. with Matth. 13. 58. Not that their faith had contributed any thing to his ability: but that their unbelief, by virtue of God's ordination, made them uncapable of being the subjects, for and amongst whom those works were to be wrought.  
To the second, I deny that Justification is ascribed to faith in the 
§. 11.  same sense, in which it is denied to works, though it be the same Justification, as to its common nature, which is ascribed to that, and denied to these: and therefore cannot be meant of a Justification manifested to conscience, as Mr. Eyre interprets it, when he comes to particular places. 'Tis confessed, that when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works, he excludes works from any causal influx into our Justification. But it will by no means follow, that when he ascribes it to faith, he doth therefore acknowledge faith to be a cause. No more than the like opposition in Scripture doth denote the same kind of cause on both sides, R●m. 9 8. N●t the children of the flesh, but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed, and ver. 11. Not of works, but of him that calleth, and ver. 16. Not of h●m that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, and Rom. 11. 6. Not of works, but of grace. Estne inter Pontisicios quisquam tam excors, ●t audeat affirmare, in istis opp●sitioni●us idem planè genus causae utrinque notari? Is any man amongst the Papists so sottish (saith 
k Bell ene●v. Tom 4. c. 4. p. 3●6. dued.  Dr. Ames) as that he will dare to affirm. that in these oppositions, the same kind of cause is signified on both sides? The like I say to the third, when we are said to be justified by Christ, by his death, by his blood, etc. the particle By doth denote the proper meritorious cause of our Justification. But that it may not in other sentences signify some other Argument, as well as a cause, must remain to be proved, till the time when we are to expect Mr. Eyre's rejoinder.   

SECT. III.  
THe fourth Argument succeeds. To make faith a condition morally 
§. 12.  disposing us to Justification, makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification.  
Answ. I deny it utterly.  
A double Argument Mr. Eyre presents us with for proof. 1. We should not be Justified freely by his grace, if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification: for a condition, whensoever it is performed, makes the thing covenanted a due debt, which the Promiser is bound to give: and then Justification should not be of grace, but of debt.  
Answ. Gladly am I come to this objection: and I shall give it a large answer, not for any strength there is in it; but because Mr. Eyre pretends in his title-page, and the inscription of his book throughout, to oppose the ancient Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith, upon the quarrel of free grace. And it is upon the point the total sum of all he hath to say for his neoterick notion: but they may be taken with words that will.  
The place which he alludes to in the objection is, Rom. 3 24. Being justified freely by his grace. But which of these two words is it that excludes conditions? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? grace or freely? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
l Vide ●rist. Rhet. l 2. c 7.  Grace as it is a virtue or affection in man, is that which inclines us to bestow of what we have to them that are indigent and necessitous: not for any thing we have received, nor for any profit and advantage we expect by what we give from him to whom we give, but that he may be benefited by us. Accordingly it is accounted great (and the Scriptures amplify the grace of God from the same Arguments either in respect of the persons that receive our gratuities, if they be extreme 
m Ezek 16. pertot. Rom. 5. 6.  indigent and impotent: or in respect of the things given, if they be 
Eph▪ 7. Rom. 5. 7, 8. and v 6. 0 1 John 4. 19 John 3. ●6▪  great, difficult, or seasonable: or in respect of the giver, if ●e be the first, or only, or principal. But surely this grace doth not exclude all manner of conditions. Jacob sent a present to Es●u, that he might finde grace (●●) in his sight, Gen. 32. 5, 21. and 33. 8. the LXX, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and Prov. 3. 3, 4, Let not mercy and truth forsake thee.— So shalt thou find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace in the sight of God. And the Apostle exhorts that we come to the throne of grace, that we may find grace, Heb. 4. 16. Is grace any whit the less gracious, because we are required to seek it, that we may find it? Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it is of faith, that it may be by grace. And more places which we shall mention below.  
The Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a qualification of the former: and expresseth 
§. 13.  the freeness of grace, by removal of worth and sufficiency in the person, who of grace receives a benefit. Thus Mat. 10. 8. Freely you have received, freely give. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As their power cost them nothing, but was freely given them; so should they do good with it freely, without payment or recompense. So the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth an act which is only from the will and inclination of the Agent, without any sufficient, external, meritorious cause, Psal. 35. 7. Without cause have they hid for me their net, Psal. 69. 4. They hate me without a cause, and 119. 161. Princes have persecuted me without a cause. David saith, He will not offer to God gratis, or of that which cost him nothing, 2 Sam. 24. 24. Thus servants went out freely, when they did not purchase their liberty, but it was given them without price, Exod. 21. 2, 11. as also the 
p L. mandatum F. manned. & contra C. L. 6. 7. §. Non est ignotum.  Civil Law determines. And what in Isa. 55. 1. is called a buying without money, is expounded, Rev. 22. 17. A taking of the water of life freely. So that unless it can be proved (of which more presently) that all conditions whatsoever are meritorious causes, proportionable in value to the benefit a man obtains upon performance of the condition, the name of free grace will prove but an empty noise, and a cloak of error.  
We must therefore with our Protestants distinguish of conditions. 
§. 14.  Thus 
q In disp. de satisfact. p. 365.  Cameron. Si multae conditiones requiruntur in justificandis, quae habent proportionem cum justitiâ Dei, concedo: Sed si conditiones quae requiruntur in justificandis, nullam habent proportionem cum justitiâ Dei, nego inde effici justificationem non esse ex mera gratia: nam non excluduntur conditiones omnes, sed eae quae possunt habere rationem meriti. The sense of which words is given us by 
r Comment. in Ep 250.  Paul Bayne. There are some conditions whereon, they only interceding, we promise and undertake to do a matter, or bestow a kindness on any. As, Go with me to such a place, and I will give thee hidden treasure: or, come to me to morrow, and I will give thee a hundred pounds. There are other conditions which have the reason of a cause meritorious: such do not only intercede, but deserve upon contract as much as we promise. As, Do my work well, and I will pay you truly, etc. Thus he, 
s Gerhard de Evang. cap. 3. §. 26. Quando Evangelicas promissiones conditionales esse negamus, non quamvis conditionem, sed in specie, conditionem nostrorum meritorum excludimus— Alia igitur est conditio fidei à conditione operum: illa non opponitur gratuito dono, haec verò opponitur. In eundem se●sum Rolloc. de vocat. p. 16.  and others to the same purpose. A distinction which we are necessitated to make use of, though it distinguish rather the matter of a condition, than the formal nature of it; for if any condition be proportionable to the reward promised, that is not because it is a condition, but because it is 
t Aliae sunt conditiones praeter causas efficientes. Ames. contra Bellarm. de neces. oper. ad salut. c. 6. circa princip.  a cause, which is also made the condition.  
Moreover, we must also distinguish of that which Mr. Eyre calls a 
§. 15.  due debt; for 
u Hug. Grot. de jure Belli. l. 2. c. 7. § 4. Covarr● v. 2 ae. part. relect. §. quartus. n. 5 p. 288.  Debitum vel strictè sumitur, etc. A debt is either taken strictly, for such an obligation as ariseth from commutative justice: or largely, for that which is due in point of honesty and faithfulness, though it be not due in justice: so that if it be not done there is no injustice to any other person; but he that doth it not is defective, as what is due by virtue of a free Promise. And such an obligation as this God himself refuseth not, 1 John 1. 9 Tit. 1. 2. Heb. 6. 10. and 10. 23. Nor is that which is given by virtue of such an obligation any whit less free, or less of grace, then if it were given without it. 
x Lessius de just. & jur. L. 2. c 40 d. 8. p. 548.  Si obligatio orta sit ex liberali promissione; quod ex eâ datur, etiam gratis datur: non enim obligatio quae nascitur ex promissione liberali repugnat liberalitati, sed est ejus effectus. What is given by virtue of a free Promise, is also freely given: because an obligation arising from such a Promise, is not repugnant to grace or liberality, but is the effect thereof. And that conditional promises may be such, not only all (I say all that ever I could get sight of) our Protestants stand for, but the Papists themselves yield it. 
y Snarez. opus. relect. delib. divin. d 2 n. 44. & A Sanct. Clara. de Nat. Grat. p. 135. 136. Durand. in 2. d. 27. q. 2. n. 12. 13, 14.  Promissio beneficii sub conditione alicujus operis requisiti solummodo ex quadam decentia vel dispositione, & non quia in eo invenitur valor respectu mercedis, non impedit quin collatio boni promissi sit simpliciter liberalis, etiam tali conditione praestita, ita ut donum sit gratuitum: quia tale opus non est sufficiens ad fundandam justitiam ac proinde non excludit gratiam. The Promise of a benefit, on condition of a work required, only as of decency, or as a disposition, and not because of its worthiness in reference to the reward, doth not hinder, but that the giving of the promised benefit is simply free, even when the condition is performed: because such a work is not sufficient to ground an obligation of justice, and so doth not exclude grace.  
These things being thus premised, we shall now cast Mr. Eyre's Argument 
§. 16.  into form, and turn it going.  
If faith be the condition of our Justification, then upon our believing we are justified of debt, not of grace. The reason is, because what is promised upon condition, the condition being performed becomes a due debt. But the consequence is false, Ergo, so is the antecedent.  
Answ. To the Proposition I answer, 1. In general, that Mr. Eyre himself denies it, when he thought it might be for his advantage, pag. 190. No man (saith he) will say, that the condition required of Adam, was meritorious of eternal life in a strict and proper sense: And yet urgeth here, that if faith be the condition, Justification must needs be of debt. 2. I distinguish, if the meaning of the Proposition be, that Justification becomes due in that larger sense, which we spoke of but now, if faith be the condition of it, than I grant it. But if the meaning be (as I believe Mr. Eyre intends, by quoting Rom. 4. 4.) that it becomes due in justice, than I deny it. And what's the proof? why, a condition performed makes the thing promised a due debt. The substance of this axiom I meet with, I think, not less than twenty times in Mr. Eyre's book, but no where else in all the books I have, Civilians or Canonists. And as often as 'tis used, he doth not once attempt to prove it, but leaves it naked to the world to shift for itself. Conditions are either causal, such as have proportion of worth to the benefit promised: and these being performed, make the thing promised a due debt. As when I promise my servant five pounds, if he will serve me for such a term of time. Some be merely illative or dispositive: as when I promise a man to give him twenty pounds, if he will come and fetch it. And these conditions (of which kind is faith,) do not make the reward due in justice: which I thus prove.  
Where there is not aequalitas dati & accepti, an equality between 
§. 17.  the thing received and promised, there can be no obligation of justice. But it is supposed, that between these conditions and the things promised there is no equality. Ergo. I suppose it will be said, that though the things of themselves be not equal, yet they are made equal by the promise or contract, the condition being performed. To which I answer, that it is impossible. Indeed I think the Civil Law allows an action upon such promises, when the condition is performed (
z Vide Vigel. de Dreys. Jnst. Jur. l. 3. c. 8. & Wessemb. paratit. D l. 50. tit. 12.  and so it doth also in some cases, upon the most absolute promise) but we inquire not what is just justitiâ civili, but what is just justitiâ naturali. And I say again, that a work, which hath of itself no proportion to such or such a reward, receives no increase of worth by the Promise, that settles such a reward upon it, or by being made the condition of such a Promise. If it doth, than the value of the work is to be measured by the reward that is promised to it, and so the mercy and liberality of the Promiser excludes his mercy and grace in fulfilling his Promise. For if the Promise make the condition equal to the reward, then in fulfilling his Promise, he doth but aequalia aequalibus rependere, proportion the reward to the worth of the action, and so cannot exercise grace and liberality in performing his Promise; for example, A King promiseth a condemned Traitor, that if he will but acknowledge his offence, and accept of his royal favour, he will not only give him his life, but advance him to such honour, wealth and power, as shall make him the second man in the Kingdom, yea, and leave him his successor in the Throne: That such a Promise is of special grace and favour, he is not a reasonable creature that shall deny; but if the Traitors acknowledgement and acceptance of the King's favour, by being made the condition of his deliverance and advancement, become forthwith proportionable thereunto, then is it no mercy nor grace in the King, to bestow these favours upon him. Yea, the same work will be of more and less value. Suppose another Traitor upon the same condition be promised his life, and no more. In the former, it is of a great deal more worth and value then in this, because proportionable to a greater reward. Yea, and it will be impossible that there should be any cheating in buying and selling, or any other contract, if things of themselves unequal become forthwith equal, by virtue of a contract. Suppose a man give a great price for a Jewel, and the Jewel prove counterfeit: yet by virtue of the contract, it becomes equal to the price he gave for it, and the buyer may not complain of the injustice of the cozenage. Several other Arguments may the Reader see to this purpose in learned 
a De Just. Act. c. 63. & Voss. The s●de bon. oper merit. p. 72.  Davenant.  
Here it may be demanded, whether works in the first Covenant, 
§. 18.  were proportionable to the reward promised? which, with some limitations, I shall answer affirmatively. But because Mr. Eyre gives me here no occasion to speak to it, but urgeth it strongly in another place, the Reader must have patience till he come thither. In the mean time let us see whether it cannot be proved, that a gift may be given of grace, and yet upon condition. 1. I put this case, Philemon promiseth Onesimus, upon condition he will acknowledge, that he neither hath, nor can merit any good of him, but rather that for his thievery and several other injuries which he hath done him, he hath deserved to be quite cast out of his favour, that he will forgive former injuries, and moreover make him heir of all he hath. That he may give it upon such a condition is unquestionable, for a man may make what he will the condition of his owu gift. Voluntas regit conditiones, saith the 
b L. in conditionib. F. de Conned & domonstr.  Law. Onesimus accepts and performs the condition. I do ask, whether he do thereby merit his Master's favour and estate, or no? If not, the question is yielded: if so, than contradictions and impossibilities may be true. For he confesseth, that he neither hath nor can merit any thing of his Master: and yet in so saying, he doth merit, even all his Master is worth. Now faith is a condition of like nature: as being an act of self-dereliction, a kind of holy despair, a renouncing of all worthiness in ourselves, as Mr. Eyre expresseth it, page 76. and this doth the Lord require as the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy, Jer. 3. 12, 13. I am merciful saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever: only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God.  
But let us search the Scriptures. Jer. 18. 7, 8. At what instant I 
§. 19  shall speak, concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that Nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil; I will repent of the evil which I thought to do unto them. A famous instance we have of it in Nineveh, against which Jonah cries, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. Jonah 3. 4. In the former place, God gives us a general rule to understand his threaten, as having a  condition of repentance, by which the evil threatened may be escaped. Otherwise Janas had spoken false in the Name of the Lord, in threatening destruction to Nineveh within forty days: for the city was not then destroyed; but upon their repentance, what the Lord promised in Jeremy, he performed upon them, Jon. 3. 10. God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God repent of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did it not. 
c Vide Krakevitz. in loc. p. 341.  Repentance then (if God be a God of truth, and cannot lie) is the condition of our deliverance from threatened evils: suitable to that of our Lord, Luke 13. 3. Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish. Yet Gods saving men (Nineveh in particular) upon their repentance, is an act of his grace, not of their merit: and unto that grace of God doth Jonah ascribe it, Jon. 4. 2. I knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful. In like manner is Israel's deliverance from the judgements threatened, ascribed to the free grace and mercy of God, as the only cause: though not without their own repentance and returning unto God as the condition thereof, Joel 2. 12, 13, 14. So 2 Chron. 30. 19 For if you turn again unto the Lord, (there's the condition) your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, (there's the cause) and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him, Deut. 4. 30, 31. When all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient to his voice: for the Lord thy God is a merciful God, he will not destroy thee, neither forsake thee, etc. So chap. 30. 2, 3. Indeed the word grace or gracious, is not expressly mentioned in this text; but mercy is, which is tantamount to it: and likely they go both together, as before, Jonah 4. 2. Joel 2. 13, 14. 2 Chron. 30. 9 Exod. 34. 6. And if their returning unto God, be here denied to be the condition of their deliverance from destruction, of which notwithstanding the mercy and grace of God is asserted to be the only cause: I must profess for my own part I shall think it a hard matter to prove, that there is one intelligible sentence in all the Scripture: yea, and let me speak my judgement freely; though I detest the Papists doctrine of merits, yet if Mr. Eyre will make good his position, 
d Donationi potest apponi conditio; nec ideo minùs pura & vera dona●io dicitur, dummodo ex illa commodum non accedat donanti. Greg. Tholos. Syntag juris. l 28 c. 7 §. 7. ●x C. L. 8. tit. 55  that every condition is a meritorious cause, it must of necessity be granted, that they have done more for the proof of merits, than all the protestants on earth will ever be able to answer: for I do not know one Protestant, but yields, that there are many Promises of grace, which yet are conditional. And thus much for the first Argument, by which Mr. Eyre endeavours to prove, that we are concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification, if faith be made the condition thereof.  
The second succeeds, and that is this. If faith be a condition, 
§. 20.  morally disposing us for justification, we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification; for the merits of Christ are not a physical, but a moral cause. Now by ascribing to faith a moral causal influx in our Justification, we do clearly put it in eodem genere causae with the blood of Christ.  
Answ. 1. The merits of Christ do not concur in our Justification, as any part of that formal act by which we are justified. It is God as Supreme Lawgiver, and Judge, and Christ as King under him who is our Justifier. The merits of Christ are a cause of themselves, moving God to put forth that act. 2. I would ask Mr. Eyre, whether the death of Christ be no more than a condition without which we are not justified? if it be, he doth ill to talk of my putting faith in the same kind of cause with Christ's death: for I ascribe no more to faith, then that it is a condition, without which not. If it be not, Mr. Eyre, I doubt, will be found guilty of degrading the blood of Christ, more than I of advancing faith beyond its due place. 3. By faith we concur to our own Justification, not causally, but objectively, & terminatiuè; as the earth concurs to my going, as the thing I walk upon: a visible object to my sight, as the thing seen: and other objects to the acts that are conversant about them. 4. And the Argument at last begs the question: for it supposeth that we ascribe to faith a causal influx into our Justification, which is the thing I dispute against.   

SECT. iv  
THe fifth Argument succeeds. That interpretation of this 
§. 21.  phrase, which makes works going before Justification, not only not sinsul, but acceptable to God, and preparatory to the grace of Justification, is not according to the mind of the Holy Ghost. But to interpret Justification by faith, that faith is a condition qualifying us for Justification, doth so. Ergo. The tree must be good, or else the fruit cannot be good, Luke 6. 43, 44. Mat. 12. 33. John 15. 5. So Augustine, Parisiensis, the Articles of the Church of England, etc.  
Answ. The substance of this is answered already, chapt. 5. works are taken largely or strictly: in the former sense faith is a work; in the latter it is opposed to works. The Authors whom Mr. Eyre mentioneth, as 
e Aug. Serm. 96. de Temp. Nemo bono operatur nisi fides praecesserit. & de Spirit & lit. c. 8. opus non fit nisi à Justificato. Justificatio autem ex fide impetratur.  Augustine, etc. Take works as they are opposed to faith, whereof the words quoted are an uncontrollable evidence. If Mr. Eyre had showed us, that his legion of Orthodox Writers did as much oppose the antecedency of faith as of works to Justification, he had spoken to purpose. The tree indeed must be good before the fruit can be good. But the tree is made good by faith, and the Spirit of Sanctification, which is the good treasure of the heart, which bringeth forth good works, Luke 6. 45. John 15. 5. I never heard before, that Justification (which is a grace without us) was the root and inward principle, of good actions.  
The sixth and last Argument is this, To say that faith is a passive 
§. 22.  condition, that doth morally qualify us for Justification, implies a contradiction.  
Answ. I deny it.  
Mr. Eyre proves it thus. To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect, is a flat contradiction (and yet this also should be delivered with a little more caution: a Christian is both active and passive in all the good works he doth, but I stand not on it.) A condition is a moral efficient cause of that which is promised upon condition, in the use of the Jurists: though in the logical notion of it, it hath not the least efficiency.  
Answ. And why may not we be permitted to use it in its logical notion? the most logical sense is the most rational. And seeing Mr. Eyre confesseth, that in its logical notion, a condition hath not the least efficiency; he must give me leave to account his Argument illogical, that is, irrational, that proceeds upon supposition of the contrary. 2. It is also notoriously false, that a condition is a cause in the use of the Jurists; for they do perpetually distinguish a cause from a condition: as appears by the very title of the thirty f●fth book of the Digests. De Conditionibus & Demonstrationibus, & Causis, & Modis eorum quae in Testamento scribuntur. Which the 
f Dyon. Gotho▪ ●red Not. in hunc tit. W●semb. paratit in eund. Cujac. l. 2. observ. c 39 G. Tholos. Sy●t. juris. l. 42. c. 32.  Jurists thus distinguish, Causa exprimit rationem quae nos movet ut alteri legemus. Demonstratio rem ipsam legatam notat, designat 
§. 51, 52, 53. Azor. Instit. mor. par. 3. l 4. c. 24.  ao d●pingit. Conditio suspendit transmissionem legati, etc. Which differences they fetch out of the Law itself. 3. If all conditions be causes, than such as the Law calls 
g C. de caduc. tollend. §. Sin autem.  contingent and casual are causes also: as having as much of the nature and use of a condition, as that which they call arbitrary or potestative. But that a condition merely casual should be the cause of a gi●t, is that which the (
h Vide P. Nic. Moz. de contract. c. 2. de do nat. p. 141. Ratio est: quia cum con●itio dependet à ca●u fortuito, non censetur dona●s moveri ad donandum contemplatione illius casus, sed ex suâ liberalitate: non tamen donare vult nisi casus eveniat. De quo etiam Riminal. Instit de donat. in princip. n. 59 ) Jurists will never endure. As if Titius promise Seius five hundred, if the ship called Castor and Pollùx come into the river of Thames by July next. Or if he give him the same sum with a Proviso, that if he die before the age of twenty one, than it shall come to Caius his younger brother. That an accidental effect should be a meritorious cause is not imaginable. 4. The case is the same again in all arbitrary or voluntary conditions, (If they be merely such, and have nothing beyond the nature of a condition added or concurring) for the distribution of conditions, in casuales & potestativas, is not generis in species, but subjecti in adjuncta: for a condition is one and the same in its nature and use, whether the act or event which is made the condition, be merely casual or voluntary. And therefore when Mr. Eyre says, that if a man do any thing for obtaining a benefit, he is active in procuring it, if he mean physically, I grant it; if morally, I deny it: because a voluntary act, when it is a condition, contributes no more to the obtaining of a benefit, than a contingent act, being also a condition: and yet by such a casual condition doth a man obtain a benefit, and yet acts nothing toward it.  
Let us, for clearing and concluding this dispute, again resume the 
§. 23.  instance given before. Philemon promiseth Onesimus, that if he will confess his fault, he will pardon him, and give him his whole estate: which condition Onesimus performs. I ask now, whether his performance of this condition be the cause of his pardon, and of the gift promised him. If not, than Mr. Eyre must confess this Argument to be nothing: if so, then let us know plainly what cause it is: (for Mr. Eyre holds me altogether in generals, and determines without one syllable of proof, that it is a cause, but tells me not what cause it is, nor what its causality). Is it a meritorious cause? That cannot be: because there is nothing in his confession, that can countervail the greatness of the injury, or hold proportion with the reward; or doth it move merely objectively? as we say poverty moves a liberal man, and misery a merciful man? But this is very improperly called a motive cause, being indeed no cause at all, but the exiigency or moral capacity of a person, to be the object of an act of mercy or liberality: otherwise, by how much the greater man's misery is, by so much the less praiseworthy is God's mercy in relieving us: because, by how many the more causes concur to an effect, by so much the less praise is due to each. That faith moves in this manner, I will not deny, but this will not make it a cause, at lest no other than à causa sine qua non: and how a mere condition (such as in the instance given should be any other) I cannot conceive. Briefly, if the condition aforesaid, performed by Onesimus, be the cause of his Master's gift, then either of the Promise, or of the execution of it. But the said condition is neither the cause of the Promise, nor of fulfilling it. Ergo. Not of the Promise; for philemon's will is the cause of the condition: Ergo, the condition is not the cause of philemon's will signified in his Promise: for the effect cannot be the cause of its cause. A condition as such, cannot move the Donour to promise, because it is his will, and nothing else, that makes it a condition, (though I deny not, but there may be something in the condition, which may move the will quoad specificationem, that is, incline it to pitch upon this rather than that: or to make this the condition rather than that) Not of the performance of the Promise, for the same reason: for it is most absurd, that the will should make its own motive causes. As if we should suppose Philemon saying thus, I will make his confession the condition of my gift, and then I will be moved by it to bestow it upon him. If there be not attractive virtue enough, (as I may so call it) in the condition, till the will resolve to be moved by it, then surely the motion of the will is from itself, not from it. Wherefore the cause, both of the Promise and Performance, is philemon's good will, who of his own accord obligeth himself to give such a gift, such a condition being performed, and will not be obliged without it: if he would, he might give it presently without any condition: but as it is his will, that the Donee shall be uncapable of receiving any benefit by him, unless such a thing be done; so is it his will which makes him capable of receiving it when it is done.   

SECT. V  
THis I did illustrate in my Sermon by a double comparison: of 
§. 24.  an offendor pardoned by reading the book, or upon condition that he accept of the pardon: by neither of which can he yet be said to pardon himself. To the latter instance, I do not find that Mr. Eyre speaks a word; but invades the former resolutely, and says,  
That an offendor saved by his Clergy, is not passive, but active in saving his life, he may properly be said to save himself. Yea, he doth more in saving his life: then either the Law or the Judge: as the welsh man that cried, God bless her father and mother that taught her to read.  
Rep. Supposing that the reading of the book be a mere condition (such as is the acceptance of the pardon in the second instance) abstracted from all considerations of the worth and benefit of learning; I answer, 1. That whereas Mr. Eyre says, He that reads may be properly said to save himself; I would have granted it, if he had left out the word properly. Because he may be said to save himself, who doth that without which he should not be saved, though his doing do not cause it, and therefore the speech is improper. Nor doth the Scripture abhor from the like manner of speech: for thus saith the Lord, Luke 7. 50. Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace: which salvation is before called forgiveness of sin, ver. 48. and Mark 5. 34. Thy faith hath made thee whole, go in peace. So Luke 18. 42. which though it were a bodily cure, yet was it a representation and assurance of spiritual blessings: and the faith by which she received it, the very same by which we obtain remission of sins, as our (
i A●●s. B●ll. enerv. tom. 4. l. 5. p. 319. 12º, Miracula istiusmodi fuerunt singularia D●i beneficia, quibus Justificationis b●nedictio fuit adumbra●a. Luke 4. 18. 3. Beneficia ista saepe conjunct● fuerunt cum Justificatione. Gerh. de. Justis. per sid. §. 158 p. 956. Marc. 5 36. Luc. 8. 50. Quamvis ve●ò ibises. non agatur propriè de side Justificante, mani●estum tamen est fidem st●tui unicum illud medium per quod divino●um beneficiorum, ac p●oinde & ●e●issio●i peccato●um & just●tiae reddamur participes, credenti enim omnia possibilia. Mark 9 23. S●e also Down. of Justif. l. 6. c 15 ●. 11, 1●. ) Protestant's prove against the Papists. And yet no question but the speech is improper: for in propriety of speech, it was the power and grace of God, that healed the one, and saved the other. In the same phrase of speech are the Jews exhorted to save themselves, Acts 2. 40. and Timothy to save himself, 1 Tim. 4. 16. And the Patriarches by faith, to have done such things as are quite above all created power, as was before observed out of Heb. 11. 2. And whereas the welsh man blesseth his father and mother that taught him to read: A Christian may with seriousness bless God in like manner, and give thanks unto the father, for making of him meet, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be one of the Partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, Col. 1. 12. That we perform the condition is from the grace of God, no less than the blessings we partake in upon performance of it: and therefore the praise of all is due to him only. Yet the grace is greater in giving the latter than the former, by how much the end is better than the means. And if the welsh man did indeed think, that he was more beholding to his reading, then to the courtesy of his Prince, for his life: his Logic was as ridiculous as his language; for though the Law would not have saved him without his reading, (and much less would his reading have saved him without that favourable Law) yet his life is a thousand fold more worth than his reading of two or three lines: and therefore he owes a thousand times more thanks to his Prince, for giving him his life upon such a condition, then to himself for reading, supposing his reading to have been the purchase of his life. If a man sell a farm to his friend for five hundred, for which another would have given him a thousand: what more common then to say, He hath given his friend five hundred in the buying?  
3. But in sober sadness, doth Mr. Eyre think the welsh man speaks 
§. 25.  properly, in his God bless her father, & c? That were a jest indeed. How comes it then to be a ridiculous object, if there be not some (h) pleasing deformity in it, that flatters the fancy, and surpriseth 
k See Sie r●de la C●ambre. Charact. of the Passions, ch. 4. of laughter. p. 210.  the soul, so moving laughter? And what can that deformity be (except the welsh idiom) but the fallacy of non causa pro causa, putting that for the cause which is not the cause: as we are wont (out of Cicero) when we see a little man girt with a great sword, to transplace the Subject and the Adjunct, and say, who tied that man to that sword? Had the welsh man cried as he was bid, God bless the King and the Judge; the propriety of the speech had spoiled the jest, and deprived it of that facetiousness and lepidity, which now causeth us to make merry with it. A certain discovery that the speech is not proper, nor the condition of reading the cause of his pardon, the speech becoming ridiculous upon no other account but because it would insinuate that to be the cause, which was no more than a condition. But the serious judgement of all offenders, who escape death by this means, and the wisdom of our stat● determining it to be an act of royal grace and favour to pardon a man on this condition, might (one would think) be of as much authority, as one welsh man's word. It is true indeed, the Law, nor the Judge could save him, unless he read: nor will God save us unle●●● we believe, Heb. 3. 19 They could not enter in because of unbelief. Not through defect of power or mercy in God (which are both infinite) but because he hath confined himself in the dispensation of pardon and salvation, that he will bestow it upon none but them that believe. Is it therefore not of grace, because not without faith? Whereas the Apostle says, It is of faith that it might be of grace, Rom. 4. 16.  
In that which follows I find nothing which is not answered already, 
§. 26.  or must not be answered in due place: for whereas Mr. Eyre says, that the performance of the condition makes the conditional grant to become absolute; the words are ambiguous. If he mean, it makes it absolute, as that without which it had never been absolute, I grant it: if he mean, it makes it absolute by contributing any direct causality, I deny it; for upon performance of the condition, the conditional grant doth indeed become absolute, not by the worth or efficacy of the condition, but by the will of the Promiser, that upon the existence of such a thing or action, will be obliged, and not without it. We have already given several instances of conditions, which have nothing of worth in them to engage the Donour, and therefore cannot be the cause of the gift: for nothing can produce an effect more noble and excellent than itself. Nor doth it receive any addition of intrinsecal worth, by being made the condition: otherwise we might work as rare feats by the influence of our wills, as 
l Magnet. cure of wounds.  Van Helmont thinks may be wrought by the magic of the fancy. 'Tis but willing a pin to be worth a pound, and it shall be done.  
And when he adds in the next place, that if faith be the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense, as perfect obedience was the condition of the old, man must needs be his own Justifier: if he mean such in the matter and particular nature of the condition. It is true, if he mean such in the common nature of a condition, it is false: for we have showed before, both from Reason and Scripture, Divines and Lawyers, that some kind of conditions are so far from being inconsistent with grace, as that they advance it rather. As suppose some benefit of very great value be bestowed on a worthless person, upon condition that he acknowledge the rich, superlative grace and love of the Donour to be the only cause of it.  
Finally, thus he speaks. As in the old Covenant, it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world, just so in the New (if it be a conditional Promise,) it is not the Promise that justifies a believer, but the believer himself.  
The answer is ready. Death came into the world by sin, as the culpable meritorious cause, but sin could not have slain us but by the Law, 1 Cor. 15. 56. Rom. 5. 13, 14. Ergo. It is not warily said, that God's threat did not bring death upon the world. 2. And when Mr. Eyre hath proved that our performance of the Gospel-conditions hath the same proportion to our salvation, as sin hath to our destruction, the Papists shall thank him, Rom. 6. last. The wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. men's not-accepting of the grace of God, may make that grace without effect as to themselves, 2 Cor. 6. 1. Rom. 3. 3. But that therefore their acceptance is the cause of Gods being gracious to them, is wild reasoning. And as to worthy Dr. Kendal, (out of whom Mr. Eyre quotes these passages,) he hath publicly enough, (and in Mr. Eyre's hearing for one) declared himself to be no enemy against conditions of Justification or salvation.  
That he that is pardoned upon his reading, doth not pardon himself, 
§. 27.  I proved thus: because than he must concur either to the making of the Law, which gives pardon upon such a condition; or to the pronouncing of the sentence of absolution upon himself according to that Law.  
This (Mr. Eyre saith) is an impertinent answer; because the question is not, whether a man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification, but whether he had any causal influx in producing the effect thereof.  
Rep. My answer (if he will call it so) was very pertinent as to the case of an offendor saved by his Clergy, whose pardon is perfected by a Law (which gives the remote right) and sentence passed according to that Law (which produceth his immunity itself.) If then the said offendor cause his own pardon; it must be by concurring some way or other to the production of one of these. The case is altogether the same in our justification before God; which consists in a Law of grace, and in sentence passed according to that Law: which because we must purposely prove by and by, I shall here supersede for a while.  
One thing more I added for illustration in these words. It is God 
§. 28.  that glorifies us, and not we ourselves; yet surely God doth not glorify us before we believe.  
Mr. Eyre's answer consists of two parts: the one is a concession of what I say, with an explanation how glory is called a reward: and says, That a reward is for a work two ways: 1. When a work is proportionable to the wages. 2. When it is not answerable to the wages, yet is due by Promise; as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an hour's labour: though the work be not worth it, yet it is a due debt, and he may challenge it as such.  
Rep. Against which I have not much to oppose: yet if the hour's work, neither in respect to its self, nor any circumstance that attends it, as the Art, Danger, Detriment of the Labourer, or the necessity, pleasure, profit, etc. of him for whom he labours (all which corn into the 
m Lesle. de just. & jured. 2 c. 18. d. 3.  value of the work) deserve the said twenty shillings, then is the reward, though partly of debt, quia & operanti aliquid abest, because the workman puts himself to expense of time and strength; and he for whom he worketh hath the benefit and advantage thereof: yet is it also of grace, 
n Azor. Insiit. Mor. p 3. l. 11. c. 3.  quatenus excedit meritum, inasmuch as it exceeds the value of the work. And that the Labourer may challenge it, ariseth from civil, not from natural justice. But I readily grant, that glory is not our reward in this sense. But how then is it a reward?  
Because it comes after, and in the place of the work, saith Mr. Eyre.  
Rep. Of which I shall speak more hereafter: for the present, what is said sufficeth me, viz. That the reward follows the act, whereof it is the reward: for hence it follows, that if Justification be given as the reward of faith, then must it needs follow faith. But we have proved before, that Justification (even the imputation of righteousness) is the gracious reward of faith. Ergo, it must needs be consequent to it.  
His second answer is this, Though the blessings of the Covenant be given us freely, and not upon conditions performed by us, yet God hath his order in bestowing them: first, he gives grace imputed, and then inherent.  
Rep. My Argument is à pari, we are not glorified unless we believe; 
§. 29.  yet by believing we cannot be said properly to glorify ourselves: so though we believe that we may be justified, yet will it not follow, that we may be therefore said to justify ourselves properly: the reason is the same on both sides. Now whereas Mr. Eyre will have us when believers, yet to be passive in our glorification, merely because God doth first give faith, and then afterwards give glory: I wonder he sees not the insufficiency of such answers, and how the Arminians get ground by them. Say plainly. Doth God require and charge us to believe and repent, that we may be saved, or doth he not? If he doth, then doth he require a condition to be performed on our parts, in order to our Justification, though he give it us; for (as (o) Dr. Twisse observes often) Medium ad aliquid obtinendum 
o Vindic. Grat. de crrat. p. 163.  ex contractu vel foedere, illud demum est conditio. A means ordained to obtain any thing by Contract or Covenant, is a Condition. If he doth not, what shall become of those many places, wherein God exhorts and commands men to repent and believe, that they may be saved? Then unbelief and impenitency are no sins: nor are men thereby the causes of their own ruin and destruction, contrary to Scriptures, John 3. 19, and 8. 24. & passim. The reason is plain, because mans not being the object of a gift of God precisely, cannot be meritorious of his damnation. Indeed Mr. Eyre told us before, that he that doth the least work towards the procuring of a benefit, is not only physically, but morally active in obtaining it. I wonder at my heart then, why we pray for grace and salvation: or why we do or suffer any thing for obtaining a Crown and Kingdom. 
p Authores elus primi fuere Sadoc (unde Sadducaei) & Baythos. de quibus videses Joh. Drus. de trib. sect. Judaeor. l. 3. c. 3. & 4. & Joh. Cameron. Myroth. in Mat. 22. 23.  This very conceit was that which drew many in former ages to deny any resurrection, other than what was passed already: and by some improvement, may bid fair for a resurrection of that and like consequences. The very substance of Religion, and the vital act of faith, consists in looking to the reward promised in Heaven, Heb. 11. 6, 26. 2 Cor. 4. 16, 18. And had I not known some Christians fallen and falling off from prayer and ordinances, and other spiritual duties, upon this very ground, that they are passive altogether in their salvation, and that they neither can nor must do any thing toward it, I would not have lost so much time as to have taken notice of it.    

CHAP. VI  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's tenth Chapter. My first Argument against Justification before faith, vindicated from all Mr. Eyre's exceptions.  

SECT. I.  
HAving now asserted the antecedency of faith to Justification, 
§. 1.  from many express testimonies of Scripture, and discovered the fruitlessness of all Mr. Eyre's 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, than 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, Leu. 16. 30.  
Rep. 1. Supposing the tenor of the Gospel or New Covenant to be such a declaration as this: yet I deny, that this declaration hath the form 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 mere 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 itself 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 ways. 1. In respect of itself, and so it was most perfect, as wanting nothing that was requisite to constitute or make it a complete 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 says 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 believe, 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, Leu. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themselves, and humbling their souls on that day, ver. 23. otherwise they should have no benefit by that atonement, Leu. 23. 29. Whatsoever soul 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 intent 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 Lawgiver, Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc. 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 years 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, etc. the thing itself I thus proved.  
Sin is not imputed where there is no Law, Rom. 5. 13. Ergo, neither is righteousness 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 show when God gins 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 gloss. 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 man's imputing or charging sin upon himself. 
a Vid Guil. Esthi. in loc.  For it is never used in all the Scriptures to signify the act of a man upon himself, but perpetually the act of another, as Paul to Philemon, ver. 18. If he own 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 hearty 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 affirm or deny that men did impute sin to themselves before the Law; especially if the Apostles scope be what Mr. Eyre says it is, namely, to show that sin in being, supposeth a Law: how can it be conducible to that scope, to speak of men's not imputing sin to themselves without a Law? 4. The grand design 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 entered upon all his children: so by the obedience of Christ, life and righteousness betides all his. The Proposition is set down, ver. 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered 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 sum 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 entered 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. God's 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 prays, 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. Eyre's bare word, to believe the imputation of sin to be from eternity; and when the Apostle says, sin is not imputed where there is no Law; we must believe, (for Mr. Eyre says it) that the meaning is, There is no sin where there is no Law. Briefly, 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 righteousness is the gift of God.  
Rep. What then? yet there may be, and is the same reason of imputing sin, and imputing righteousness, which are both God's acts. It is but changing the term, and the matter will be clear. To impute righteousness, and not to impute sin, are terms 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 term) Ergo, they are both of them actions of the same kind 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, than 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 virtue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam: so our Justification descends to us by virtue 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 righteousness, Rom. 9 31.  
Rep. The reason than 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 mankind 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 than they are subject to condemnation for one another's sins. But that Law which was given to him at first as the common head of mankind, and had effect upon him as such; became afterwards of mere 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 public person, for any personal sins of their own: but as it was obliging immediately upon each man in his own person. And therefore 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 transgressor 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 virtue of the Law given to Adam, till himself be borne a child 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 loins 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, than 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 pass. But because the very same sentence which condemned him then, taketh 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 righteousness, 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. Eyre's 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 himself was justified. The reason is plain, because Adam represented all mankind, as virtually in the same obligation with himself: (
b Vide 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 mankind, it being the very same sentence that condemneth both him and us. But Christ Jesus represented no man as in the same obligation with himself, either in his obedience or Justification: otherwise we are justified by works, or he by grace: for we must be acknowledged to have satisfied God's 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 died in Adam: which I will never believe 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 (
c See the Assemb. confess. cap. 11. §. 3. ) two things. 1. In that Christ was given freely of the Father for us. 2. And his obedience and satisfaction 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 itself will allow us to make satisfaction if we are able (for it inflicts the penalty but in order to satisfaction: and the punishment of sinners is not eternal, but because they cannot satisfy 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 itself will accept of satisfaction being performed. And as God deals not more rigorously with us in condemning us, than he did with Adam in condemning him: so neither doth he deal any whit more mercifully with us in justifying us, than he did with Christ in justifying him, if his satisfaction and justification be ours in the same sense, in which Adam's sin and condemnation is ours. How much safer is it to say with the Scripture, He is the propitiation for our sins, 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternal redemption for us, Heb. 9 12. then to talk of our being in him a propitiation for our own sins: or of purchasing in him redemption for ourselves? The conclusion is; the Law that justified Christ cannot justify us, though the law that condemned Adam, were yielded to be the only law that condemneth us: (which yet I have already denied) 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 believeth shall be saved: called the law of faith, Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteousness, 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 conditional promise, as I would have it.  
Rep. Which is spoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyre's disputing, that is dictating. I acknowledge myself 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 defence than a frigid so 'tis or 'tis not so, though I may not be worthy of a better answer. I am persuaded himself will acknowledge that the propriety of the phrases favours me: and he doth not so much as pretend to any Argument hat may compel me to understand them improperly. 1. For the law of faith, it is expressly 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 perform 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 righteousness 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, etc. And therefore the Apostle having said, that the law of faith excludes boasting, he adds immediately, 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 boldness 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 righteousness. Rom. 9 31. it is called the righteousness 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 says 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 righteousness which is of faith, and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach: the voice and tenor of which he describes, v. 9 If th●u shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: and all this in opposition to the righteousness of the law which the Jews sought after: the sum 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 righteousness, is that by which only righteousness is attainable: and that is the Gospel-promise of justifying them that believe in Jesus, though they be not able to fulfil 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 signal conditional 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 condemns 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 cram bis (shall I say, or) decies cocta, that it will infer justification by works: for answer to which I refer 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 signal promise, he that believes shall be saved, than 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 explicit 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 hear of him on whom they believed. 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 pass the proposition. 2. I deny the assumption (which hath here no other proof than the old Argument, so 'tis) namely that there was not a promise of forgiveness 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 righteousness in the old world. Noah 
d See 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 find the world had notice of such a conditional promise; though not from any written word, but by tradition, or by Preachers immediately raised up, Job. 8. 4, 5, 6. If thy children have sinned against him— If thou wouldst seek unto God betime, and make thy supplication to the Almighty; if thou be pure, and upright, surely now he would awake for thee, etc. 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 thyself with God— lay up his words in thy heart. If thou return to the Almighty, thou shalt be built up, etc. see also chap. 11. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 And what less 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 than 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. 
c Vide Mos. ●myr●●. Spec. anima l●er. special. p●r. 3 & anima i General. par 3. &. 4.   
In Moses' time the matter is clearer than to need proof, Heb. 4. 1, 2. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering 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 God's unfaithfulness, and not to their unbelief: whereas the text says expressly, 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 proof? 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 ruin the main pillars of Mr. Eyre's discourse. All the places which I before alleged 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 own Argument. The justification spoken of in the places aforesaid, Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. and 4. 24. Act. 10. 43. and 13. 39 etc. 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 sovereignty 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 supreme Magistrate.  
Rep. If this Argument be cast into form, 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 proof 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 public Act or Law, is a notary. 2. And yet if God publish his own Laws, he doth nothing unbecoming his Majesty and Sovereignty. He published his Law to Adam himself; and will publish the final sentence which shall pass upon all men at judgement: and our Lord Jesus published the Gospel with his own 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. Forgiveness amongst men is not necessarily by a declared discharge; Ergo, Gods is not, for we are bid to forgive one another, as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us, Eph. 4. 32.  
Ans. Supposing that the Antecedent speak of private men only 
§. 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 God's forgiving us should be a motive to us to forgive one another: but it doth by no means prove that our forgiveness one of another, is an act of the same kind and nature with God's forgiveness 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 God's love to us. And yet, as our love, so our forgiveness may in some respects resemble his: as in the freeness, fullness and dureablenesse of it, and in the effects which it produceth on the persons forgiven: but every way like it, it neither can nor aught to be. 1. God forgives none without satisfaction: we must. 2. No private man is Governor and Judge of his brother: Ergo, his forgiveness cannot be such as Gods is, who forgiveth as supreme Judge and lawgiver, Jam. 4. 12. 3. Nor can God's forgiveness be like man's, if it consist in the act of his mind or will: for if we will speak properly; a man's will not to prosecute one that hath injured him, is not called pardon and forgiveness 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 forgiveness is no justification of the person forgiven. A man may forgive his murderers (as Stephen did) yet neither the laws of God or man will permit them to go unpunished. But God's act of remission is withal the justification of a sinner. Ergo, is not such an act as private men's remission of personal injuries. Other differences it were easy to add: but I shall insist only on that which follows.  
The forgiveness of a Magistrate being an act of authority must 
§. 13.  be by some formal act of oblivion. And so God's forgiveness being in like manner an act of authority must be also by some formal act of pardon that shall make the Law of condemnation to be of no force, etc.  
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 boldness for limiting God to such a way of forgiveness: because God's forgiveness is no less an act of charity, than man's, Rom. 5. 8. Eph. 2. 4. And though God in the act of forgiveness 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 than the supreme 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  of a man forgiving his murderers. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is an authoritative and authentic ratification of it: as humane testaments before, v. 
Budaeus, Com●ent. Grac ling. 1058. & Beaumont in 2 Cor. 2. 8  15. 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 himself. 2. When Mr. Eyre talks of my boldness 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 Sovereign, a Father, a Lawgiver and Judge, as just, as merciful, etc. Belike if I should say God cannot condemn 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 Governor and Judge of mankind in condemning and justifying, without a Law. 3, When he determines God's forgiveness 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 Christ's satisfaction. For if God's forgiveness of us, be merely an act of charity (such as private men's forgiveness one of another) than satisfaction is no more necessary to God's forgiving us then to our forgiveness 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 forgiveness 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 plain to need proof, that the satisfaction of Christ is of no use at all to make way for the forgiveness 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 supreme 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 defence from this very principle. 
§. 14.   
4. Rom. 5. 8. and Eph. 2. 4. The texts alleged to prove that God's forgiveness is no less an act of charity than man's, prove it not. They show 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). Nevertheless the same justification is an Act complete in its kind, nature, definition and essential constitution, without that love of God. Even as a King out of special affection to a malefactor condemned (suppose it be his own son) may find out. a way to satisfy for his offence, and consequently to discharge him: here the discharge doth not exist but by virtue of the King's love and good affection: yet the pardon itself, in actu signato, for its kind and nature, is a rectoral judicial act; not of private charity.  
5. Mr. Eyre yields at last, that God in the act of forgiveness 
§. 15.  may be looked upon as a Judge: yet as such a judge as proceeds by no other Law then his own will. Where, either the former part contradicts all that hath been hitherto said about God's 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 
g L. A divo Pio. ff. de re judic. & L. 7. ff. ad leg Jul. Repetend.  exformula according to the prescription of Law; nor an arbitrator 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 justify 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 merely 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 men's demerits: so hath he declared that he will by no means clear the guilty, Exod. 34. 7. Which yet by his absolute liberty and sovereignty 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 real execution of it.  
Rep. If we can have no better answers then these, yet we must be content, for aught I see. 1. Doth Mr. Eyre mean that the only end of promulgation is the direction of inferior 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 inferior Ministers of State? 2. 
h Vid. Greg. Sayr. Clau. 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 intent to oblige their subjects by that will which they never intent to reveal: 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 offenders a right to impunity, any Act or Law to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. The direction of inferior 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 man's 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 offenders 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 general pardon as is the Act of the supreme 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, than 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 sum of these say is this. Though God forgive as supreme 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 needful 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 deal and Government over men, as was before observed out of Ezek. 18. throughout, add 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 God's 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 shown 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 condemn. 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 God's Will doth sufficiently secure us from punishment: which though (I confess) it be more rationally spoken, because that act is most unworthy to be called the cause of our non-punition, or non-condemnation, 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 dependence 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 harm, 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 God's Justice and Faithfulness permit that they go unpunished, unless 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 himself; 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 Laws, and the honour of his own Government to contempt and obloquy, as God will never endure to be cast upon Himself or his Law, by men or devils. His Honour and his Laws 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 than 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 God's 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 offenders 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 offenders need it: for if the same authority which bond 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 mere purpose or resolution of the House to make such an Act, is that very pardon which dischargeth Delinquents. The Act itself 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 public. Nevertheless, I expected some proof, that it is a complete Law before publishing: if after the p●s●ng it had been 
i Nic. vig. de Dr●is. Iust. Jur. c. 1. p. 8. etc. 2 p. 1●.  ordered not to be published, till some months or a year after, I much question whether in that interim it had been Law or no: though I am not so well acquainted with the customs of our own Nation, as to determine peremptorily? The Senatus-Consulta amongst the Romans had not the force of a Law before publishing. But it is quite besides our question, to debate what promulgation is necessary to the completing 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 God's 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 that's 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 spoke 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 baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; from hence I infer, 1. That God hath given unto Christ the Kingdom and Government over all men. 2. That this Government contains 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, etc. (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 Ambassadors. I confess I cannot imagine what can here be said, unless 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 ears to endure: seeing it must contain all that good which is opposed to condemnation; and therefore primarily remission of sins: which is also expressly 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, etc. Or 2. That those words, He that believes shall be saved, are a mere 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 than 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 than a simple affirmation or relation of what shall come to pass: whereas by their dependence 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 pass 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 says expressly, John 12. 48. That the 
§. 20.  Word which he spoke, shall judge unbelievers at the last day. If a judgement 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. 
i See also Deu●. ●●. v 15▪ ●●.  It is your life; though God be the principal cause, and the Word but the 
k Vid. Synops. p●r theol. disp. ●3. §. 10 & Down. of J●stif c. ●. ●. 5. & ●libi passim  instrumental: 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 myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a Commandment what I should say: as the instrumental cause works not, but in the virtue of the principal. To this plain testimony let me add an Argument, as plainly deduced from it.  
If judgement shall pass at the last day according to the Word, than 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 pass upon any, some Law of grace must be supposed, according to which it becomes due, for such a gracious sentence to pass 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 four ancient Greek Copies, 
l As also in the Kings MS. See D●. Hammond. Annot. in loc.  as also in the Syriack and the Latin Interpreter, the word Judge is extant. There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to save and destroy: that is, to whom pertains the sovereign 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 dissuade us from judging one another, ver. 11. because there is one Lawgiver, to whom the power of judgement, 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. Add to this, that the Apostle commends the excellency and glory 
§. 22.  of the Gospel, that God doth thereby justify, 2 Cor 3. 9 For if the ministration of condemnation he glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness 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 show 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 righteousness 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 righteousness 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 extols it is, in that it saves them that believe. 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 reveals the righteousness of God upon all that believe. 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 believe. 
m Vid Calv. Com. in loc.  Quia nos per Ev●ng lium justificat Deus, because God justifies us by the Gospel. I cannot better express my mind, then in the words of Beza. Hoc ita intelligo, etc. 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 righteousness, by virtue of which we obtain salvation of God) and the Jews 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 believe it. Therefore the Gospel, wherein is manifested the righteousness 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; Believe, and thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10. 5, 8, 9 To conclude, Therefore is the Gospel called 
n Heb. ●. 8.  a Sceptre of Righteousness, 
o 2 Cor 5. 19  a Word of reconciliation, 
p Eph. 1. ●3.  a Gospel of salvation, 
q Rom. 8. 2, 3. & Dav Par. ibid.  a Law of the Spirit of life, that makes free from the Law of sin and death, 
r Isa. 61. 1, 2, 3.  an opening of Prisons, 
s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps. 110. p. 140.  and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives, because God doth thereby justify sinners.  
I had also drawn up four Reasons from the nature of Justification, proving that it must be by Law▪ but because I since find 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 myself from the pains of transcribing my own Arguments.    

CHAP. VII.  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's eleventh Chapter, John 3, 18. and Eph. 2, 3. vindicated. All unbelievers under condemnation. Ergo, none justified in unbelief.  

SECT. I.  
MY second Argument, by which I proved that men are not justified before faith, was this.  
They that are under condemnation, cannot at the 
§, 1.  same time be justified. But all the world are under condemnation before faith. Ergo, none of the world are justified before faith.  
Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major: which I had briefly, and (as I thought, and yet think) sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words. Justification and Condemnation are contraries: and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time. Justification is a moral life, and condemnation a moral death: a man can be no more in a justified state, and a state of condemnation both at once, than he can be alive and dead both at once; or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once. What? that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it, on the same person at the same time, ver. 33, 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another, as good and evil, light and darkness.  
Upon these grounds I said, that the Proposition must needs be true. This (as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it) Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion: but in the mean time, never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands. This is a sad case: but who can help it?  
Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso, That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem, i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory, not otherwise: for he that is condemned, and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court, may be justified and absolved in another. He that is cast at common Law, may be quitted in a Court of equity. He that is condemned in the Court of the Law, may be justified in the Court of the Gospel.  
Rep. Which is very true: otherwise our Justification were no pardon. But I would ask. Are these two Courts coordinate, and of equal power? or is the one in power subordinate to the other? If the former, how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved? as in our own case, If the Law be of as much power to condemn, as the Gospel is to justify, how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified? or what sentence shall a poor soul expect, when he is going to appear before God's Tribunal? if of absolution, why the Law condemns him? if of condemnation, the Gospel justifies him? and which of these two shall take place? But if the one be subordinate to the other, than the sentence of the superior Court rescindes the judgement of the inferior, and makes it of no force, and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once. This is the very ground of 
u L. 1 ss. de Appell●●. & L. Simo▪ q●is 〈◊〉  appeals from any inferior Judicatory to a higher; otherwise there were no use of them, nor any possibility by appealing to bring controversies to an issue. Therefore it is impossible, that the same person at the same time, and in reference to the same sins, should stand condemned and justified before God. 2. Nevertheless, I also think that a man may be condemned (I mean ipso jure, under an actual obligation to punishment) and yet be in a state of Justification, at the same time: which because it is necessary, I should explain, for the better understanding of the opposition between Justification and Condemnation, I shall here once for all set down my opinion. A state of Justification I call it, not simply, because all sins are actually pardoned (for multitudes may not be yet committed) but because all past sins are pardoned, and a Promise given to the sinner, by which all future sins shall be pardoned: mercy prevailing against justice, Mount Zion against Mount Sinai, Mount Gerizim against Mount Ebal, even as a man is then in a state of grace and regeneration, not because he hath no sin in him, but because he hath a spirit of life within him, prevailing more and more against the lusts and rebellions of his flesh, till at last sin be perfectly destroyed out of the soul. And so my opinion is, 1. That as soon as a man believes, all his sins past are forgiven him. 2. As often as he falls into new sins, he contracts upon himself a new guilt, or obligation to punishment by virtue of the Law: so as it were just with God to destroy him, notwithstanding his former sins be pardoned. 3. The Lord Jesus, our Advocate with the father, doth continually represent and plead the Promise of remission made in his blood, on the behalf of sinners: by virtue of which, not only the present and speedy execution of punishment is suspended, but the sinners right to salvation continued and renewed, notwithstanding his new contracted guilt (
x Justificatio toties si●, quoties homo veré Poenitentiam agit & side ad Christum mediatorem confugit. Solin. Meth. theol. de Justif. ) (supposing the renewed acts of faith and repentance on the sinner's part; of implicit repentance for s●ns less known, and unobserved; and of explicit repentance for grosser sins, unless want of time may alter the case.) Even as when God complains, that Israel had broken his Covenant, and were t●rned out of the way that he commanded them, and he would therefore presently have consumed them: Moses opposeth the Covenant of their fathers, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, etc. Exod. 32. 8, 10, 13. And thus far I grant, that in these vicissitudes, Justification and Condemnation may consist in the same person: but by no means can I yield, that a man can at the same time stand condemned for those very sins, from which the Gospel justifies him: or that he can be in a state of Justification and a state of Condemnation both at once.  
What follows about the different estates of grace and nature, we shall consider below in the debate of Ephes. 2. 3. only the last words of this paragraph deserve farther consideration.  
The Law (says Mr. Eyre) condemns all men living, for that all have sinned. The Law doth not consider men as Elect or Reprobates, or as believers or unbelievers, but as righteous or sinners. The Law will not cease to threaten and condemn believers as long as they live.  
Ans. It seems then that the elect and believers are as much under the 
§. 2.  condemnation of the Law, as reprobates and unbelievers: the Law (if I understand these words) condemning no man effectually, that is, holding no man guilty, so that he shall need to fear condemnation by the Law, unless there be some other more effectual cause of his condemnation: though the Law condemn him for as much as in it lies, or to the utmost of its power, or in some respect only, but not simply and universally. This (I think) is the meaning of these words: but because there may be some other mystery under them, which I am not able to reach, I shall set down my answer by way of question. 1. Whether the elect and believers be not in as much danger of hell fire, as the reprobate and unbelievers? If it be said (as I suppose it must) that the danger of both is equal by the Law, (though some other act of God put a difference betwixt them) I would ask, 2. What is that curse of the Law, which Christ hath redeemed us from? for if the Law condemn only for its own part, or forasmuch as in it lies, but never had power to hold the sinner under an obligation to wrath, neither was there any need that Christ should die to redeem us from the curse of that Law: nor can we be redeemed, because the Law hath the very same power over us after his death, yea, and after our faith, as it had before, even by Mr. Eyre's concession: for it condemns all men equally without distinction. 3. Whether the Law do condemn any man at all? yes (will it be said) so far as its power reacheth, which is thus far: that he that transgresseth the Law, can expect no benefit by the Law, or he forseits his right to life and blessedness, by that Law which he hath transgressed. Nevertheless he may at the same time have right to life by some other act of God: But 1. Is that saying true or false, Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them? I will not so much as suspect that any man that is called a Christian, will say there was no truth in that threatening: and if there be truth in it, than he that transgresseth the Law is in a cursed estate (till at last he be delivered from it, through faith in the blood of Christ): and if he be cursed, then surely the Law hath more power over him, then to deprive him of his right to life, as to any help itself can afford him. He is cursed who hath no right at all to life: if he hath no right by the Law, yet is he never a whit the more miserable for that, as long as he hath right by any other act of God. 2. And if he hath no right by any other act, yet is he not condemned. The Law indeed doth its part towards his condemnation: but it seems, it condemns him no farther, then that as if there be no other act that condemns him more effectually, the sinner remains uncondemned notwithstanding: for to be condemned by the Law, is not to be condemned simply in Mr. Eyre's sense; for believers themselves (according to him) are condemned by the Law, who yet are not simply condemned; something more of this notion we must speak by and by.  
But the Assumption is that against which Mr. Eyre makes the most 
§. 3.  professed opposition, namely, that all the world is under condemnation before faith. This Mr. Eyre denies. And why?  
Because it was the Will of God that none of the elect should perish or be condemned.  
Answ. True: not executively. But Mr. Eyre knows, we put a difference between perishing and condemnation in this debate: and that by condemnation we mean, not the execution of punishment or wrath, but a legal obligation to the suffering of it. And though God did purpose that the elect should not perish, or be condemned executively, & quoad eventum: yet should Mr. Eyre prove, that he purposed that the elect should not stand obliged equally with other sinners, for some time, to the suffering of wrath. This if he prove, I will yield the cause. The purpose of God in itself makes no difference between men, whose cause is the same before the just and impartial Judge. Do we not know that a Prince may purpose to save the life of a Malefactor, against whom notwithstanding the Law is in force, and judgement proceeds, and sentence passeth, and the man thereby as much obnoxious to death, as any other Melefactours, till some other act of the Prince, besides his mere purpose, interpose and prevent his death? But of this we have spoken largely already.  
The Assumption, namely, that all the world is under condemnation 
§. 4.  before faith; I proved from the express testimony of the Lord Jesus, John 3. 18. He that believeth not, is condemned already. That is (saith Mr. Eyre) He that never believeth, as chap. 8. 24. If you believe not (i. e. not at all) you shall die in your sins. Our Saviour had no intent at all to show the state of the elect before believing: but the certain and inevitable misery of them that believe not, by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them. All the rest of the answer consents well enough with that Explication of the text which I gave in my Sermon.  
Rep. First, for that which is pretended to be our Lord's intent in these words, let me entreat thee (Reader) to peruse and ponder the text; for I think thou shalt hardly meet with the like abuse of the Oracles of God, in any Author that acknowledgeth the Divinity of Scriptures, ver. 14. As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, ver. 15. That whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but should have everlasting life, ver. 16. for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but should have everlasting life, ver. 17. for God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved, ver. 18. He that believeth, is not condemned: he that believeth not, is condemned already, etc. Thou seest (Reader) that the words contain a most serious and faithful testimony to a sinful world, that though they had brought upon themselves eternal miseries, yet God had sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save them: and if any man perish, 'tis not for want of a sufficient remedy provided in the death of Christ, but for their own wilful refusal to embrace and make use of it: as himself tells us, ver. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. Now what says Mr. Eyre? why he will have us believe, that the Lords intention is quite against his expression, and that he is come to testify to the world, that their misery is certain and inevitable, by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them. It is time to burn our Bibles, if such glosses as these must be received for truth. 2. If the misery of those that believe not be inevitable, by reason of the sentence of the Law, how is this to be understood? either that the Law passed sentence upon them as unbelievers: (but this I suppose is too unreasonable to be affirmed:) or that the same men, who afterwards prove unbelievers, were before sentenced by the Law to certain and unavoidable misery. But then their unbelief contributed nothing to make their misery unavoidable: whereas our Lord chargeth the unavoidableness of misery upon wilful unbelief, ver. 19 This is the condemnation, (not that men are in darkness) but that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. Were it not for this, men might do well enough, notwithstanding all that the Law had done against them. Ergo, misery is not made certain and inevitable to any by the Law, before unbelief be added. 3. Mr. Eyre told us but now, that the Law condemned all men equally (that's the sense of his words, if there be any sense in them.) The Law (saith he) doth not consider men as elect or reprobate (I know not how it should: for the Law is neither God, nor man, nor Angel) as believers or unbelievers, etc. how comes it then to pass that misery should be made unavoidable to one, and not to another by the same Law?  
Next, we shall inquire into Mr. Eyre's Exposition of ver. 18. 
§. 5.  He that believeth not is condemned already; that is, (saith he) he that never believeth, which is not only gratis dictum, spoken without so much as a pretence of Reason, but is manifestly inconsistent with the text. Indeed condemnation is executed upon none, but final unbelievers: but unbelievers in the text are to be understood generally of all unbelievers whatsoever, and not to be confined to final unbelievers. 1. Such unbelievers are here meant, who are part of that world into which Christ is sent: for after the Lord had said, ver. 17. God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world by him might be saved; He distributes this world into two parts, Believers and Unbelievers, ver. 18. He that believeth, is not condemned: he that believeth not, is condemned already. But final unbelievers as such, are no part of that world into which Christ is sent: for a final unbeliever is he that dies in unbelief: if he believe but one minute before his death, he is not a final unbeliever. And Christ is not sent to the dead, but to the living. 2. Such unbelievers are here meant whom Christ was sent to save, ver. 16, 17. But Christ was not sent to save final unbelievers as such. Ergo, such unbelievers are not here meant. 3. We have also mention of a double condemnation in the text: one which Christ finds men under when he comes into the world, and which he comes to deliver them from, ver. 17, 18. The other which men are left under for final unbelief, and rejecting of Christ the light of life, ver. 19 This is the condemnation, etc. for Christ could not find men condemned for a final rejecting of him, till he had been preached and tendered to them. Ergo, they that believe not, ver. 18. are unbelievers in general. 4. The condemnation here spoken of, is that which is avoidable (and is actually avoided) by believing. Ergo, it is not the condemnation of final unbelievers. The Antecedent I proved in my Sermon, from ver. 36. He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him; implying, that the wrath of God by the Law is upon every sinner (for he is condemned already) yet not so necessarily and remedilessly, but that by believing he may escape it: but if he believes not, than it abides on him. To this Mr. Eyre tells me, That to say the place hints, there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing, is but an attempt to suborn the Spirit to serve our turn. A short way of answering Arguments. 
y Contra Crell. p. 452, 453.  This very interpretation doth Essenius vindicate at large against Mr. Eyre's friends (in the point of eternal reconciliation) the Socinians: and urgeth the significancy of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abideth, according to its constant use in Scripture: though I stand not so much upon the bare word. The same interpretation doth 
z Tract. 14. in Joan. Non dicit, Ira dei venit ad eum, sed manet super eum etc.  Augustine give of it, and many others, Protestants and Papists. Chemnitius, 
a Analys. in loc.  Piscator, Aretius, Beza, Dyke, Jansenius, Tolet, Ferus, etc. Who being such professed enemies in religion, cannot be rationally suspected of a confederacy against the Spirit. I had thought a Minister might have said, not only to each man distributively, but to the whole world collectively (if he were able to speak to their hearing) believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, without being guilty of suborning the Spirit to serve his own turn. And yet surely in so saying he doth more than hint, that the wrath of God may be escaped by believing.  
5. And that I do not err in the meaning of the holy Ghost, I am yet farther convinced, because the Lord came not into the world to 
§. 6.  give life simply, but to give salvation, v. 17. that is, to give life to them that were dead. Ergo, they whom he saves were dead, de jure or de facto: as the Apostle argues, 2 Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead. And to be dead in Law, is to be under condemnation. Now whom doth Christ save? not final unbelievers, but such as are unbelievers for a time only: Ergo, they who are now believers, were sometime under condemnation, or else Christ never saved them. If they are only condemned in themselves, or by the Law (in that diminutive respective sense in which Mr. Eyre useth that phrase) they are never a whit the more in danger of perishing for that, and therefore not capable of being saved properly. 6. The comparison which our Lord proposeth, v. 14, 15. and upon which this whole discourse dependeth, puts it yet farther out of doubt. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. Concerning which words we deba●e more particularly under the third general Argument following: and therefore here I shall only make some brief observations upon the comparison, and pass on. 1. As then the people for whom the serpent was lifted up, were all mortally stung of the fiery serpents (see the story itself, Numb. 21. 6, 7, 8, 9) So is all the world become subject to condemnation through sin, (for the people that were stung in the type, are the world in the Antitype: and their mortal wound there, is condemnation here, by our Lords own exposition, v. 16, 17, 19) 2. That as the serpent was by God's appointment lifted up in the wilderness, that whosoever looked on him might be healed of the mortal bites of the fiery serpent and live: so is the Son of man lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but should have everlasting life, by God's appointment in like manner, v. 15, 16. 3. That as the serpent was not lifted up to destroy any of the people (for they were mortally wounded before) but to heal them: so Christ was not sent into the world to condemn the world (for they are condemned already) but to save them. v. 17. 4. Yet they that looked not on the serpent so lifted up, did thereby procure unto themselves a certain death (because it was to be absolutely unavoidable by any other means whatsoever:) so they that believe not on the Son of God, but love darkness rather than light, do thereby procure to themselves certain and remediless condemnation, v. 18, 19 There remaining no more sacrifice for sin, as the Apostle speaks, Heb. 10. 29. Hence I deduce these four Corollaries. 1. That condemnation lies upon all men, (without difference) for sin. 2. Yet there is a remedy and way of escape from this condemnation revealed in the Gospel. 3. That the way to escape condemnation, is to believe on Jesus Christ. 4. The contempt of Christ by positive unbelief, makes condemnation unavoidable. Ergo, every man in the world, whiles an unbeliever, or so long as he continues in unbelief, is under condemnation.  
And as to the Text which Mr. Eyre brings in for illustration, 
§. 7.  Joh 8. 24. If you believe not, you shall die in your sins: I consent to Mr. Eyre's interpretation, that the meaning is; if you believe not at all, or if you never believe, you shall die in your sins. And it informs us in the truth of those two things, which I have been hitherto contending for. 1. That because of their sins, they became liable to eternal death. 2. That yet their condemnation was not peremptory and irrevocable, unless to all their other sins they added unbelief final; for if at any time they did believe, they should escape that wrath which was due to them for sin. As when Paul says, Act. 27. 31. Except these men abide in the ship, you cannot be saved. He shows them that they were in eminent danger of perishing in the waters: and yet that they might be safe enough if the men aforesaid continued in the ship. That place therefore makes against Mr. Eyre altogether.   

SECT. II.  
BEfore we speak any further of this place, we must attend M. 
§. 8.  Eyre, who interposeth another Text which I mentioned (not under this, but) under the former Argument, to the same purpose, and that is Eph. 2. 3. Where the Apostle tells the Ephesians (whom God had chosen to eternal life, chap. 1. 4.) that they were by nature children of wrath as well as others.  
Mr. Eyre answers. 1. That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them, or that they w●re under condemnation before conversion.  
Rep. This might have been spared, if this text had been answered in the place where I produced it: and so it may yet, for wrath and condemnation often signify one and the same thing in Scripture, Joh. 3. 19, 36. 1 Thes. 1. 10. Rom. 1. 17, 18. & 2. 5. with Rom. 8. 1, 34. And to the same sense doth Mr. Eyre himself expound it in his main answer, which is this.  
By nature, or in reference to their state in the first Adam they were children of wrath, they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God. Yet this hindered not, but that by grace they might be the children of his love: for so all the elect are while they are in their blood and pollution, Ezek. 16. 4, 8. The Lord calls them his sons and children before conversion. Isa. 43. 6. and 53. 11. and 8. 18. Heb. 2. 9 For it is not any inherent qualification, but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children. Eph. 1. 5. Rom. 8. 29. Joh. 17. 6. Elect children have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, though they know it not: and I know no reason (saith he) why it should not be imputed to the rest of the elect before conversion.  
Rep. Two things I have here to do. 1. To show what the Apostles 
§. 9  sense is in these words. 2. What is Mr. Eyre's sense, and how inconsistent with the Apostles. 1. When the Apostle says we were by nature children of wrath: by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature, I understand their whole natural condition, from their very first original, wherein they began to be the children of Adam, unto the time of their conversion unto Christ. And so his meaning is, that during the whole time of their natural unregenerate estate, they were under an obligation to eternal punishment, for the sinfulness of their nature and (
b per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc in loco intelligi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ait Suidas in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad finem ) lives. That this is his meaning is manifest, not only from this verse, [Amongst whom we all had our conversatiou in times past, in the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others]: and from the words following, v. 4, 5. [But God, when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ:] but also from that other place, altogether parallel to this. Colos. 2. 13. [And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.] (
c Vide Esthium, Davenan●, B●zam, D●odat. Hemming. alios. ) Expositors are agreed, that by the uncircumcision of the flesh is meant the sinfulness and corruption of nature: and therefore by comparing the places together it is manifest, that for the sinfulness of their nature and conversation (the two parts of the natural man) the Apostle pronounceth these Ephesians to have been in times past children of wrath and damnation, no less than any other.  
Now for Mr. Eyre, we must a little inquire what is his meaning, 
§. 10.  when he says that believers were children of wrath, namely by nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam: and again, that considered in themselves, and as they come from the loins of Adam they are sinful and cursed creatures. Which being to be understood in a diminutive sense only, & secundum quid (for Mr. Eyre will not allow us to infer, that because they are under wrath by nature, Ergo, they are under wrath simply: nor because they are cursed in themselves, Ergo, they are cursed simply) must therefore be extended no farther, then may consist with a state of blessedness and freedom from wrath, which the same persons are in at the same time. And so the meaning is, that there is in every man (even the elect themselves) naturally, and as they are the children of Adam, sufficient ground and matter of condemnation: though they never stand actually condemned (either in respect of their obligation to, or the execution of punishment) because of the grace of God preventing and hindering it. Even as he said before, that the Law condemned the elect (whom yet he denies to be ever condemned simply) by the word condemneth (a verb of active signification) expressing, not the effect which the Law produceth (for it is impossible men should be condemned and not condemned both at once) but the faculty, power and virtue that is in the Law to condemn sinners, if the Act of it were not hindered and bound up by grace. Thus do we often speak in ordinary discourse, as when we say Rhubarbe purgeth Choler: not relating to the actual operation of it (though the verb be of active signification) but to the virtue of it for such an operation: and light makes all things manifest: relating still to the faculty and property of it, not to the Act or exercise: for the words may be spoken at midnight. And as in these and the like expressions, the verb active signifieth, not the Act or present influx of the cause, but the power and virtue of it: so when it is said, that a man is accursed, condemned in himself, or by nature, or the like; the verbs passive do not note the effect wrought and existing, but the moral capacity of a person to be the object of condemnation: nothing on his part hindering it, but rather preparing and disposing him for it.  
This (if any thing) being Mr. Eyre's sense, we are next to show 
§. 11.  that it is altogether inconsistent with the Apostles meaning in this text. And that appears. 1. From that the Apostle doth not say, we are the children of wrath by nature: but, we were the children of wrath by nature, namely in times past, as he doth twice express himself, v. 2, 3. plainly opposing the time present to the time past, wherein they were children of wrath, but now were ceased to be so. Whereas, according to the sense which Mr. Eyre puts upon the words, it is impossible that a sinner should be delivered from being a child of wrath, either in this world or in the world to come. Even glorified Saints, considered according to what they are by nature, or in themselves, or in reference to their state in the first Adam, are children of wrath, and so they remain to all eternity. 2. The phrase here used (as Beza well observes) children of wrath, is borrowed from the Hebrews; who are wont to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a son of death, who is designed or adjudged to die, or hath contracted upon himself an obligation unto death, without any present actual reversion: as he that is found guilty of stripes, and adjudged to be beaten, is called a son of stripes. Deut. 25. 2. see also 1 Sam. 20. 31. and 2 Sam. 12. 5. Psal. 102. 20. Therefore the same phrase applied here to the elect in their unbelief, notes, that they were then under such an ordination to death, as did exclude their present (
d C ram Deo damnati. Calvin ) pardon and absolution: They that were pardoned, were children of life, not of death. 3. We were also children of wrath (saith the Apostle) even as others. Will it be said that all the world are children of wrath by nature; but by grace justified, and children of life at the same time? If not, it must be yielded that the elect and reprobate are both equally under the same condemnation, both equally obnoxious to eternal punishment, so long as they continue equally in a natural unregenerate condition. 4. The parallel place , Col●s. 2. 13. confirms all I have said. And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all your trespasses. Believers than themselves were sometimes dead, that is, under condemnation, and so under it, as that they were then without remission of sins, for their quickening is by remission: and nothing is quickened except it be dead.  
That the elect, though children of wrath by nature, may yet at the 
§. 12.  same time be the objects of love, is nothing to the purpose, till that love be proved to be their justification: which we have before disproved. 2. That the elect are called the children of God before conversion; I cannot conceive how it is proved from any or all the texts mentioned: if Mr. Eyre had form any Argument from them, it should have had an answer. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that elsewhere in Scripture they are so called, but metonymically: not because they are children properly (for the relation of father and children, supposeth the existence of the terms on both sides related: take away one, and the other also is taken away); but because they were designed and predestinated to be children: according to that of the Apostle, Eph. 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself. Even as the Lord tells Paul, Act. 18. 10. That he had much people in Corinth: that is, many who were to be made his people by Paul's ministry, though before they were not his people, 1 Pet. 2. 10. And as God calls Cyrus his shepherd, Isa. 44. 28. Two hundred years before he was borne: because he was designed to such an employment: and so he is called, not from what he was, but from what he was to be: as on the contrary, others sometimes are named, not from what they are, but from what they had been in times past. Matth. 21. 31. Publicans and harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before you: that is, such as had been so. 3. That it is the good pleasure of God, and not any inherent qualification in us, which makes us his children; if it be meant of children by Adoption, and of that good pleasure of God, which is a temporal transient Act, is true. But it should have been proved, that the said good pleasure of God makes us his children without any inherent qualifications in us. The Scriptures tell us that we are the children of God by faith. Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. and 4. 5. etc. 4. I also yield that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to infants though they know it not: and that so it is also to multitudes of grown Christians. But it should be proved that such infants are uncapable of the habit of faith: or that their parent's faith doth not supply their incapacity, as to their justification: of which more hereafter.   

SECT. III.  
IN the next place Mr. Eyre gives us an account in what sense the elect, though freed from wrath and condemnation, may yet 
§. 13.  be said to be under it: namely, in regard the Law doth terrify and affright their consciences, Rom. 4. 15. In which respect it is called a ministration of wrath and death, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9  
Answ. Whether Mr. Eyre's intent in this undertaking be to give another exposition of the elects being children of wrath, I cannot tell. If it be, he must quit the former: for this will not consist with that. There he told us the elect were children of wrath, that is, by nature, or in themselves, or in reference to their state in the first Adam: abstracting or rather prescinding from any effect of wrath that ever was, or was to be upon them. But here they are children of wrath in reference to the effects of wrath in their consciences. 2. When he says, the Law is called a ministration of death and condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9 because it did terrify and affright the conscience: if he mean that this is the only reason why it is so called, as if it did not condemn persons as well as their consciences, I deny it altogether. Death and condemnation, when they expound one another (as there they do) signify that of the person, and not of the conscience only, Rom. 5. 16, 17. 3. In like manner when the Law is said to work wrath, Rom. 4. 15. I deny it to be meant merely of horror of conscience: but principally of that wrath which excludes them from a right to the heavenly inheritance, which right is given by the promise, v. 14. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the w●rkes of the Law are under the curse.  
Mr. Eyre proceeds. The wrath of God ha●h a threesold acception 
§. 14.  in Scripture. 1. It signifies the most just and immutable will of God, to inflict upon men the punishment which their sins shall deserve. 2. It notes the threaten of the Law, Rom. 1. 18. Psal. 6. 1. Hos. 11. 9 Jon. 3. 9 3. The execution of those threaten, Eph. 5. 6. Luk. 21. 23. Matth. 3. 7. The elect are under wrath in the second sense only.  
Answ. If the first sense be a Scripture-sense, why have we not one word of Scripture to justify it? The reason's ready, because that will of God, which we are wont to call Reprobation, is neither wrath, nor an Act of wrath in Scripture language. 2. When Mr. Eyre grants that the elect are subject to the threaten and comminations of the Law, he explains himself thus. The threaten of the Law do seize upon and arrest their consciences as well as others: the Law as a rigid Schoolmaster, doth never leave to whip and lash them until they fly unto Christ.  
I asked then. 1. Whether that pain and anguish of Spirit which the elect (whiles unbelievers) feel, be any part of the evil threatened in the Law? If it be (as most undoubtedly it is) then Mr. Eyre contradicts himself in saying the elect are under the threaten of the Law, but not under the execution of them. If it be not, he contradicts himself again, in saying the Law doth whip and lash them. It is not the Law that torments them, but somewhat else (what it is I cannot tell) if their torment be none of that evil which the Law threatneth. 2. I would ask also, what power there is in these arrests of the Law to make them fly to Christ? If by representing to them that they are under condemnation till they lay hold on Christ by faith, than they are under condemnation till they believe: which Mr. Eyre will not hear of. If only that they are damnable in themselves (as he doth afterwards express himself) they are as liable to such an arrest of the Law, after they believe, as before, even by Mr. Eyre's concession. And that word is not like to move a sinner very hastily to seek a change of his condition, which will pursue him as much after his condition is changed as before.  
When it is said that the elect are never under the execution of the 
§. 15.  threaten of the Law, that is, that the punishments threatened in the Law, are never executed upon them; if it be meant of the punishments reserved to the world to come, it is true: but if it be meant of those which are proper to this life, it is utterly false, Isa. 57 17. and 47. 6. and 54. 7, 8. Job 36. 7, 11, 12. Rom. 5. 12. and 8. 10, 20, 21, 23. 1 Cor. 11. 30, 31, 32. and 15. 22, 26. Jam. 5. 15, 16. 1 Joh. 5. 16. and hundreds of other places.  
And this section I have written to follow Mr. Eyre: what is his intent in all this himself best knows. His conclusion is, that the consciences of the elect before faith are under wrath, not their persons, (though it be a rule in Logic, that (e) omnis actio & passio est proprie totius compositi: and therefore to say the conscience is under wrath, 
e Vid. Ames. Thes. Log. th● 76  in distinction from the person, is none of the neatest expressions) and then tells his reader, that against this I have several exceptions. Whereas I never excepted against it at all in the general, but only as not being suitable to that particular text in John 3. 18. Which I had urged to prove, that all unbelievers are in a state of condemnation. Nor doth Mr. Eyre answer this text by this distinction (though I think I was informed that he was wont so to do: which was the reason that I laid in the following Arguments against it) and therefore Mr. Eyre might have spared his pains of attempting to answer the said Arguments, as not prejudicing that interpretation which he gives of the text. Nevertheless it may be useful to examine his answers.   

SECT. iv  
THe first Argument then proving that the condemnation mentioned, 
§. 16.  Joh. 3. 18. cannot be meant of condemnation in conscience merely, was this. The condemnation which the unbelievers there spoken of are under, is the condemnation of the Law: which pronounceth all men guilty, not only in their own conscience, but before God. Rom. 3. 19  
Mr. Eyre answers, that the voice or sentence of the Law, shows not who are condemned of God, but who are guilty and damnable in themselves, if God should deal with them by the Law. But the elect are discharged from this rigorous Court, their cause is judged at another Bar.  
Rep. The words of the text are these. Whatsoever the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. The thing which I infer from this Text compared with Joh. 3. 18. (for illustration of which I mentioned it) is this. That every unbeliever (elect, or not elect) stands guilty, that is obliged to punishment in the sight or judgement of God, and not only of his own conscience. Which to be the true sense of the place, is manifest from the importance of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render guilty: not only as being the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a debt or 
f Vid. Eli. Thisb. in verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & Joh. S●lden. do Jure Na●. & Gent l. 1. cap. ● p. 46.  obligation: but also, as being constantly used in the same sense in Greek Authors. Therefore 
g Comment. Graec. Ling p. 166.  Budaeus expounds it, as of the same significancy with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Qui est obnoxius è re judicatá: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A man condemned or adjudged to punishment, though he have not yet suffered it. Accordingly Beza upon the place notes well. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non tantum declarat judicium quo vel ●bsolvi vel damnari possit aliquis (hac enim significatione ipsi etiam filii Dei sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in quibus tamen nulla est condemnatio) sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. condemnationem declarat, sicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now to what Mr. Eyre says, that the Law doth only declare who 
§. 17.  are damnable in themselves, not who are condemned of God, it is contrary, 1. To himself. 2. To sense. 3. To reason.  
1. To himself: for remember (Reader) that I brought in this place as an explication of that in Joh. 3. 18. He that believeth not, is condemned already. Which condemnation Mr. Eyre hath already acknowledged to be by the Law, (and makes it the condemnation of final unbelievers only) I did rightly infer; if the condemnation there spoken of be that which is by the Law, then is it condemnation before God, Rom. 3. 19 (and not in conscience only: which was the thing I was there proving.) To this Mr. Eyre tells me, the Law shows not who are condemned of God, but who are damnable in themselves. How? hath it already condemned, and that remedilessly, the greatest part of the world, and yet doth it no more than show who are damnable in themselves; not, who are condemned of God? me thinks he should at last suspect the truth of that cause, which doth so often dash him upon contradictions. 2. To sense: for I appeal to the experience of all Christians, who have felt the work of the Law driving them out of themselves to fly unto Christ, whether it have not convinced them, not only that they are damnable in themselves (for that it will do after they are in Christ as well as before) but that they are (while out of Christ) condemned; that is, under an obligation and tendency to the suffering of wrath, and out of a state of salvation. That it doth, so is manifest from the first question, which a soul, upon whom the Law comes with power, will ask, What shall I do to be saved? Act. 2, 37. and 16. 30. A question which supposeth him to be convinced by the Law that he is a condemned creature: needing, not only comfort, but salvation, that is, deliverance from condemnation, in which only he can be comforted. Now if this be the work of the Law, when brought home by the power of God; then must it needs be most true that such a soul is indeed in the state of condemnation, till by faith he be passed from death to life: and accordingly the Law must be acknowledged to declare not only who are damnable in themselves, but who are condemned of God.  
It is also against reason: for demonstration of which we must inquire, 
§. 18.  what it is for a man to be damnable in himself? It implies that there is on his part, sufficient cause of condemnation, though he be not actually condemned, for want of the concurrence of some other cause; but what that actual condemnation is, which is hereby intended to be excluded, we must farther inquire. Condemnation (which we are forced often to observe) signifies either the sinners obligation to punishment, or the execution of punishment: in the former sense he is condemned, who by the Law is guilty of death: in the latter sense, he who is actually damned, and suffers the punishment threatened. In distinction from one or both of these it is, that a man is said to be damnable in himself: If from the former, the meaning is this: That all the world (the elect and all) have wrought that evil which were most sufficient to work the forfeiture of their right to life, and make them liable to eternal death, if there were any Law in force against them. If this be the sense Mr. Eyre will have the Apostle speak in, when he says all the world is become guilty before God, mark what follows. 1. Then the Law neither doth, nor ever did condemn any man living: for men are supposed to be damnable, and but damnable, not actually condemned, for want of a Law in source to condemn them, that is, to hold them under an obligation to punishment. The Law doth but show its teeth (pardon the expression reader) but it neither doth, nor ever did by't any man, no not the most presumptuous transgressors of it: though transgressors be as fit objects as can be for the Law to take hold of, if it had power so to do. Hence, secondly, I would ask whether ever God did condemn any man: If he did, by what Act? not by the Law: that shows indeed who are damnable in themselves▪ not who are condemned of God. I suppose it will be said, that some are condemned by the eternal Act of Reprobation. ●ut I leave it to Mr. Eyre to prove, that the name or nature of condemnation can agree to that Act according to Scripture: which if he cannot prove, (as sure enough he cannot, nor all the men on earth) it must needs follow, that there is no such thing as the condemnation of any man, according to Scripture. Against this sense of the text I could add much more, if I could persuade myself to think that it were needful, for the help of any man.  
But it may be this damnability is opposed to damnation executed; 
§. 19  and then the meaning is, That the Law doth not show whom God damneth, (that is, punisheth with damnation) but who are damnable or punishable in themselves, if God should try and judge them according to the Law. But 1. This is nothing to the purpose. It is no part of my undertaking, to prove, that every one who at present is an unbeliever, is damned, as that word notes the execution of damnation, or wrath actually inflicted: but that he is condemned, that is, under a legal obligation to punishment, till some gracious act of God discharge him. When therefore Mr. Eyre opposeth, that men are not condemned by the Law, but damnable; he fights with a shadow: for he that is damnable (executively) is condemned (legally) which is that I am proving: for it is the work of judgement to execute Laws, and to give to every man according to what is due to him by Law: if then, upon supposition that men were to be tried and judged by the Law of works, they would be found damnable: it must be also supposed, that they were before obliged by Law to the suffering of damnation. 2. Otherwise the Law is but the carcase of a Law, and called a Law equivocally, as we call a dead man a man: for example. There was a Law in Israel, that whosoever should not humble himself upon the day of expiation, should be cut off Leu. 16. which Law is now abrogated. Nevertheless, it may be truly said, that if a Jew, who now keeps not that day, were to be tried and judged by that Law, he would be found punishable. If it be said, that Law is now abrogated, and so no man incurs the penalty, upon the nonobservance of it; It is most true, yet may he be said to be punishable by it in sensu diviso, in the very same sense in which Mr. Eyre allows sinners to be damnable by the Law of works, namely, upon supposition it were in force to make the penalty due, and sinners were to be tried and judged by it. 3. And was it not worth the while, for the Lord Jesus to come down from heaven to redeem sinners from the curse of the Law, and that at no easier a rate, then by being made a curse for them, when the Law never cursed or condemned any man, but only shows who are damnable in themselves, if they should be judged by the Law? From which way of judgement, the Elect are supposed to be secured by an antecedent act of God.   

SECT. V  
MY second Argument to prove, that the condemnation mentioned, 
§. 19  John 3. 18. cannot be meant merely of condemnation in conscience; was this. The condemnation of an unbelievers conscience, is either true, or false If true, than it is according to the judgement of God, and speaks as the thing is, and so God condemns as well as the conscience. If false, etc.  
Mr. Eyre answers, There is a threefold act of conscience about sin. 1. When it witnesseth to us about the desert of sin. 2. When it witnesseth to us concerning the act of sin. 3. When it witnesseth to us concerning our final state and condition before God. Now if conscience bear witness to a man concerning what he hath done, and what is his desert in so doing, it doth but its duty. But if it tell a man, that for the sins which he hath done he is a damned creature, and must perish everlastingly; such a conscience is both penally and sinfully evil.  
Rep. The Argument is wholly untouched. For the question is not, whether an unbelievers conscience condemn him truly in reference to his final estate: but whether it condemn him truly in reference to his present state? If it tell him, that at present he is in a state of condemnation, doth it speak true, or false? Herein Mr. Eyre will not answer me, but saith only, that if it tell him his case is desperate, and without hope, it speaks false. I need not tell Mr. Eyre that his answer is impertinent: I am persuaded he knows it well enough, conscience may tell an unbeliever that he is condemned (and herein it speaketh true) though it do not tell him that there is no way of coming out of this state of condemnation, (which were false.) 2. The two former answers also are not much to purpose: for to witness concerning the act and desert of sin, is as proper to the conscience of a believer as of an unbeliever: whereas our question is only concerning the unbelievers conscience. And if this be the whole of what conscience can justly charge upon an unbeliever, then is the believer as much subject to condemnation of conscience, as the unbeliever.  
Upon the second branch of the Argument, there is nothing I shall 
§. 20.  need reply to, saving only that passage of Mr. Eyre's, That Christ's merits will not save those whom God doth condemn. To which I say, that though none other can justify those whom God condemns: yet God himself may, and doth justify those whom he had before condemned; or else no son of Adam ever was or shall be justified, Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto Justification of life.  
A third Argument, proving, that the condemnation mentioned, 
●. 21.  John 3. 18. was not to be meant of condemnation in conscience only, was, because it is called the wrath which shall abide on unbelievers, ver. 36.  
Mr. Eyre answers, Therefore we say, no elect unbeliever is condemned of God, because the wrath of God doth not abide upon him.  
Rep. It is yielded then, that the condemnation about which we dispute, is not merely condemnation in conscience, which is as much as I ever sought from the place: and that Mr. Eyre knows well enough. 2. We have showed before that the wrath of God is upon every one that is an unbeliever at present, though it do not abide upon any but final unbelievers.  
Lastly, thus I argued. The condemnation here spoken of, is opposed 
§. 22.  to salvation, v. 17. Ergo, it is more than condemnation in conscience.  
Mr. Eyre answers, That the condemnation opposed to salvation, is damnation: and then, by Mr. Eyre's Argument, the Elect, because they are sometimes unbelievers, must all be damned.  
Rep. Sure, Mr. Eyre believes not our English Proverb. As good never a whit as never the better. Salvation is sometimes taken strictly for an executive deliverance from wrath, Rom. 5. 9 And so none are saved in this life. Sometimes more largely, and so it contains both that complete salvation, and the beginnings of it in this life, viz. that right which is given us to it in our Justification, Luke 19 9 Rom. 1. 16, 17. and 10. 9, 10. He that believeth not, is under condemnation, as it is opposed to salvation in the latter sense. The second answer is replied to already.    

CHAP. VIII.  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's 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 wilderness (supply, that whosoever looked on him, might recover of the sting of the fiery Serpent. See the story itself, Numb. 21. 8, 9) so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. And John 6. 40. It is the Will of God, that whosoever seethe and believeth the Son, should be justified.  
Mr. Eyre doth utterly deny, that it was the intent of the Holy Ghost, to show 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 
a Comparamus 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: so the soul that is smitten and wounded by the Ministry of the Law, will never find 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 burns to the very bottom of hell: not in the conscience only▪ but upon the whole person, unless 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 death's 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 Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have everlasting life: which according to Mr. Eyre's sense is this, That whosoever believeth 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 than 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 the brazen Serpent (else they could not have seen it): so they that look upon Jesus Christ, i, e. believe 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 infer 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 soul 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 death's 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 brass, '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 find ease and rest to our wearied souls. 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 pain. but between life and death, Numb. 21. 6. The fiery Serpents bitten the people, and much people of Israel died, and ver. 9 It came to pass, that if a Serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the Serpent of brass 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 signify a happy, prosperous and comfortable life; yet in our Saviour's use of it, it hath not that sense precisely (though that may very well be included consequently) partly, because the life obtained 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 Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life; partly, because the same life is called salvation, ver. 17. God sent not his Son 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 says, 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 express 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 seethe and believeth the Son shall be justified; whereas the words are, That whosoever seethe the Son, and believeth 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 myself; for I know no man but you, that excludes Justification from being there contained in eternal life. As when the Law says, 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, than 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 reigns through reghteousnesse unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord, ver. 21.   

SECT. 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 than 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 believe on Christ that hath justified us, but we believe 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, unless Mr. Eyre intent, 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 intent, 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; it's 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) signify 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 loss of which consists the whole misery of unbelievers, ver. 53. Except you eat the flesh of the Son 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 hath 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, contains all the blessings which Christ hath purchased for believers. Ergo, it contains 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 showed, that neither is that act worthy the name of pardon, which cannot of itself 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 contains more than 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 than the death of Christ wo●ld have served turn for our Redemption, if our death had been any thing less than 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.   

SECT. 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 less unsound, than the worst point in Popery or Arminianism. Thus do wise men's passions sometimes outrun the Constable: and so they may overtake their adversary, care not how many innocent persons they overrun 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. 
b Bell enerv. l. 5. c 4. p. 3●3. in 12.  Dr. Ames answers, Vel maximè hoc placuit Deo. It pleased him altogether: and adds, 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 
c Com. 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 justify, 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 plasters unapplied so is Christ unbelieved. Nay more, hast thou not saith? whiles thus thou art, God will not justify thee, nor accept thee to life; for to pronounce thee just that dost not believe on Christ, were to pronounce the guilty innocent, which is an abomination with God. For hence it is, that God's mercy and justice kiss (offering no violence to each other) because God doth so of grace save us, (sinners in ourselves) that first he maketh through Christ applied, righteous, etc. Thus 
d De reco●cil. ●ar. 1. l. 2 c. 1●. p 101.  Wotton, Fides igitur est conditio: & quidem talis conditio ad Justificationem per Christum in foedere gratuity, qualis ●rant opera ad Justificationem, ex operibus legis. The sense of which is altogether the same with Dr. Ames. Thus Calvin, 
e In Rom. 10. 8  there quoted. Colligimus, sicut lex opera exigit, Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam. Thus 
f Of the Covenant 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 confirm the same from the testimonies of Dr. Twisse, Pemble, Downham, Ball, Beza, and I think all the Protestant Authors I have (most of whose names are mentioned, chap. 1.) and that according to the constant language of the 
g Vid 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 merely 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 says 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 believe, 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 gross 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 meritoriousness 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 accessary 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 buys it; yet taking is not buying. A genere ad speciem non valet Argumentum affirmatiuè.  
Mr. Eyre. 2. Works in the first Covenant are the matter of our 
§. 9  Justification: faith is not.  
Answ. This is all one with the former. If it were not, it would only show 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 righteousness for which a person was justified: but faith is the condition of our being justified by the righteousness of a Mediator.  
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 righteousness, 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 say as these, without one word or pretence of proof? that which made works man's perfect righteousness, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that rule of Divinity, which by Creation was implanted in the frame of man's nature. That it was the condition of his Justification, was ex accidenti; by virtue 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 man's natural perfect righteousness? Titius will let Sempronius have a farm, if he will give him to the worth of it: He lets Maeveus have another, if he will ask him for it. Here, ask is the condition: there, the payment of the full price: both have the same place and order to the obtaining of the farm: 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 showed 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, than 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 Christ's Ascension, all the world shall be justified. Paul's conversion in this case, would have the very same place and order to the Justification of the world, as works 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 works.  
M. Eyre. 5. This assertion makes faith to be not of grace, because not from the Covenant of grace, seeing the Covenant itself 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 itself of grace? 2. Of the dependence 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 Augustine's, 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 vain 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 margin, Calvin and Pemble, of which the former in that very 
h Instit. 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, etc. For when the Apostle says, with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation: he shows that it is not enough, if a man believe 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 acknowledgement of the divine goodness, in which consists our righteousness. This is somewhat more than is any where said in my Sermon. P●mbl● also is as expressly against him, as (I think) is possible: and that very frequently. I shall transcribe but 
i Of 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 certain 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 sinners, upon condition they repent and believe in Christ Jesus. Mr. Eyr● the▪ is out, or Mr. Pemble, when the one says this is the judgement of our Divines: and the other says 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 works, in the covenant of works, was proved in my Sermon in these words. If the tenor 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, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, (which is the tenor 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 Believe 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 strain. That Text, Rom. 10. 6, 9 is not the tenor 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 believe and profess the truth. His scope is to resolve that question, how a man may know that he shall be saved? etc.  
Rep. The stress of the Argument lies not at all on this, that Believe 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 proof of it, yet had the Argument been the same as to its principal 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, Believe and thou shalt be saved, will as necessarily infer that faith is to go before justification: though we do not at all dispute, whether that were the tenor of the Covenant of works, 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, Believe 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 plain to prove the antecedency of faith, as the other of works to justification.  
2. And that this is the tenor of the Covenant of grace appears, 1. That which the Apostle calleth the righteousness which is of the Law. v. 5. is the tenor of the Covenant of works. Erg●, that which he calls the righteousness which is of faith. v. 6. is the tenor of the Covenant of grace, and that is this: If thou shalt confess 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, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, is the doctrine whereof the Apostles were special Ministers. etc. Rom. 10. 8, 9 The word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt believe and confess. etc. This it seems is the sum 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 sum of the Apostles Ministry, appears also from other Texts of Scripture, Act. 20. 21. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. etc. 3. The Gospel and the Covenant of grace is all one. But this is the sum of the Gospel, Believe and thou shalt be saved, Mark. 16. 15, 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. 4. Believe and thou shalt be saved, are words that have the form 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 expressly 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 not where called so.  
Ans. Nor doth the name of the Covenant of works appear 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 works? 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 righteousness of faith, the Law of faith, Rom. 3. 27. the Law of righteousness, 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 man's 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, etc. 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 faithful Abraham.] Hence the Argument is. The promise of blessedness through faith, is the sum and substance of the new Covenant. Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, is the promise of blessedness through faith. Ergo, it is the sum and substance of the new Covenant, or of the Covenant of grace. (These two terms I use as of the same import, to express that Covenant which is opposed to the Covenant of works strictly so called.) The Minor is past denial. The Major stands upon this foundation. That the same inheritance and blessing which was given by promise to believing 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. Eyre's second Argument, that when the new Covenant is mentioned, Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. it runs quite in another strain: I must desire thee (Reader) to have patience 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 confirm the truth of that which I here assert. I refer thee thither purposely, that I may forbear tautologies.  
But Mr. Eyre hath a special 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 believeth unto righteousness: 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 confess me before men, him will I also▪ confess 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 complete 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 soon as he believes; which yet is to be understood, not as if confession were of as universal and absolute necessity to salvation, as faith itself (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, he shall be saved notwithstanding) but that it is 
k Vid. 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 proof subjoined, v. 11. mentioning faith without confession, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Even as our 
l Cha●. 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 believeth and is baptised shall be saved; yet is not Baptism hereby made as necessary to salvation as faith itself: because it is not mentioned in the negative proposition presently added: He that believeth not shall be damned. Not, he that is not baptised shall be damned. Nor finally, is confession required as by itself, 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 itself.  
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 marks or characters, faith and confession; I reply, we have been too often imposed upon by pretended scopes: and Mr. Shepheard is falsely alleged as a witness, that the Apostles scope is to answer the foresaid question: for he saith it not: but is purposely arguing in that very place which 
m Sound believe. p. 230.  Mr. Eyre refers to, out of this very Text, that we are not justified before we believe. 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 works 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 itself which is promised in those words (for it were too gross 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 itself which is promised in these, believe and thou shalt be saved. The righteousness which is of the Law says thus, do this and live, v. 5. But the righteousness which is of faith says this, if thou believe thou shalt be saved, v. 6, 8, 9 What can be more plain? 2. When it is said, v. 10. with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation: must we read it thus? with the heart man believeth unto the knowledge of righteousness: 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 believe, 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 
n chap. ● sect. 1.  before by several Arguments. And according to my promise there, I shall add 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, unless 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 believe 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 believing, but their meaning is this, If thou be one of those who be or shall be believers, thou shalt be saved. Show us the like in all the Scriptures. And hence, 2. It follows, that these words do not present believers as such (reduplicatiuè) as the objects of salvation: but only Specificatiuè, 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 circumstances 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 believe 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 pertains 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 affirm either of the former were intolerably absurd) as they are elect. And so the issue will be this: believers Quatenus they are elect (Specificatiuè) are the objects of salvation. Now see (Reader) what this will come to at the long run. 1. Hereby is faith devested of all necessity, and usefulness in order to salvation, farther than 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 Peter's 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 than gold, 1 Pet. 1. 7. the Christians riches, Jam. 2. 5. by which he obtains and inherits promises, Heb. 11. 33. & 6. 12. righteousness, 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 terms of necessity? How can we be said to obtain promises, righteousness, and salvation by faith, if faith serve only to describe the person? It may be this new divinity will shortly produce a new Rhetoric: and that is no more than 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 obtain promises, righteousness, salvation by these as well as by saith, if there be no other necessity of faith to righteousness and salvation, then as it is a description of the persons that shall be saved. 3. And according to this gloss, 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 gloss, the form and nature of a promise, but of a mere conne●e Axi me, affirming the consequent upon supposition of the Antecedent. For, if thou believe, 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 is 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 righteousness 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 Abraham's faith that was imputed to him unto righteousness, Rom. 4. 3. and the Promise was to him and to his seed through faith, ver. 16. Rom. 3. 22. The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe; where we have distinctly set down the righteousness 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 believe. The Promise is that of salvation and blessedness. Compare, ver. 6. 9, 18. Here than we have again the persons to whom the Promise is given, namely, believers; the condition or means, 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. Righteousness, not only upon them that are faithful, but righteousness by faith: a Promise not only to them that do believe, but a Promise by believing. 6. If thou believe, th●● sh●lt be saved: or, Believe, 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 reward of faith as it is our act, or as it is God's work? If the former, (as most certain,) then Mr. Eyre must quit his beloved gloss: for if salvation by the Promise, be made consequent to faith, as an act required of us, and performed by us, than faith is the condition upon which we are entitled to salvation by the same Promise: and so salvation pertains to us as believers formaliter, and not only as to the men, whose property and privilege 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, than 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 kind 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 says, 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 says, Believe and thou shalt b●●saved: or, If thou believe thou shalt be saved: or, He that believes shall be saved; wherein doth this form of words oppose the other, that these must be interpreted as a description of the person rather than the other? 8. To conclude, Mr. Eyre by this gloss hath discovered the nakedness of those two Reasons he gave, why the Apostle here did not describe the tenor 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 strain, whereas if, when the Apostle says, If thou believe thou shalt be saved, his meaning be this, If thou be a person that dost or shalt believe, 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 strain 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 tenor of the New Covenant, notwithstanding any 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 righteousness of Christ.  
Rep. 
o Chap. ● sect. 3.  Which we have showed before, doth involve the Apostle in the guilt of such intolerable nonsense and self-contradiction, that I shall need add 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 righteousness; I am content to come to the penance of a public 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, etc. where there is an evident opposition between the time past and present, in respect of their Justification.  
Mr. Eyre answers, That the Apostle says, 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 Kingdom of God?— And such were some of you, but ye are justified. The Apostle in the same verse, having mentioned fornicatours, idolaters, etc. adds, 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 unjustified in times past; as these latter, that they were unsanctified in times past? But the matter is too clear to be disputed, that in their unconverted estate, there was a bar 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 Kingdom 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 Kingdom 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 Kingdom of God.— And such were some of you. The Proposition stands upon this ground, That he that is justified is an heir of the Kingdom: and therefore it is so far from being impossible, that being justified he should inherit the Kingdom, as that he cannot be excluded from it without being disinherited, Tit. 3. 7. That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs, 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?) than he will own his former answer, That they were not justified before conversion in foro conscientiae, or, in foro Ecclesiastico.  
Rep. 1. Which he doth well to profess 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 says, 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 pierce 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 self: 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 returns. The Justification here spoken of, is that which gives right to the Kingdom of God. But Justification in conscience or before the Church, is not the Justification which gives right to the Kingdom of God. Ergo, neither of these is the Justification here meant. The Assumption is out of question; the Proportion manifest. Two things the Apostle affirms of these 〈◊〉 in the time of their gentilism and unbelief. 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. ●●at therefore they could not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 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 alleged for Justification before believing, which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before believing: it hath nothing but my confidence to support it. If I had said, Nothing could be said against sanctification before believing, 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 lays these two foundations; namely, the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justify, 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 sanctify, 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 than 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, etc. But he should have remembered that we are not now comparing the nature of the things, but the likeness of expressions. Now suppose we should say as some (whom 
p Epist. dedi●. fol. 3.  Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage) 
q De●r● and E●ton etc. quo 〈…〉. 〈◊〉. Christ dying 99  That our mortification is nothing else, but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ; or, we mortify ourselves 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 fair for the foresaid Authors, That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension, or declaratively in the sight of men, as for Mr. Eyre himself, who interprets Justification in such a sense? And if it be law: full 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 fancy 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 believe.  
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 term 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 man's 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 man's Justification; and than 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 soul and body. If then the Justification spoken of here (and in other places of Scripture) be our assurance that we are justified, than 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 Kingdom 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 believing, than 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 purchased faith for his people no less than glory: and God hath certainly appointed, that all that live to years 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 ungodliness, yet have as much right to the Kingdom of Heaven, as the most faithful, humble, mortified, laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth; the height of whose blessedness it is, that they have right to enter into the Kingdom of God, Rev. 22. 14. If this blessedness may be had in the service of sin and Satan, in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh, and of the mind, in the unfruitful works of darkness; 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, 
r De ●raedest. Digr. 3. c. 5. p. 34. f.  Deum intendisse manifestationem, etc. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankind,— ex congruo, juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est, suum. The sense of which he delivers 
s Against Mr. Cotton. p. 41.  elsewhere. God will bestow salvation upon all his elect (of ripe years,) by way of reward, and crown of righteousness, etc. for which he quotes at large, 2 Thes. 1. 6, 7, 8, 10. and then adds, It is pity, this is not considered (as usually it is not) especially for the momentous consequence thereof, etc. 3. And of believers the Apostle says, 1 Thes. 1. 6, 7. It is a righteous thing with God to recompense to them rest: and on the contrary, that God were unjust if he should not save them, Heb. 6. 10. Now take righteousness and unrighteousness 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 ungodliness and debauchery, (supposing them 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, unless they repent and bring forth fruits of righteousness, then must we read 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 Kingdom of God Be not deceived: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, etc. shall inherit the Kingdom 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 Kingdom. That which made them uncapable of inheriting the Kingdom 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 Kingdom, that Justification gave them right to the Kingdom. 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 terms immediately contrary. Gild 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 loss of heaven be part of that punishment to which they are obliged; that which is contrary to it and expels 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 Kingdom of God, because of the fearful sins you lived in; but now you are justified, and therefore may inherit it. 2. The same bar which lay against the entrance of other sinners into the Kingdom of God, lay against these Corinthians also. No fornicatours, idolaters, etc. shall inherit the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But ye are justified. But the want of Justification and pardon is a bar 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 by 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 Kingdom. 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 virtue of his Justification, may therefore inherit it, because he hath now a right to it by his Justification.  
And whereas Mr. Eyre says, that their right to salvation was 
§. 22.  grounded only in God's Purpose, and in Christ's 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 confess Mr. Eyre is concerned to take but little notice of it; for if the right to heaven be given by the Promise, than they that are without the Promise (as these Corinthians were sometimes no less than the Ephesians; Eph. 2. 12.) are also without a right to heaven. As for God's 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 
t Vid. Lesle. 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. Add, if Purposes essentially do give right, than 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, Proxy 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 show 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, than they may inherit heaven without faith; we shall make this good, and then inquire into the reason of his denial. The consequence therefore is thus proved. To deny heaven to him that hath right to it, is to deny a man his right (a thing most unworthy to be thought of God. 
u Vid. Sebast. à Costa. Com. in loc. & Decret. Greg. l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 7 §. Si vero a● ere cannot. 〈◊〉 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 believe 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 believe, 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: 
x L. Perfecta C. de donat. quae sub modo.  a perfect donation admits of no after-conditions: at least, unless they be added 
y Vide Covar ruu. 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 believe: yet even thus it must be acknowledged, that they have more right when they believe, than they had before: as Titius hath more right to what I gave him, at the age of twenty one, than 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 believe, is in itself contingent and uncertain, (in its self, I say, because it is known to God: but God's knowledge altars not the nature of things, he knows what events shall come to pass 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 
z I. Stipulatio ista. §. inter certam ff de verb. oblige.  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 believe, it is all one as if he promise it on condition they believe: 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 Kingdom 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 dependence there is of the Kingdom upon Justification, that nothing more is required to make a man morally and immediately capable of inheriting the Kingdom, but that he be justified, Rom. 8. 30. Whom he justified, them he glorified. See 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 man's 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 believe it. Yet I am out of doubt that God never purposed faith to any such person, but to such as are aliens, strangers and foreigners, 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 righteousness and life, (and then I have what I would; for than 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 needless and superfluous;) or it is purposed as part of the natural essential perfection of man's 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. 
a Vide 〈◊〉 in Scent l. 4 dist. 14 ●. 19 ad. 3.  There are some things, which in themselves are perfections of man's nature, as love to God and our neighbour, and all the virtues pertaining to the first or second table: that faith which Adam had in his innocency, and the frame of righteousness in which he was created. Other things are no virtues at all, but upon supposition of sin, and do always imply imperfection: as shame for sin, brokenness of heart, repentance, and faith in a Mediator, as it signifies an abnegation of our own righteousness, and a dependence upon another for righteousness. These of the latte● sort are no part of the essential perfection of man, yea, they do essentially suppose imperfection; for faith in a Mediator is at an 
b Vide 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●) 〈◊〉 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  cease to be a Mediator, after he hath brought all his redeemed one's unto God, 1 Cor. 15. 24, 27, 28. though the virtue and effects of his Mediatorship abide for ever. Faith itself therefore being no part of our inheritance, nor means of obtaining it upon Mr. Eyre's supposal, that it is no means of obtaining right to it, it remains, that it is not necessary to any man's 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 ungodliness 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 wickedness, 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 glorify. 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 passed of those things which God had appointed should go before their salvation: and so by their sin they became nearer heaven than they were before. 3. And on the contrary, the purpose of giving faith, is rather a hindrance then a furtherance of their happiness, for they have right to heaven even while they live in all manner of ungodliness: 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 gainsaying of the Law: which though it be a bugbear, even to the elect themselves, to terrify and affright the conscience, while they live in sin and ungodliness; yet hath no authority (it seems) to debar them from entrance into heaven, no more than 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 impeachment to the justice of God's 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 ways of the Lord are equal, Ezek. 18. throughout: Fiftly,  
If ungracious men have a right to heaven, only they cannot 
§. 25.  possess 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 maintain, 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 
c Ames. 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 〈◊〉 etc. appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus non 〈◊〉. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Davenant de 〈◊〉 Act cap. 〈◊〉 5. & 6. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Protestants. But when he infers, than 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 righteousness which we have done but by the renewing of the holy Ghost: partly, because the works of sanctification are not the condition properly of our obtaining, but of not losing our right to the heavenly Kingdom. As if Titius upon 〈◊〉 his entreaty give him a farm, to be held by him jure feudi: the non-performance of that homage and fidelity which the feudatory is bound to, forfeits his right: nevertheless 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 mortify 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. Eyre's parallel before us, that the dissimilitude may the better appear. Thus than 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, than 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 itself the Act which giveth it, as we have showed 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 than this, neither reason, nor the civil Law requires, to denominate a gift to be conditional. In election the case is otherwise: which, because it doth not transmit or convey 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 itself be absolute? yea though it be of things which do not exist but upon condition. Thus Dr. 
d In 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, etc. and particularly of justification or pardon of sin he adds: 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 to God; and so whatsoever he purposeth is necessary, because his purposes being immutable, and his power , it must needs be, that whatsoever he purposeth must come to pass: or in reference to us; and so that is necessary which is enjoined 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 infer that it is a condition; but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life, and yet our believing remain 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 myself 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. God's giving life may be considered either simply as it is God's act, and the execution of his eternal purpose; or as withal it is our blessedness, & 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 than 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; than 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 righteousness and salvation; and so election will nevertheless 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 itself. 2. If by consequence he mean an effect, then is it again supposed that faith is an effect of justification. which should be proved and not unworthily begged. I read in Scripture of believing unto righteousness: of being justified unto believing, 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 claim 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, than 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 certain 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 believe.    

CHAP. IX.  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's thirteenth Chapter; Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures, which seem to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God, upon the death of Christ, without the intervention of faith.  

SECT. I.  
AGainst what we have hitherto been proving, I know 
§. 1.  nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures, more than a Text or two, that seem to hold forth an immediate, actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ: which if it be so, than their justification is not suspended upon believing: and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves. But the Arguments drawn from those places which seem to favour it most, are so inconsequent, and contrary testimonies, so many and irrefragable, that I am very little solicitous about the issue. Both these things we shall show in order: and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative.  
Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front. This is my beloved son 
§. 2.  in whom I am well pleased, that is (saith Mr. Eyre) with sinners. The inference should be, Ergo, God was well pleased with sinners (that is, reconciled to them) immediately in the death of Christ.  
To this, in my sermon I gave a double answer. 1. That the well-pleasedness of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ, who gave himself unto the death, an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour, Eph. 5. 2.  
Mr. Eyre in his reply to this, produceth many testimonies, of Musculus, Calvin, Beza, Paraeus, Ward, Ferus; and some reasons, to prove that which never came into my mind to deny, namely, that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners. To all which I shall need return no other answer, than an explication of that which is given already. The words therefore may be understood either, 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of, and well-pleasedness in Christ, as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends, and producing those effects for which it was offered, Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only, and above all other, men or Angels: or, 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing, namely, God's well-pleasedness with sinners for Christ's sake. Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say, the words may be taken only in the former sense, and so confined to the person of Christ, that I must be printed as a man that thinks myself worth a thousand such as Colvin, Beza, Paraeus, & c? Whose judgements I had not then consulted, nor do now find any thing which I consent not to, except one passage in Beza. When 1. Mr. Eyre's exposition cannot consist, without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: he must add, in whom I am well pleased with sinners. 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greek of the LXX interpreters, nor of the New Testament is acquainted with, namely that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should govern two dative cases, one of the cause, and the other of the object. Add the word sinners, and the Greek runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let Mr. Eyre match this construction, if he can. 3. And if he give the right sense of the words, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom, is not the dative case of the object with whom God is well pleased; but of the means or cause through which God is well pleased with others, namely with sinners: Whereas the same particles construed with the same verb, are elsewhere perpetually a note of the object. 1 Cor. 10. 5. 2 Cor. 12. 10. 2 Thes. 2. 12. Heb. 10. 38. suitable to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which they answer.  
The Authors whom Mr. Eyre musters up to face me, have no quarrel with me at all. They do amplify Gods well-pleasedness with 
§. 3.  Christ from the effect which follows upon it, namely, his well-pleasedness with sinners. But do any of them deny, that the words may be understood precisely of God's acceptance and approbation of what Christ hath done in order to the salvation of sinners? Let us see the reasons which Mr. Eyre hath against it. 1. Saith he, the words are a solemn declaration of Christ's investiture in the office of a mediator. Answ. What then? do they therefore prove, that the effects of his mediatorship, and particularly this of Gods being well-pleased with sinners, were then presently communicated and applied to sinners? may it not suffice that they testify Gods singular approbation of Christ to be a Mediator, and of all his mediatory performances, though they do not produce their effects upon many sinners till many ages after? But (saith he) the words were spoken ●●r their sakes whom Christ represented! as Joh. 12. 30. Answ. But the consequence is still abortive. Because the words were spoken for their sakes, must they therefore needs signify that God was actually well-pleased with them, even while they continue strangers and enemies against God? might they not be spoken for their sakes, though they intent no more then to describe that person in whom God is well pleased, and to direct sinners to him, that through faith in him God may also be well pleased with them? as those words, J●h. 12. 30. were spoken for the sake of sinners, that upon that testimony which was there given unto Christ they might believe. 2. The second reason is a plain negator, that the Text quoted by me, Eph. 5. 2. makes for my purpose. When it is framed into some similitude of an Argument, it shall have an answer. 3. The third is, Because no reas●n can be given, why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ; seeing God was never displeased with him. Answ. 1. We have given three reasons already from the Text. There is no other person mentioned in the Text, as the object of God's well-pleasedness: and if there were no more, that is enough. 2. God was never displeased with Christ q●oad affectum: but he was displeased with him Oeconomically & quoad effectum: for Christ bore his Father's displeasure. 3. But if God had never been displeased with him, what consequence is this? God was never displeased with Christ, nor had Christ any suspicion of it. Erg●, it was needless that God should declare himself to be well pleased with him? There was ground enough of such a declaration, if it were for no other end, but only to manifest how infinitely acceptable the sacrifice of Christ was unto God, above all the sacrifices under the Law: and that he was displeased with them in comparison of this. In  offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure; then said I, lo I come, etc. Heb. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9 The fourth and last reason is this. The well-pleasedness of God is to be extended to them for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice. Ergo, to sinners, Answ. The Antecedent, if it be meant of the extent of the words which we are debating, begs the question.   

SECT. II.  
MY second answer was, that if God's well-pleasedness spoken of in the Text, be extended also unto men, yet will the words 
§. 4.  prove no more, then that it is through Christ, that God is well pleased with men, whensoever it be that he is well pleased.  
This plain answer Mr. Eyre will have to be thus glossed, namely that my sense of the words, 〈◊〉 well 〈◊〉, is as much as, I will be well pleased, when they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part; and then very seriously desires his Reader, to observe how bold I make with the holy Ghost, in that when God says, He is well pleased, I say no, he is not now, but he will be hereafter.  
But 1. Mr. Eyre makes more bold with me than he ought: for neither did I say nor mean, that the words I ●m well pleased, should be thus sensed, I will ●e well pleased; but interpret the words as spoken indefinitely in respect of time, that it i● through Christ that God is well pleased whensoever it be that he is well pleased. As if I should say God is well pleased with obedience or with praise, do not necessarily suppose that there are then any, putting forth the act of obedience or praise, with which God is then actually well pleased (for what if all the men in the world were a sleep at once? as 'tis like they were some times in No●h● Ark) but that these acts are pleasing to God whensoever they are put forth. 2. And if I had given this sense of the words, putting the present tense for the future▪ yet, doth not Mr. Eyre make a bold with the holy Ghost as I, when towards the latter end of his very next paragraph, he acknowledges such an Heterosis of Tenses to be very frequent in Scripture? Yea, hath he not already made bolder? not only here in adding the words, with sinners, to the Text; but in rendering the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the pretertense in Joh. 3. 18. as signifying not only one that now believes not, but one that shall never believe, pag. 110. §. 3. Nor did I mention faith or any other condition upon which God is well pleased with sinners: not that I disowne it; but because it is impertinent to my present business, for we are not now disputing, when, or upon what terms God is well pleased with sinners; but whether he be well pleased with them immediately upon the death of Christ?  
For justifying of my interpretation, I shown from Scripture, that 
§. 5.  verbs of the present tense have sometimes the signification of the future: sometimes are barely notes of affirmation, without reference to any determinate time, of which we shall set down examples presently. But by the way, Mr. Eyre, to humble me, tells me, that every schoolboy knows, that Aorists have the signification of the preterperfect tense, not of the future.  
Ans. Which if it be true, the boys know more than their Masters, for it is a rule in 
a Vide Dom. Busb. Gram. Graec. pag. 35. Pfocen. de ling. grae. N. T. pur. pag. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Dr. Hammond Annot. in Mat. 23. 35. g. & Auth r. Excerpt. ad sinem clement. Alexand ex pantaeno ubi etiam statuit verbum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Psal. 19 4. Poni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Grammar, Indefinita sunt tempora incertae significationis: sumuntur enim pro praeteritis: & interdum pro praes. & Futur. The same doth Eustathius observe on that of 
b Iliad. a. ci●ca princip.  Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as some latter copies read it. Examples are frequent in Scripture, Joh. 15. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Matth. 23. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 6. 5, 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and many other places Examples of the present tense, put in the signification of the future, I alleged these, Joh. 4 25. The Messiah cometh, that is, will shortly come. Mr. Eyre will have this sense of it. The promise of the Messiah draws nigh to be fulfilled.  
Rep. But we are not now enquiring into the theological truth, but grammatical construction of the words. If Schoolboys should construe the words, as Mr. Eyre doth english them: I believe their Master would con them thanks. Another place was, Joh. 5. 25. The hour is coming, and now is M. Eyre, answers. The dead than did hear the voice of the Son of God. Answ. Whatsoever be the meaning of the words, the same hour could not be (that is, now exist) and yet be coming too. Another place was, Joh. 14. 3. If I go, I come again. This I think, Mr. Eyre grants to be for my turn, for he excepts nothing against it, and one place is as good as a hundred, and if it were worth while, I would also vindicate the next place, which is, 2 Cor. 3. 16. In the mean time, the judgement of our translatours is sufficient to oppose to Mr. Eyre's: Who if they had not thought verbs of the present tense, might have the signification of the future, would not so have rendered them.  
Examples of verbs of the present tense as notes of affirmation, 
§. 7.  without reference to any determinate time, were these, Rom. 8. 24. By hope we are saved; that is, it is in the way of hope and patiented expectation that men are saved, whensoever it be that they are saved. Mr. Eyre answers? They are saved by hope, that is, they have now the joy and comfort of their salvation through faith and hope. They are now saved by hope, or they shall never be saved by hope: in the world to come they are saved by sight, not by faith or hope.  
Rep. 1. But the Apostle supposeth the salvation he speaks of to be absent, not present, because we hope for it. 2. We have observed before, that joy and comfort are sometimes expressed by the name of life; never by the name of salvation in the New-Testament. 3. To be saved by sight ● little better than nonsense: what Divine can be found that ever penned such uncouth language? sight is itself our positive salvation. And we are saved in the world to come, by that hope which we exercise in this present life: forasmuch as salvation is the end of our hope and faith, 1 Pet. 1. 9 I must confess, I am so well acquainted with the abilities of the Author whom I oppose, that I know not almost what interpretation to put upon these his strange kind of dispute. Another Text is, 1 Cor. 15. 57 Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. The meaning is, it is through God that we have the victory over death, be it when it will be that we have it. Mr. Eyre will have it read, th●nks be unto God who giveth us, or hath given us the victory; for (saith he) the Saints have already obtained victory over death and the grave in Christ their head. Rep. But the Apostle speaketh manifestly of the victory which God giveth them in their own Persons: the time of which he doth also describe in general a little before, v. 54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality; then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: death is swallowed up in victory. This therefore is the victory which God giveth. So Heb. 10. 35. Your confidence hath a great recompense of reward. That is (saith Mr Eyre) in the present effects which it did produce, as inward peace, joy, etc. Rep. And yet in the very verse foregoing, v. 34. it is called that better and enduring substance in heaven, and in the following verse, v. 36. The promise which is obtained, after that with patience we have done the will of God, and v. 39 The saving of the soul. The last place I mentioned was Jam. 1. 17. Every good gift cometh down from above: Not as if it must needs be coming down when the Apostle spoke those words; but that whensoever any one receives a good gift, it is from God. Against this Mr. Eyre excepts nothing. If then in these and many other places, and that by Mr. Eyre's own confession (for he acknowledgeth an heterosis of tenses, to be a trope very frequent in Scripture) verbs of the present tense have sometimes the signification of verbs future, sometimes are only notes of affirmation, without respect to any definite time: Why doth Mr. Eyre make such outcries against me, to so little purpose, for interpreting the present words (In whom I am well-pleased) according to the Analogy of other places?  
Why (saith he) I should have shown that it must be so expounded here. 
§. 8.  Rep. Nay, but by his leave, I have performed my undertaking, in showing that they yield him no proof of what he sought in them. Besides, my judgement of the words is, that they ought to be confined to the person of Christ: and that I thought (and yet think) sufficiently proved, because they mention no other persons, and they are a complete sentence without the addition. What I speak of this second answer, is upon allowance to Mr. Eyre of the selvidge he would sow upon them, to show that notwithstanding that addition, yet the words do not come up to his purpose.   

SECT. III.  
Nevertheless, I did also farther show that his interpretation 
§. 9  could not be right; because the Text would then contradict plain testimony of Scripture, particularly that in Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God, or to be pleasing unto God.  
Mr. Eyre answers. The Apostle speaks there of men's works and actions, not of their persons.  
Rep. 1. But the Greek 
b See 2 Cor. 5. 9 Rom 12 1. & 14. 18.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it denotes Gods well-pleasedness with a person, is never used, but to signify God's complacency in or approbation of a person because of his qualities, or actions, or both. So doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also, when it notes, not the decree or purpose of the will (as sometimes it doth) but the affection, as when it is said in chapter 10. 38. If any man draw back (namely by unbelief, Heb. 3. 12.) my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Where God's displeasure is with the person: but grounded in his displeasing quality. viz. Of unbelief, and on the contrary: Enoch is here said by faith to please, or to be pleasing unto God, v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Seeing then the word imports such a delight in, or approbation of a person, as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities: and nothing in man is lovely in God's eyes without faith (for God delights not in his physical substance, or natural perfections of any sort, Psal. 147. 10.) it follows, that when we are said by faith to please God, or to be pleasing to him; or that it is impossible to please him without faith: it must be understood of the pleasingness of the person, as well as of the action. Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect, even while they are most displeasing to him: but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they believe. They that are in the flesh cannot please God, Rom. 8. 8.  
2. Nor can I imagine how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men, and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do: which yet he must be supposed to be, if faith do only commend our actions, not our persons unto God. Amongst men it is unconceivable, how a total displeasure with another man's actions, can consist with well-pleasedness with the person. That which commends the work doth also commend the worker: and if the work be unacceptable, the worker also is so far unacceptable: if all his works be unacceptable, himself also is wholly unacceptable. 3. I ask, whether faith itself be pleasing unto God? principally out of doubt, Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God, it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience only. 4. And though it be most true, that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith, yet cannot Mr. Eyre own it, if he will be true to his doctrine, that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being; for that obedience wherein God seethe no sin, is acceptable to him. The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seethe no sin (I speak of those works which they may perform before they believe: as prayer, hearing of the word, etc.) Ergo, it is acceptable to God. The assumption is manifest: for not to see sin, and to pardon it, are all one: and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect: (as saith Mr. Eyre.)  
In the following part of this answer, he gives us a reason why our 
§. 10.  works without faith cannot please God: for (saith he) bonum est ex causá integrá. Now what is not done in faith, is not done in love, Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God.  
Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except: only, 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of: who, when he had said, without faith it is impossible to please God, presently gives this reason; for he that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate, yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it, upon any other account then because that defect is sinful; and the sinfulness being supposed to be pardoned, and that from eternity, it cannot make the work unacceptable: pardoned sin, and no sin, are much of the same strength, as to any harm it can do us. 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good, how comes it to pass that the person should be so hugely wellpleasing while there is nothing in him but evil? men's persons are under Law as well as their actions: Ars est in fabrica rei. 
c See John Yates Mod. of Divin. pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno, A●exand. Richardsono.  Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of man's nature. If an action materially good, be yet displeasing▪ because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner: surely the person cannot be wellpleasing, while he is every whit as much out of frame, and fallen all in pieces (as I may so speak) and not so much as begun to be repaired again by a spirit of renovation.  
In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove, 
§. 11.  that God's well-pleasedness with the elect, is the immediate effect of the death of Christ. If he mean immediate in respect of time, and exclusively of every qualification in us, without which God will not be well-pleased with us; let us see his Arguments. The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture.  
First (saith he), That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect, was the breach of the Law: Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins, this partition was broken down; his favour had as free a current, as if they had not sinned.  
Answ. The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more, and needed to be no more than a removens prohibens of our good: which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter (though most unjustly) as a very heinous error, and exagitates it with a●rimony▪ sufficient. Therefore I shall not need to confute it: yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration. If the reason of God's well-pleasedness with sinners be this only, that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them, than the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was (and all mankind in him) before the fall: and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant, but established the old. But this is most notoriously false. Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plain: for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance, had all its causes in being before: as, if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of ●he shuts of the windows, it supposeth the sun to be up. Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life, before the death of Christ, was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him. Ergo, if God's well-pleasedness follow immediately upon the death of Christ, as that which hath removed the hindrance, it follows by virtue of that Covenant, or by none at all. 2. But if the well-pleasedness of God, do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ, Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null. My answer therefore is. That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition, so as that it could not long stand: but it did not totally demolish and throw it down, presently; because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Son, in his undertaking for our redemption: which because I am purposely to prove by and by, I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to it. 3. In the mean time, I must confess to Mr. Eyre, I do not understand what he means to tell us of a wall of partition raised between God and the elect. What? are they justified, and all their sins pardoned, and that from eternity, and yet is there a wall of partition between God and them? Is pardoned sin able to separate between the soul and God? Woe to poor sinners, if this be true.  
But let us see his Scriptures: (for one Text of Scripture is of more 
§. 12.  consequence to me then a hundred such Arguments) they are these, Eph. 1. 6, 7. and 2. 13, 14. Coloss. 1. 20, 21. and 2. 13, 14. 2 Cor. 5. 19  
Rep. To Ephes. 1. 6, 7. we have answered before; and have showed from the very letter of the Text, that it doth not only not exclude faith from being necessary to God's acceptance of us, but also doth necessarily include it. Eph. 2. 13, 14. speaks not of a partition wall between God and sinners, but between Jews and Gentiles. The words are these. But now in Christ Jesus, yea who sometimes were afar of, are made nigh by the blood of Christ; for he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Indeed in ver. 16. there is mention made of reconciliation unto God: but such as throws down the wall and bulwarks, which Mr. Eyre would build upon it. And that he might reconcile both unto God, in one body by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Can any thing be more plain, than that Jews and Gentiles are first made one body by faith, before they are actually reconciled to God by the virtue of the Cross of Christ? Therefore holy Bayne observes well upon the place, That we must get fellowship with Christ, we must be incorporated with him and with believers, before we can be reconciled with him. And surely this incorporation is by faith, ver. 13. 17, 20. chap. 3. 6, 12. and 4. 4. John 10. 16.  
The same I say to Col. 1. 20, 21. And (having made peace (or making 
§. 13.  peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) through the blood of his Cross) by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his flesh, through death, etc. Doth not the Apostle speak as plainly, as it is possible for man's tongue to utter it, that by the body and death of Christ, these Colossians were reconciled now? which particle now is expressly opposed to the time wherein they were alienated, and enemies in their minds by wicked works. I shall here transcribe something of a reverend and renowned 
d ●p Davenant on the place.  Doctor of our own, because his words are so clear and full. Ex hoc loco colligimus, etc. Out of this place we gather, that there is a double reconciliation considered in Scripture: the one general, finished in the sacrifice on the Cross, of which the Apostle spoke in the verse foregoing. It pleased the Father by the blood of the Cross, to reconcile all things to himself; and John chap. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This I call general, because it is considered according to the value of the sacrifice, which is not only general, but infinite; and according to the manner of proposing it in the preaching of the Gospel, which is also indefinite and general.— But besides this reconciliation in the Cross, and generally Applicable unto all, the Scripture shows us also a particular and applied reconciliation in the hearts and consciences of particular men: namely, when that sacrifice of Christ, which hath in it an universal power of reconciling all men, is actually applied to the reconciliation of this or that man. Of this speaks the Apostle when he says: Now hath he reconciled you. 2ly, we are taught when and how men are made partakers of this particular reconciliation, namely, by the faith of the Gospel.— As Rom. 3. 22. Thus fare Davenant. If then Mr. Eyre will urge this place aright, it overthrows the thing which he would prove by. What consequence is this? The Scriptures ●ear witness, that they that believed, were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son. Ergo, They were reconciled while they were in unbelief.  
The next place is Col. 2. 13, 14. And you being dead in your sins, 
§. 14.  and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. If Mr. Eyre will argue from this verse, his inference must be this. Erg●, all their trespasses were forgiven them immediately upon the death of Christ. But the Adverbs of time, though they be not here expressed, yet are they necessarily implied, as appears plainly from the parallel place, Eph. 2. 1, 2, 3. where their death in sin is expressly limited to the time past, namely the time of their unbelief, in opposition to the time present, namely, the time of their Conversion; which words if we borrow from thence and put them here, the Apostles sense is plainly this: you were in times past dead in sins; but now, since you have believed, are quickened, that is to say, have your sins pardoned, which to be his meaning is undeniable, from ver. 12. the verse next foregoing, where he tells them, that they were risen with Christ in Baptism, through the faith of the operation of God: And then presently adds, as another excellency and privilege of the same faith, (if at least the privilege be not the same in other words) that they were quickened together with Christ, through the pardon of their sins, where, as their being raised with Christ in Bapptisme, doth by no means note simultatem temporis, that they were baptised at the same time as Christ was raised, but similitudinem qualitatis, that by faith and baptism they were conformed spiritually unto the image of Christ in his Resurrection, (See Rom. 6. 4, 5, 6.) so neither doth their being quickened with Christ in the forgiveness of their trespasses, signify that their sins were then forgiven when he was quickened, (much less immediately upon his death, which Mr. Eyre should and would prove:) but our conformity to him in our deliverance from death moral, as he was raised from death natural.  
But it may be 'tis the next verse which Mr. Eyre thinks more for his purpose, ver. 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross. The words (as I conceive with our Expositors) are to be understood of the abrogation of the ceremonial Law, by which the Jews were separated from the Gentiles, and the Gentiles from that access unto God which the Jews had. And this indeed was a necessary and fair preparation to the reconciling of the Gentiles through faith: but how it should follow from hence, that the Gentiles, or any sinners else, were reconciled to God immediately upon the de●th of Christ, is beyond my comprehension. And yet (if I may speak my own judgement) I see no reason why the words may not be understood metonymically, and that be said to be done in the death of Christ, whereof the death of Christ is the cause that it is done, though it be not done presently, but sometimes after: for the death of Christ did indeed give the ceremonies their death's wound; but they did not totally and perfectly expire, till sometime 
e Vide Scot in Sent. l 4. d, 3. qu 4 n. 7. 8, 9, 12 etc. See also D Godwin in Rom. 8. 34. sect. 5. p 171  after the Gospel had been preached: for surely, some years after the death of Christ, if the Jews, (at least multitudes of them, who lived farthest from the sound of the Gospel) were not bound to observe the Laws of Moses, yet they might observe them without sin, which after the Gospel was fully preached, they could not do. But if Mr. Eyre himself, or any man else, shall think fit, hereafter to engage in this Argument; I shall desire him to form his Reasons from these and the like texts, into some Logical shape, that we may be assured of what it is they ground upon; otherwise men may accumulate texts of Scripture in insinitum, and an Answerer be left uncertain what he opposeth.  
The last text mentioned by Mr. Eyre, is 2 Cor. 5. 19 God was 
§. 15.  in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself: which words Mr. Eyre confesseth I thus glossed. That God was in Christ, acting towards the reconciliation of the world to himself: but this gloss Mr. Eyre confuteth; How? Why, he tells his Reader, It is not so. Is not this a gallant confutation? But I am out of doubt▪ that it is so, and that the Apostles meaning is plainly, not that sinners were reconciled immediately and presently by the death of Christ, but that God appointed and accepted his death, as a most sufficient means and cause by which they should be reconciled, when they believed, and not before; the death of Christ effecting this immediately. That notwithstanding all their sins, yet there lies not on them a remediless necessity of perishing, but that if they shall believe on him that died for them, they shall be justified and saved. Even as if we should say of a Physician, that hath found out a Catholicon that would cure all diseases; Here's a man that hath cured all diseases: not that his remedy had actually cured them (for there may be many thousands to whom it was never applied) but that it cures all who will suffer it to be applied. 
f Aquin. 3 ●●q. 49. art. 1. ad 3 m.  Christus in suâ passione nos liberavit causaliter, id est, instituens causam nostrae liberationis, ex qua possent quaecunque p●ocata quandoque remitti, vel praeterita, vel praesentia, vel futura. Siout si medicus faciat medicinam, ex quâ p●ssent qu●●unque morbi sanari, etiam in futurum. Of which more by and by. That the place is thus to be interpreted, is manifest from the context. For after the Apostle had said, God was in Christ, or by Christ reconciling the world unto himself; He adds, And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now than we are Ambassadors for Christ; a● though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled unto God. If we were reconciled in the death of Christ quoad effectum, to what purpose are Ambassadors sent abroad into the world, most earnestly and importunately to beseech sinners that they would be reconciled unto God? It will be said the meaning of that exhortation is, that sinners would ●ay aside the enmity of their hearts against God, and return to him by faith in his Son Jesus Christ. Answ. Most truly, if one word more be added, namely, that we exhort men to believe on Christ, that they may partake in the reconciliation prepared and purchased in his blood, for all that come unto him; for surely the reconciliation which the Apostle exhorts to, is not only active, in our ●aying aside our enmity against God, but also passive in Gods being reconciled to us. 1. That is the proper importance of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the passive voice, though we cannot so happily render it in English, as to express its significancy. It denotes properly, not our act of reconciling ourselves to God (for the word being of the passive voice, notes that we also are passive in the reconciliation spoken of) but our doing of that, upon which another (namely God) is reconciled with us. As when the same word is used in the same sense, 1 Cor. 7. 11. But if she depart, let her remain ●●married, or be reconciled to her h●sband, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which is not meant of her laying aside of enmity against her husband, but of her ●sing means to obtain the favour and affection of her h●sband, that he may be reconciled to her. So Matth 5. 24. Be reconciled to thy Brother, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not meant properly of a man's reconciling himself to his brother, but of doing what he can, to gain his brother's good affection to him. In the like sense doth Peter use another word, Acts 2. 40. Save yourselves from this untoward generation. In the Greek the verb is passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Be you saved from this untoward generation, that is, convert unto God, that you may be saved from the destruction which is coming on this generation. In like manner, when the Apostle says here, Be ye reconciled unto God; he exhorts us indeed unto faith, not as that by which we reconcile ourselves to God, but as that by which we partake in God's reconciliation with us. If then we be perfectly reconciled before, what needs this exhortation? 2. Or that other in the next verse but one, namely, chap. 6, 1. We then as workers together with him, beseech you also, that you receive not the grace of God in vain. This grace of God is that which before he called the Ministry of reconciliation, even the Gospel, inviting us through faith to a reconciliation with God. And what is the receiving of this grace in vain, but a not believing of Christ and his Gospel, through which unbelief the reconciliation begun in the blood of Christ, and preached in his Gospel, becomes of none effect to us. If we were perfectly reconciled immediately upon his death, our unbelief could not hinder our reconciliation.  
As to Mr. Perkins testimony, which Mr. Eyre in the words following 
§. 16.  opposeth against me, namely, that the actual blotting out of sin, doth inseparably depend upon satisfaction for sin; if Mr. Eyre will square it to his own rule, he must show us, that to depend inseparably, and to depend immediately are all one, which will be hard to do. Doth not our Glorification depend inseparably upon our Predestination? yet not immediately. And when afterwards Mr. Pemble is quoted with great ostentation, to justify that God is well pleased with the persons of the elect unregenerate, but not with their unregeneracy: it may be of some authority with men that cannot read English. Mr. Eyre sets down his words at large: and what saith he? why, that God loves the persons of the elect, but not their vices: as Parents love their children's persons, even while they chastise them for their vices. But is God therefore well pleased with the elect, because he loves them, that is, hath purposes of doing them good; or because Parents love their children, and would do them all the good they can, are they therefore well pleased with them, even while they are correcting them for their vices? let themselves judge. We have showed before, that well-pleasedness imports an approbation of a person, and supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities. And as for the inference which I made upon Mr. Eyre's distinction, between unregenerate men and their unregeneracy; it was grounded upon presumption, that the said distinction intended to show the difference between God's well-pleasedness with the Elect, before and after their Conversion: otherwise I undertake not its defence.  
In the next place, Mr. Eyre adds something to clear up the difference 
§. 17▪  between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons; As, 1. That the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful: which though they are pardoned unto all the elect, yet are they not acceptable to God, but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight.  
Answ. The best actions of unregenerate men are materially good, (as Prayer, hearing of the Word, Almesdeeds, etc.) It is the want of a good principle, and a good end which makes them unacceptable unto God, 2 Chron. 25. 2. If the sinfulness of them be pardoned, they must needs be acceptable, as we observed before.  
2. Saith he, The best works of good men are acceptable and pleasing unto God: 1. Abstractly, and in themselves: thus faith, hope, love, are pleasing to God. 2. Concretely, as they are acted by us: and so they are acceptable to God, as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ.  
Answ. 1. Abstracta dicunt essentias; faith, hope, and love in their abstract nature, are not considered as our actions, but as virtues, and in themselves good: therefore that part of the answer is impertinent; might we suppose that these virtues might be found in persons not elect, their own goodness would commend them to God, as much as when they are in persons elect. 2. For a work to be washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ, is to have the sinfulness thereof for his sake pardoned: which because it is done to the elect, as much in their unregeneracy as after; the good works they do, when regenerate, can be no more acceptable than before.   

SECT. iv  
OF all the places in Scripture, which speak of our reconciliation unto God by the death of Christ; I know none that seem to 
§. 18.  make it an immediate effect of his death, but that in Rom. 5. 10. and therefore I opposed that to myself, and answered it in my Sermon. And that the truth of my answer, and the impertinency of all that Mr. Eyre says against it may the better appear, I shall transcribe the text at large, ver. 8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, ver. 9 much more than being n●w justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him, ver. 10. for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life, ver. 11. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. The main objection is out of ver. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. The answer which I gave to it in short was this, That Christ's death was the price of our reconciliation: and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled, be it when it will be that we are reconciled, which that it is the Apostles meaning, we shall prove by and by; in the mean time let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it. His exceptions are six.  
1. Saith he, It offers a manifest violence to the text, To say, That we were reconciled, is as much as we shall be reconciled. Answ. And it is a manifest violence to my words, to say, that I so interpret it. I say, we were reconciled quoad meritum, immediately in the death of Christ, that is, his death purchased reconciliation for us: and therefore through that death it is, that we are reconciled actually and effectiuè whensoever it be.  
The second exception is the old irrational notion, That if reconciliation depend upon conditions to be performed by us, than we are the causes of our own reconciliation. Where, not only the consequence is false, (as we have largely showed above) but the antecedent also impertinent: I am not now disputing whether reconciliation follow faith, but whether it exist immediately upon the death of Christ?  
The third. This reconciliation was made when we were enemies. Ergo, before our believing.  
Answ. Yet will it not follow, that it was made immediately in the death of Christ, which is the thing Mr. Eyre should prove. If we be not reconciled before we are born, it is sufficient to prove, that we were not reconciled in the death of Christ immediately, whether faith be supposed to be necessary or no. 2. The word reconciled is used twice in ver. 10. If they both relate to one and the same reconciliation, (of which I doubt, as I shall show farther by and by) yet I readily grant that it was made in the death of Christ. Were not my words plain enough before? That we are said to be reconciled unto God in the death of his Son, inasmuch as Christ's death was the price of our reconciliation. The cause was then in being, though the effect do not follow till some time after.  
The fourth, If the meaning were no more but this, That it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled, be it when it will be that we are reconciled, than this clause, when we were enemies, would be superfluous.  
Answ. The emphasis of those words is plain. God reconciles his enemies to himself, whensoever it be that he reconciles them; and Christ purchased reconciliation for enemies, not for friends. See C●l. 1. 21.  
The fifth, God was in Christ, not imputing our sins to us, 2 Cor. 5. 19 Answ. That doth not prove, but that I rightly interpret the Apostle here. 2. In 2 Cor. 5. 19 reconciling and non-imputing are all one: the latter interprets the former. God did act towards the reconciliation of sinners, and the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ, but they were not therefore presently reconciled, and their sin non-imputed, as we have showed from the text before. God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ.  
The sixth, That what I grant yields the question, viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ. For if Christ, by the shedding of his blood, paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law, than were we actually set free from the obligation of it; for when the debt is paid, the debtor is free in Law.  
Answ. I deny the consequent, and the proof of it. Christ purchased our Glorification: must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead? that is to say, many hundreds of years before we are borne. And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many years after the price was paid, might he not also purchase another, and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law, to follow after a like distance of time? 2, The reason or proof is most impertinent. Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse, unless the said deliverance follow presently and immediately, because the debt being paid, the debtor is presently discharged As if I should say, the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtor. Ergo, men cannot purchase reversions. 3. The payment of the debtor doth presently discharge him: but if it be not the debtor himself which makes the payment, but some other, he is not discharged ipso facto, as we shall show anon.  
And now, Reader, I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons, why 
§. 19  I interpret those words, Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, not of our actual and complete reconciliation, but of that which is purchased: and so the meaning of the words, we were reconciled, will be this; that our reconciliation was then purchased, yea, and also perfect ex parte causae, on Christ's part, so that nothing can now hinder our actual, personal and perfect reconciliation with God, but our own refusing to be reconciled: God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ. 1. From ver. 8. and 9 While we were yet sinners Christ died for us, much more than being justified now by his blood. etc. What in ver. 9 is called Justification, that in ver. 10. is called reconciliation: and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners, ver. 8. is all one with what is said, ver. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death. But the time of their Justification is expressly separated from the time of Christ's death for them, by the particle now; While we were yet sinners Christ died for us; but we are justified now: which particle now, though it have several senses in Scripture (as we shall show by and by,) yet here, being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and separated from the Conjunction ●, by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and expressly opposed to the time passed (when we were yet sinners) must therefore needs be an adverbe of time. And the time it notes, is their present time of Conversion and believing, opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners. And so the whole sentence runs thus, (most pertinently to the Apostles scope) If while we were yet sinners (under the power and condemnation of sin) Christ died for us: much more than being justified now (that we are believers) by his blood, etc. Accordingly, if the particle now be borrowed from for 9 and repeated in ver. 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this. If while we were enemies we were reconciled (sc. causaliter & quantum ad meritum) unto God in the death of his Son; much more being now, (viz. since we are believers) reconciled, (quoad effectum) we shall be saved by his life; and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi, and the second that which is ex parte nostri: the former, reconciliation in the cause; the latter, in the effect. Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. God was in Christ reconciling.— Be ye reconciled. And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse, or it is of no use at all to salvation: for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation: so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved. Much more being reconciled we shall be saved. But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved, though Christ have died for him: for he must believe first, (as Mr. Eyre himself will grant:) If it be said, that faith itself is part of our salvation; the Objector must suppose, that the Apostle speaks of himself and the Romans, as of unbelievers, to this sense: much more being reconciled, we shall have faith given us, which is unreasonable to suppose.  
2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ, is to be understood 
§. 20.  in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done, in order to our reconciliation, appears farther from the comparison of contraries, by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine, from v. 12. to the end of the chapter. Look then, as by virtue of Adam's disobedience death passed upon all mankind, as soon as they are the children of Adam: so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained, by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God. Now if a man should say, All men are dead in Adam, as in ver. 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought, yet he must be understood as intending no more, then that the cause of all men's death was in being, as soon as Adam sinned (for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne, or have a being) so when it is said, men are reconciled in the death of Christ, the word reconciled must be understood in like manner, as noting the virtue of the cause, not the effect as already produced. I know Mr. Eyre thinks, that all men were actually & quoad effectum, condemned in Adam. But I would he would make this probable, yea, or conceivable; for I confess my dull head cannot apprehend it: though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally (for the common sin of our nature) namely, that the causes of our condemnation were then in being, which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us, as soon as we exist. But condemnation is a real transient act. Ergo, it supposeth its object really existing: but it is unconceivable how men should really exist, five or six thousand years before they are borne. Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ, by the Apostles own Explication, is of the same kind with our condemnation in Adam: it is manifest it must be understood of reconciliation in the cause, not in the effect.  
Nor let it trouble the Reader, that the Apostle speaks as if the effect 
§. 21.  were wrought (we were reconciled) for nothing more common in Scripture, then to speak of the effect as wrought, when provision is made of a sufficient cause, by which it shall or may be wrought, Ezek. 24. 13. I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, that is, there was nothing wanting on God's part that might conduce to her purging, though the effect did not follow, Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven: not that every person and Nation had then heard the Gospel (for they have not yet heard it) but that by God's permission and commandment they might hear it. Christ hath abolished death, 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely, he is the author and cause of its abolition, or he hath abolished it quoad meritum, for death is not destroyed de facto & quoad effectum, till the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15. 26, 54. so in verbs of active signification, Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God is powerful,— piercing to the dividing asunder, etc. Psal. 19 7, 8. converting, making wise, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the eyes, all which do not so much signify the act, as the virtue and sufficiency of the cause. In like manner, when Christ is said to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2. 2. it is to be understood of the virtue and sufficiency of his blood to take away sin, not of a propitiation then presently wrought and effected: for there is none such before faith, if the Apostle may be believed, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Multitudes of like instances are obvious.  
A third Argument is that mentioned in my Sermon out of v. 11. 
§. 22.  By whom we have now also received the atonement, which in plainer terms is this, That now, that is, since we are believers, we are actually reconciled unto God.  
Mr. Eyre answers, 1. That I might as well argue, that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15. 20. Now is Christ risen. Ergo, he was not risen before he wrote that Epistle. Or from Eph. 2. 2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief. Ergo, he did not work in them before.  
Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre then think, that the particle now in this place is to be taken in the same sense, as in those? if he doth, his next answer is a nullity: if he doth not, he might have spared this. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now hath several uses, sometimes it is a mere supplement or redundancy, Psal. 39 7. sometimes a note of transition, as when it is said, Now it came to pass. sometimes of a continued act, as Eph. 2. 2. Heb. 9 24. sometimes of a supposition, Rom. 8. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. sometimes of opposition, or of assumption, 1 Cor. 15. 20. Heb. 11. 16. but most commonly and naturally of time, and particularly of the time of men's being converted, Rom. 6. 19, 21, 22. and 1●. 30. Gal. 2. 20. and 4. 9 and elsewhere often; so is it taken here, as being distinguished from the time of the death of Christ, ver. 10. and superadding some other benefit then what was effected immediately in his death, namely, the receiving of reconciliation; neither of which are to be found in either of the places mentioned by Mr. Eyre, nor will any of the other sense of the word comport with this place.  
His second answer therefore is, We cannot receive or apply reconciliation to ourselves but by faith, yet it follows not, that God did not account it to us before.  
Rep. The accounting of reconciliation to us, is an expression I never heard before. 2. Justification and reconciliation are here used to signify the same thing. Ergo, to receive the atonement is all one with the receiving of Justification, or pardon of sin, as Acts 26. 18. and 10. 43. which we have showed before, cannot be meant of our knowing our sins to be pardoned.   

SECT. V  
FOr farther Explication of the difference between our reconciliation 
§. 23.  in the death of Christ, and after our believing, I observed (out of Grotius) a distinction of three periods of the Will of God. 1. As it may be conceived immediately after sin committed, before the consideration of the death of Christ. And now is the Lord at enmity with the sinner: though not averse from all ways and means, by which he may return to friendship with him again. 2. As it may be conceived after the death of Christ, and now is the Lord, not only appeasable, but doth also promise, that he will be reconciled with sinners, upon such ●●●mes as himself shall propose. 3. As. the same Will of God may be considered after an intercession on Christ's part, and faith on the sinner's part: and now is God actually reconciled, and in friendship with the sinner.  
Against any of these particulars Mr. Eyre excepts nothing, but exclaims against the whole as extremely gross; and why? forsooth, because it makes God changeable. But as gross as it is, not our Protestants only, but the Scriptures also own every syllable of it, nor will the satisfaction of Christ stand without it. God was in friendship with Adam, while he continued righteous and without sin. I conceive it is next to an impossibility, that the righteous Lord should be at enmity with a righteous man, who neither is a sinner, nor in the room of a sinner. After Adam had sinned, was not God at enmity with him? Yes surely, unless Christ be dead in vain: by his death we were reconciled while we were enemies. After the death of Christ, God is reconciled unto sinners. Lo here, God is a friend, an enemy, and reconciled again: and is this such monstrous Divinity with Mr. Eyre? But for the Readers farther information, I shall endeavour to show, how God may be first a friend, than an enemy, then reconciled, without any variableness or shadow of changing in himself; and then shall add a word or two more concerning our reconciliation in the death of Christ, and so return to Mr. Eyre.  
Reconciliation is the redintegration or renewing of friendship: 
§. 24.  (
g Vide Arist. ad Nichom. 8. 2, 7. ) and friendship is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between those who may be equally serviceable one unto another, in any office of love and friendly communication of good, in a way of arithmetical proportion: or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between those that are of unequal condition, the one excelling the other in dignity, or age, or power: between whom there cannot therefore be any reciprocal communication of good, but in a way of geometrical proportion: he that is of low degree and meaner rank, imparting love and honour, and observance to him that is of high degree, according to that authority, dignity or eminency in any kind, wherein he is exalted above him.  
And this (for example) is the friendship between (
h Aristot. ibid. c. 8, 11. ) a Prince and 
§. 25.  his subjects, consisting on his part, in his providing for their liberty and welfare, by and according to Law: and on their part in their subjection and obedience to him, according to the same Law: As on the contrary, the enmity between them consists, on their part, in their breaking of the Laws, established and maintained by his authority: and on his part, in the egress and exercise of his authority, in inflicting punishment upon them for their offence, according to the same Laws; so that a supreme Governor as such, is at peace with all those against whom his Laws have no quarrel; and an enemy to all with whom his Laws are at enmity. Thus stood the case originally between God and man; God being engaged by his Covenant to reward obedient man with life, and to punish him if he should be disobedient in the least; the former of which was his friendship; and the latter (when the Law was broken) his enmity, Rom. 5. v. 10. 13. 15, 16, 17. compared. As on the other side, man's love and friendship to God, consisted in his obedience to the Law, Matth. 22. 37, 39 and his enmity in rebellion against it, Rom. 8. 7.  
From which grounds it will be easy to understand how God may 
§. 26.  be a friend, an enemy, reconcilable, and reconciled with the same persons successively; for while the Will of God, (I mean his revealed royal Will or Law) is to do good, and nothing but good to man, God is so long his friend: when upon man's disobedience the same rectoral Will of God was to inflict evil upon him, he was an enemy. When the New Law of grace is enacted, detracting so far from the rigour and poremptorinesse of the former, as to make it possible for the sinner to obtain life upon other terms, God is said to be reconcilable: when upon the entreaty of those Ambassadors, whom the King and Lawgiver sends into the world, sinners are prevailed with to accept of and perform the terms of peace, then is God said to be reconciled. Reconciliatio (saith judicious (
i Antisynod. de morte Christi. c. 1. p. ●5 12●. & Dav●n. dissert. de mort. Christi. p. 65. 68 ) Ames) non infert aliquam intrinsecam mutationem in Deo, sed talem mutationem in dispensatione extrinseca, quâ fit, ut influentia propensae ejus volunt atis in peccatores ordinatè possit deriv●ri, ad eorum salutem perficiendam: Sicut post Augustinum, Lombardum, Thomam, Commentatores omnes & Calvinus instit. lib. 2. cap. 16. etc. Yea, so fare is all this from making any change in God, that he must of necessity be changed, unless this be true. Should he be an enemy to man perfectly righteous, or not an enemy to him while a sinner, or not reconciled to him when penitent, and a believer, he must deny himself; so little cause hath Mr. Eyre to charge us with Vorstian Divinity.  
Then for the second thing, I wish Mr. Eyre had told us more 
§. 27.  plainly what he would have, when he contends for the reconciliation of the elect, immediately in the death of Christ. Doth he mean that they were then perfectly reconciled? This I am so fare from believing, that though I thankfully acknowledge that Christ merited a perfect reconciliation (as he did also a perfect sanctification) yet I cannot believe, that the elect are perfectly reconciled during this life, no, nor till the Resurrection: For 1. If the elect be already perfectly reconciled, than Christ is no longer a Mediator between God and them. But Christ is most certainly a Mediator between God and them: not an arbiter only, or internunti●s, but a Mediator. The Assumption all Christians yield. The reason of the Proposition is, because it is the very nature and work of a Mediator to (
k Vide Hug. Grot. de satisfact p. 172. ex Suidâ. ) make peace: and common sense informs us, that there is no need of a Mediator where there is no disagreement; and the Scripture is express, Gal. 3 20. A Mediator is not of one, that is, of them that are at perfect friendship and agreement one with another. And therefore when all enmity between God and man shall be destroyed perfectly, Christ shall cease to be any longer a Mediator. For he must reign till all enemies be put under his fe●t, and then shall Christ deliver back his mediatory Kingdom into his father's hands, 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. To say, he a Mediator still, not to perfect, but to manifest reconciliation, is to say nothing: For the want of the manifestation of reconciliation is some part of enmity, or not. If it be, than God and believers are not yet perfectly reconciled: if not; then shall not Christ need to be a Mediator between God and them for that end. 2. If it be the work of Christ in heaven to make reconciliation for sinners on earth, than those sinners are not perfectly reconciled to God at present. But the first is true. Ergo. The text is plain, Heb. 2. 17. It behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, in things pertaining unto God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. The Apostles scope is to show the necessity of Christ's sufferings on earth before he went to heaven, ver. 9, 10. namely, that from the experience of his own sufferings and temptations here, he might be the more merciful and faithful to make reconciliation for our sins. Compare Heb. 4. 15. Nor can this be meant of making known or manifesting reconciliation. For 1. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, notes such an act as is conversant. first about God: that he might be faithful in things pertaining to God, says the text: even as the object of the service of every High Priest ordained for men, is things pertaining to God, primarily and in the first place, Heb. 5. 1. But to manifest reconciliation, is an act primarily and totally conversant about us, not an act to God-ward for us. 2. The manifestation of reconciliation being wrought by the Spirit of Christ, is most properly an act of Christ, as King: but the reconciliation here spoken of, is precisely and formally the act of Christ as Priest. 3. And as the Greek word is not so much as pretended to signify a manifestation in any other place, so in this especially it cannot have that sense, because the construction will not bear it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to reconcile sins, is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make a reconciliation or propitiation with God for their sins.  
But if Mr. Eyre mean no more, then that the death of Christ did immediately effect an imperfect and initial reconciliation, he knows that I yield it in part, viz. that God through the death of Christ, hath so far forth laid aside his enmity against sinners, as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will believe and repent: whereof also he hath given them such assurance in his Gospel: that if now they be not reconciled, it is because they will not be reconciled: if they die, it is because they will die. But if his meaning be, that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Christ; then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word: but seeing reconciliation hath its degrees, let him demonstrate that it mustbe understood, not of the first degree (which I stand for,) but of the second, which gins in application. 2. I desire also to know, by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Christ's death? Is it by some act of his mind? surely that will be very dangerous to affirm, that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Christ. Is it a transient act? show us then its object: it is past imagination, how an effect can be wrought and exist in or upon an object, which itself hath no existence. Lastly, i● the benefits purchased in the death of Christ, be none of them applied or actually given us, before Christ's sitting down at the right hand of God: then neither was reconciliation applied to us, or given us immediately in or upon the death of Christ. But the first is true. Ergo, so is the second, Heb. 5. 9 Being made perfect, (that is, exalted into glory, see chap. 2. 10.) he became the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him: without this we could have received (
l See Dr. Reynol●s. in P●. 110. p. 427. 429. & Dr. Go●win on Rom. 8 sect 5. p. 71, 177. ) none of the benefits purchased in the death of Christ: and therefore surely reconciliation was not begun to be applied immediately in or upon his death, Heb. 8. 4. If he were on earth, he should not be a priest. Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification, 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not raised— you are yet in your sins. And a general rule it is amongst Divines, that Christ in his intercession is the applying cause of all the benefits purchased in his death. Seeing then it is certain, that our reconciliation, though purchased in the death of Christ, yet is not applied and actually given us till his entrance into heaven, if now it be asked when Christ in heaven doth give us this reconciliation? I answer in the words of the Apostle, Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sin (which is the reconciliation we speak of) and 2 Cor. 5. 20. we are Ambassadors for Christ; as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be you reconciled unto God. And now I return to Mr. Eyre.   

SECT. VI  
I Had said in my Sermon, that it is through the death of Christ that 
§. 29.  the promise of reconciliation is made, by and according to which we are actually reconciled to God after we do believe.  
This, after Mr. Eyre hath represented and paraphrased as he pleased, and charged it (of course) with the imputations of Arminianism and Popery, at last he advanceth four Arguments against it, as he saith: but if the Reader will peruse them, he will find there is not one: I say again, not one: but all of them leveled against a position, which never came into my mind to own. viz. That Christ purchased only a conditional promise. Si sat sit accusasse, quis erit innocens? I say therefore that Christ did indeed purchase the conditional Covenant: but I say withal, that if we look to the intention of Christ in purchasing, he purchased the infallible application or donation of every blessing of the Covenant unto some, namely the elect. If this be Arminianism, I am an Arminian: yea and so strong in the persuasion, that I cannot hope of myself, that I shall be altered by any man's writings which I have seen, or am like to see while I live. But what? cannot a general pardon be purchased for all, because it is intended that some shall infallibly be pardoned and saved by it? or is not such a pardon the first Act and degree of our reconciliation, because other things are purchased as well as it? more than this I shall not need to say to any of Mr. Eyre's Arguments: nor do I intent to say more to the three last: the first, because it pretends some Scriptures for an immediate reconciliation in the death of Christ, I shall answer to particularly.  
The Argument than is this. The Scripture no where says, that Christ died to obtain a conditional grant, but to make an end of sin, Dan. 9 24. By the blood of his cross he hath made peace, Colos. 1. 20. Broken down the partition wall, Eph. 2. 14. Delivered us from the curse, Gal. 3. 13. And our Saviour doth not say, Math. 26. 28. That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise, but for the remission of the sins of many, i. e. of all the elect.  
Answ. Of the first part of the answer more anon. As to Dan. 
§. 30.  9 24. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that learned men are of different ways in expounding what it is to make an end of sin. 
m Vide J●nium. & Willet. Hexapl. in loc.  some interpreting it of that end of sin, not which Christ made, but which sinners themselves make by repentance, 
n Vid. Rolloc. comment. in loc.  some of restraining and confirming the godly, that they might not be guilty of a defection from God. But understand it of the end made by the death of Christ, what is the inference? Ergo, it is not through the death of Christ that the promise is made by, and according to which we are reconciled to God when we believe. Doth Mr. Eyre think this consequence needs no proof? If this text afford him any thing for his purpose, it will exclude the intercession of Christ, and the Covenant of pardon made in his blood from being at all necessary or useful to the making an end of sin. To Colos. 1. 20. It pleased the Father, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself, etc. The answer is ready. That the making of peace in the death of Christ, is here mentioned as the means to that reconciliation of all things to himself, which the Father intended thereby; for both the making of peace and reconciliation are here mentioned as the acts of God, as the first and principal cause: and the latter, the effect and end of the former. God hath made peace in Christ's death, that he might reconcile us to himself. I appeal to any man that knows what a consequence is, whether it will hence follow, that sinners were reconciled immediately in the death of Christ, without the intervention of a Covenant, that is, without the ministry of reconciliation. Yea rather the just contrary follows: for making of peace in Christ's death, is here made the means and cause of a future reconciliation that follows, when? even when by the Gospel sinners are converted unto God. As is evident in the example of these Colossians, v. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. As also by that place altogether parallel to this, Eph. 2. 15, 16, 17. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments— so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, and came and preached peace unto you, etc. Here we see. 1. What is meant by making of peace. viz. A plucking up the bounds, and throwing down the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews, and by consequence from God: or an obtaining of a Covenant of peace that might reach even unto the Gentiles, (who before w●re afar off, and strangers from the Covenants of promise, v. 12, 13.) that they also might be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel, chap. 3. 6. 2. Here is the end of this peace made by the cross. viz. That both Jews and Gentiles in one body might be reconciled to God: that is, through the same faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but all are one in him through the same saith, Gal. 3. 28. and 5. 6. 3. The means by which they came to be of the same body, namely, by the preaching of peace, v. 17. Can any thing be spoken more fully against the immediate reconciliation of sinners in the death of Christ? or for proof, that Christ obtained that Covenant of peace, through the preaching of which the Gentiles were converted, and so reconciled unto God? Gal. 3. 13. saith that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law: that is, paid the price of our redemption, or obtained eternal redemption for us, as Heb. 9 12. but doth it say that we are delivered without a Covenant made in the same blood and death of Christ? nay the Apostle supposeth the just contrary, namely that blessedness (whereof sure our reconciliation with God is no small part) is given to us by Covenant, v. 11, 14, 15, 16. Even that which he calls the promise by faith in Jesus Christ, v. 22. The last text is that mentioned in my sermon, Matth. 26. 28. Christ (saith Mr. Eyre) doth not say that he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise, but for the remission of the sins of many. Ans. But he says, his blood was the blood of the New-Testament, which was shed for the remission of sins. Of which former words Mr. Eyre is content to take no notice. But out of doubt they teach us this, (or they teach us nothing) that by the blood of Christ was the Covenant of remission obtained and sealed: or that Covenant by which sin is pardoned to them that believe, for the blood of Christ pardons not sin immediately, but unto them only that drink it by faith, Joh. 6. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Hence the Apostate from the faith, is said to count the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb. 10. 29.   

SECT. VII.  
HAving thus showed from the Scriptures that sinners are not immediately 
§. 31.  reconciled in the death of Christ, I proceeded farther to show the grounds of it: and they are two: partly because the death of Christ was no● ●ol●●●ejujdem, but tantidem; not the payment of that which was in the obligation, but of the equivalent, and therefore doth not deliver us ipso facto: partly the agreement betwixt the Father and the Son, of which more by and by.  
Mr. Eyre answers to the former. Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or ●antidem, as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt, so the discharge thereby procured must needs be immediate: for that a debt should be paid and satisfied, and yet justly chargeable, implies a contradiction.  
Rep. Yea? Then the Lawyers abuse both themselves and us: for there is scarcely a determination more common in the Law, then 
o L. mutuum. §. 2. ff. de reb cred. l. cum. ●. de sol. l. Debtor. ff. de sol. (ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem) l. si ●c. §. 3. ff. de re ju●.  that a debtor is not discharged ipso facto, upon the payment of any other thing, then of that same which is in the obligation. Titius is bound to pay Sempronius a hundred pounds in current money of England: when the day of payment is come, he brings the full value in corn, or he is bound to pay silver, and he brings gold: is he hereby discharged? No. But if he bring the very same thing which he was bound to, he is discharged ipso facto. Now if when he brings gold instead of silver, or corn instead of money, some act of the creditor is requisite to admit the payment of one instead of the other, that so the debtor may be freed: then is it also in the creditor's power (especially the debtor also consenting) to propose upon what terms he will that the debtor shall be freed: either presently or after some time, either upon condition or without, which is all I seek for at present: the consequence of this we shall see by and by.  
In the mean time Mr. Eyre will have me prove that the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem. A service which I little expected to be put upon, by an English Divine. 
p Vide librum ●vi mei reverendissimi Robert●● arkeri de descensu. l. 3. §. 57, 58. p g. 108 109 The Assemb large. Catech. o● justi. q. 2.  1. All our Divines acknowledge that Christ made a true proper satisfaction unto God for our sins. 
q L. ●●tisfact. ff de solut.  Ergo, his death was not solutio ejusdem: the payment of the very same which was in the obligation, but of the equivalent only. 2. Mr. Eyre himself but just before, did intimate some kind of acknowledgement, that the death of Christ was a payment of itself refusable. Ergo, it was not solutio ejusdem, 
r L. quod in di 'em ff de sol. & l. quod quis 49. ff ●● Action. & l. Accept 19 c. de usur.  for no creature can refuse to admit of that. 3. It was not Christ's death but ours, that was in the obligation: for the Law requires that he that sins die, and no man else. If he that sinneth not die, that death cannot be the same which was in the obligation 
s Ut & in contractu ersenali de facto. Ulpian. in l. inter ● rtif. 31. ff. de sol. . In corporal punishments, which metaphorically may be called the payments of debts to the Law, the sameness of the person is essential to the sameness of the payment: so that si alius s●lvat, aliud s●laitur: if another person pay, 'tis another thing that's paid. 4. If Christ paid the idem, than no man's sins are pardoned. The Law itself would admit of satisfaction from the sinner, if he were able to make it: if sinners by suffering of punishment, could satisfy for their sins, they should be discharged from farther punishment without pardon: it would be no grace to free them. 
t Grot. de satisfact. Christi. c. 6. p. 119. & videses Andr. Essen. de satisfact. l. 2 sect. 3 ●. 3. p. 519, 520, 521 etc.  Vbi idem solvitur, out à debitore, aut ab alio nomine debitoris, nulla contingit remissio, nihil enim circa debitum agit Creditor aut Rector. 5. Our obligation was ex delicto: Christ's ex contractu voluntario. It was not any breach of the Law that subjected him to death, but his own voluntary act, Joh. 10. 17, 18. Wherefore, though the things which Christ suffered were much of the same kind (though not altogether) with what sinners were by the Law obliged to suffer; yet was not he obliged to suffer by the same Law that they were, but by a Law peculiar to himself, as a voluntary surety for them; in which respect it is, that we say his payment was not 
u Vide Cameron. disp. de satisf. p. 363 Respons. ad obj. 1. m.  ejusdem, but tantidem. And these are the common Arguments, which are wont to be made use of in this matter: which Mr. Eyre might have spared me the pains of transcribing if he had pleased, and instead thereof (seeing they are so well known) have given them some answer.  
In the next place he advanceth four Arguments to prove, that the 
§. 33.  death of Chrst was solutio ejusdem. I confess, I wonder at his undertaking: but let us see his Arguments.  
1. Saith he, Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under: he was made under the same Law, Gal. 4. 3, 4. Ans. Why? Is a surety held in the same obligation, because he is bound to pay the same sum? then is there no difference between the surety and the principal debtor. The Apostle in Gal. 4. 3, 4. saith that Christ was made of a woman, made under the Law. As the former expression implies; that though he were of a woman quoad corpulentam substantiam, yet he came not from her quoad rationem seminalem, according to the common rule of nature, by which children are wont to be borne into the world: so doth the latter imply, that though his obedience for substance, were the same which the Law required of us; yet was it not performed by virtue of that common obligation which lies upon us, but by special oeconomy and appointment. 
x S●e P. Ushers Immanu●●. pag. 10. f at the end of his Body of Divinity, and Essen. ubi s●pra lib. 1. sect. 4. cap. 9 pag. 288. & Joh Dried. de capt. & Redempt. tract. 3. pag. 242, 243, 244, etc.  He that was Lord of the Law, might have exempted himself from subjection to it if he had pleased. See Philip. 2. 6, 7, 8. So that Christ's obedience, though in some respect the same with ours, as having the same rule and object, yet was it of another kind than ours in regard of the principle and manner of performance, in that the Law which bound others, did yet bind him no farther than himself pleased to be bound.  
The same answer I give to the second text. Gal. 3. 13. Christ was made a curse for us, and died for us, Heb. 2. 9, 14. Isa● 53. 4, 5. for none of these things prove that he was any of those, who by the Law were obliged to die: yea it is certain he was not: for the Law obligeth none to death but sinners: yea and for the very matter of the curse and death which Christ suffered, (though that do not immediately concern our question: for though he had suffered the idem in regard of the matter of his punishment; yet formally, as his death was a satisfaction or payment, that idem was no more than the tantundem which I plead for) yet I say it is certain that there is some kind of evil in the curse executed upon sinners, which was never executed upon Christ, as an exclusion from all interest in God's favour; the defacing of his image in his soul, rage and despair of conscience, and the like. The answer therefore is, Christ was indeed made a curse for us, not that the Law did curse him, or had power so to do: but because by special compact between his father and himself he endured that punishment (for the main) which the Law threatened against sinners, Heb. 10. 5, 7. A body hast thou prepared me— Lo● come to do thy will, even as it was by a special Law, that beasts were slain and sacrificed unto God of old: and not by that general Law, which curseth every one that sinneth. Hence it follows thirdly, that when our sins are said to be laid upon Christ, Isa. 53. 6. (Which is Mr. Eyre's third Argument) it doth by no means follow that the death of Christ was that which the Law required, but that Christ was made to bear that punishment, which in weight and value was the same which we should else have borne, though it be not arithmetically the same. If any man can make more of those words, let him. His fourth and last Argument is this. If God would have dispensed with the idem in the first obligation, Christ need not have died.  
Which is a very strange consequence: for God did therefore dispense with the idem, that there might be way made for the death of Christ. That which was in the obligation was our punishment: if God did not dispense with this, it had been impossible for Christ to have died for us, but the Law must be executed upon every sinner in his own person. But behold the proof.  
If the justice of God would be satisfied with less than the penalty of the Law, he might as well have dispensed with the whole.  
Ans. As if that which is not the same must needs be less. I confess I account it no better than loss of time to answer these things under the notion of Arguments.  
Hitherto than the matter is safe. That the death of Christ was not 
§. 34.  the payment of the same which was in the obligation. Ergo, it doth not deliver ipso facto: for explication of which I added: that if the debtor himself do bring unto the creditor that which he owes him, it presently dischargeth him: but the payment of a surety doth not.  
Why not (saith Mr. Eyre) Amongst men there is no difference: so the debt be paid, it matters not whether it be by the principal, or his surety: the obligation is void in respect of both.  
Ans. Which if they be both in the very same bond and obligation, hath some thing of truth in it: (though then also the surety hath the same action against the debtor, which the creditor had before) otherwise it is most notoriously false, and the contrary determined frequently in the 
y I. in summa l. Si poenae. D. de condict. in deb. l Simo quid possessor ff. de Pet. Haered. l. Papin. ff. Ma●d.  civil Law. If the payment of the surety do presently discharge the debtor, it is because he agrees with the creditor, that the payment which he makes shall be accepted for the present and immediate discharge of the debtor, which is the second thing I began to mention before, and shall now farther explain. The death of Christ being not the very same which was in the obligation; therefore that it may be effectual for our deliverance, there is a double act required on God's part, to whom this payment is made: the one is, to admit or give way that satisfaction be made; the other factam ratam habere to accept it when made, and consequently to discharge and free the debtor: for Christ's satisfaction was admitted, that our obligation might he destroyed by the intervening act of God, the supreme Governor of mankind, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation— that he may be the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.  
Moreover, Christ being not a sinner, but a surety, and his payment not the payment of the principal debtor, but of a surety; therefore it is in his power to agree, whether his payment shall be accepted and be effectual for the discharge of the sinner presently, or for some time to come: absolutely, or upon condition. Whence (by the way) appears what little strength there is in Mr. Eyre's second exception, viz. That Christ's payment is less efficacious, then if we had paid ourselves, if we be not thereby discharged presently, because Christ's satisfaction produceth its effects according to the agreement between his Father and himself, and no otherwise: and the virtue of it is to be measured by the greatness of the effect, which could not be wrought by any mere created cause: whether it produce it sooner or later, upon condition or without.  
Wherefore if we prove that the Father and Son agreed, that none 
§. 35.  should have actual discharge by the death of Christ till they do believe; we carry the cause, by Mr, Eyre's own judgement. Yet in yielding thus much he hath not a little prejudiced the authority of his own determinations. (so I call them, because he lays them down so peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proof). How often doth he tell us before and after this concession, that our discharge in the death of Christ, must needs be present and immediate? as pag. 68 §. 7. Our discharge from the Law was ● not to be sub termino or in diem, but present and immediate. And in this chapter, §. 13. The death of Christ, as it is a satisfaction or payment, so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate. As if it were a contradiction in the nature of the thing, that we should not presently be discharged, if Christ hath made satisfaction. And yet here yields that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Son, the discharge obtained in Christ's satisfaction may be suspended. It is therefore a thing possible that Christ may have satisfied, and yet we (the elect I mean) not be presently discharged. And what then means the must needs? were it a thing denied, it were easy to give innumerable instances of satisfaction made, when yet the person for whom it is made, is not presently freed: but because it is not denied, I hasten to the service which Mr. Eyre challengeth me to perform, with a promise, that if it be performed he will yield the cause: and that is to show, that it was the will of the Father and of the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe.  
For proof of this, I quoted the words of the Lord Jesus, wherein 
§. 36.  he gives us an account both of his own and his Father's will in this matter, Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me, that whosoever seethe the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life. To which Mr. Eyre answers. This Text and others like it, do only show who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ, to wit, th●y that believe.  
Rep. An answer which lets me see something of what the wit of man can do in darkening plain testimonies, whose sense is obvious at first view, even to vulgar capacities. This is not the first time we have met with this answer in Mr. Eyre: and it hath been already convicted, and cast by more than a jury of Arguments in 
●hap 5. & 8.  two places: and therefore here I shall speak but▪ briefly to it. 1. I● this and the like Texts do only show ●●o are the persons that have the enjoyment of Christ's benefits, namely believers: then either they show that believers as such (in se●s● 〈◊〉) are the subjects of that life which is here promised: and then I have what I would have; for if men as believers, are the subjects of this life, than the proo●●s full, that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are believers: much less before they are borne: and lest of all at the time of the death of Christ: nor was it the will of the Father or of the Son, that they should so do. Or the meaning is, that the persons who enjoy this life, are such whose property and privilege it is to be believers some time or other, sooner or later, though they may not be believers when they first begin to partake therein: and so they are described à c●ns●quenti, from their faith as a consequent of their first partaking in this life. And if so, I shall return Mr. Eyre his offer: namely, that if he will show me but one place of Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation, wherein persons that shall enjoy a benefit, are described from the consequent of that benefit, with a distributive particle preposed (such as is the particle whosoever in the present Text) and I will yield him the cause: at lest so fare forth as it is concerned in these Texts. But if Mr. Eyre cannot give one instance of the like phrase of speech in all the Bible (as I know he cannot) then let him take heed lest he become guilty of that, which he doth elsewhere groundlessly charge upon me: I mean, of attempting to suborn the spirit to serve his own turn. And what I speak of the description of a person in order to his receiving of a benefit, is true also in respect of any evil threatened. How many hundreds of times are such sentences in Scripture? As for example, Matth. 5. 22. Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause— Whosoever shall say unto his br●ther Racha— Whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of such and such punishments. Can these (or the like expressions any where else) be only the descriptions of persons that shall be punished? and that from the consequent of their punishment as already begun.  
2. The Lord by comparing faith to seeing, seems to allude to Israel's 
§. 37.  looking up to the brazen serpent for healing, Numb. 21. As he also doth almost in the same words, altogether in the same sense, Joh. 3. 14, 15. As 〈◊〉 lift up the Serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, etc. Now I would know, when it is said, Numb. 21. 8. Every one, or whosoever looketh upon it (s●. the Serpent) do the words only describe the persons that should be healed from their property o● looking up? or do they also pro●●●● the Act upon which their healing was suspended? If the latter, 〈◊〉 those words, Whosoever se●● and believeth the Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life, must be understood in the same sense. If the former, th●n the Israelites might also have been healed before they looked up to the serpent: for to denominate them lookers, it is sufficient that they looked up at any time, whether before or after they ●●re healed. But I will not do one work twice: enough hath been spoken already against this notion, unless it had some better authority then merely man's invention.  
The next place I mentioned was, ●●l. 5. 2, 4. without faith Christ 
§. 38.  shall profit us n●thing. 〈◊〉, it was not the will of God nor of Christ, that any man should be justified by the death of Christ, till he doth believe.  
But (s●ith Mr. Eyre) this place is palpably ab●●e●. Th● Apostle doth n●t 〈◊〉 without faith Christ shall profit ●s nothing; but if we 〈◊〉 any thing 〈◊〉 Christ as necessary to attain salvation, we are not believers: our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing.  
Rep. Where doth the Apostle say these words? If M. Eyre give us only the sense of them; we shall show presently, that what I say is included as part of the sense. But I will never believe while I live, that Mr. Eyre hath rightly expressed the Apostles sense. As if the Apostle spoke against joining of any thing with Christ as necessary to attain salvation (unless by joining with Christ, he mean in an equal degree of causality, or as sharing in that kind of causality which Christ put forth for our salvation). For out of doubt, Faith and Repentance are necessary to be joined with Christ, that we may be saved. 2. But to discover how palpably Mr. Eyre hath abused me in charging me with an abuse of the Text, let us transcribe the words. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to the whole Law. Christ is become of no effect to you: whosoever of you are justified by the Law, you are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by Love. 1. I do here observe the Apostles Argument by which he proves, that if they be circumcised, Christ shall profit them nothing. Thus it runs. He that is bound to keep the whole Law for justification, to him is Christ of no effect for justification. He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law for justification. v. 3. Ergo, Christ is of no effect to him: or as the Apostle varies the words, v. 4. Ergo, he is fallen from grace, whosoever he be that expects to be justified by the Law. In opposition to this he declares in his own, and other Christians example the only way how Christ may become profitable, and of effect to us for justification, and that is by faith, without legal performances, v. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. And have I yet abused the Text, because I say it hath this sense, that without faith Christ shall profit us nothing? yea. 2. The whole discourse of the Apostle proceeds upon this ground, that legal observances make Christ of none effect to us, because they overthrew faith. For he that will be justified by the Law, must keep the whole Law; and that destroys faith: as he had also often and plainly told them before, chap. 3. 12. 10, 11, 17, 18. compare Rom. 4. 14. 3. Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth in the very next words that the Apostle attributes that to faith which he denies ●o other works, v. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. I assu●● But the thing denied to other works, is, that they are able to justifie● yea rather that they make it impossible for us to be justified, because they make Christ to become of none effect to us, v. ●, 4. Ergo, the thing ascribed to faith is, that by it we are justified, and through it doth Christ become profitable, and grace of effect to our Justification. Ergo, without it Christ profits us nothing, as to that end and purpose. Therefore Mr. Eyre contradicts himself immediately, in his Comment upon that, v. 6. When he says, that the intent of the Apostle here, was not to show what it is that doth justify, but what are the exercises of divine worship in which Christians should be conversant.  
But out of doubt his meaning was to show, how Christ and grace become effectual to our Justification, if he do here ascribe to faith that which before he had denied to other works: which is Mr. Eyre's own grant, and the Apostles unquestionable intent: for the words (as appears by the particle for, in the beginning of the verse) are the reason why through faith he expected Justification, and not in the way of circumcision, ver. 5. to wit, because circumcision availeth nothing, no, nor uncircumcision neither, but faith which worketh by love, which reason of his faith he had also given before, chapt. 2. 16.  
As to those two truly godly learned Authors, Calvin and Perkins, whom Mr. Eyre allegeth as abetting what he saith, concerning the Apostles intent, if the cause were to be carried by number of voices, we could quickly dispatch it. But neither do either of these gratify Mr. Eyre a whit. Calvin's words are these, Quantum ad praesentem locum attinet, Paulus nequaquam disputat an charitas ad justificandum cooperetur fidei, sed tantùm indicat quae nunc sint vera fidelium exercitia. i e. As to the present place, Paul doth by no means dispute, whether love do cooperate with faith unto Justification, but only intimates what are now the true exercises of the faithful. Is this all one, as if he had said, faith avails us nothing in order to our Justification before God? the contrary to which he had spoke but just before, upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumcisionis? Respondet, in Christo nihil valere: ideoque justitiam in fide sitam esse, etc. Perkins his words are these, in answer to the objection of the Papists from those words, Faith worketh by love. Paul (saith he) doth not show in this verse what justifieth, but what are the exercises of godliness in which Christians must be occupied. And he doth not show how faith justifieth, but how it may be discerned to be true faith, namely, by love. But neither doth this intent any thing more, then to show the reason why Paul describes justifying faith as working by love, viz. not that it justifieth as working by love, though it be the property of that faith by which we are justified, to work by love. But he was far from thinking, that faith was no whit available to our Justification before God. It is his own observation upon this very verse, not far before. The second Conclusion, Faith is of great use and acceptation in the Kingdom of Christ. By it, first our persons, and then our actions please God: and without it nothing pleaseth God. And immediately after these words which Mr. Eyre refers to, disputes for Justification by faith without works, against the Papists.  
The last place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath 
§. 40.  the Son, hath life: he that hath not the Son, hath not life.  
Mr. Eyre answers, He doth not say, that all who have not faith, (except final unbelievers,) have not the Son or any benett by him.  
Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true. 1. Life doth here signify all that blessedness which God hath given us in Jesus Christ, ver. 11. Ergo, he that hath not the Son, hath no benefit by him. But he that believeth not, hath not the Son; for to have the Son is to believe on him. Ergo, he that believeth not, hath not the Son, nor any benefit by him. That we have the Son by believing on him is manifest: 1. From the Apostles own interpretation; for having spoke in general, He that hath the Son hath life, he applies it particularly to those to whom he writes, v. 13. And these things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. 2. From the perpetual sense of the phrase, throughout all these Epistles, as chap. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also; suitable to what this John records in his Gospel. chap. 12. 44, 45. He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me: And he that seethe me, seethe him that sent me. And more expressly in his Epistle, 2 ep▪ v. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, HATH NOT GOD: But he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, HE HATH both the Father and the Son. Compare 1 ep. 2. 24.  
2. If we are said in Scripture, any where to have the Son, in any other sense then by believing, or as excluding believing, why have we no intelligence of it? Mr. Eyre might very well think we should interpret his silence (partly, in that he declares not how we may be said to have Christ any otherwise then by faith; partly, in not attempting to justify it from the phrase of Scripture) as an argument that himself is conscious, that the doctrine which he here suggests hath no footing in the Scriptures. Briefly, the Apostle speaks without distinction or limitation, He that hath the Son, hath life: even that eternal life whereof he spoke in the verse immediately foregoing. If the Son may be had without believing, then eternal life may be had without believing also; wherefore we wind up the Argument. If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Son, till by believing he had the Son; then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did believe. The reason is: because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Son, and virtually includes all that life we have by Christ. But the antecedent is proved true from the text. Ergo, the consequent is true.  
To these texts mentioned in my Sermon, and now vindicated, let 
§. 41.  me add one or two more. If God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; then was it not the Will of God, that any man should have actual remission or Justification by the blood of Christ, till he did believe. But God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Ergo. The Assumption is the Apostles own words, Rom. 3. 25. The reason of the Proposition is plain, because if any man be pardoned and justified immediately in the death of Christ, then is not Christ a propitiation 
z Inseri● fidem, ut doceat, fidem esse conditionem, sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium. Dau. Paraeus in loc.  through faith, but without it. Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or sufficiency to the blood of Christ, by which it may be made in its kind a more perfect cause of our remission: but because God hath so constituted, that our remission shall not follow, and so our sins not be propitiated quoad ●ffectum in the blood of Christ till we believe.  
Again, the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Son, in his undertaking the work of Redemption, is set down at large, Isa. 53. throughout; particularly, ver. 10. 11, 12. where also the Justification of those for whom he died is mentioned, as the fruit and effect of Christ's offering himself for them, and bearing their iniquities, but not before their faith, but through it, ver. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, that is, by the knowledge of him, where knowledge (as elsewhere in Scripture often) signifies faith. And what shall I say more? we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures, that God requires, commands and exhorts all men to believe, that they may be justified by the blood of Christ. And what stronger evidence can we need then this, that it was not the Will of God that men should be justified by that blood before they did believe? even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical, but supposed on the offenders part, the concurrence of some act (as 
a Leu. 5. 5.  confession, 
b Chap. 23. ●9 30.  humiliation, 
c ●b. 1. 4, 3, 2 & ●assim.  laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice, 
d L●v. ●. 16. & ●ide Joma. Pe●r●k. 8 8, ●.  or the like,) signifying that faith, by which sinners should be justified, when Christ the true sacrifice should be offered up. And as to Mr. Eyre's two evasions, that to be justified by faith doth sometimes signify, By faith to know that we are justified; (He might as well say, the world was made by faith: For by faith we know that the world was made, Heb. 11. 3.) And that otherwhile faith signifies Christ believed on: we have often (and I trust satisfactorily) discovered, that they are inventions from beneath, not doctrines from above.  
Let us now see what Mr. Eyre brings to prove, that it was the 
§. 42.  Will of God and Christ, that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners, without any condition performed on their part. Four principles he lays down, which neither singly nor jointly can bring forth the Conclusion they are in travel with.  
1. Christ by the Will of God, gave himself a ransom and sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God.  
Answ. But the Question is, Whether it were the Will of God, that remission should follow immediately upon the offering up of this sacrifice, before the sinner believes and reputes?  
2. That this ransom was alone, and by itself, a full, adequate, and perfect satisfaction to divine Justice for all their sins.  
Answ. But the Question is, whether satisfaction may not be made by a voluntary surety, with this agreement, that they for whom it is made, shall not be freed by it, till they perform such or such a condition? If it may, (as Mr. Eyre granted but now) than he should have told us, not only that Christ made satisfaction, but that he made it with this intent, that the elect should be presently discharged by it. Otherwise he begs the Question a second time.  
3. God accepted it, and declared himself well-pleased therewith: insomuch that he hath thereupon covenanted and sworn, that he will never remember their sins, nor be wroth with them any more, Isa. 43. 25. and 54. 9, 10.  
Answ. The Question is still begged. No doubt but God was well-pleased with the death of Christ, as with a sacrifice or satisfaction in itself so perfect, that his justice could not require more. But whether he accepted it and was well-pleased with it, so as that it should presently, without the intervention of faith, produce the pardon of any, is the question: which is here resolved by a go-by. It is certain, that some effects of Christ's satisfaction are not communicated to the elect, before they believe, much less immediately in the death of Christ: and seeing we are to grow up in him in all things, till we have attained to the fullness of the life of Christ; I confess it is beyond my comprehension, how we come to be perfect in one part of his life, that is, in one fruit and effect of his death, while we remain imperfect in all the rest. As to the Covenant which Mr. Eyre speaks of, that God will never remember the sins of the elect, nor be wroth with them any more, Isa. 43. 25. and 54. 9, 10. The former place proves no more, then that God takes it as one of his royal prerogatives, to be a God that pardoneth sin (as he also doth elsewhere, Exod. 34. 6, 7. Mich. 7. 18.) the latter, that the pardon which he gives is eternal: neither, that the elect are pardoned immediately in the death of Christ, or while they continue in unbelief. But the contrary is plainly supposed, Isa. 54. 1▪ 2, 3.  
4. That by this ransom of Christ they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law, Gal. 4. 4. and 3. 13.  
Answ. Quoad meritum, not quoad eff●ctum till they believe, as we have showed before: Christ's death hath redeemed us from the power of sin, as well as from the curse of the Law, 1 Pet. 1. 18. were the elect therefore sanctified immediately in the death of Christ? He hath redeemed our bodies as well as our souls: yet are not our bodies redeemed quoad eff●ctum till the Resurrection, R●●. 8. 23. till then they lie in their graves, by virtue of that common obligation unto death, which the first Adam brought upon all men, 1 Cor. 15. 22, 49, 56.  
And thus thou seest (Reader) with what success Mr. Eyr● hath attempted to prove, That it was the Will of God in giving his 〈◊〉 death, and the Will of Christ in giving himself, that his 〈◊〉 should be available, to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners, without any condition performed on their part. ●is next undertaking is to prove. That there was no such compact and agreement between the Father and the Son, that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners, but only upon conditions performed by them. In the issue of which, whether he hath been any whit more happy then in the former, we come now    

CHAP. X.  
An Answer to Mr. Eyre's fourteenth Chapter, and all the Arguments therein contained, by which he endeavours to prove, that there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ, to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods elect by his death, and to suspend this effect thereof upon terms and conditions to be performed by them: but contrariwise, that it was the Will both of God and Christ, that his death should be available to their immediat● and actual reconciliation and Justification, without any Condition performed on their part.  

SECT. I.  
HIs first Argument is this: There is no such Covenant doth appear in Scripture. Erg●; there is none. 
§. 1.   
Answ. That the Antecedent ●s false, hath been already proved from John 6. 40. and 3. 15, 16, 19 and Gal. 5. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and 1 Joh. 5. 11. and Rom. 3. 25. and Isa. 53. 11. and all those places which declare Justification to be consequent to faith: or wherein men are persuaded and commanded to turn unto God, that their sins may be forgiven them. Many such places have been already produced and vindicated against Mr. Eyre's exceptions: and it were no hard matter to produce many more, as J●r. 26. 2, 3. Stand in the Court of the Lords house, and speak unto all the Cities of Judah, all the words that I command thee, diminish not a word. If so be they will hearken. and turn ev●ry man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil which I purpose to do unto them. And Jer. 36. 3. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them: that they may return every man fr●m his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin: Plainly discovering our conversion unto God, to be the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy. Which doth also notably appear by the contrary steps which sinners tread, in working out their own damnation, Mark 4. 12. That seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. But of this we have spoken enough before.  
His second Argument is this, The Covenant between God 
§. 2.  and Christ was, that upo● giving up himself to death, he should purchase a seed like the stars of Heaven, Isaiah 53. 10.  
Answ. What's the inference? Ergo, it was the Will of God that Christ's death should be av●●able to their immediate reconciliation. Can any man divine how this inference follows? especially when it is against the express letter of the text, which I wonder. Mr. Eyre would take no notice of, v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous sequent justify many. And for the other text which follows, H●●. 2. 13. 〈◊〉 I and the children whom God hath given me; The Apostle mentions it to prove, that both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified are all of one, v. 11. But what it is Mr. Eyre would conclude from hence, at least, how these words should afford him that which he would conclude from them, is that which I have no hope to understand till he hath informed me. He must needs be unanswerable that so writes, as his Reader shall never be sure of his meaning.  
The third Argument is this: If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt, and a full 
§. 3.  satisfaction for all our iniquities; then was it his Will that our discharge procured thereby, should be immediate. But it was the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debts, and a full satisfaction for our iniquities. Ergo. The Assumption Mr. Eyre supposeth will not be questioned. The Proposition he thus proves: because it is contrary to justice and 〈◊〉 that a debt when it is paid, should be charged either upon the 〈…〉 ty or the Principal.  
Answ. I see now I was mistaken in the former chapter. I thought there Mr. Eyr● had yielded it a thing possible for such an agreement to have passed between the Father and the Son, as that the Sons satisfaction should not presently and immediately effect the discharge of those for whom he satisfied. But this argument supposeth, that the death of Christ was neither payment nor satisfaction, if such a Covenant passed between them. If it be possible that there might be such an Agreement pass between the Father and the Son, (as it is most certain it did) then must this Argument needs be inconsequent, which infers the actual and immediate freedom of the elect in the death of Christ, because his death was a satisfaction. We shall therefore prove by and by, that satisfaction doth not necessarily infer the discharge of the debtor. In the mean time, I except, 1. Against the confused use of those two terms, payment and satisfaction, which in this Argument ought to be distinguished; the former noting such a payment as is of the thing itself in the obligation, the latter a payment refusable. 2. That the will of God is here made the cause of Christ's death, being a satisfaction: in which (though I believe Mr. Eyre means no ill) there may be a very great mistake: for it seems to imply that it was not so much the value and worth of Christ's offering which made it a satisfaction, as the will of God who would accept it as satisfactory. 3. But to the Argument itself; That Christ paid our debt, is an ambiguous expression: either it signifies, 1. That he was punished for our sins▪ and so paid that sum which otherwise should have been required of us, (and in this sense it is most true) or, 2. That he translated our very obligation upon himself, and so paid as in our names, and as representing us in making payment: and thus I deny it, as dangerously false. The reason is ready: because what is done, as in our name and person, is not so much his Act that doth it as ours, whom he represents in doing it: whether he represent us by our will and consent (as Proctors and Attorneys that pay and receive moneys, or transact business in our name, and Ambassadors whom Princes send into foreign Nations) or by the authority of Law (as what Tutors do in the name of their Pupils and Minors:) in all which, whatsoever is done as in the person of another, is not so properly his Act that doth it, as theirs whose person he represents. And if Christ thus paid our debt, than his payment was more properly our Act then his own; we ourselves have satisfied, merited and redeemed ourselves: which a Christians ears can never endure. Now to apply the distinction. When Mr. Eyre says, that Christ's death was the payment of our debts, if he mean it in the former sense, of what is ●quivalentèr the payment of our debt, I deny his proposition: If he mean it in the latter sense, of what is our debt subjectiuè, I deny his assumption, and say, that it was never the will of God that Christ's death should in this sense be the payment of our debt. And the phrases of Scripture, which declare that Christ died for us, and for our sins, do indeed well prove the former, that Christ was substituted in our room to make satisfaction to the Law for our sins; but they do by no means prove that he paid our debt in the latter sense, viz. as standing in the same obligation with us, and representing our persons in the payment which he made: no more, than those words, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Matth. 2. 22. Archelaus reigned in the room of his father Herod, will prove, that Archelaus represented the person of his deceased father, as then King in Judea. Though I will not deny that our Divines are sometimes wont so to understand the phrase of Christ's satisfying in our names and in our person, as meaning no more than simply a commutation of persons, he suffering that which otherwise we should have suffered. But if we will speak properly, Christ stood not as a sinner, or as a debtor, ex delict●, but as a surety for sinners, and a debtor by voluntary contract, in dying for us.  
But the assumption will not be disputed, if Mr. Eyre, by his payment of our debt, mean no more, than satisfaction for our debt. The proposition is most faulty, and that which I deny. The proof of it is this. It is contrary to justice and equity, that a debt when it is paid, should be charged either upon the surety or principal.  
Ans. Which is very true, when that which is paid is the same which was in the obligation. Solutione ejus quod debetur, tollitur obligatio. Now the obligation of Christ was obligatio fidejussoria, which he hath fully discharged in his death, so that it cannot be required of him a second time: being once dead he dieth no more, but is sat down at the right hand of God for ever. Nevertheless the sinner (who is obliged ex delicto) is not freed in the sureties discharge, unless it be proved that the surety made payment with this 
b Videl. Cassi●s 16 & l. quoties 37. ●●f de silut. & liberat.  intent, that the debtor (that is, the sinner) should be presently discharged as well as himself. That Christ had such an intent, Mr. Eyre proves, because his death was a payment or satisfaction. The question then between him and me now is, whether an agreement between a creditor and a surety, that the debtor shall not be discharged immediately upon the sureties payment, be possible, or consistent with the nature of that payment and satisfaction which a surety makes? Mr. Eyre is for the negative (and the Reader hath his word for it, and nothing else, instead of Argument). I am for the affirmative, upon the following grounds. Peter owes James a 100 l. whereof he is not able to pay him one farthing. John out of love and compassion to Peter, and without his knowledge, interposeth as a surety. engageth to James, that if he will accept of payment from him, he will pay him the said 100 l. provided and agreed between them both, that Peter's bond shall remain in full force, and so himself not be discharged till a month after; upon these terms John pays his money, and James receives it. Here the sum is paid, and yet the debtor remains for a time obliged. Ergo, he is not discharged immediately upon the sureties payment. Nor is there any thing in this agreement inconsistent with the nature of payment or satisfaction. 1. John the surety might have chosen whether he would have paid or engage to pay the said 100 l. 2. James the creditor also might have chosen whether he would have admitted John to be paymaster or no. 3. Forasmuch therefore as there is no Law to compel the one to pay, or the other to receive, but it is merely the voluntary act of both which mutually engageth them; it follows necessarily, that it is in the power of them both to agree upon the terms and time when Peter shall be discharged by virtue of this payment: because it is in our power to put what Laws we please upon actions which depend merely on our own will: otherwise a man might be free and not free at the same time, and in reference to the same action, which is a contradiction. Therefore payment is made (for the creditor is possessed of as much as the debtor ought him) yet the debtor is not presently discharged. Ergo, the payment of a debt (or rather satisfaction for a debt) doth not in all cases presently discharge the debtor. Other cases the Reader may see in the civil Law: which I desire him to look in the places which I have directed him to, in this and the former chapter: to spare myself the pains of transcribing them.  
Nor is there any thing, in all this, contrary to justice and equity, as 
§. 5.  Mr. Eyre pretends: for, against whom is this injustice? Not against the creditor nor the surety: for it is by the consent of them both that the debtor be not presently discharged: and it is a known maxim, volenti non sit injuria. Not against the debtor, for he hath not paid his debt; nor did the surety pay it with this purpose and will, that he (the said debtor) should be presently disobliged, but in convenient time. Yet that which follows, That the same debt cannot be paid and unpaid, is true; but nothing to the purpose: because our question is not whether payment or satisfaction be made; but whether he that pays for another may not agree with the creditor, that the person for whom he payeth shall not presently be discharged, but at some distance of time after? Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth. That the effects of Christ's death, as it is the meritorious price of faith, holiness, glory, are not present but future. But was not the death of Christ the meritorious price of our discharge from sin and the curse, as well as of those blessings? and if Christ did merit them, to be given, not presently, but many years after his death, why not this?  
But let us see how Mr. Eyre illustrates this (for proof we have none.) 
§. 6.  As when a man that is a trespasser, or any one for him, pays a sum of money, which is sufficient, both for discharge of his trespass, as also for the purchase of a piece of land; from the trespass his discharge must be present, if the satisfaction be full, though the enjoyment of the land may be in Diem.  
Ans. 1. But neither yet do we hit the mark: for the question is not, whether it be possible for a debtor to be discharged presently and immediately upon the payment which another makes for him (which is the utmost this instance can reach to:) but whether it be not possible for him, not to be discharged upon such a payment, presently? which universal negative one particular instance can never well prove: especially when other instances without number may be invented, which will infallibly prove the contrary. 2. Still I long to know the reason of that peremptory necessity, expressed in those words, From the trespass the discharge must be present, if the satisfaction be full. Cassius hath Maevius in suit, for that his cattle have broke into his corn, and done him damage to the value of 5. l. Lucius gives the said 5. l. to Cassius, that the next Term (and not before) he may discharge Maevius: which accordingly he doth. Is this contract impossible? If it be, show us what contradiction there is in the terms: if it be not, we are not bound to believe, that the discharge must needs be immediate, though Mr. Eyre say it. 3. Nor yet am I able to conceive, (such is my dulness) why the effects of satisfaction should be more immediate, than those of merit: Especially considering that the satisfaction of Christ is also the price of our peace and pardon: and that the difference between them is rather respective then real: the same obedience being called satisfaction, as it is ordered to God's honour: and merit, as it is ordered to our benefit and advantage. The piece of land which one purchaseth for another, might it not be enjoyed presently, if the vendee and purchaser did so agree? it might, (especially if the price be full: as that is, which Christ paid for us many years ago.) Is it not then the agreement between the vendee and purchaser which defers the possession till such a time? it is so. Why then should not the case be the same in satisfaction? why (saith Mr. Eyre) a debt cannot be paid and unpaid. No more can a price be paid and unpaid (say I). But neither doth the price nor satisfaction produce their effects necessarily, or by way of natural causality: but voluntarily according to the compact between the party paying and receiving: which if it did not hinder, the vendee were as much bound to give present possession of the goods bought (having received the full price of them) as the creditor to forbear the inflicting of evil upon the trespasser (upon satisfaction made by a third person.)   

SECT. II.  
THe fourth Argument is this. If nothing hindered the reconciliation 
§. 7.  of the elect with God but the breach of the Law; then the Law being satisfied, it was the will of God that they should be immediately reconciled. But nothing hindered their reconciliation with God, but the breach of the Law. Ergo.  
Ans. This Argument were something if the sinner himself had suffered according to the Law. As if it might be supposed that Adam after his sin could by suffering have satisfied for his disobedience: no doubt but he had been presently restored into the same state of favour which he was in before, and might have gone to work again for life upon the security of the very same Covenant, with good success. And if Christ had paid the idem (a thing impossible, unless he were a sinner, or we were Christ) then indeed had his sufferings delivered us ipso facto, and we had not needed a Covenant of grace to pardon or save us, but are in as good a capacity of life without it, as Adam was before he fell: as we have observed before. But that first Covenant being violated, and no satisfaction made (or possibly to be made) but by a voluntary surety; God is left at liberty (as I may so speak) to propose what terms and time he pleaseth, for the restoring of sinners into a state of life and peace, Gal. 3. 21, 22. Now when Mr. Eyre says, that nothing hindered the reconciliation of sinners with God but the breach of the Law, the speech is somewhat improper; for though sin made the breach between God and them, yet it is not that properly which hinders reconciliation, but the sinner's inability to make satisfaction: could he have satisfied, sin could have had no power to have kept him at a distance from God: and so I perceive doth Mr. Eyre mean, by his explication. God (saith he) having made a Law that the soul which sins shall die, the justice and truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the elect, no less then of other men. To the Argument therefore the answer is ready. If satisfaction were made so (which it was not) as that the Law had been answered in the very thing which it required, viz. the sinner's punishment, than I would yield it wholly, and more than Mr. Eyre will thank me for: namely that life is given us by the very same Covenant which was made with Adam in his innocency. But satisfaction being taken strictly for a payment refusable, which one is admitted to make for another; and than it produceth the effect of our reconciliation no otherwise, then as he that admitteth and he that is admitted to make payment shall agree. Wherefore I deny the proposition as being grounded in the former false supposal, viz. That satisfaction cannot be made in any way, but it must needs effect a present discharge: which I have already disproved. The explication of this Argument I ●nd no fault with (more than that one expression, That the only cause of Christ's death, was to satisfy the Law: whereas they that deny his death to have been satisfactory at all, do yet assign many causes of his death, which ourselves allow of) but there is nothing in it which tends to prove the thing denied, more than a comparison or two, which need a little consideration.  
As when the cloud is dissolved, the Sun shines out: when the partition 
§. 8.  wall is broken down, they that were separated are again united: so the cloud of our sins being blotted out, the beams of God's love have as free a passage towards us, as if we had not sinned.  
Ans. Now would I know what is that moral necessity of Gods communicating life to us upon Christ's satisfaction, which answers to the natural necessity of the Suns shining forth upon the dissolution of the cloud: (for to say that God may saluâ justitiâ communicate life to sinners, Christ having satisfied, is not to the purpose: 'tis a must and not a may which must make Mr. Eyre's Argument consequent,) one of these three it must needs be: either, 1. A necessity of obligation by virtue of some Law or Covenant: but the only Covenant which God made with man before the fall, was that made with Adam in innocency, promising life upon perfect obedience. If by virtue of that Covenant God stands still engaged to give life to men, supposing satisfaction to be made for disobedience: then doth that Covenant made with man in innocency, stand still in force as the only way of life, and men (at least the elect) are legally and in strict justice as innocent as if they had never sinned: both which are desperately false and overthrow the very foundations of faith, or, 2. The necessity of a decree: God having decreed that the elect shall be reconciled immediately upon Christ's satisfaction for their sins; it must needs be that he having satisfied, they must be immediately reconciled. But the very supposing of such a decree, is the begging of the question: and being supposed, it will not infer that the elect must needs be reconciled by the death of Christ immediately, quatenus it was a satisfaction; but simply quatenus it was decreed to be immediately antecedent to their reconciliation: or, 3. A kind of natural necessity: God being essentially good, cannot but do good to an innocent sinless creature, or to a sinful creature, supposing satisfaction to be made for his sin: which is all one, as if himself had never sinned. But this is wider of truth then either of the former: for (whatsoever may be said of it in reference to a creature perfectly righteous) out of doubt there was no other necessity of Gods accepting Christ's satisfaction, than his own good pleasure. He might justly have destroyed sinners, and never provided a propitiation for them. It is therefore as clear as the Sun when the clouds are dissolved, that there is no necessity of an immediate reconciliation between God and sinners upon the death of Christ: but only of a reconciliation to follow then, and upon such terms as God and Christ agree. 2. Wherefore to the comparison I answer: that Christ died not merely to dissolve and scatter the clouds of sin; but to create a 
Isa. 51. 16. & 65. 16. ● Cor. 5. 15. 17.  new heaven (and a new earth) in which himself was to shine as the 
d Malac. 4. 2.  Sun of righteousness, and to dispel the clouds and darkness of sin: my meaning is, Christ died not to repair the old Covenant; nor by removing of hindrances, to make us capable of the influences of life and love, in that way in which they should have been derived to us by the first Covenant: but therefore died he, that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions, he might become that new and living way, through which we might come unto God by faith, and partake in life and remission of sins. Heb. 9 15. and 10. 17, 20, 22. compared. 3. Observe one thing more (Reader) from M. Eyre's application of his similitude. So (saith he) the cloud of our sins being blotted out; the beams of God's love have as free a passage towards us, as if we had not sinned. What are these beams of love? Is pardon of sin any of them? if it be, then behold the sense of the comparison: viz. Christ having satisfied, God can now pardon sin as freely as if men had no sin, and so had never needed pardon. This is a rare notion: but there is yet something worse than nonsense included in it; namely, that sinners are discharged without pardon: as having (in Christ) paid to the full the debt which they owed: as swearers and drunkards are discharged upon payment of the mulct enjoined by Law, without the Magistrates pardon; and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law, as if they had never broken it. If immediately upon Christ's satisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the blessings of the promise as if they had never sinned, there is then no need that they should believe and repent in order to the obtaining of life and salvation.  
The fifth Argument succeeds. If it were the will of God that the 
§. 9  sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity, than it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect: for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects: for both of them were heads and roots of mankind. But the sin of Adam did immediately over spread his posterity. All men sinned in him, Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual sin. Ergo.  
Ans. I deny both proposition and assumption. First, for the assumption: I deny that any man is guilty of Adam's sin, till he exist and be a child of Adam. He that is not, is not under Law, to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it: of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it. And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men sinned in Adam before they had any being of their own: neither doth the text say so, but only that death passed upon all men, f●r that all have sinned: which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have sinned (as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipsis, thus. Death passed upon all men by him in whom all have sinned) yet will it be short of his purpose. Doth not the Apostle say in the same verse, Death hath passed upon all men? and v. 15. through the offence of one, many be dead: which many himself interprets of all. v. 18. for (as Beza notes well, v. 15.) many in this comparison is not opposed to all, but to one. Is it therefore lawful to infer, that men are actually dead before they are borne? Nothing less. The meaning then of this speech, All men are dead in Adam, is no more but this: That sentence of death passed upon Adam, by virtue of which all that are borne of him, eo ipso that they derive their being from him, become subject unto the same death. In like manner, all are said to have sinned in him: not that his posterity then unborn and unbegotten (that is, no body) were immediately guilty of his fact: but because by the just dispensation of God, it was to be imputed to them as soon as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam. His offence tainted the blood, and according to God's Covenant and way of dealing with him, was interpreted as the act of the humane nature, then existing in himself (for tota natura generis est in qualibet specie) but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular persons partaking in that nature before their own personal existence. In short: we sinned in Adam no otherwise then we did exist in him; for operatio sequitur esse: but to exist in Adam, is not to exist simply, (but rather the contrary: for when men are men and have a personal existence of their own, they exist no longer in Adam, but out of him: as every effect wrought exists out of its causes) but only notes a virtue or power in him productive of us (positis omnibus ad ag●ndum requisitis.) So to sin or be guilty in him, is not to sin or be guilty simply; but only notes the cause of the propagation of guilt, together with our substance, to be then in being. If we apply this, it will follow, that as no man partakes in Adam's guilt, till he be borne a child of Adam; so none partake in the righteousness of Christ, nor the benefit of his satisfaction, till they be borne unto him by faith. And that doth the Apostle put out of question in this very dispute, Rom. 5. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous: which words were written many years after Christ's death: and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christ's obedience: Ergo, they were not made righteous immediately in his death. That for the minor.  
The proposition comes next to be canvased: where I deny that 
§. 10.  there is the same reason for the transmission of Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness to their respective subjects: for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind, as the Apostle shows, Rom. 5. 14. and so fare forth they agree, both communicating their effects to their children: Adam, sin and death to his natural children: Christ, righteousness and life to his spiritual children: yet the same Apostle in the same place shows that there is a divers dissimilitude or disagreement betwixt them, and that in several respects, v. 15, 16, 17, 18. particularly in that he calls our justification by the obedience of Christ the gift, and free gift in opposition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation, v. 15, 16. implying the obedience of Christ to be so performed, as that there is yet required an act of grace on God's part, to give us the effect of it: (as well as an act of faith on our part, that it may be given to us, or that we may receive it: of which the Apostle speaks in the next verse, v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace— shall reign in life: for we receive the grace of God by faith, 2 Cor. 6. 1.) suitable to what this Apostle had said before, chap. 3. 25, 26. that Christ was set forth to declare the righteousness of God— that he might be th● justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. But the effects of Adam's disobedience came upon his posterity by the necessity of the same judgement which passed upon himself, as the natural father of all men: so as there needs no other act, either on God's part, or on our part; but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment. But of this we have spoken more largely before.  
The sixth Argument follows. If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately 
§. 11.  available for the typical cleansing under that administration; then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available, to make a real atonement for all those sins for which he suffered. The reason of the consequence is, because the real sacrifice is not less efficacious than the typical. But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinner's part, Leu. 16. 30. Ergo.  
Ans. 1. I except against the proposition: because there is no necessity of the consequence. The atonement made by sacrifices might be available to an immediate cleansing, though Christ's be not, because, 1. God might will the former, though not the latter. 2. The people cleansed by sacrifice were all in being. 3. And all actually guilty of those sins from which they were cleansed by sacrifice. 4. And the punishments from which they were delivered, were for the most part carnal and outward, and as it were present, being either actually upon them (as their, separations from the congregation for leprosy or other defilements, sudden plagues destroying multitudes of them &c.) or in sight (as it were) and near at hand: in which respect it was necessary that the atonement made by sacrifice should have the more immediate effect. But they who are purged by the sacrifice of Christ, many of them were not in being when his sacrifice was offered, nor multitudes of them, yet much less had they then committed those sins from which his sacrifice doth afterwards purge them: nor is the punishment of their sins already upon them, but put off in expectation of repentance. If Mr. Eyre will give me that liberty which ●e takes himself, I might as well argue thus. If the sacrifices under the Law obtained no pardon but for sins committed, than neither doth the sacrifice of Christ obtain present pardon for sins to come, not yet committed. But the first is true, Ergo, so is the last. I doubt he would not grant my proposition. The reason which he adds for confirmation of his own, hath no weight: for the efficacy of the sacrifices typical and real is rather to be measured by the greatness of the effect wrought, then by their quickness in working them. That sacrifice is of greatest efficacy which produceth the greatest effect, whether it produce it immediately or no: for example. The sacrifice of Christ is of greater efficacy than those under the Law: because they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh, but the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience, Heb. 9 13, 14. But it did not purge our consciences immediately as soon as it was offered: for we had then no consciences to purge. Yet (I hope) Mr. Eyre will not say, that Christ's sacrifice is therefore of less efficacy than the other.  
But the assumption is that which I do most except against. viz. 
§. 12.  That those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinner's part. How doth Mr. Eyre prove this? Thus: it is said, Leu. 16. 30. the Priest shall make an atonement for you. Ergo, there was no condition required on the people's part. But neither was the atonement perfectly made by the offering of the sacrifice: but it was moreover required on the Priest's part that he entered into the holy of holies, and made atonement there, to v. 12, 15. (a type of our Lord's entrance into heaven to make reconciliation there for our sins, Heb. 9 24. and 2. 17, 18. and 4. 14, 15.) and on the people's part, that they did upon that day humble and afflict their souls: otherwise they could not have any benefit by that atonement: as we have observed before out of v. 29, 30. and Leu. 23. 27, 28, 29. We have also already showed that in some other cases some actions were required, as conditions without which sinners received not the benefit of that typical atonement. But for the general this may suffice, that the people who received the benefit of those sacrifices were a people in Covenant with God, and worshippers of him, Heb. 10. 1, 2. which was the grand condition of their partaking in the effects of that whole ceremonial service, and were therein types of the spiritual worshippers of the new Testament, who come by faith to the blood of sprinkling, even to Christ crucified, for a spiritual and eternal cleansing.   

SECT. III.  
WE come now to Mr. Eyre's seventh Argument. Some of 
§. 13.  the Elect are reconciled to God, immediately by the death of Christ, without any condition performed by them. viz. elect Infants. Ergo, all the elect are so reconciled.  
Answ. I deny the consequence, because it infers an universal from a particular. The Apostle says, It is appointed unto all men once to die, Heb. 9 27. and through death to enter into Heaven: shall I say this is false, because Enoch and Elijah went to Heaven, and never saw death? If the general directions, commands and promises in Scripture, must all be arraigned of falsehood, if they be not applicable to Infants, as well as unto persons that have understanding to know their Master's will▪ we shall make sad work: exceptions of particular persons make no breach upon a general rule. The Apostle says, He that will not work, must not eat: If we should give Infants no more food than they work for, the world would be soon at an end.  
2. But I deny the antecedent also. viz. That elect Infants are immediately reconciled to God by the death of Christ, without any condition performed on their part. A double answer therefore are our Divines wont to make to this objection. 1. That Infants may have the seed or habit of faith, though it be not wrought in them in the ordinary way of preaching. 2. That their Parent's faith is the condition of their salvation, if they die before they are capable of putting forth the act of faith themselves. Mr. Eyre will not hear of either of these answers, but invades them both.  
The former, 1. Because Infants have no knowledge of good or evil, 
§. 14.  Deut. 1. 39 and there cannot be faith without knowledge. 2. Faith cometh by hearing of the Word preached, Rom. 10. Now Infants hear not; or if they do, they understand not what they hear.  
Answ. 1. Wilt thou see then (Reader) what is the aim and upshot of all Mr. Eyre's discourse? this it is, that there is no necessity of believing or repenting, that men may be saved: for Infants are saved without it, as not being capable of so much as the habit of either: and God doth not give salvation unto Infants in one manner, and to men in another; (these are his own words) therefore men also may be saved without it. 2. Or if he shall say (as he doth somewhere else) that God hath purposed to give faith to all that are of years of discretion, before he give them salvation: yet still we retort upon him what he requires of us, Let him clear it up from Scripture, l●t him show us the text that saith, that God hath purposed to have Infants in one way, and men in another. 3. And yet I know not whether he hath so much charity to Infants, as to allow them any room in the Kingdom of Heaven: he cannot, if his Argument be good; for the text is express, Mark 16. He that believeth not, shall be damned; and Infants are uncapable of believing: for they cannot hear the Word, nor have they any knowledge of good or evil: nor doth God save them in one way, and men in another. 4. But to what he speaks here of the incapacity of Infants, having the seed or habit of grace, the answer is easy. It is true, they know neither good nor evil: but it will not follow (I trow) that they are neither good nor evil. They have the habits of sin in them, even whiles they are uncapable of the act, Ergo, they are capable of the habits of grace too: otherwise sin and grace were not contraries; for contraria tribuuntur eidem. And it is certain, that as all are now borne in sin; so all should have been borne righteous, if Adam (the father of us all) had not transgressed.  
And to the second exception, viz. That faith cometh by hearing 
§. 15.  of the Word preached, Rom. 10. 17. the same answer will suffice: faith may be considered, either in its complete act, (and so no doubt it comes by hearing; the reason is rendered by the Apostle in the same chapter, ver. 14. How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard?) Or 2. In its seed, root or habit: and so I deny that it is always and in all persons, wrought by hearing of the Word preached. The Christian and godly instructions of Parents, as they are ordained of God to be a means of instilling his fear into the hearts of their children, Eph. 6. 4. Isa. 28. 9, 10, 11. so are they not unfrequently blessed with success, according to the capacity of children, as in Timothy, 2 Tim. 3. 14, 15. And sometimes God by his own immediate working, may inspire that grace into the heart of an Infant, which it is not possible any means should be used by men to effect. David seems to have been gracious from a child, Psal. 22. 9, 10. and 71. 5, 6. and Isaac, G●l. 4. 29. and Christ blessed Infants, Mark 10. 16. and he blesseth by doing or working that in them, which godly Parents can do no more, than desire may be done, when they are said to bless their children.  
But we have a famous instance (which puts all out of doubt) of John 
§. 16.  the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb, Luke 1. 15. What says Mr. Eyre to this? He citys these words, and gives answer to others a great way off, ver. 41. whereupon Mary's salutation of Elizabeth, the babe is said to leap in her womb; and tells us, That this exultation, Divinitús facta est in Infante: non Humanitùs ab Infante: and therefore is not to be drawn into an example, or urged as a rule to us, what to think of others. Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus. We cite the words of v. 15. (and so doth Mr. Eyre too,) to prove Infants capable of the habit of grace: and he answers to v. 41. which is no part of the objection he had proposed against himself. But whereas he says, it is not to be urged as a rule to us, what to think of other Infants; he should have given us the reason too; for it proves invincibly, that Infants are capable of the habits of grace, (which is all intended to be proved by it) and by consequence, that Mr. Eyre's two Arguments to the contrary, from Infants want of knowledge and inability to hear, are nothing worth. 
d Vi●● B●co●m. de side ●ustif. Q ●1. per tot.  Ergo, the Scriptures contradict not them that say, Infants may have the seed of faith.  
Nor yet do they say any thing contrary to Scripture, who assert, 
§. 17.  that Infants perform the conditions of reconciliation and salvation by their Parents; forasmuch as it is manifest throughout the Scriptures, that Infants follow the condition of their Parents, whether they be the Infants of Gentiles, or of the people of God. And as the former are strangers from the Covenant, together with their Parents, and thereby liable to all the evils that accompany such a condition, Ezra 10. 3. Deut. 7. 2, 3, 6. Isa. 56. 3. so doth the Lord claim a special right and propriety in the children of his people, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. in regard of which they are called holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. (the greater is their sacrilege, who refuse to gi●e unto God the things that are Gods, but will needs have their children kept at liberty, to choose whether they will serve God or the devil, when they come up to ripeness of understanding) which relation of theirs to God, as some of his people, and of him to them, as their God, by virtue of their Parent's faith, Deut. 7. 6, 7, 8. Nehem. 9 8. (for never since the world was made did God make a Covenant with a faithful man, the blessings and benefit of which should reach no farther than his own person▪ witness his Covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Phineas, David, etc.) doth signally include the Promise of pardon of sin, Jer. 31. 33, 34. and 32. 38, 39, 42. And if Noah's faith was available, to the saving, not of himself only, but his family also, Heb. 11. 7. and the faith of godly Parents, for the life of their children, Matth. 15. 28. John 4. 50, 51. I see no reason why it should be denied, to be of as great acceptance with God, for the salvation of such of them as die in their infancy.  
Yet a double Argument Mr. Eyre hath against it. 1. Hence 
§. 18.  it will follow, that all the children of believing Parents are justified: which he supposeth no man will say.  
Answ. But he might have known that the Lutherans say so; and that without any great inconvenience, which I am able to foresee. That which I apprehend will be readiest objected against it, (though Mr. Eyre object not it, nor any thing else) is, that many children of godly Parents live and die in sin: Ergo, They were never justified. But this inference will not pass: for it will be answered, That the Parents faith remains no longer the condition of his child's pardon and salvation, then during the state of infancy: when he is grown up to the use of his own understanding and will, a personal faith of his own is required upon the same terms of necessity, as of others, who from their birth were without God, and strangers from his Covenant. Israel in Egypt is likened to a child, Ezek. 16. 5, 6, etc. Hos. 11. 1. and in Gods dealing with them there, (when they were in their Infant-age) we have a type and emblem of his dealing with other Infants, who are the children of his servants, and of such as believe on him, after the example of Abraham. Their father Abraham's faith, was the condition of their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, Deut. 10. 15. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them. And because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, chap. 7, 8. Nevertheless, after they had been farther instructed in, and known the Will of God, he required of them, that they should fear, him, and walk in all his ways, and love him, and serve him with all their heart and soul, Deut, 10. 12, 16. Otherwise they were liable to a return, to the same or a worse bondage, then that out of which they had been redeemed, chap. 28. 65, 68 And it is also observable, that the Infants in Israel, continued their right to the promised land, while their Parents were cut off for rebellion, Numb. 14, 30, 31.  
As to the second exception, That we may as well assert works 
§. 19  of supererogation, as that one is justified by another's faith. I had thought Mr. Eyre had better understood what works of supererogation are, then to trouble us with such an impertinency. But to the two texts of Scripture in the margin, to which he refers us, Ezek. 18. 20. and Hab. 2. 4. to prove, that a man's faith or righteousness is available, only to his own salvation: they are both to be understood pro subject â materiâ. He that is furnished with means and abilities, for the exercise of a faith of his own, or for performing works of righteousness, cannot expect salvation by the faith or righteousness of his Parents, while himself lives in unbelief and unrighteousness.  
The eighth Argument is the old postulatum, that faith cannot be 
§. 20.  the condition of our reconciliation, but it will then needs share with Christ in the glory of this effect, which we have showed already at large, to be contrary to the judgement of Scriptures, Reason, Lawyers, Divines, I may add, of all sorts of persons. All men will acknowledge, that the freest Promise imaginable becomes not obligatory, but upon supposition of acceptance by him to whom the Promise is made: 
e Vide D Marta. Neapol. Digest. Noviss. Tom 3. Tit. Donatarius.  and the freest donation becomes invalid, if he to whom it is given will have none of it. And faith being no more than an acceptance of Christ, John 1. 12. Rev. 22. 17. one would think it might be made the condition of the gift of righteousness and life, without danger of sharing in the glory of Christ. More of the unreasonableness of Mr. Eyre's crude assertion, (though it be more than needs, and more than once I intended) the Reader shall find below, in answer to Mr. Eyre's nineteenth chapter.  
Enter the ninth Argument. If it were the Will of God, that 
§. 21.  his people should have strong consolation, and that their joy should be full; than it was his Will, that their peace and reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves; for it is impossible that any soul should enjoy a firm and settled peace, whose confidence towards God is grounded upon conditional Promises: and (says the Apostle) our salvation is by grace, to the end that the Promise may be sure to all the seed, Rom. 4. 16.  
Answ. We expect other manner of proof of the consequence, than what is here presented us, It is most true, that Gods Will is, that his people should have strong consolation, not without faith, but through faith, as is most express in that very place which Mr. Eyre quotes, Heb. 6. 18. That we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. Also the Apostle John, 1 Ep. 1. 4. gives the reason of his writing the doctrine of the Gospel, namely, that through the faith thereof our joy may be full. But it is the wildest reasoning that ever I met with, to infer, that if the gift of peace and reconciliation be suspended upon believing, than he that believes cannot have strong consolation; just as if I should infer, because the Lord says, John 16. 24. Ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. Ergo, He that asketh can never attain to fullness of joy. The strength of our joy and consolation depends upon the immutability and faithfulness of the Promise which we believe: and by how much the more steadfastly we believe, by so much the more do we partake in the comfort of the Promise. But that is above all, that Mr. Eyre should quote, Rom. 4. 16. to prove, that if our salvation depended never so little upon our works, we could not be sure thereof; (Amongst which works he includes faith, absurdly enough, but suitable to his dealing with the Authors whom he quotes here, and elsewhere, applying to faith what they speak against works,) when the very words of the text are expressly and purposely against the inference which he makes from them. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed. Since man was borne upon the earth, was it ever thought possible that these words should yield this inference? Ergo, if salvation depend on faith, we can never be sure of it? Though neither doth the text speak of the certainty of the subject, or of our being sure of salvation: but of the certainty of the object, or of salvation's being sure to us.  
Let us hear the tenth Argument. If it were the Will of God, that 
§. 22.  the death of Christ should be available for the reconciliation of the elect, whiles they live in this world; than it was his Will, that it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation, without the intervention of those conditions, supposed to be required of them. The reason is, because they cannot perform all the conditions required of them, till their last breath: this being one, that they must persevere to the end.  
Answ. This Argument (with many of the rest) if it prove that sinners are reconciled without any condition performed on their part, yet it doth not prove (what it should do) that they are reconciled immediately in the death of Christ, or before they believe. If we contended for no more than that faith were antecedent to Justification, not the condition thereof; this Argument would not hurt us; and therefore is not like to be very serviceable to Mr. Eyre. 2. Nor doth it so much as pretend to disprove Justification upon any condition, (as suppose upon the first act of faith) and therefore is yet farther impertinent. 3. But that which it would disprove (if it had strength enough) is the conditionality of final perseverance unto Justification. But neither do we make final perseverance the condition of our first Justification; but the first simple act of faith, and perseverance in the faith to the end, the condition of final Justification, as Paul also doth, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, From HENCEFORTH there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousness, etc. So Rev. 2. 17. To him that overcometh will I give a white stone, etc. of which we have spoken before. Wherefore I deny that, which should be Mr. Eyre's Assumption, viz. That it was the Will of God that the elect should be perfectly and completely reconciled or justified, whilst they live in th●● world. The reasons of which denial I have already given at large, and shall not now repeat them. And whereas Mr. Eyre thinks much, ●●at the elect should be denied perfect reconciliation, not only till they believe, but not till death; He may be pleased to understand, that I deny them to be perfectly justified or reconciled, till the resurrection. For as long as any enmity remains undestroyed, they are not perfectly reconciled. But all enmity is not destroyed till the resurrection, 1 Corinth. 15. 25, 26.  
And what hath Mr. Eyre against it? words and nothing else. 
§. 23.  1 (Saith he) innumerable Scriptures declare that the Saints are perfectly justified. A●sw. But doth not quote us so much as one: and a good reason why. 2. That nothing shall be able to separate from God's love. Answ. Not for ever, but for a time it may, til● all enemies be subdued: the last of which is Death. The happiness which the soul enjoys in the mean time is its own, not the happiness of the person, as our Lord's Argument supposeth, M●t. 22. 31, 32. 3. Justification is as full and perfect as ever it shall be, it doth not grow and increase, but is perfect at first. ●nsw. Prove it: it grows in the renewed acts of pardon, H●l 12. 17, 1 Joh● 2. 1. 2. ●or God doth multiply ●orgivenesses, Is●. 55. 7. It grows in the perfection of its parts: whereof the most absolute and complete is our Justification in the day of judgement. It grows in the perfection of its effects: which are begun in the soul first, and so take place upon the body, and the whole man, R●m. 8. 10, 11, 23. Paul expected a farther participation in the righteousness of Christ, than he attained to in this life, Gal. 5. 5. Phil. 3. 8, 9, 11. 4. Baptism (saith Mr. Eyre) which seals to us the forgiveness of all our sins, is administered but once in all our life-time: to show that our Justification is done all at once. Answ. Baptism seals that Promise, by which all sins past are forgiven; (
f Luke 3. 3. M●rk 1. 4. ) and all sins future shall be forgiven when committed, the sinner continuing in the faith of Jesus Christ; from which if he fall away, it is impossible that he should be renewed again to repentance, Hebr. 6. 6. or be capable of having another Covenant made or sealed to him, by which his sins may be remitted, Heb. 10. 29. Mr. Eyre here adds some texts of Scripture, Ezek. 16. 8, 9 Acts 13. 39 1 John 1. 7. Col. 2. 13, 14. to what purpose I cannot imagine; unless it be to prove, that all sins are forgiven at once (for neither of these texts speak a word of Baptism.) If he mean all sins past are forgiven upon the first act of faith, I have granted it: but if he mean all sins to come also, it lies upon him to prove it: that is, that sins not committed are sins.   

SECT. iv  
THe eleventh Argument proceeds thus. If it were the Will of 
§. 24.  God, that the death of Christ should certainly and infallibly procure the reconciliation of his Elect; then surely it was not the Will of God, that it should depend on terms and conditions on their part: because that which depends upon future conditions is, as to the event, altogether uncertain.  
Answ. 1. Neither doth this Argument prove, that we are justified immediately in the death of Christ, or before we believe. 2. I deny the consequence with the proof of it: for although that which depends upon future conditions, as to the event be uncertain, as the word uncertain signifies the same with contingent, (for it is a true rule in the Civil Law, (
f L. Si pupillus ff. de N vat. ) Conditio necessaria non suspendit dispositionem) yet is this uncertainty or contingency to be understood in reference to man, and the second and immediate causes of a things existence; not in reference to God, to whom even contingent events 
g Vid● doctisfimum D. Ramum Scholar Dialect. l. 5 c 6.  are as certain, as if they were necessary: we shall make strange work in Divinity, if events shall be denied to be contingent in their own nature, because in reference to Gods Will or knowledge they are certain and infallible, and so far forth necessary; for example, God did will the certain and infallible safety of all those that were in the ship with Paul, Acts 27. 24. yet nevertheless it came not to pass, but upon condition of their abiding in the ship: without the performance of which condition they had perished, ver. 31. Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved. And Mr. Eyre might easily have foreseen, that this Argument wounds himself as much as us. He acknowledgeth the Covenant made with Adam, to have been conditional: and in that very thing placeth the main difference between it and the Covenant of grace; obedience than was the condition of Adam's continuance in life; and sin, of his death. But did not God know that Adam would sin, and will to permit it? or will Mr. Eyre deny this, because his death was suspended upon a future condition, and therefore was altogether uncertain, as to the event? Physician heal thyself. It is by the Will of God, that contingent things come to pass contingently.  
Nor is the twelfth argument more happy. If God willed this 
§. 25.  blessing to the elect but conditionally, than he willed their reconciliation and Justification no more▪ than their non-reconciliation and condemnation; for if he willed their Justification only, in case they should believe and repent, than he willed their damnation in case they do not believe and repent. Ergo, he willed their Justification no more than their damnation; contrary to John 6. 38, 39 and 17. 21, 22, 24.  
Answ. (
h Vide Amyr●ld●m Sp●●im. Anim●d. Special. co●tra Sp●●h●m. à p. 146. ad siu●m libri. ) Out of doubt God willeth the damnation, even of the elect themselves in case they do not believe and repent: (though that case supposeth what is not to be supposed, without more d●stinctions than my present matter will permit me to digress into) but Mr. Eyre's inference, that therefore he will their damnation as much as their Justification, is merely drawn in, without any disposition in itself to follow; for the Promise's of remission, upon condition of faith, is not made unto men, who are as it were i● m●di●, between life and death; but unto sinners already under condemnation: and is given as a remedy against that death under which they are already held. God thereby manifesting, that although▪ according to his own Laws and constitutions, he cannot save impenitent and unbelieving sinners, (Heb. 3. 19 Jer. 3. 19) yet is it far more acceptable to him, that sinners should and be saved, then by their obstinacy provoke him, and as it were constrain him to execute his justice upon them. Ezek. 18. 31, 32. and 33. 11. Lament. 3. 33, 34, 2 Pet. 3. 9 As Moses speaks, Deut. 30. 19 I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. Wherefore we answer by the usual distinction of the Will of God: which is either 
i Vid. Chamier. Panstrat. de Praedest. c. 6. §. 3 & 14.  voluntas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, determining of events: or voluntas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determining of what is good and acceptable in the sight of God: by the former God doth will infallibly that his elect shall be justified by the death of Christ. By the latter, though he will their Justification much more than their damnation (as hath been showed) yet he wills it not otherwise, then that if they will not be reconciled, but turn away from God through unbelief, Christ and his righteousness shall profit them nothing.  
The thirteenth argument undertakes great matters. Conditional 
§. 26.  reconciliation necessarily supposeth freewill.  
Answ. It doth indeed suppose voluntatem per gratiam liberabilem, the will freeable by grace, not per naturam liberatam, freed by nature. If the case of sinful men were the case of devils, to be judicially so confirmed and obdurate in sin, as that it were impossible for them to repent and believe on a Saviour; Mr. Eyre would then put me hard to it, for I should never be able to give any tolerable account why a conditional reconciliation should be preached and pressed so vehemently upon a sinful world. But how doth Mr. Eyre prove that a conditional reconciliation supposeth freewill? Thus,  
Either God willed it unto men, upon a possible or impossible condition. Answ. Upon a condition possible.  
Mr. Eyre, Then either it is possible because God will bestow it, or because man can perform it. Answ. Because God will bestow it, though this disjunction be not well expressed, for man's ability to perform is not contrary to Gods bestowing, but the effect of it. But Mr. Eyre says, we cannot mean it of a condition possible by God's gift, because God will bestow upon us nothing but what Christ hath purchased; and Christ hath purchased nothing, save what God hath promised in his Covenant: and Mr. W. denies that the Promise of faith is any part of the Covenant, or any effect of it, page 32. and others that are for this conditional reconciliation, look upon it as a ridiculous conceit, that God should promise men salvation upon a condition, and that he should work this condition in them and for them.  
Answ. Per varios casus, per tot discrimina rerum, Tendimus in Latium. I do not wonder Mr. Eyre is so grossly out, seeing he hath no shorter way to his Conclusion. It is very hard to me to conceive how this Argument proceeds: but thus I think it is. The thing which Mr. Eyre is proving is this, That no condition, or particularly, that faith is not a condition possible by the gift of God▪ The proof stands thus, If God bestow nothing but what Christ hath purchased, than faith is not a condition possible by the gift of God. But the first is true. Ergo, so is the last. The Proposition stands upon this ground. Christ (according to us) hath not purchased faith▪ Ergo, if God bestow nothing but what Christ hath purchased, he doth not bestow faith. The Antecedent is thus proved. What God hath not promised in his Covenant, Christ hath not purchased. But God (according to us) hath not promised faith in his Covenant. Ergo, Christ hath not purchased it. This is the demonstration. But yet we need several things to be demonstrated. First, that God gives nothing but what Christ hath purchased. 1. He gave Christ himself to be a purchaser, Esa. 9 6. To us a child is borne, to us a Son is given. 2. Mr. Eyre denies Christ to have purchased the Covenant of remission. 3. And our natural being and faculties will hardly be proved the fruit of Christ's merits. 4. And such of our Divines, (who yet are neither Papists nor Arminians) who suppose faith to be an immediate effect of the same grace, with the giving of Christ to be our Redeemer, will yet need a farther proof of this position than I do. Secondly, that Christ hath purchased nothing, but what God hath promised in his Covenant, for the very making and enacting of the Promise or Covenant of grace, is the fruit of Christ's Purchase, (whence his blood is so often called the blood of the Covenant, Heb. 10. 29. and 13. 20. Matth. 26. 28.) 3. That I deny that the Promise of faith is any part or effect of the Covenant. I do indeed deny that it is an effect of the Covenant made with us, that is, that we are not in Covenant with God, when God promiseth to give faith: but he promiseth to give faith, that we may thereby be brought into Covenant with him. But the Covenant being taken largely, for a declaration of that whole good, which God will work in and for his people, and so God promiseth faith: for explication of which, I must refer the Reader to the place where I purposely treat of it. In the mean time (Reader) hath not Mr. Eyre gallantly performed his undertaking? Something, I perceive, he would feign fasten upon us: but his cord (his threefold cord) is made of  flax.  
As for those that look upon it as a ridiculous conceit, that God 
§. 27.  should promise salvation upon a condition which he worketh in us, is Mr. Eyre of their mind, or is he not? If he be not, why doth he trouble us with them? If he be, why doth he fetch such a compass to come at his Conclus●on? had it not been shorter to argue thus? If faith be the condition of salvation, than God doth not give faith: the reason is, because it is ridiculous, that God should promise salvation▪ upon a condition which he worketh in us. But (according to us,) faith is the condition of salvation. Ergo. if Mr. Eyre think this Argument of the Remonstrants unanswerable, they will be much beholden to him. But I deny the Proposition, 
k Vid●●pis●op D●venant. dissert de mart Christi●. 5. p 57 add ob●. 2.  and say, there is no inconvenience in affirming, that God gives salvation upon a condition of his own working. Provided it be understood (as it ought) according to the difference which the same action hath, in reference to the universal, and its particular cause. Indeed it were ridiculous to suppose, that God should make any action, which is wholly and immediately from himself, the condition of any blessing he gives; as that he should promise to glorify us upon condition he raise us from the dead: to raise us, upon condition he justify us: to justify us, upon condition he give us faith. But the same faith which God worketh in us, is also our act (for it is we that believe, and not God, though he make us to believe) and as it is our act, so is it performed voluntarily, and a fit object of a command or promise: I mean, capable of being commanded or rewarded, or of being made the condition of a reward. And thus (for example) obedience was the condition of that life which was promised to Adam. (this Mr. Eyre grants.) Nevertheless to the exercise of that obedience the concurrence of God was necessary, as of the first cause: for creatures essentially depend on God, not only for their being, but for their motion and operation, Acts 17. 28. Ergo, a voluntary act of ours may be the condition of our salvation, though God work that act in us. How many orders doth God give to Joshua, Gideon, David and others, concerning the times and places, when and whither they should remove their host, that they might put their enemies to the rout, or escape an overthrow by them. These motions were the conditions of those special victories or deliverances which God would give them; yet by the efficiency of God's power and providence did they move from place to place. Hundreds of like instances are obvious.  
One thing more Mr. Eyre adds, If (saith he) any shall say, that 
§. 28.  God did will that by Christ we should have faith, and after that reconciliation; yet 1. It will follow notwithstanding, that our reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ (as Owen proves against Baxter, page 34.) And 2. Then all the controversy will be about God's order and method, in conferring on us the effects of Christ's death.  
Answ. That reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ, may be understood in a double sense: either 1. By comparing the effects with the cause (and then the meaning is, that the death of Christ contributes an immediate efficiency to our reconciliation, whensoever it is that we are reconciled: and this is all that Mr. Owen says in the place mentioned. Meritorious causes (saith he) do actually & ipso facto produce all those effects which immediately slow from them: not in an immediation of time, but of causality. I doubt not, but the death of Christ hath in its kind an actual and immediate influence upon our eternal glorification, which yet is the last effect or benefit we receive by him.) Or 2. By comparing the effects with the cause, and one with another, and so that is the immediate effect of the death of Christ, which exists immediately upon the death of Christ, without the interposition of any other cause to produce it. Of this only is the Question, as also Mr. Eyre himself hath hitherto understood it: otherwise I am persuaded himself will grant, that all the Arguments he hath hitherto used (one or two at most only excepted) come not within sight of the Conclusion they aim at.  
As to the second thing, that then all the controversy will be about God's order and method, in conferring on us the effects of Christ's death: though if there were nothing else but this in question; it will be of very dangerous consequence to pervert and trouble that order, which God useth in bringing sinners to life: yet is there much more in question, viz. whether upon supposition of Christ's Purchase, and Gods special purpose of giving faith to some, the same faith, as it is a voluntary act of ours, may not by God's Will of Precept, be made the condition of our partaking in righteousness and reconciliation by the death of Christ? This is the thing which Mr. Eyre should have disproved, if he had intended his Argument should have concluded any thing. We have already showed at large the monstrous inconveniences that attend the denial of it: and so much hath been spoken by those that are for the middle way of universal redemption, especially the French Divines, that I cannot▪ think it worth my labour to add any thing more. The Lord Jesus hath put the matter out of Question to me, John 6. 39, 40. And this is the Father's Will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the Will of him that sent me, that every one that seethe the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. The former verse declares his own and his father's special Will to save the elect. The latter, that yet the condition of believing is imposed on all men (the elect, as well as others) that they through the performance thereof may be saved.  
And so we are come to the last Argument, which in brief is this, 
§. 29.  The imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them unto us. But our sins were accounted or imputed to Christ without any condition on our part. Ergo, they are discounted or non-imputed to us, without any condition performed by us.  
Answ. I deny the Proposition, namely, that the imputing of our sins to Christ, is formally the non-imputing of them unto us: because 1. If this be true, then doth not God for Christ's sake forgive any man's sin, as the Apostle saith he doth, Eph. 4. 32. the reason is plain, because it was not for Christ's sake that himself was punished. Our pardon is not the effect of Christ's punishment, but on the contrary, his punishment is the effect of our pardon, if the imputation of our sins to him be formally the non-imputation of them to us. 2. What then is the meaning of Paul's prayer for them that deserted him? 2 Tim. 4. 16. The Lord grant that it may not be imputed to them: that is, the Lord grant that Christ may be punished for them? or what is the meaning? The Lord grant they may be some of those for whom Christ hath been punished? that were all one as to pray that they may be elected from all eternity. Whatsoever sense M. Eyre will put upon the words, it will either not agree with sense, or not with himself, or not with the text. 3. Upon the same principle it will follow, that the death of Christ as it was a satisfaction, and his resurrection from the dead contributes nothing to our justification, neither by way of influence, nor by way of evidence: for might it be supposed that the Lord Jesus had lain for ever under the power of death, that had been the best evidence to us that we should never be punished, if his punishment were formally our nonp●nition: and by way of influence it can do nothing, because Gods freeing or taking off punishment from us is in nature before his laying it on Christ, if the imputing it to Christ be formally the non-imputing it to us: many other inconveniences attend this doctrine: but it is needless to insist upon the mention of them.  
Besides these Arguments, there are several testimonies of Scripture 
§. 30.  which M. Eyre mentions, to prove our reconciliation to be the actual and immediate effect of Christ's death: let us view them, Colos. 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. Heb. 9 12. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19 Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12, 14. Colos. 2. 10, 13, 14. Rom. 8. 33, 34.  
Ans. 1. We have already answered at large to Rom. 8. 33, 34. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19 Eph. 1. 7. and by consequence to Colos. 1. 14. for the words are the same in both those places. We have therefore here to answer no more than the texts out of the Hebrews, and one out of the Colossians; let us take them in order, Heb. 9 12. Christ hath obtained eternal redemption for us. I cannot assure myself how M. Eyre understands this text: but if he see no more in it then all men I can meet with, he can conclude no more from it then what was never denied, namely that Christ hath purchased eternal redemption for us. But he hath also purchased eternal life and glory for us: will it therefore follow that our glorification, is the actual and immediate effect of his death? he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity, Tit. 2. 14. are we therefore freed from all sin immediately in his death?  
The next is Heb. 1. 3. Christ by himself hath purged our sins, and afterwards sat down as having finished that work, Heb. 10. 12. Ans. The former place (according to the original) says no more than that Christ in his death made a purge of our sins: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more than we have often yielded, that Christ hath made a plaster in his own blood for the curing of our wounds: that is, in dying he performed that righteousness which is the cause of our remission: his blood being that which washeth us from all our sins. But that this purge had its effect immediately upon its own existence, is that which M. Eyre must give us another Text to prove: whereas he adds, that he afterwards sat down as having finished that work, Heb. 10. 12. and good reason: because that one offering of himself was so perfect and sufficient for all those ends unto which it was ordained, that there is no need that himself or any thing else should be offered a second time, for those ends. But if M. Eyre mean that he hath so perfectly reconciled us in his death (not only quoad constitutionem causae, but quoad effectum) as that there needs nothing more to be done towards our reconciliation, he may do well to reconcile the Apostle to himself, who tells us his work in heaven is to make reconciliation, Heb. 2. 17, 18. Wherefore in all things it beboved him to be made like unto his br●thron, that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people; for in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to secure them that are tempted. compare Heb. 4. 15. and 7. 25.  
The like answer I give to Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected 
§. 31.  for ever them that are sanctified, namely, that Christ's death hath perfected us quoad meritum, not quoad efficaciam. The death of Christ (saith the 
l Dr. Godwin. in Rom. 8. ●4. sect 5. pag. 177.  Author often commended) was perfect for an oblation, to which as such nothing can be added: there needed no more, nor any other price to be paid for us. But hence to infer, that therefore we were perfectly reconciled quoad effectum in the death of Christ, is point blank against the Text, which tells us in the very next foregoing words, v. 13. that Christ doth yet expect till his enemies be made his footstool: amongst which the Apostle reckoneth sin and death, 2 Cor. 15. 26, 55, 56. which, though (together with Devils) they were destroyed in some sense in the death of Christ, Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 14, 15. Yet, forasmuch as the holy Ghost witnesseth that Christ doth yet expect a farther destruction of them, it lets us understand, that these enemies, and sin in particular, was no farther destroyed in his death, then as therein was laid the foundation and cause of a perfect and eternal remission, which by virtue of that blood carried up and pleaded in heaven, should be given unto them that by faith come for it unto the throne of grace; as the Apostle explains himself, Heb. 4. 14, 15▪ 16. and in this very chapter, v. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins: implying, that a wilful rejecting of Christ through unbelief (which I conceive to be that special sin which the Apostle means) deprives us of the benefit of remission of sins by his sacrifice: which how it can be if sins were perfectly and absolutely pardoned immediately in his death, I cannot conceive: see also, v. 38, 39  
The last place is least of all to purpose: Christ (saith M. Eyre) 
§. 32.  hath made us complete as to the forgiveness of our sins. Colos. 2. 10, 13, 14.  
Ans. 1. The Apostle speaks to such who had already received the Lord Jesus, v. 6. And of such no doubt it is true, that all their sins are pardoned. 2. But neither doth the Apostle limit our completeness in Christ to the forgiveness of our sins: nor doth he say that we were made complete in his death, but rather in his exaltation: And ye are complete in him who is the Head of all principality and power. His scope is to root and establish the Colossians in the faith of Christ, v. 7. in opposition to such innovators as would have introduced the worship of Gentile Daemons, v. 8, 18. or the observation of Jewish rites, v. 20, 21. as if without these Christ had not of himself been able to save them. But ye are complete in Christ (saith the Apostle) or be ye content with Christ (as the words will bear to be rendered) as who alone is most sufficiently able to give and increase you in all good, and to deliver you from all evil, and bestow on you the reward of eternal life, v. 15, 18, 19 But what all this is to the purpose I know not. It seems Mr. Eyre had a mind to bring it in for company.    

CHAP. XI.  
A reply to Mr. Eyre's fifteenth Chapter: of justification in Christ as a common person. Justification not proved thereby to be before faith.  

SECT. I.  
WE are now come to the review of those two Arguments 
§. 1.  mentioned in my Sermon, which Mr. Eyre made use of to prove that the elect were justified before believing. The former in short I thus proposed.  
If we are justified in Christ, than we are justified before we believe. But we are justified in Christ, Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon: showing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me, (concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account: having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prosecuting his Argument) the sum is, Christ was justified in his resurrection, as a common person: Ergo, the elect were then justified in him.  
My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct. The sum is: if justification be taken properly, I deny that we were justified in Christ: if improperly, I deny that it will follow, that we were justified before faith, because we were justified in Christ's resurrection, no more than it will follow, that because we are said to be risen with Christ. Ergo, men are risen from the dead before they are borne, or dead, or while they are lying in their graves. But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces, let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it.  
First then, I say we may conceive of a threefold justification. 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God, Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justification purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ, Heb. 9 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ: who himself was justified in his own resurrection, and thereby became the exemplary cause of justification to believers, by virtue whereof themselves shall also be justified in due time, etc.  
What says Mr. Eyre to this? 1. He infers in general, that then by my own confession, justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith. The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered, chapped. 1. §. 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God, as purchased by Christ, as exemplified in his glorification; I should not count him worthy of a reply that should infer, that I had therefore yielded glorification to be before believing. Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification, tells his Reader before hand that, That were a poor put off, because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali. Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato. When we speak of justification simply, there is no man but understands it of actual justification.  
Which makes me believe his report concerning his book (at least some parts of it) that it had cost him but little pains: for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much. I mention justification cum adjecto with a limitation: and in the close of my answer, oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called; and this I may not be allowed to do, because of Analogum per se positum, etc.  
Nextly, He speaks something on each member of the distinction, 
§. 2.  and says, 1. That which I called justification, purposed in the decree of God is real and actual justification. Ans. Thou hast then thy choice (Reader) whether thou wilt believe, the Apostle or M. Eyre. The Text quoted (Gal. 3. 8.) says thus: The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before, the Gospel unto Abraham. The justification here spoken of, is surely justification simply so called, because it is put by itself, without any Term of restraint or diminution: and M. Eyre's rule is, Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato. And this justification (according to the Apostle) was a thing foreseen: a thing that God would do▪ a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abraham: all which notwithstanding, M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our justification. But of this we have spoken already, as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the distinction.  
The great exception is against the third branch, wherein I say, that 
§. 3.  Christ in his resurrection being himself justified, became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should believe. I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this, as I meet with in M. Eyre's answer to it.  
1. (Saith M. Eyre) there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ: the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our justification.  
Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term, where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person (in which he so much delights) attributed to Christ? 2. If concerning that which is equivalent; surely, the Term of an exemplary cause, is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other: for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we bear the image of the heavenly Adam, 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ, from the beginning to the end of our faith, Rom. 8. 29, 17. Now wherein we bear Christ's image, therein was he an exemplary cause; for to an exemplary cause no more is required then that another thing be conformed to it, as its image, and exist by virtue of it (which I desire the Reader to observe, because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause, as if there were no difference between them.) If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ, than he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours. And whereas M. Eyre says, that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary, but a meritorious cause: it is not universally true. For the resurrection and ascension of Christ were acts of Christ's as Mediator: and yet in them he was not the meritorious cause of any thing.  
He proceeds thus. It was needless Christ should be a pattern 
§. 4.  of our justification: for this pattern must be of use, either unto us, or unto God. Not to us, because we do not justify ourselves: not to God, because he needs no pattern to direct him.  
Rep. The disjunction is imperfect: for it was needful for the glory of Christ, as the Apostle expressly witnesseth, Rom. 8. 29. Them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren. It is no small part of Christ's glory to be the first begotten from the dead, and a person so fare advanced above all others, that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him, and in being fashioned according to his image. 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects, as if we are said to be justified in Christ's resurrection as a common person: whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives, or the influence which it hath upon our justification. And whereas Mr. Eyre says it can be of no use to us, because we do not justify ourselves, it is a strange kind of reason. Cannot a soul by faith behold the certainty and glorious effects of his justification (notwithstanding all the opposition of sense and reason) by looking on Christ justified as an exemplary cause, to whom himself also shall be conformed in one time?  
Secondly, Mr. Eyre argues against it thus. He that pays our debts 
§. 5.  to the utmost farthing, and thereupon receives a discharge, is more than a pattern of our release.  
Rep. More than a pattern of our release? Is this all Mr. Eyre contends for? upon what pretence then doth he oppose me? I acknowledge Christ to be the meritorious cause of our release in his death, and not only the exemplary cause of it in his resurrection. As to the thing which (I think) Mr. Eyre intends, I have told him often, that Christ entered into an obligation of his own to make satisfaction for our debt: from which obligation he was discharged in his resurrection: God acquitting him, as having paid as much as was demanded. But if Christ had power to do what he would with his own; then was it in his power and his Fathers, to give us the effect of this satisfaction, when and upon what terms they pleased: and to suspend our discharge (notwithstanding Christ were long before discharged) till himself should sit down at the right hand of Glory, and give it us with his own hand, according as sinners in successive generations come to him for it. M. Eyre hath often said the contrary, but proves it not where.  
His third Argument chargeth high (magnis tamen excidit ausis:) 
§. 6.  take it at large. If Christ were only a pattern and example of our justification, than was he justified from his own sins, and consequently was a sinner, which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered. The reason of the consequence is evident: for if Christ was but a pattern of our justification, than was he justified as we are. Now we are justified from our own sins which we ourselves have committed.  
Rep. 1. This the charge: this the proof. But because M. Eyre is so careless of what he speaks, let us see whether the matter be mended according to his own principles. He than doth not only acknowledge, but contend that the elect were justified in Christ as a common person. Now what is a common person? It is a general term, and should have been described more plainly than it is: but something he speaks of him, §. 1. Whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such, is to be attributed to them in whose steed he stands, and §. 4. 1. The act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents. The sum is. A common person is he that represents another both in what he doth, and in what is done to him. Now then thus I proceed. If Christ were justified as a common person, than was he justified from his own sins, and consequently was a sinner, which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered. The reason of the consequence is evident: for if Christ was justified as a common person, than was he justified as we are (for a common person is he that represents another both in what he doth, and in what is done to him) Now we are justified from our own sins, which we ourselves have committed. Ergo. Let M. Eyre answer this for himself, and he hath answered for me. But because he hath put me out of hope of the former, I will do the latter presently. 2. In the mean time I will propose one thing to M. Eyre's consideration. If the justification of Christ as a common person were actually, and formally the justification of the elect, then are not the elect justified of grace but of works: (which is the most horrid contradiction to the Gospel that can be uttered:) the reason of the consequence is evident: because Christ was not justified of grace but of debt. Ergo, if that act of justification which passed upon him, be that which justifies us, then are not we justified of grace.  
But to M. Eyre's Argument (if it may so be called) I deny his consequence, 
§. 7.  (as evident as it is) and the proof of it. To the former I say, that Christ's resurrection was his discharge from his own▪ obligation, which he voluntarily undertook to suffer and satisfy for our sins: and therein he became the exemplary cause of a like discharge which should follow on them that believe, from that obligation which comes upon them involuntarily and necessarily because of sin. To the proof I say, that Christ's Justification was such as ours is, in regard of its common nature and effects, (which is sufficient to the agreement of the example and counterpart: as the sacrifices of old represented Christ dying, though he were a man, and they were beasts) not in its principle and special nature. Surely it will not be denied, that we bear the image of Christ in our resurrection from the dead: but then (will Mr. Eyre say) he was raised as we are: now we are raised from corruption. Ergo, he also was raised from corruption, which is as horrid a contradiction to Scripture as can be uttered, Psal. 16. 10. or he was raised by his own power, John 2. 19 Ergo, if we in our Resurrection are conformed to him, then are we also raised by our own power; which is blasphemy as bad as the other: that makes Christ as bad as sinners; this makes sinners as good as Christ. Did M. Eyre think it possible to convince men's understandings by such Argumentations as these? His fourth Argument is upon the point all one with this, and hath been answered already over and over, in that wherein it differs from this.  
His fifth Argument is. That I recede very far both from the 
§. 8.  meaning and expressions of all our orthodox writers, who do constantly call our Saviour a common person, but never the exemplary cause of our justification: particularly my Grandfather Parker, de descens. lib. 3. sect. 49, 50, 53.  
Rep. 1. I did not think before (nor do I now) that the affirming of Christ to be an exemplary cause of all those spiritual heavenly blessings which God bestows on us, had been, to deny him to be a common person. The Scriptures call him the first borne amongst many brethren, Rom. 8. 29. The first borne of every creature, Colos. 1. 15. the first fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. 15. 20. phrases importing that there are many others, who by his power shall be conformed to his image in all his heavenly perfections: which is all I seek by the term of an exemplary cause. But he that calls Christ the first borne, the first begotten, the first fruits, is so far from denying him, as that he doth suppose him to be a common person, in regard that the proper import of these phrases is to teach us, that he hath received excellent blessings, not for himself, but for others also. The reason why I use the term of an exemplary cause rather than of a common person, I give the Reader a little below. 2. And that our Divines do usually call Christ a common, person is a thing so well known, that M. Eyre should not need to have quoted my Grandfather Parker to convince me of it. He should have showed that they call him so in such a sense as cannot be expressed by the term of an exemplary cause. So doth not my Grandfather, at least in the point of Christ's resurrection, of which he there speaks not a word: but 
m Do descens. lib. 4 sect. 75.  elsewhere says with Athanasius. Anima Christi descensum suum ad inferos peregit, & ab inferis resurrectionem produxit, ut nostrae resurrectionis imaginem concinnaret; which in sense is the very same that I say, concerning Christ's becoming an exemplary cause in his resurrection. 3. Nor are our Divines such strangers to the use of that expression, as M. Eyre represents them: 
n Sound Believe pag 79. 80. edit. 1653.  M. Shepherd useth it verbatim. There is (saith he) a merited justification by Christ's death: and a virtual or exemplary justification in Christ's resurrection as our head and surety. So 
o Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. th'. 16, 17.  Dr. Amese, finis resurrectionis fuit— ut se & justificatum & alios justificantem ostenderet. 5. ut resurrectionis nostrae tam spiritualis quàm corporalis hypostasin, exemplar, & initiatio fieret. Christus enim exemplaris causa est nostrae resurrectionis, ut à morte resurgens: 
p Lud. Croc. s. Theol. l. 2. cap. 12. p. 353.  So others.  
His last Argument is, that this expression savours rankly of Pelagianism 
§. 9  and Socinianism. For they make the second Adam a mere pattern and example of our reconciliation.  
Rep. I have read indeed concerning the Pelagians, that they deny the propagation of Adam's sin any otherwise then by imitation: and that the Socinians say, Christ shows us the way of salvation by the example of his own life, I know. But if I, who thankfully acknowledge our Lords merits and satisfaction, and live by the faith thereof, am yet guilty of Pelagianism and Socinianism for affirming, that as in all things else, so in his justification he had this preeminence above others, as not only to be justified himself, but to become the justifying cause of others after his own pattern and similitude; I am content to bear the reproach of both.   

SECT. II.  
IN the next place I gave the Reader an account why I used the 
§. 10.  term of an exemplary cause, rather than of a common person, in these words. I use the term of an exemplary cause rather than of a common person, because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents (as the Parliament of the Commonwealth) but Christ is such a common person, as that he is the cause of those whom he represents in every thing in which he represents them.  
This excuse (saith M. Eyre) is both fallacious and impertinent. Fallacious, because it seems to intimate, that an exemplary cause doth express as much as a common person: which is clearly false: for the act of the exemplar is not the act of the Imitator; as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents. Parents are examples to their children, not common persons.  
Rep. Know (Reader) first, that we are not now speaking of our active, voluntary imitation of Christ in duties of obedience: but of our being passively conformed and fashioned like him in the participation of his spiritual blessings, according to our condition and capacity. Thus in our justification do we bear his image and partake in his likeness; who as he was the first borne from the dead, so is he the first borne of them that are justified, forasmuch as his resurrection was his justification. And as our resurrection from death (whensoever it shall be) exists by virtue of his, Joh 14. 19 He being risen as the first fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. 15. 20. So also doth our justification. 2. This being premised I add, that to say that Christ in his resurrection was the exemplary cause of our justification is far more pertinent and significant, then to say, we were then justified in him as a common person (especially according to M. Eyre's use of that term, of which more presently:) the reason is ready; because the former phrase expresseth the influence which his justification hath upon ours, and the dependence which ours hath upon his, which the latter doth not; for to be justified in another as a common person, doth neither declare his justification to be the cause of ours, nor ours the effect of his: could we have delegated a person to have received from God that sentence of absolution in our names (as Israel sent up Moses into the mount) we had all of us been justified as immediately as himself, nor had our justification had any dependence upon his, though we had then been justified in him as a common person. 3. Wherefore, as to the term of a common person (concerning which I have made a more toilsome search into the civil law, and those few Civilians which I have, than the moment of the matter requires) it may be understood in a double sense: either, 1. fictione suppositi, when a person (by a kind of civil metempseuchosis) doth so represent another, in what he doth, or is done to him, as that the same things are said to be done by, or to the person whom he represents. As Ambassadors represent the person of the Princes that employ them: what they do as such, is reputed the act of the Prince that sends them forth, and what is done to them as such, is reputed as done to him. We do, or receive that, which our Attorney doth, or receives in our name. Or 2. Ex re gestâ, when a person doth that, in the effects of which (be they good or evil) others partake as well as himself. Thus the punishment of high treason is common with the Traitor to his children, though he do not represent them, neither in offending, nor in being punished. Thus a Surety pays his money as a common person, because the Debtor (as well as himself) if no compact hinder) hath the benefit of a discharge, though he do not represent the debtor in making payment. In this latter sense I readily acknowledge, that Christ was a common Person in his Death and Resurrection, because we receive the benefit of both in our measure and kind as well as himself And in this sense an exemplary cause expresseth as much and somewhat more than a common person.  
But Mr. Eyre will have Christ to be a common person in the former 
§. 11.  sense: and that as well in his Death as his Resurrection. That he was so in his death, I deny roundly. The reason is that, for which Mr. Eyre chooseth to call him a common person, rather than an exemplary cause, because (saith he) the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents. But Christ's satisfaction, merits, redemption, and perfect obedience, are not our act, so as that we can be said to have satisfied, merited, redeemed ourselves, perfectly obeyed the Law, and borne the curse thereof, (things for ever impossible for sinners to do, Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6.) Ergo, they are not representable as doing of them. Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person, representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth; But the Scripture is express, that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned; so is it by the one righteousness of one Jesus Christ, that all are justified, Romans 5. 17, 18.  
The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another consideration, 
§. 12.  and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection, then in his death. Nevertheless, neither in that do I approve the term, (unless it be understood in the second sense mentioned) for the reason already given. And to what Mr. Eyre adds, of Parents being examples to their children, he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example, but the exemplary cause of our Justification. Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners, but they are not exemplary causes thereof. This for the fallacy.  
2. (Saith Mr. Eyre) it is impertinent, because Christ's discharge 
§. 13.  may be ours, though we did not choose him, but God did constitute and appoint him to be the Head, Surety, and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam, and yet his sin was imputed to us.  
Answ. 1. Nor do I intent any thing more in changing the term of a common person into that of an exemplary cause, then to express that pre-eminence which Christ hath, as in all things else, so in his Justification; which the term of a common person is so fare from doing, as that it supposeth the just contrary; for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own, as his whom he represents. As, what an Ambassador doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings, and what is done to him as such, is more properly done to the King then to him. In like manner, if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us, then are we properly the first risers from the dead, and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours. 2. That God appointed his Son to be the Head, Surety, and common Person of the Elect, is a contradiction; if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyre's sense, for one that represents others in what he doth, and in what is done to him; Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect; so the Scriptures call him, and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us; But the common Person described as such, is neither Head nor Surety, because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly: none other do the like, and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them: the case is the same in what he receives, or in what is done to him, as Head and Surety. 3. Concerning Adam, I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyre's sense of that phrase: and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him, we have already largely opened. His sin is indeed imputed unto us: not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it, for that is in itself an error of falsehood: and besides is contrary to the Apostle, who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many, who never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, neither in individuo, nor in specie, Rom. 5. 14. but because by virtue of that sin we his children stand obliged to the suffering of death natural: he being the common Parent, who by Covenant received righteousness and life to be communicated to his children, if himself continued obedient, otherwise to lose it, both to himself and us.  
That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyre's argument 
§. 14.  is, inferring our Justification before saith, from our Justification (in some sense) in the Resurrection of Christ, I said, we may as justly infer that our Resurrection is passed already, because we are risen in Christ, as that our Justification is past before we believe, because we are (in some sense) justified in Christ. We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ, Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer, Ergo, we are sanctified before faith.  
In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little purpose; the sum of them is, Our personal Resurrection necessarily supposeth our life and death. But to our actual discharge there needed no more than the payment of our debt, etc.  
Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand, and Justification on the other, is plain and obvious; but the whole strength of Mr. Eyre's Argument lieth in this one thing, that we were justified in Christ as a common person. Now if our rising in Christ as a common person, will not infer that our Resurrection is before faith, than neither is our Justification proved to be before faith, because we were justified in Christ as a common person: and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection, ●t must be upon some other account, then because we were justified in him as a common person. 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny, (not publicly, for fear of the people) that we are risen in Christ as a common person. Christ (saith he) fully merited our Resurrection to glory, in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ, (a strange and unheard of interpretation, that we should be said to be raised with Christ, because he in his death merited our Resurrection, which might have been true, though himself had never been raised) but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee, that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ, so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising, (a phrase not used in Scripture, but admitted by me as agreeable, or not contrary thereunto,) not for our Justification in him as a common person, but for his merit or purchase of our Justification. Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too, (though very privately) and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words. It is, (saith he) not such absurdity to say, Christ hath purchased our Resurrection, though we are not risen, as to say, he hath purchased our discharge, and yet we are not discharged; for to say a debt is discharged, and yet justly chargeable, is a contradiction. Purchased? why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection, were really and formally the discharge of sinners? and not whether he purchased our discharge in his death? But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose, than nothing at all. As to the reason added, we have already showed at large, in what sense Christ's death, may be called the payment of our debt. A debtor cannot discharge a debt, and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him: but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand, that he may discharge his debtor some time after that price is paid, or upon some condition to be performed by him, I shall believe, when I see, not words, but power and argument: which I have long in vain expected from Master Eyre.  
The Conclusion therefore, and sum of my Answer was this, Justification 
§. 15.  is either causal and virtual, or actual and formal: we were causally and virtually justified in Christ's Justification, but not actually and formally.  
Mr. Eyre's answer is nothing but a repetition of several things (already confuted) concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ, and the payment and satisfaction in his death: but upon the distinction itself he fixeth nothing. By all which, I perceive, he is weary of his argument drawn from Christ's Justification in his Resurrection, to prove ours. I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christ's Resurrection, and he answers I know not what, concerning Christ's death. Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration.  
I grant (saith Mr. Eyre) that the death of Christ doth justify us only virtually; but the satisfaction in his death doth justify us formally.— And therefore Christ's dying for us, or for our sins, his reconciling us to God, and our being justified, are Synonymas in Scripture phrase, Rom. 58, 9, 10.  
Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never read before, nor can I understand now, viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ, as it was his death, not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part. If the meaning be that there was that virtue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory, which no man's death else could be for want of the like worth: yet is the speech strangely improper. As if a broken undone debtor, seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him, than his debt comes to, should say, his debt is virtually paid, or himself virtually discharged by that man's money. 2. To say that Christ's satisfaction doth justify us formally, is to deny our Justification formal to be God's act, (for it was not God but Christ that satisfied) or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin (for Christ did not satisfy by having any sin pardoned to him) or that he was justified before us: yea rather, we are first justified, if his satisfaction justify us formally: because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection. I have often read that Christ's satisfaction justifies us materially, being that matter or righteousness for which we are justified; never till now, that it justifies formally. 2. The next observation, that Christ's dying for us, or for our sins, and our being justified, are Sy●●nyma's in Scripture, is most plainly refuted by Scripture, Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered, (namely, unto death) for our sins, and risen again for our Justification.  
In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection, 
§. 16.  not made by me, but by some others, and it is here brought in by head and shoulders, without the least occasion offered, saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself, by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof; and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person, to the Purchase of Justification in his blood. Nevertheless, because the truth is on the objectours side, and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself, let us see what is said. The objection is this, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we might be made (he doth not say, that thereby we are made,) the righteousness of God in him. Ergo, the laying of our sins on Christ is only an Antecedent, which tends to the procuring of our Justification, and not the same formally.  
Thou seest (Reader) that the scope of the objection is to prove, that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification, which Mr. Eyre, after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it, doth now plainly deny: and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects. What, have we heard so often of Christ's procuring, meriting, purchasing Pardon and Redemption, when he is here denied to have done any thing, tending to the procuring of our Justification? But let us see Mr. Eyre's answer: it consists of three parts.  
1. (Saith he) That this phrase, that we might be, or be made, doth not always signify the final, but sometimes the formal cause: as when it is said, That light is let in, that darkness may be expelled.  
Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely, if at all, used in the New Testament, and improperly, wheresoever it is used: and thrice in this chapter, but a little before, used in its most obvious sense, verse 10. 12, 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions, because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer, that the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousness to us do differ. But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousness to us; Ergo, the making of him to be sin for us, and of us righteousness in him, is not formally the same.  
Mr Eyre, 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, differ: yet the imputation of sin to him, and non-imputation of it unto us, is but one and the same act of God.  
Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written: The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousness, and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act (differing only in respect of the terminus à quo & ad quem) Rom. 4. 6, 8. David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.— Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before, that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased. But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant, Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin, and the non-imputation of it is all one, Rom. 4. 7, 8. Ergo, it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction, the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousness, but not the non-imputation of sin, that is, it procures positive blessings, but not the destruction of, or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin, which makes our Lord but half a Saviour. 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousness, which in its formal notion includes not the non-imputation of sin; or that non-imputation of sin, which includes not essentially the imputation of righteousness. He hath told us long since that both these are immanent and eternal acts of God, and as such, the death of Christ procures neither: the effects of both are one and the same, and it is therefore impossible to distinguish them in reference to their effects. It is to me a mystery beyond comprehension, how that imputation which constitutes a sinner righteous, should yet include nothing of the non-imputation of sin, or how sin can be non-imputed to a sinner, and yet he abide unrighteous, unless some other act concur to make him righteous.  
His third answer is, The non-imputation of sin to us, antecedes 
§. 17.  the imputation of righteousness to us in order of nature only, not of time.  
Rep. That is, the righteousness of Christ avails nothing to the non-imputing of sin to us. The very naming of these hideous doctrines is a sufficient confutation of them. Should I have delivered such things, the names of all the most loathsome heretics that ever were, would have been accounted too soft to have been thrown at my head.  
Yet Mr. Eyre hath not done objecting against himself, but in the 
§. 18.  end of this third answer brings in some body objecting thus. We were not then (I suppose he means when Christ died,) Ergo, righteousness could not then be imputed to us.  
His answer is, They might as well object, our sins were not then. Erge, they could not be imputed unto Christ in the business of Justification, God calleth things that are not, as if they were, Rom. 4. 17.  
Rep. 1. I deny the parity of reason between the one and the other. Sin can neither be punished nor pardoned before it be committed, in ●r to the person that sin●eth. Nevertheless, he that hath the absolute dominion of his own life (as Christ had) may as a Surety suffer all that punishment, which by the Law can at any time grow due to sin: for even amongst men, 
p L. S●ipula●●s sum & L. potest. ss. de fide juss & §. side ●●ss. instit. de fidejuss.  〈◊〉 accipi potest in ●uturam obligationem, Sureties are admitted upon future obligations. If as soon as death by the Law was made the punishment of sin, before men had broken the Law, the Lord Jesus had given up himself to death, that in case we should sin, his death should have had the same effect as now it hath: in this case our sin, (though then but possible) had been imputed unto him; for he had borne the penalty due to it, and threatened against it, but his righteousness had not been imputed to us, upon the same supposition, that we had not sinned. In like manner, though the sins of the elect were not in being, (I mean of all the Elect borne since his death) when Christ died; yet the full penalty which could at any time grow due to them, was then in being, and determined by the Law, which punishment also (in sum and substance) he might and did undergo, that when we should sin, we might yet be washed in his blood from all our sins. The future sins of the Elect, Christ might make so fare present in himself, as to endure all the penalty which they could at any time deserve, it being not our desert of punishment which obligeth him to suffer it, but his own voluntary submission to it, which makes punishment due to him as our Surety, before it become due to us as actual sinners; But pardon of sin being essentially the destruction of that very obligation, which the sinner hath contracted upon himself, doth therefore essentially suppose the sinner and his sin in being: though another may suffer for him, yet another cannot be pardoned for him, pardon of sin being a personal privilege, that is, such as rests in the person of the sinner, or nowhere. 2. And that God in the matter of Justification calleth things that are not as though they were, is no part of the Apostles meaning, Rom. 4. 17. but to show the ground of Abraham's steadfast believing on God, for the obtaining of a blessing, to sense and reason impossible, namely, that he should become the father of many nations, his own body, and Sarahs' womb being dead, v. 19 The reason hereof was, because God is he that raiseth the dead, and is able to give being to things out of nothing, for he calleth things that are not, as if they were, therefore Abraham against hope believed in hope, v. 18. This is that faith through which he, and all his children in the same faith obtain righteousness.  
Having thus at large demonstrated the weakness of the argument, 
§. 19  from our Justification in Christ as a common person, to prove our Justification before faith I left this censure upon it, they are credulous souls that will be drawn by such decays as these into schism and faction, to the hardening and discomforting of more hearts in one hour, than the opinion itself (should it obtain) will do good to; while the world stands; which censure is of such ill resentment with Mr. Eyre, that he hath used no less than two leaves of paper, to wipe off the dirt, untruth, slander, (and what he pleaseth) cast upon himself and his Church thereby.  
As to the Argument, his own deserting it in plain ground is evidence enough that it is too weak to bear the weight which is laid upon it, and if men will embrace opinions which have no stronger foundations, is not their own credulity in fault? The charge of schism and faction was not intended against him, or any of his charge in particular: (I little know whether all under his charge be of his opinion, or whether all of his opinion in the place he lives in, be under his charge) but in general against all, who without better ground than the foresaid Argument will afford them, shall by jealousies, separations, envyings, backbitings, rash censurings, etc. violate the rules of Christian love and peace, whereof if neither Mr. Eyre, nor any of his charge are guilty, yet some others of his judgement in this point, are: and that so foully that he would loathe to undertake their defence, if he will be true to the Profession which here he makes of himself.    

CHAP. XII.  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's Sixteenth Chapter, concerning our being in Covenant with God before believing.  

SECT. I.  
THe third and last Argument for proving our Justification 
§. 1.  to be before faith, I thus proposed, and as I thought, according to Mr. Eyre's mind.  
If we are in Covenant before we believe, than we are justified before we believe; But we are in Covenant before we believe. Ergo,  
This Argument Mr. Eyre disclaims as being none of his: at least, as not being proposed in that form in which he dressed it: and hereupon expatiates in two leaves of paper, upon the discourse which passed between himself and me, showing the orderly progress in which his arguments advanced, with my answers then given to them: to which I do not intent to digress so far as to reply. 1. Because the Basis and foundation of his whole Argument, as he hath now proposed in print, is laid in this, that we were justified in Christ's Justification, and therefore, as to the sum, is answered already. 2. Because there is no proof of any particular branch of the Argument▪ but is proposed again before he hath done▪ and therefore must be answered hereafter. 3. Because though I have altogether forgotten the order of his arguments, and of my own answers, yet I very well remember, that as I understood his argument in no other sense, then as it is set down in my Sermon printed, so many things I spoke by way of answer, whereof his relation takes no notice: but I must desire him to take more notice of before he and I part.  
My answer then to the foresaid argument was double, 1. That upon supposition that we were in Covenant before we believe, yet would it not follow that we were justified before we believe; because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependence one upon another, and are enjoyed successively one after another.  
To this Mr. Eyre replies in the second paragraph of this his sixteenth chapter, and says, That though a man be not sanctified and glorified before faith, yet if he be in Covenant with God, i. e. one of the elect, he is certainly justified: For, 1. God from all eternity did will, not to punish his Elect, which is real Justification.  
Rep. To this (Reader) thou must expect no other answer from me, than what I have at large given already.  
2. Saith he, Justification is the first benefit that doth accrue to us by the death of Christ, for Justification goes before Sanctification, and faith is a part of Sanctification.  
Rep. I acknowledge that our English Divines, (whom I confess in matters of this nature I prefer before any other) are wont to place Sanctification in order after Justification, which also is so plain from Scripture that it cannot be denied. But Mr. Eyre also knows that they are wont to distinguish faith and sanctification as two things, (as the Scriptures also do, 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 15. 9 and 16. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 13, 14, 15, 16.) though I do not find that they do all express this difference in the same manner. Should I interpose my own opinion, it may be I should find little thank for my labour, and therefore I shall say no more than what others have said before me. 1. It being plain, that faith and holiness are t●o things in the use of Scripture, Mr. Eyre should have proved and not laid it down so rawly without any distinction, that faith is a part of sanctification. I deny it, provided I may be tried by Scripture-language. 2. As faith is in the understanding, a persuasion of the truth of the Gospel, and the Promises of life and glory contained therein, so is it wont to be distinguished from sanctification, 2 Thes. 2, 13. is not so much a part of it as a cause: for by how much the more steadfastly we believe, and see the glory of the Promises, by so much the more are we changed into the image of God's holiness, 2 Pet. 1. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 3. 18. and 7. 1. 3. As faith is in the will, an acceptance of Christ, that by him we may be brought unto God, it hath much the same difference; for as God hath made Christ to us sanctification, 1 Cor. 1. 30. so doth faith receive him, and in that respect is not properly any part of our sanctification, but the turning of the soul to Christ, as unto a most sufficient principle and author thereof, Acts 26. 18. and so much for the exceptions against my first answer.  
My second answer was a flat denial of the Assumption, viz. that we are in Covenant with God before we believe, if the phrase of 
§. 2.  being in Covenant be understood properly, for such an interest in the Covenant, as gives a man right and title to the blessings of the Covenant. Mr. Eyre's proof is this. Some benefits of the Covenant, to wit, the Spirit which works faith is given us before we believe.  
My answer to this was large and distinct, though Mr. Eyre reproach it sufficiently with a design of darkening the truth, and blinding the Reader, but that's no matter. I shown, 1. That the word, Give, had a double sense in Scripture. 1. When no receiving follows, and so it signifies no more than the Will of God constituting and appointing, Acts 4. 12. Eph. 1. 22. and 4. 11. 2. Sometimes it includes a receiving and possession of the thing given: Thus the Spirit is given when we receive him, and are as it were possessed of him, and he dwells in us. In this sense is the Spirit never said to be given in Scripture, but unto them that do believe, Luke 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 3. 16, 17. with Rom. 8. 10. 11.  
2 I shown also that the Spirit may be said to be given three ways: essentially, personally, or in regard to some peculiar operations which he worketh in us. Now there being no peculiar work of grace before faith itself, which may not be wrought in an hypocrite (which hath not the Spirit) as well as in a child of God, therefore the Spirit is neither given nor received before faith be wrought, but is given and received together with faith and not before. This is the sum, the further explication the Reader may see in my Sermon at leisure.  
Mr. Eyre thus expounds the giving of the Spirit, That God according to his gracious Covenant, doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel, to work faith in all those that are ordained to life.  
Rep. Then see (Reader) what a proof we have, that the Spirit is given us before faith. Mr. Eyre should prove, that we have some benefits of the Covenant before faith, viz. the Spirit, when he explains it, he tells us the Spirit is given before faith, not in that sense in which the word give or given includes our receiving, but as it signifies the sending or constituting of the Spirit, to be by way of specialty the efficient cause or worker of faith. Mr. Eyre doth not so much as open his mouth against what I said before, that the Spirit is said to be given to us in reference to some peculiar work of his upon or in us, which work is faith. Here when he should show how he is given us before faith, he says, he is sent to work faith; in which sense the Spirit may be said to be given in the first sense mentioned of that word, but not given to us, so as that we can be therefore said to receive him, eo ipso because he is sent to work faith; and therefore this is but a deserting of the Argument in hand; nor are we yet proved to have received any benefit of the Covenant (I mean, any saving benefit) before faith.  
Therefore Mr. Eyre answers secondly, That though the Spirit be not given us one atom of time before faith, yet it is enough 
§. 3.  that it hath a precedency in order of nature, though not of time, and that faith is not before the Spirit.  
Rep. Neither, for if the Spirit be not said to be given to us, but in reference to his working of faith in us, than faith is wrought in nature before the Spirit can be said to be given to us: as if the Sun be said to dwell or be in my house, because it enlightens my house, then in order of nature my house is first enlightened before the Sun can be said to be or dwell in it.  
There is but one thing more in this Chapter that needs answer: and that is this; I had said the Spirit is not given us, but in reference to some peculiar operation of his; working faith in us, and added for illustration, that as a man doth first build himself an house, and then dwell in it: so Christ by his Spirit, doth build, organize, and prepare the soul to be a house unto himself, and then dwells in it.  
Mr. Eyre answers, But is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant? and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of faith?  
Rep. If these interrogations have the force of an affirmation, Mr. Eyre should have proved them, and not barely asserted them. I have answered sufficiently already. There is no peculiar work of grace before faith itself, which may not be wrought in a hypocrite, (who hath not the Spirit,) as well as in a child of God: Ergo, there can be no work of the Spirit before faith itself, in reference unto which the Spirit can be said to be given to us. Preparative works do not difference a believer from an hypocrite, and therefore in themselves are no fruit or benefit of the Covenant. So much ●o th● sixteenth Chapter.    

CHAP. XIII.  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's Seventeenth Chapter. Concerning the Covenant wherein faith is promised and by virtue whereof it is given to us.  

SECT. I.  
HAving thus showed that we receive not the Spirit before we believe, 
§. 1.  it remains that we inquire, whether faith itself be not given to us, by virtue of the Covenant made with us? for if we are in Covenant with God before faith be given us, it is every whit as much to Mr. Eyre's purpose, to show that we are in Covenant before we believe, as if he had proved that the Spirit is given us before we believe. For answer therefore to the question, understand (Reader) that it may have a double sense. 1. Whether the Covenant of grace, that is, the Gospel, have any efficiency in converting the 
* ●id. Dr. Ed. Reynold Sinful. of si● page 337▪ Mr. b●lk 〈…〉 o● the Coven●●●. p●●t, 4. page 318.  soul▪ and working it to believe? and in this sense I readily grant that faith is given us by virtue of the Covenant. Or 2. Whether God have engaged himself by Covenant to any sinner in the world to give him faith, so that if God should not give him faith, he were unfaithful, and a breaker of his own Covenant? In this sense is the question to be understood, and my answer to it was: (a) Faith is not given to us by virtue of the Covenant made with us, but by virtue of the Covenant made with Christ; God hath promised Christ that sinners shall believe on him, Isa. 53. 10. and 55. 4, 5. Psal. 2. 8. and 110. 3. Matth. 12. 21. Psal. 89. 25, 26. etc. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely, that faith is given to the Elect by virtue of the Covenant made with them: the sense of which we have already explained, that the Elect are supposed to be in Covenant with God before they believe, and so God obliged to them by Covenant to give them faith. I deny it. See we what Mr. Eyre brings for proof of it.  
First, a similitude at the end of his first section. If one promise 
§. 2.  another, that in case he shall bear so many stripes, or perform any other condition, he will then take care of and provide for his children, doth not this promise made with the father, most properly belong to his children? The case is the same between Christ and us: He performed the condition, and we receive the benefits of the New Covenant.  
Answ. Whether the case be the same between Christ and us, is the proper debate of the next Argument: in the mean time this comparison is not to our case, because the Promise's made to Christ, that Jews and Gentiles shall come into him by faith; is a promise that he shall have children spiritual; that he shall have a numerous seed, even like the stars of heaven for multitude. But as the promise made to Abraham concerning the multitudes of children which he should have, was no promise to them that they should become children (which were promise to nothing, that it should become something) so the promise to Christ, that many Nations shall come unto him, and become children to him in a spiritual sense, is no promise to them, nor have they thereby any right given them to be made believers; but unto him, and in gratiam sui, for his own honour and glory. Much less doth such a promise hinder, that that faith by which they become children unto Christ, may not be enjoined them as the condition upon which they are to partake in Christ and blessedness by him.  
The serond and great Argument is this, If there be but one Covenant 
§. 3.  of grace, which is made both with Christ and us, than faith is given us by virtue of the Covenant made with us. But there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Christ and us. Ergo, Hence, a little before I am bid to show that there are two distinct Covenants of grace, one made with Christ, and the other with us, or that there is any other Covenant made with the Elect, then that which is made with Christ, etc.  
Answ. Before we can give a distinct answer, to this we must first inquire how we may conceive of the form and tenor of the Covenant of grace. The tenor of the Covenant of works is plain and intelligible, Do this and live; But (it seems) there is no Covenant of grace made with men at all (though some men are the intended objects of the blessings therein contained) but only with Christ: with whom we are to conceive the father striking a Covenant to this sense: If thou wilt make, or do thou make satisfaction for the sins of the Elect, and I will give them grace and glory; where the condition is Christ's death, or rather his satisfaction, (for his death, if it had not been satisfactory, had availed nothing) and the promise is, that the Elect shall have grace and glory. This being explained I do utterly deny, that there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Christ and us, which is Mr. Eyre's Assumption.  
And 1. I desire Mr. Eyre to reflect a little upon his own principles, 
§. 4.  and tell me, whether pardon of sin be a blessing which God promiseth in his Covenant to give, or the condition which Christ was to perform? The former out of question, if Scripture may be Judge, Heb. 10. 16, 17. But whether Mr. Eyre will allow it, or how he can allow it I cannot tell. We have seen him before very peremptory in these two assertions. 1. That the imputation of our sins to Christ, is formally the non-imputation of them unto us. 2. That Christ's satisfaction was (formally) the payment of our debt, and so must needs discharge us ipso facto, because the discharge of the debt is formally the discharge of the debtor. How these principles clash one with another we have showed already, (for God's act in punishing of Christ, is in nature before his bearing it, or satisfying by bearing it; as action is in nature before passion. If then God's act in imputing our sins to Christ, (that is, punishing them in him) be formally the non-imputing, (that is, the pardoning) them to us, than the death of Christ, as it was the payment of our debt, is not the thing that dischargeth us: and if this, than not that:) But my business now is to infer, if Christ's death be the payment of our debt, and so our formal discharge, than our discharge from sin is the condition of the Covenant of grace, (as Mr. Eyre hath modelled it) not a promise upon the performance of the condition. The reason is plain, because Christ's satisfaction (which is the payment of our debt, and formally the discharge of the debtor) is the condition of the Covenant of grace (according to Mr. Eyre;) But that cannot be the form or tenor of the Covenant of grace, which excludes the pardon of sin from being promised therein. Ergo, that is not the form which Mr. Eyre presents us with. 2. If the words aforesaid contain the substance and tenor of the Covenant of grace, than the said Covenant doth not only not require and command faith and repentance as necessary means which we are bound to, for obtaining the promise of life and salvation; But whosoever shall preach such a necessity of faith and repentance, doth in so doing contradict the tenor of the Covenant of grace. The reason of the consequence is plain, because to the obtaining of a Promise made upon condition, nothing more is required then the performance of the condition. If then Christ hath fulfilled the condition of the Covenant of grace, nothing more can be enjoined and required of us, to the obtaining of any blessing of the Covenant: and whosoever shall yet preach a necessity of faith and repentance, as acts which we are bound to put forth that we may be saved, destroys the Covenant of grace. But both these are desperate consequences, which we show thus. The Gospel and the Covenant of grace are both one, Gal. 3. 8. compared with v. 15, 16. 2 Cor. 3. 6. with chap. 4. 3, 4. and Eph. 3. 6, 7. and Col. 1. 23 But the Gospel obligeth all men to believe and repent (the elect as well as others) that they may be saved: and thus did the Apostles (the special Ministers of the New Covenant) preach wheresoever they came, Mark 16. 15, 16. Luke 24. 47. Mark 1. 14, 15. Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19 and 20. 21. and 26. 20. Rom. 10. 6, 8, 9 Col. 1. 23, 28. etc. Ergo, the Covenant of grace requires faith and repentance, as necessary in point of duty that we may be saved; or else the Apostle's Ministry had destroyed the Covenant.  
Hence thirdly, it will be impossible for any man to sin against the 
§. 5.  Gospel or Covenant of grace, (as Mr. Eyre hath framed it) for none can sin against the Covenant, but he that is a Covenanter, either de jure or de facto: I mean, either such a one as actually is in Covenant, or else is bound to enter into Covenant. Now upon supposition that none are Covenanters but God and Christ, there can be no breach of the Covenant but on one of their parts. And consequently, neither will it be any grace in God to preserve the Elect from a final breaking of Covenant: such being the constitution thereof, that it is impossible ex natura rei, that it should be broken but by God or Christ: nor can any by unbelief or Apostasy violate the covenant (seeing it hath no preceptive part) which is surely contrary to Scripture, Heb. 10. 29. He hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing. Hence 4ly. No man becomes worthy of punishment for breaking the covenant of grace through unbelief or Apostasy (as the Apostle in the same place saith they do, and that most justly; and I shall farther show when I come to it) Nor 5ly. Is salvation and eternal life given as a reward to them that keep the covenant of their God: (which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures) the reason is, because the covenant promiseth a reward to none, but unto them that fulfil the conditions of it. If Christ only fulfil the condition, than our grace and glory may be his reward: but glory is not the reward of our faith or obedience. Mr. Eyre will say, yes, because glory follows our faith and obedience. But though I readily acknowledge that glory is called our reward only metaphorically, and one reason of the similitude is that which Mr. Eyre mentions, because glory follows our faith and obedience, as wages follows the work: yet is not that the only, or of itself a sufficient reason (as we have showed before) nor are the Scriptures or our Divines wont to rest in it. The Scriptures tell us that God will reward every man according to his works, See Rom. 2. 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Gal. 6. 7. Rev. 22. 12. etc. I acknowledge the sense in which our Divines understand the words viz. that the phrase, according to his works doth not signify the proportion of desert, but the suitableness, and agreeableness between works, and the reward which God gives: if the works be good, the reward shall be good: if evil, the reward shall be evil also. But this is as much as I need to show, that eternal life is not called a reward merely because it follows faith and obedience. For if so, than a believer quatenus a believer, or a godly man quatenus a godly man is no nearer the reward, then if he had neither faith nor godliness, upon any other score but this, that these by God's appointment are to go before the reward. And if God had appointed that all that shall be saved should live to 20 or 30 years of age, their arrival at such an age, had been every whit as conducible to their reward, as now their faith and godliness is supposed to be. Again? Our Divines account it not ascribing to the desert of 
See Down. o● Just●●. l. 8. cap. 5. sect. 1●.  works, that God should reward them that have the greatest degrees of grace, with the greater degrees of glory. If this be so, then glory is not called a reward merely because it follows faith and Godliness (for that it would do, whether those graces were more or less.) But wherein then (will it be said) stands the difference between a reward of debt and of grace? between a reward properly so called, and a reward so called metaphorically? Surely amongst other differences this is one, that God (dignatione suâ) of his own grace and vouchsafeing, is pleased to accept of our faith and imperfect obedience, so as to reward them with eternal life, not only above, but without all dignity and desert in them. Whereas a reward properly so called, hath always respect to some work as its meritorious cause, from which also it hath its measure and proportion.  
And whereas Mr. Eyre expects that I should have showed, that 
§. 6.  there was one covenant of grace made with Christ, and another with us; it were strange if it should pertain to me to prove any such thing. I thought it had lain upon Mr. Eyre, not only to say, but to prove that the covenant of grace was made with Christ. It was always very fare from my thoughts, that the covenant made with Christ, was the same with that which is made with sinners: my reason is this. Those covenants which agree not, neither in the persons covenanting, nor in their preceptive part, nor in their promissory part, are not the same▪ The covenants with Christ and us disagree in all these. Ergo they are not the same. The assumption we prove by part. 1. They agree not in the persons covenanting. In the former the covenanters are God and Christ: in the latter God and men. One of these two things I guess Mr. Eyre will say, either, 1. That though the whole covenant be not made with us, because it is Christ▪ and not we which performed the condition of it: yet the promissory part of it pertains wholly to us: because it is our blessedness which is promised therein. Answ. That is, men are not the subjects or persons that join themselves in covenant with the Lord (as the Scriptures speak, Jer. 50. 5.) but only the objects concerning whom God hath spoken that he will do them good, even as brute, or inanimate creatures may metaphorically be said to be in covenant with God, when he promiseth any blessing upon them for his servants sake, as Hos. 2. v. 18. God promiseth to make a Covenant for his people with the beasts of the field (that they shall do them no hurt) and with the heavens and the earth, that they shall concur to yield them blessings, v. 21, 22. Or rather when God promiseth, that the heavens and earth shall receive some farther persection than they now have, for his children's sake, Rom 8. 21. In this case these creatures may (but improperly) be said to be in covenant with God: and (but more improperly) that God hath made a covenant with them: and the Scripture somewhere speaketh in a language very near it. But God governs men in a way suitable to their natures, drawing them with the cords of men: blessing them, not as he blesseth the earth, and other inanimate or bruit creatures; but bestowing blessedness on them as the reward of some former act or actions of theirs: and so they are not only the objects for whom God covenanteth, but the subjects with whom. Now if the constitution of the Covenant of grace be such that men are taken into it, mediante actione voluntarià, not without some voluntary act of their own intervening, then Gods declaring concerning them that he will bless them, is not a sufficient ground upon which he can be said to have made the covenant of grace with them. But such is the constitution of the covenant of grace that men are taken into it, not without some voluntary act of their own intervening. Ergo, the assumption is plain from the words of Moses, Deut. 29. 12, 13. That thou shouldest enter (or pass) into covenant with the Lord thy God— that he may be unto thee a God— as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; which to be the substance of the covenant of grace (excepting the additions and explications peculiar to the times of the gospel) appears. 1. In that it is for substance the same which was made with their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which not only the Scriptures witness, but Mr. Eyre grants, to be, for substance, the covenant of grace. The promise to the fathers that they should have a seed was peculiar to themselves: but the other blessings promised, pertained to the seed as well as to the fathers: only the Lord requires of them to enter into, and keep his covenant (as their fathers did) that they might inherit the blessing of their fathers. 2. Because the covenant here mentioned, is expressly distinguished from the covenant of the law made with them in Horeb, v. 1. The words of the covenant made with Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. 3. Because the Apostle calls this very covenant (excepting as above excepted, the additions of grace, and explications of promises, proper to the times of the Messiah) the righteousness which is of faith, and the word of faith which he and other Apostles preached, compare chap. 30. v. 11, 12, 13, 14. with Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9  
Or else he may say, that we also performed the condition in Christ. But this I think he will not say, because he so distributes the covenant of grace into parts, as to ascribe to Christ the performance of the condition: to us, the receiving of the benefit.  
Secondly, the covenant made with Christ, and that with us, agree 
§. 7.  not in their preceptive part. Of him it was required that he should make his soul an offering for sin, and give his life a ransom for many, Isa. 53. 10. Heb. 10. 5. 7. Of us there is no such thing required: but only that we believe as Abraham did: so shall we partake in the blessings of his covenant, Rom. 4. 23, 24. Gal. 3. 6, 7, 9, 16, 22. Heb. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15. 3. The promises made to Christ in the covenant of redemption, are of a higher nature than those made to us in the covenant of reconciliation; to wit, a name above every name, whether in heaven or earth: the inheritance of all nations: dominion from sea to sea. See Philip. 2. 9 Heb. 1. 4. and 2. 9 and the other places mentioned, §. 1. The most which is promised to us is a conformity in our measure unto him in glory.   

SECT. 2.  
Mr. Eyre's second Argument proceeds thus. If Christ merited 
§. 8.  nothing for himself but only for the elect, than all the promises made to him do belong to them; But the first is true. Ergo.  
Answ. I deny the consequence: because though Christ merited nothing for himself, (it being unworthy to rank him amongst such mercenary servants, to whom nothing is due but for their labour: in which sense are our Divines to be understood, when they deny him to have merited for himself) yet what he did and suffered was necessary for himself at least as a condition, without which he had not obtained that advancement which now he hath (viz. power of sending the Spirit, Act. 2. 33. dominion over Angels, in short, all power, both in heaven and earth) as our Divines do liberally grant. Which promises are not made to us, but to Christ: though instrictnesse of propriety he did not merit them. And therefore though I do not find that he is called his own mediator, yet he was his own way unto the father, Joh. 14. 4, 6. forasmuch as not without the rending of his flesh, and the shedding of his own blood, he entered into the holy place. Heb. 9 11, 12. Mr. Eyre proves his consequence in these words. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, Heb. 12. 24. Faith is bestowed upon us, by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediator. Now Christ is the Mediator of the covenant made with us, not of a covenant made singly and particularly with himself: for a man is not properly a Mediator for himself.  
Answ. Which words, if they had stood by themselves as an argument directly proving the main question, viz. that faith is given us by virtue of the covenant made with us, they had been of more strength than all that Mr. Eyre hath said for it besides. But as they now stand for a proof of the foresaid consequence; I cannot imagine into what form to cast them, though I have toiled myself about it more then enough. Therefore leaving it to Mr. Eyre, to show how they prove his consequence; let us consider them as an argument by themselves, the form whereof is this. What is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediator, is given us by that covenant which is made with us: the reason is, because Christ is the Mediator of the covenant made with us, not with himself. But faith is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediator. Erg●, I cannot guess what strength the argument looseth in this form, if it lose any, Mr. Eyre must thank himself for speaking no plainer: my answer to it is this, faith may be said to be given by virtue of the covenant in a double respect. 1. Operatione & ●fficacia foederis, by the operation and efficiency of the covenant working faith in the soul, by the power of the Spirit accompanying it. In this sense I deny the proposition, because what is given us by the efficiency of the covenant, doth not suppose us to be in covenant before our receiving it: forasmuch as the working of faith itself, by which we are brought into covenant, is the effect of the covenant, or 2. Ex obligatione faederis. and so that is given by virtue of the covenant, which we by the covenant have a right to receive, and God by the same covenant hath obliged himself to us, to bestow upon us. In this sense (which only is proper to our Argument) I deny the assumption: because there is no covenant whereof Christ is Mediator, which gives any man a right to the receiving of faith, or makes it due to him that faith be given him: as I shall farther show by and by, when I come to examine Mr. Eyre's answer to my explication of Heb. 8. 10. And that faith is given us by the righteousness and merits of Christ, will never prove that therefore it is given us as unto a people in covenant with God. What? may not Christ merit faith, that thereby we might be estated in the covenant? though I will also tell Mr. Eyre, that the three places he mentions, viz. 2 Pet. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 3. Rom. 8. 32. to prove that we obtain faith by the merits of Christ, would never convince me if I were contrary minded.  
The third argument proceeds thus. If faith be given us by virtue 
§. 9  of that covenant, whereby justification, sanctification, perseverance and glory are bestowed upon us, than faith is given us by virtue of that covenant which is made with us. But the first is true. Ergo so is the last. In the same covenant wherein God promiseth to cleanse us from our filthiness, to cause to walk in his ways, etc. he promiseth to circumcise our hearts, to make us believe, etc. Ezek. 36. 25. etc. Jer. 31. 34.  
Answ. I deny the assumption, if understood according to the foregoing distinction, of what is given by a covenant obligation. Till I see better proof than any I meet with in Mr. Eyre's book (which I believe I never shall) it will never enter into my heart, that God is as much bound to give faith to sinners and rebels, as he is to give righteousness and salvation to believers. As for the proof out of Ezek. 36. and Jer. 31. I deny that God doth give righteousness, or glory by virtue; that is, by the obligation of the covenant there mentioned. The reason (which shall be farther explained by and by) is, because those texts do not express the form and tenor of the covenant of grace; but only the matter and particulars, wherein God would make the said covenant, as administered in the days of Christ, to excel itself in its administration before his coming. As for example, that it shall have greater efficacy in giving ability to fulfil it: and to confer more excellent, spiritual and eternal blessings, to them that do fulfil it. But he that declares, that his purpose is to establish and enact such a covenant, by and according to which such excellent blessings shall be given, doth not by such a declaration oblige himself to give them: it is the covenant itself enacted and established, which enduceth the obligation. Wherefore the texts mentioned, do indeed declare that the effects of the new Covenant (that is of the Covenant in its new administration) shall be fare more excellent then of the old: but they do by no means declare that the said Covenant shall produce these effects in one and the same way or manner. It produceth faith by its real efficacy (as I may so call it) for it is the new Covenant which administereth that Spirit by which faith is wrought: and having thus brought souls within the bond, and made them to take hold of itself, it produceth justification, perseverance and salvation by its legal efficacy, inasmuch as it makes these and all other blessings due to them that believe.  
The fourth argument succeeds. Faith is given by virtue 
§. 10.  of that Covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed. Ergo, it is given by virtue of the Covenant made with us.  
Answ. I deny the antecedent. The reason is, because the seed of Abraham according to Scripture, are they that do believe. Rom. 4. 11 16. Gal. 3. 7, 9, 26, 29. If then the promise be made to them that are believers, the thing promised cannot be, that they shall be believers. And therefore Mr. Eyre, in the proof of his antecedent, doth palpably contradict that which he would prove. The same Covenant (saith he) which God made with Abraham, is made with all the faithful to the end of the world, and therefore they are called the children of Abraham, Gal. 3. 7, 29. A Covenant made with the faithful is not, that they shall have faith.  
And so we come to the last argument, which only was mentioned 
§. 11.  by Mr. Eyre, and answered by me in my sermon. If faith be given us by virtue of the Covenant made with the house of Israel, then is it given us by virtue of the Covenant made with us: for the house of Israel, is the whole company of Gods elect, who are therefore called Spiritual Israel. Rom. 9 6. But faith or the Spirit which works faith, is promised in the Covenant made with the house of Israel. Jer. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 8, 9, etc.  
Answ. Though Rom. 9 6. will by no means prove that the elect as such, are Spiritual Israel (for the words may, and I think must be understood of believers as such) yet I will have no quarrel here with Mr. Eyre about his interpretation. Nevertheless I do ingenuously confess to him, I am very much puzzled about one objection, which it concerns him as much as me to see well answered. Suppose then a man should say, that by the house of Israel, is not meant the elect as such, but believers: and that it is not faith which is here promised, but some greater measures of grace, which they that believe should receive; above what were usually communicated before the times of Christ: he m●ght thus argue from the words? Whatsoever blessings are promised in the Covenant recorded, Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. are such as are peculiar to the days of the New-Testament. But the giving of faith, is not peculiar to the days of the New-Testament, (for since sin entered into the world, there was no other way of salvation than b● faith: and therefore God gave faith in all ages to the elect.) The proposition may not be questioned. For the time and season of giving the blessings mentioned, Heb. 8. is expressly determined, v. 8. Behold the days come when I will make a new Covenant, etc. and v. 10. This is the Covenant which I will make after those days, and in reference to these blessings in this Covenant called a better Covenant, and the promises thereof better, v. 6. All which prove that the blessings here mentioned are such as were never given before. But as the pardon promised, v. 12. the knowledge of God, v. 11. God's being a God to his people, v. 10. are all more perfect than ever before, though the substance of these blessings were always the same: so, it is not the substance and being of faith which is here promised, but some more eminent degrees of grace, than ever were dispensed before these times of the New-Testament. Unless Mr. Eyre can answer this argument better than I, the whole foundation of his discourse sinks, and he doth but labour in vain to prove from these Texts, that faith is given us as unto a people in Covenant with God before our receiving it.  
Nevertheless other reasons preponderate with me to cleave to my 
§. 12.  former interpretation: and therefore yielding that faith itself is promised in this Covenant, I deny Mr. Eyre's assumption, understood in the sense often mentioned. viz, That faith is given by the obligation of that Covenant, in which Israel is supposed to be before they believe. To the Texts mentioned for proof, Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. I gave a double answer. 1. By retortion. That if Mr. Eyre urge the words of these Texts rigorously, they will prove more than he would have. This he hopes is no hurt. But as they say in Logic, that those Syllogisms are fallacious which, though they conclude true, yet in the same form will conclude false: so is that interpretation of Scripture to be suspected, which though it may serve a man's purpose, will yet, if received carry him beyond his purpose to that which he will not grant. That which it proves more than I thought Mr. Eyre would have granted, I delivered in these words. It is manifest that this covenant contains a promise, of sending Christ to die for our sins, Heb. 10. 14. 15, 16. So that we may as well infer from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the mediator, as that we are in Covenant before we believe: and then his death shall serve not to obtain all, or any of the blessings of the Covenant, but only (as the S●cinians) to declare and confirm to us, that we may believe, that God of his own good will, without expecting any satisfaction, will do all this good for us, etc.  
Mr. Eyre's first answer, is but a repetition of his argument now under debate: and is more particularly answered below. Two things he says to it. 1. That it is not manifest that these texts contain a promise of sending Christ to die for us. The Apostle, Heb. 10. 15. mentions the Covenant, not to prove, that God would send his Son to die: but that being come he hath offered up a perfect sacrifice, v, 10, 12, 14.  
Rep. The words are these, v. 14, 15. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us. And then quotes, or rather citys the words of Jeremy; Now if the Holy Ghost in that place of Jeremy do witness; that Christ by offering himself, should for ever perfect them that are sanctified: then doth he also testify, that Christ should come at the time there mentioned, to be made a sacrifice: and the coming of Christ, though it be not expressed, yet is included and understood, as promised in that Covenant. Yea, and all the promises or predictions of the glory of the Church in the New-Testament, above itself under the old, do signally include the promise of Christ himself as the Author of that glory and perfection.  
Secondly, He owns it as an undeniable truth; that the new 
§. 13.  Covenant was made with all the elect in Christ, before the foundations of the world were laid: it being the fixed and immutable will of God, concerning all those good things which in time were bestowed upon them. Therefore it is called an everlasting Covenant, 2 Sam. 23. 5. As it shall have no end, so it had no beginning.  
Rep. It is very strange to me, that the New Covenant should be now discovered to be older than the world: and that at no less distance, than there is between time and eternity. And more strange, that Mr. Eyre should tell us gratis, that it is Gods immutable purpose, without so much as pretending the least jot from Scripture; where either the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we are wont to render Covenant or Testament, may be taken in such a signification: which appear not, either in the Old or New-Testament (unless where they are used Metonymically, or Metaphorically, or other ways tropically) in any other sense, then of a Law, or a Testament, or a Convention. And most strange, that he should also tell us gratis that it is called an everlasting Covenant, 2 Sam. 23. 5. not only a part post, but a part ante, not only as having no end, but also as not having beginning: when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it: and it is most certain, that that Covenant made with David had a beginning, recorded, 2 Sam. 7. 16, 19 and all the places mentioned in the margin, as Gen. 17. 7. etc. Do also speak of such everlasting Covenants, as we know were not without beginning. And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge, that notwithstanding this Covenant be eternal; yet there are more especially three periods of time, wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us. As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam. 2. At the death of Christ. 3. When God bestows on men the benefits of the Covenant. If we are properly in Covenant from eternity, there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant: nihil agit in simile, therefore these three periods of time, are but three degrees of manifestation that we are in Covenant. Accordingly, as I argued before in the matter of Justification, so now in the matter of the Covenant. If the Covenant of grace consist essentially in Gods eternal purpose of blessing the elect, then is not the word Covenant (that Covenant I mean by which the elect are saved) taken properly in all the Scriptures: forasmuch as it no where signifies the foresaid purpose. A thing as incredible and abominable as the former.  
But let us farther examine this undeniable truth. If the foresaid 
§. 14.  purpose of God be the Covenant of grace, than Christ did not obtain by his death that God should make a Covenant with the elect. But the consequence is false (and Socinianism) Ergo so is the Antecedent.  
Mr. Eyre answers. Though we do not say that Christ procured the Covenant (he might have added, and therein we agree with the Socinians) yet we say, the effects of the Covenant, or the mercies themselves, were all of them obtained by the blood of Christ; as deliverance from the curse, inherent holiness, etc.  
Rep. Such a salve for the honour of Christ's merits, I remember we had before in the matter of Justification. viz. That Christ merited the effects of Justification, not the act: even as he merited the effects of election, but not the act. As if the reason were the same between a particular univocal cause (such as Justification is) determined to a particular kind of effect (which causes do always produce their effects immediately, without the intervention of any other cause:) and an universal cause of several heterogeneous effects (such as election is) and therefore produceth nothing but by the sub-serviency of those several kinds of causes▪ ordained to their several kinds of works; But the like distinction here, between the Covenant and its effects is of worse consequence if I mistake not. Therefore against Mr. Eyre's answer, I have these things to object. 1. It makes void the death of Christ: for if the elect, before the death of Christ, have a federal right to the blessings of the Covenant, than they are righteous before his death: (for to be righteous by righteousness imputed, and to have right to blessedness are inse parable.) But Christ is dead in vain if righteousness comes by any other way or cause then his death, Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediator, they must have the blessings of the Covenant whether he die or no; for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulness (at least) upon the Covenanter to fulfil his Covenant. If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Christ with the Elect, what should hinder their receiving these blessings without his death? Either God is unable to fulfil his covenant: (but he is Almighty,) or he is unfaithful, (but he is a God that keepeth covenant:) or our sin hinders, (but he hath covenanted before the death of Christ, that sin shall not hinder: for pardon of sin is a special branch of the covenant.) Or finally he hath covenanted to give us these blessings through the death of Christ, and no otherwise. But then we are not in covenant before the consideration of Christ's death: and besides, (which I most stick at) than the whole reason why God should punish his dear and only Son so grievously is this, it was his pleasure so to do. But surely he that doth not afflict men merely because he will, Lam. 3. 33. would much less deal so with his Son. 3. Either Christ and his merits are part of the blessings of this covenant, or no. If they be, than it is false that Christ merits all the effects and blessings of the covenant: for he did not merit that himself might merit, or be by his death the meritorious cause of our blessings. If not, than the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent than the Old. The first covenant was faulty, because it could not bring sinners to perfect happiness, Heb. 8. 7, 8, 9 and 7. 19 Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the blessedness it promiseth, unless Christ merit and bring forth the effects thereof, then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old: a fair advancement of the Covenant of Grace. 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can consist with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been disputing for, viz. That the New Covenant was made with Christ: he performed the conditions, and we receive the benefit. Christ's death was either the condition of the Covenant, or of the effect of it. Not the former, if it consist in God's purpose; Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines disgust a conditional purpose in God. And how it should be the condition of the effects, when it is not the condition of the Covenant itself, I cannot reach. I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of God's purpose, and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purposed: But then that purpose is not a covenanr properly so called: Metaphorically, it may be, it may so be called: but than it is such a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Christ, but with God himself: being no more than his own resolution within himself. And yet the foresaid position, viz. That there are no conditions of God's purpose, though there are causes of conditions of the things purposed, had need of a distinction too; for so fare forth as they are the effects of purpose, they have no other cause or condition: and so fare forth as they have other conditions or causes, they are not the effects of purpose. The existence and order of the things purposed is from God's purpose. For example, he did purpose that first he would give up his Son to death for us, then call us, then justify us, then glorify us, and had there been nothing else but God's purpose, these four had been the simple successive effects of his purpose; but had not had the relation of cause and effect amongst themselves. That Christ's death merits our salvation is not from God's purpose, but from the convention between the Father and him. That faith is the condition of justification, and glorification is from the promise of grace made with us: That glorification is also a reward, is from the same promise: That it is not only a consequent but an effect of our justification, ariseth from the nature of that act, as being an adjudging unto glory: that it is an inheritance, is because it is given by Testament. Wherefore all these purposed acts of God may be considered, either simply, ratione existentiae, in respect of their existence, and so they have no other cause but his purpose: or quoad modum essendi, according to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude or relation which they have one to another in their execution, arising either from the nature of the things themselves, or some Law, Covenant and constitution of God; and thus they are not the effects of his purpose. But I have been two long in my reply to this answer of Mr. Eyre's: A word more to prove that Gods eternal purpose is not the New Covenant, and I pass on.  
That Covenant which is of the same common nature with those 
§. 15.  Covenants that are wont to be made amongst men, doth not consist 
● Vide Lesle. de Iust. & jur. lib. 2. cap. 13. D. 1. 5. Grot. dejure. Belli. lib. 2. cap. 11. 2.  in the mere will or purpose of God. The New Covenant or Covenant of Grace is of the same common nature with those that are wont to be made amongst men. Ergo, the New Covenant doth not consist in the purpose of God's mind or will. The proposition is certain. Because, whether Mr. Eyre will allow God's Covenant to be a Covenant properly so called, or will rather call it a promise, it is certain there are no Pacts, Conventions, Covenants, Stipulations, Restipulations, Testaments, Pollicitations, Promises or Contracts of any kind made amongst men which consist in the internal purpose of the mind: and therefore if God's Covenant or Promise be of the same common nature with these, neither can that consist in his purpose. The assumption is supposed by the Apostle, Gal. 3. 15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men, though it be but a man's Covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto, and ver. 17. And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, etc. Where the whole strength of the argument lies upon this supposition, that the covenant made with Abraham was a true formal Covenant or Promise, such as usually passeth between man and man. See to the same purpose, Heb. 9 15, 16, 17. many more arguments I could add if need were.   

SECT. III.  
The direct answer to the Argument, and the proof of it out of 
§. 16.  Heb. 8. I thus delivered in my Sermon. In the Covenant as recorded in Heb. 8. There are three things of distinct consideration, the confusion of which (so it should have been printed, not the conclusion; and so it is printed in the second Edition of my Sermon) is the only support of Mr. Eyre's Argument. 1. There is the matter and blessings of the Covenant on God's part: I will be their God and they shall be my people. 2. The bond and condition of it on our part: and that is faith, in those words, I will put my Laws in their minds, etc. In these two things is the tenor and formality of the new Covenant; They that believe, the Lord will be their God, and they shall be his people. 3. There is also a promise and declaration that God will work this condition, by which men shall have an interest in this Covenant and a right and title to the blessings of it. I will put my Laws into their minds, that is, I will give them faith: which faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant already made, but as a means by which we are brought into Covenant, and thereby invested in a right to all the blessings of it, etc.  
That this is the true meaning of the text (Reader) thou shalt see proved below: In the mean time (according to my promise) take a farther Explication of the words which I shall set down in distinct propositions, that Mr. Eyre may see what little ground my words afford him of all his wonderments and paratragediations.  
Prop. 1. The Old and New Covenant so called, ver. 8. and 13. 
§. 17.  are not two Covenants opposed in their nature and substance: but one and the same Covenant of grace under an Old and New Administration. This many learned men have proved, and our Divines generally grant it, and Mr. Eyre himself for one in this his seventeenth Chapter §. 2. and therefore I set it down without farther proof.  
Prop. 2. Therefore that which is called the New Covenant, and described, ver. 10, 11, 12. doth not contain the form and tenor of the Covenant of grace; but only the differences between the Old Covenant and the New, and the matter wherein the latter excels the former. And that the name of a Covenant is given to it, doth not alter the case: it being so frequent in Scripture to use the name of Covenant, when not the form, but the matter or quality and efficacy of it is signified, 2 Cor. 3. 14. Rom. 9 4. 1 King. 8. 21. Hos. 2. 18. Job 5. 23, etc.  
Prop. 3. The differences between the Old Covenant on the one side, and the new on the other are thus stated in the text. The Old in general is called faulty, ver. 7, 8. and the faultiness of it described in two particulars. 1. That it could not give strength and ability to the people to fulfil it, and by consequence, 2. That it could not make them blessed in the favour and enjoyment of God, ver. 9 They continued not in my Covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. In respect of which it is elsewhere called weak and unprofitable and unable to make any thing perfect, chap. 7. 18, 19 compare also Rom. 8. 3. and Gal. 3. 21. On the contrary, the New Covenant in general is called better, ver. 6. and its betterness (bear with the Anglicisme) expressed in two opposite respects. 1. That it should minister ability and strength to keep Covenant. 2. And by consequence perfect the people in the favour and enjoyment of God, ver. 10. I will put my Laws into their mind.— And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. The former of which is farther illustrated, ver. 11. They shall all know me, etc. and the latter, ver. 12. I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, etc. Hence the new Covenant is elsewhere called a ministration of the Spirit, Life and righteousness, 2 Cor. 3. 6, 8, 9  
Prop. 4. From what hath been said it appears, that the Apostle in this place is so far from denying the Covenant of Grace (formally so taken) to have any conditions, as that he doth plainly suppose the contrary. 1. In that he saith the New Covenant hath its Laws as well as the Old, ver. 6. He is the Mediator of a better Covenant established upon better promises, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, enacted. The word implies that the New Covenant is also a Law requiring something of us; that we may obtain the blessings of it: though it be enacted upon better promises: it being promised long before, that this Covenant should make us perfect, and not the former. 2. Because one great part of the perfection of this Covenant consists in this, that it should have virtue to enable us to keep it, or to preserve us from breaking it, (as Israel broke the former) which were no perfection at all, if the said Covenant had no condition in it which we were bound to keep. Let us now see what Mr. Eyre objects against my exposition.  
First he denies. That the whole matter, and all the benefits of 
§. 18.  the Covenant on God's part are confined to those words, I will be their God, and they shall be my people, That promise being not put alone, but with other promises, denotes one particular blessing.  
Rep. The contrary is evident from the opposition here made between the old Covenant and the New. For I will be their God (in the new Covenant) is directly opposed to, I regarded them not (in the old.) Therefore as Gods not regarding them, was not one particular evil, but contains all the miseries which befell them for their breach of that Covenant: so on the contrary, I will be their God contains all the comfort and blessedness which is given them by this. And indeed the most frequent sense in which that phrase (I will be their God) is used in Scripture, is to denote God to be a benefactor liberally giving whatsoever pertains, add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the welfare and felicity of his people, Psal. 144. 15. Exod. 3. 15. Rev. 21. 7. Jer. 7. 23. with Deut. 26. 3. and Exod. 19 5. and Leu. 26. 12. Rev. 21. 3, 4. and other places innumerable. Nor can I find it so much as once in all the Scriptures, whether by itself or joined with other promises, where, with any show of reason, it can be confined to one particular benefit. Nor doth Mr. Eyre pretend any Scripture for it, but his own word only. But what is that one particular blessing which it must denote?  
Either (saith Mr. Eyre) the formal part of man's happiness which consists in the fruition and enjoyment of God.  
Rep. But that cannot be the meaning here, because then, God by the New Covenant is not the God of any while they live in this world, which though it be true in regard of the perfection and full enjoyment of those blessings which God promiseth, when he says, I will be their God: yet in respect of all degrees of enjoyment it is false for in the New Covenant he promiseth the pardon of sin, Heb. 8. 12. which is a special blessing contained in the said words, I will be their God, Rom. 3. 29, 30.  
Or 2. (saith he) It relates to the knowledge of our interest and propriety in him. Thus, I will be their God, is as much as, they shall know that I am their God, and that they are my people.  
Rep. Nor can this be the meaning. 1. Either this knowledge results from the experience of Gods being their God: and then we are to seek, as much as before, what it is for God to be their God. Or from partaking in some other blessings, mentioned in this description of the New Covenant: and then that grand promise, I will be their God, promiseth just nothing upon the matter, for if the meaning be, such and such blessings will I give them, and thereby they shall know that I am their God: this promiseth nothing; but only declares how excellent those benefits shall be, such as shall evidence plainly that God is their God: and thus the grand pro●ise of grace will be made a nullity. 2. Mr. Eyre should also have taken some pains to allay the harshness of his interpretation. I will be their God, that is, they shall know that I am their God. If I had taken this liberty of interpreting, he had accused me justly of chopping and changing the Word of God at pleasure. 3. When God promiseth to be their God, he promiseth that which is contrary to his not regarding them; But his not regarding them was not merely his not manifesting himself to them to be their God: Ergo, his being their God is not merely his making them to know that he is their God.  
Or 3. (Saith he) I will be their God, etc. imports as much as I will protect them, and they shall worship me.  
Rep. But what is that protection? If it impart our whole deliverance from all spiritual enemies and miseries, and the bestowing of all good which makes us happy; than it is the thing which I contend for. If of any particular deliverance or any one particular blessing, show us what it is: and that I will be their God is taken so much as once (as many scores of times as it is used in Scripture) so restrainedly.  
Next he denies that in these words, I will put my Laws in their 
§. 19  minds, etc. is expressed the bond and condition of the Covenant on our part: for the words are a promise not a precept, and then tells me of Dr. Tw●sse, Dr. Preston, Mr. Strong, Mr. Baxter, who all acknowledge that this Text expresseth an absolute Covenant.  
Rep. Indeed the words have not the form of a precept: nor did any man ever dream that they had (as I know of.) But they do declare that the New Covenant shall be so much better than the Old, as to enable us to fulfil the precept and condition of it, which the Old could not do: For as it was the faultiness and imperfection of the Old Covenant, that the people broke it: so is it the excellency of the new, that it shall enable them to fulfil it. The new covenant than hath a condition as well as the old: or else it hath no glory above the old in this respect, that it ministereth strength to fulfil it. Is Mr. Eyre satisfied now? or will he show me wherein any of the Authors mentioned contradict this: though I will not be bound to justify all the expressions of every one of them. And when he adds in the words following (by way of scorn) That I may as well say, that the bond and condition of the covenant on our part, is expressed in that clause, I will be their God: which, one would have the condition of the covenant on our part▪ who that one is, I do not know: but I know one who may stand in steed of many hundreds, 
d Thes. 4. pag. 109. ex Gen. 17. 1. Hos. 2. 16. 23.  Dr. John Reyn●lds, who was accounted the ornament and wonder of his age for piety and learning; that doth so expound those words: and that from one who is above all, even God himself: who doth plainly so sense the words in some places, D●●t. 26. 17, 18. Zech. 13. 9 Nevertheless I did wave this interpretation in this place: and interpret both clauses, I will be their God, and they shall be my people, as expressing one and the same thing, in reference to two terms, (as when it is said, I will be their father, and they shall be my children) because whatsoever is essential to the taking of the Lord for our God. I conceive to be included in the words foregoing, I will write my Laws in their hearts, etc.  
Whereas I said, that faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant, 
§. 20.  already made: but as the means, by which we are brought into Covenant: this Mr. Eyre invades by many arguments. ● (saith he) the same words cannot be formally both a precept and a promise. This is answered already. The words are a promise: but they suppose a precept what? Is it such a strang● thing in Scripture▪ that that should be promised which is our duty to do? Ezek. 26, 27. God promiseth to cause us to walk in his statutes. Is it therefore no duty of ours to walk in his statutes? In the same chapter, v. 26. he promiseth to give a new heart and a new Spirit: yet are we elsewhere commanded to make as a new heart and a new Spirit, Ezek. 18. 31 God hath promised to circumcise our hearts to love him, Deut. 30. 6. Yet is it our duty to circumcise our hearts. Jer. 4. 4. And may not then faith be promised, and that as the condition or means by which we are brought into Covenant?  
Mr. Eyre. 2. If the promise of faith be a part of the new Covenant; then faith itself is an effect of the Covenant, or a benefit given by virtue of it; But the promise of faith, is part of the new Covenant; Ergo.  
Rep. I deny the Assumption. The new Covenant worketh or begetteth faith, but it doth not promise it. Note therefore (Reader) that there is a great difference between what is promised concerning the new Covenant, and what the new Covenant promiseth. Concerning the new Covenant, it was promised that it should be effectual to quicken the soul, and cause it to believe: but itself doth not promise to make us believe. If it did, forasmuch as that can be no other than an absolute promise, than God doth promise in the Old-Testament (namely Jer. 31. 31.) that he will promise faith in the New. But a promise to promise, and that to the very same persons, concerning the same benefit, is so contrary to reason, and runs such an infinite course of promising, without beginning or ending, that it may not be admitted. But how doth Mr. Eyre prove his Assumption? Thus. All the promises of God do belong either to the Covenaut of works, or to the Covenant of grace. The promise of faith is no part of the Covenant of works; Ergo, of the Covenant of grace.  
Rep. I deny the proposition. The promise of the Covenant of grace itself, Of which Covenant is it a part? of the Covenant of works? or of the Covenant of grace? not of the former, for that promiseth no good to sinners. Not of the latter: for the Covenant itself is the thing promised. If then the Covenant itself may be promised, and yet that promise be no part of the Covenant: may it not also be promised to be in such a manner or degree more or less efficacious, and perfect, and yet that promise in like manner be no part of the said Covenant?  
Hence we answer the third argument. If the promise of faith be an effect of Christ's death, than it is an effect of the Covenant already made: for all the effects of his death, are effects of the Covenant which was confirmed by his death.  
Rep. I deny the consequence with the proof of it. Not to question again whether Christ merited the Covenant: M. Eyre here acknowledgeth that he confirmed it in his death; But that which confirms the Covenant, is no part of the Covenant: for the whole Covenant is the thing confirmed; Ergo all the effects of Christ's death are not the effects of the Covenant which God hath made with us. Yea and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations (Gentiles as well as Jews) that they thereby might be brought into Covenant, is an effect of the death of Christ, Eph. 2. 16, 17. Colos. 1. 20. But affording the means by which men may be brought into covenant, is not an effect of the covenant. In like manner, the promise of a better covenant, which God would make in the days of Christ (a covenant more able, and successful in all respects) may be very well yielded to ●● the effect of the death of Christ: but it will by no means foll●● that therefore that promise is also an effect of the Covenant promised.  
4ly. Thus he speaks. The Scripture no where affirms that faith is promised as a means to bring us into covenant, or to invest us with a right and title thereunto.  
Rep. Nor doth it any where say: that it is promised as a part of the Covenant already made with us. But it says that in sense which Mr. Eyre denies, and that in this very place: supposing (which Mr. Eyre hath not hitherto denied) that faith is included in those words, I will put my laws into their minds, etc. For in these words (as we are forced often to note) is declared the success of the new covenant above the old, that it should enable men to believe; that God may be their God, and they his people. But if it were not promised in this place, yet the constant voice of the Gospel is; believe and thou shalt be saved. Which words show, that faith is the means by which we obtain the blessings of the Covenant. What saith Mr. Eyre against it? Nothing but this: we may as well make Baptism, Sanctification, Perseverance, etc. (to which the promise of salvation is sometimes annexed) means to bring us into Covenant.  
Rep. Alas! how frigidly? where is the Scripture that saith, Be baptised and thou shalt be saved? or where doth it say to men that are strangers from the covenant, persevere and you shall be saved? Indeed they that have already received Christ, are wont to be exhorted to holiness, and perseverance in the faith, that they may not lose or forfeit their right, Rev. 22. 14. and 21. 7. 2 John 8. Heb. 4. 1. etc. But our first entrance into covenant is never ascribed to either of them. But Mr. Eyre shall have measure pressed down and running over, I mean, many plain testimonies of Scripture where faith is promised as a means to bring us into Covenant with God.    

CHAP. XIV.  
An answer to Mr. Eyrs eighteenth chapter, Jer. 24. 7. Heb. 10. 14, 15. Ezek. 11. 19, 20. and 36 25, 26, 27, 28. and other places proving faith to be promised as a means by which we are brought into Covenant with God, vindicated.  

SECT. I.  
FOr proof of this I mentioned many places of Scripture: 
§. 1.  to all which Mr. Eyre's answer is upon the matter one and the same; and therefore we shall be brief in our reply to this chapter, because one general vindication will serve the turn for all. As to his first Paragraph, wherein he chargeth me so severely, for saying, the words of the Covenant (described, Jer. 31 and Heb. 8.) are to this sense. This is the Covenant which I will make with the house of Israel, when I shall write my Laws in their hearts, I will be their God, etc. He doth but show how desirous▪ he is of an occasion against me. I told the Reader plainly in that very place, that I did not therein give the Grammatical translation of the words: (though if I had so rendered them, it might have been justified by an elleipsis of the Hebrew particle, ●, of which there are examples good store in Scripture, if it were worth while to produce them) and set down those words for no other end, but to let the Reader know, that the very description of the new covenant; as to its matter and effects, in the said texts, did suppose the form and tenor of it, to be such as those words do represent: having showed but just before, that there were three things in the Covenant (as described, Heb. 8.) of distinct consideration. viz. the matter and blessings of it on God's part: the bond and condition of it on our part: a promise and declaration that God will work this condition. Therefore while Mr. Eyre opposeth that which he calls my rendering of the words, (though I confess I am not able to dive into the sense of his Argument) he sights with his own shadow, when afterwards I say, the words will bear to be read, thus; This is the covenant which I will make, saith the Lord that giveth his Laws into their minds, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. though neither did I seek any advantage from this observation (as I also plainly told the Reader) yet the whole text according to this reading, agrees wholly in sense with our translation▪ and therefore neither needed Mr. Eyre to have quarrelled with me about it, nor shall I need to vindicate it.  
Come we then to the matter itself. The Apostle out of the Prophet 
§. 2.  J●r ●y, doth thus describe the new covenant, Heb. 8. 10, This is the Covenant, which I will make with the house of Israel, after those days saith the Lord: I will put my Laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. In which words I told the Reader there were three things of distinct consideration. 1. The matter and blessings of the covenant on God's part: in those words, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2. The bond and condition of it on our part, and that is faith, signified by the writing of God's Laws in our hearts. 3. A promise or Declaration, that God will work this condition. I will put my Laws into their minds. That this is the certain, undoubted meaning of the Holy Ghost; we have already showed by  evidence from the text itself. We shall now confirm the same by comparing it with other places of Scripture.  
The first we mentioned was, J●r. 24. 7. I will give them a heart to know me that I am the Lord, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God f●r (or when) they shall return unto me with their whole heart. Where we have the very same arguments, as here. viz. The blessings promised. I will be their God. The condition on the people's part, which is their returning with their whole heart: and the cause of this return, I will give them an heart. Mr. Eyre answers. That their returning unto God, is not the condition of Gods being their God. We go on then, Ezek. 11. 19, 20. I will put a new spirit within them, that they may walk in my statutes and do them, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. Which is the sum of the covenant on God's part. So Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27, 28. Again the Lord promiseth, that he will cleanse and purify them, and so they shall be his people, and he will be their God, Ezek. 37. 23. And after he had promised, that they should walk in his judgements, and observe his statutes, it follows, Moreover I will make a Covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant, which ●● s●●me is this, I will be their God, and they shall be my people, v. 20 27. To all which Mr. Eyre gives the same denial as to the first. We shall therefore prove that in all these places, faith is promised as a means to bring us into covenant with God. And then take a view of the reasons of Mr. Eyre's denial in general, or upon particular places.  
For the former, the substance of God's covenant with men is this, 
§. 3.  I will be their God, and they shall be my people: as not only all the Divines which I can light on, but the Scriptures also, witness. Deut. 29. 12, 13. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God— that he may establish thee for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God. More than this we need not, nor are we capable of. And God himself accounts that he hath fully kept his covenant, when he becomes a God to a person or people, Zech. 8. 8. and therefore to be their God is the total sum of the Covenant on his part. Moreover the Scriptures certify us, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, contains all the blessings, which God by Covenant gives to any people, Gal. 3. 9, 14, 18. Rom. 4. 13, 16, 23, 24. But I will be thy God, was the sum of the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Gen. 17. 7. Exod. 3. 6. with Matth. 22. 32. etc. In those words therefore is contained all the blessings of the covenant on God's part. Hence our Argument proceeds thus. If God promise faith for this end, that he may be our God, and we his people; then is it promised as a means, by which we are brought into Covenant with God. But-faith is promised for this end, that God may be our God. Ergo, it is promised as a means to bring us into covenant. If the assumption be denied, we confirm it diversely. 1. From the plain scope of some places. as Ezek. 37. 23.— I will cleanse them: So shall they be my people, and I will be their God. and chap. 14. 11.— That they may be no more polluted with all their transgressions, but that they may be my people, and I may be their God. Even as he is often said to have brought them out of Egypt (which signifies spiritually, the bringing of sinners out of the darkness and slavory of a sinful condition, into the way of life, Judas v. 5.) that he might be their God, Leu. 11. 45. and 26. 45. and 25. 38. and 22. 33. Numb. 15. 41. 2 Faith is promised for this end, that we thereby might obtain that, which was promised to Israel, when God brought them out of Egypt: though they obtained it not, because they continued not in God's covenant; Ergo, it is promised as a means for this end, that God may be our God, and we his people. The reason of the consequence is, because this was that which the Lord said to Israel, when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt: obey my voice; so will I be your God, and ye shall be my people. Jer. 7. 23. and 11. 4. The antecedent is written with a Sun beam in the place under debate, Jer. 31. 31. etc. Where the writing of God's Laws in our mind (which in some other of the places mentioned is called, the putting of a new Spirit within us, and a causing us to walk in his statutes) is most apparently promised as a means of obtaining that good which Israel, by the covenant made with them, in the day when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt, did not obtain; for herein lay the imperfection and faultiness of that covenant, that they broke it, and consequently, that the Lord regarded them not. In opposition to both which it is that God promiseth to write his Laws in their minds, and so to be their God, other things we refer till by and by.  
It is therefore a truth beyond contradiction, that the giving of the first grace is promised; not as a part of the Covenant, but as a means 
§. 4.  and qualification on man's part for his entrance into covenant. Let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it: and first in general, from §. 4. downward.  
First he excepts against the fitness, of my expression in calling our conversion the first grace, which he saith is more properly spoken nf Gods eternal love, or of Christ himself.  
Answ. But the question is only understood of the grace of God in us (which is more frequently called by the name of grace, then either of the other two, Jam. 4. 6. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 12. 28. and 13. 9 etc.) The first of which is faith, or our conversion unto God. But even in this sense (saith Mr. Eyre) inherent sanctification is unduly put in the first place, which is a consequent, both of justification and adoption, Gal. 4. 5 6. though it be promised in Jeremy, before remission of sins, yet in other places it is put after it, as Ezek. 36. 25. 26. Jer. 32. 38, 39  
Answ. The former part is true of sanctification, strictly and most properly taken, for the habits of the life of holiness, opposed to the body of sin in us. But in this sense, I deny faith to be any part of sanctification: and if Mr. Eyre doth thus interpret the promise of writing God's Laws in our heart, etc. Then shall I also deny that faith in Christ is herein promised: but only a greater measure of grace to them that believe: which will much advantage his cause. But if sanctification be taken largely for any gracious workings of God upon the soul, so as it includes faith itself; then do I deny that it is any where in Scripture put after remission of sins. The two places mentioned (for of Gal. 4. 5, 6. we speak below) say nothing so, Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean, from all your filthiness, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you. Mr. Eyre takes it for granted that this is meant of pardon of sin: and I acknowledge that sprinkling or washing with water doth sometimes also include that, 1 Cor. 6. 11. But sometimes also it signifies our regeneration or conversion unto God, Tit. 3. 5. and so do I understand it in this place, for a through conversion of them from dumb Idols, to the true and living God; the former of which is more peculiarly intended, v. 25. and the latter, v. 26. my reason is, because the cleansing of them from their Idols, is expressly opposed to their defiling themselves with Idols, chap. 37. 23. Neither shall they defile themselves any more with Idols— But I will cleanse them: and that for this end that he might be their God. Which (by Mr. Eyre's own acknowledgement) includes remission of sin: and therefore the said remission is not meant by cleansing them from their Idols: otherwise the sense were this, I will pardon their sin, and so I will pardon their sin. The second Text is Jer. 32. 38, 39 They shall be my people, and I will be their God: and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever; for the good of them, and of their children after them: to which I add the next verse, v. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good, etc. Here indeed it cannot be denied, but that Gods giving a heart to fear him, is mentioned after the promise of forgiveness of sin included (amongst other things) in the words foregoing, I will be their God; But though it be mentioned after, yet is it apparently mentioned as the means to this end, that God may be our God. I will give them a heart to fear me, for the good of them and of their children, The fear of God is promised for this end, that he may do us good: or (as v. 40.) that he may never turn away from us to do us good. Ergo it is promised for this end, that he may be our God: because (as we have showed before) for God to be our God is all one as to be our benefactor and to do us good. Wherefore this verse follows the former in place or writing, not in dependence: declaring the way which God will take that he may be our God: namely, by putting his fear into our hearts: and so advanceth what Master Eyre would prove from it, by overthrowing it.  
Secondly, He utterly denies that the giving of a new heart is 
§. 5.  promised as a means on man's part for his entrance into covenant. For, 1. The Scripture no where affirms it: and it is weakly concluded hence, because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recital of the covenant, etc.  
Answ. Whether it be affirmed in Scripture, or no, I am content to refer to the judgement of any Reader that hath but understanding enough to see that two and two make four. But we do not conclude it from hence, that the promise of a new heart is first mentioned, but that the promise of Gods being our God is last mentioned, (unless it be in the place last debated.) And that as the happy issue and upshot of Gods giving a new heart: and because it is first mentioned as to be given, which elsewhere is required and commanded us, for this end, that God may be our God, and we his people. And what is required of us for such an end, that if God promise to make us do, is promised as a means to the same end.  
Mr. Eyre's 2. The promise of a new heart includes not only the first act of faith and repentance, but the continuance and increase of these gifts. Ergo, all the promises of Sanctification are either no part of the covenant: or the same promise is both a means to bring us into covenant, and also a part of it.  
Answ. This Argument (if it may so be called) 〈◊〉 in form. If the promise of a new heart include not only the first act of faith and repentance, but the continuance and increase of these gifts, than the new heart is not promised▪ as a means of our entrance into Covenant with God. If this be not the scope of the Argument, it doth not touch the question: if it be, I deny the consequence. The being or first act of faith and repentance is promised as the means by which we enter into covenant: the continuance of these as the means by which we continue in covenant, which continuance nevertheless is part of the Covenant made with them that believe: for unto him that hath shall be given and he shall have more abundantly.  
Mr. Eyre, 3. The promises of sanctification have the same ground, viz. The merit of Christ: the same end, viz. God's glory. Faith and repentance are not promised only subserviently for our benefit, but for God's glory. Tit. 2. 14. 1 Thess. 4. 3. The same manner in which they are promised: he doth nor say I will write my Laws in their hearts, that I may pardon their sins: but, I will write my Laws, etc. and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more; Ergo, they are parts of the Covenant.  
Answ. If all this were granted, yet I cannot see how this Argument concludes; God promiseth to make a New Covenant: th●s promise hath the same ground and end, etc. with the covenant itself; Ergo, the promise of making the New Covenant is part of the New Covenant; Will Mr. Eyre allow of this? 2. The main thing also is left out in the enumeration. The promise of faith is an act of God's Dominion and Liberty (at least as to us) Rom. 9 18. But the promise of righteousness and salvation is the act of God as a merciful Governor, Judge, and Rewarder of his people, 2 Tim. 4. 8. Jam. 4. 12. Who by these promises envites, encourageth, and draws men to believe. 3. As to the particulars mentioned, the first of them hath been answered often. The second affords a canvas worthy of a deeper head than mine, viz. whether repentance (for example) have any other preciousness, excellency, or benefit in it, then as it is a means appointed of God, by which we obtain precious and excellent promises? The question is the same concerning faith in Christ, as it is an affiance placed in him for life and salvation. Neither of these were any part of that soul-perfection in which man was at first created: neither any part of that Image of God unto which we are by Christ restored, Eph. 4 24. Neither any part of our happiness, though the way thereto. (For they shall both cease in heaven.) Neither proposed to us in the Gospel, ut propter se appetibile, sed propter aliud. Indeed it is good to repent (and now of absolute necessity to salvation) but it were better (if it were possible) to do nothing for which a man need to repent. If then the whole benefit of these acts lay in the use to which God hath ordained them, and in the promises which are made to them, than it will be apparent that God hath not promised them any otherwise then as means of obtaining the blessings of his Covenant. But I will not be peremptory. 4. To the last, indeed it is not said that God doth write his Laws in our hearts that he may pardon our sins: and good reason why? Because the scope of the place is only to declare what shall be the effects of the Covenant, not the manner in which it doth produce them. Nevertheless, that the pardon of sin is one end of Gods writing his Laws in our mind is apparent. 1. Because (as we have showed already) God is said in Scripture to write his Laws in our minds, or to give us a new heart, that he may be our God: which promise (as we have proved, and Mr. Eyre confesseth) includes the pardon of sin. 2. From the contrary effects on them that are without, Mark 4. 12. That they may not perceive— nor understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. 3. God expecteth repentance that he may forgive sins, Jeremiah 36. 3. and 26. 2, 3. Ergo, he promiseth it as a means to the same end.  
His third and last general Argument is, It sounds harshly that God promiseth faith as a means on our part to bring us into Covenant. For if he promise to bestow it, it cannot properly be called a means on our part.  
Answ. Sounds are to be judged by every man's ●are. If God sometimes require us to walk in his statutes that we may be blessed: and elsewhere promise to cause us to walk in his statutes; to say, that this is a promise of enabling us to do that which he hath appointed to be the means of our blessedness, sounds never a whit harsh in my ear, no more then to say, that the promise of giving speech to Moses, Isaiah, or Jer●my, was a promise of enabling them to perform the means which they were to use for the discharge of their office; or the promise of strength to Abraham and Sarah to become the parents of a child, was the promise of the means which they were to use for that end.  
And now I perceive I have prevented myself in what I should have replied to Mr. Eyre's answers to particular places, there being nothing said to any of them but what is here already replied too. He concludes with a distinction of that promise, I will be their God, and which (saith he) may be taken, either, 1. More generally as comprehending all good things whatsoever: and so faith is included in it. Or 2. More restrictively as noting one particular benefit and privilege distinct from the rest, etc.  
Where the first member is to large, and the second to narrow. I have diligently perused (I think) all the places in Scripture where those words are found: and cannot discern where they are either taken more largely then to signify the communication of that good which is part of our felicity, as distinguished from those acts of the soul by which we tend and move towards it. Nor yet so strictly as to note some one only privilege and benefit. And for Mr. Eyre to obtrude a distinction upon us of words which cannot be distinguished but according to their use in Scripture, and yet never go about to inform us where the Scriptures afford the least protection to it, is no better than to beg the question.  
For vindicating my Interpretation of the Covenant as described, Heb. 8. I had also quoted at large, Heb. 10. 14, 15, 16, 17. After he had said before, This is the Covenant which I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them (add here then he saith, or then it follows) and their sins, and their iniquities will I remember no more. Mr. Eyre will have them read thus. After he had said before, This is the Covenant which I will make with them after those days (then) the Lord saith, I will put my Laws into their hearts, etc. This is the place which first established me in the right understanding of the Covenant, as I have described it. The only question between Mr. Eyre and me here is, whether those words (saith the Lord, ver. 16.) be the words of the Apostle, or the words of Jeremy cited by him. I am for the latter, 1. Because those words are in that place of Jeremy. 2. Because this Apostle rehearseth the same words as the words of Jeremy, Heb 8. 8, 10. If Mr. Eyre can show better evidence for his interpretation, he should have done it.    

CHAP. XV.  
An answer to Mr. Eyre's nineteenth Chapter, wherein he endeavours to prove, that in the New Covenant there are no conditions required of us to invest us with a right and title to the blessings of it.  

SECT. I.  
MOst of my work in answer to the things contained 
§. 1,  in this Chapter is already performed: there being little throughout but what hath had its trial in the foregoing Discourse. Mr. Eyre, before he comes to Argument premiseth two things (he might have said three.) 1. What he means by the New Covenant. 2. What by a condition. Upon the former I shall animadvert nothing, having so largely already confuted it. This only I observe, that he calls the New Covenant an engagement, and that by word or promise: and distributes the Covenants of God into that of works, made with Adam: and that of grace made (not with men) but with Christ: and yet, not fare before placed the very essence of the Covenant in Gods eternal purpose of doing good to the Elect. To what he speaks concerning a condition, I have nothing to add more than what hath been spoken already. His definitions out of Dr. C●well, C●ok●, etc. I consent to, if by casus incertus he mean no more than that which is in itself and in its own nature contingent. 3. He informs us, that some by a condition mean no more than barely an antecedent. But that is an improper use of it: we take it in its most proper Law-sense.  
Come we then to the arguments: they begin §. 6 The first is this, In 
§. 2.  all those places wherein the nature or tenor of the ●ew Covenant is declared, there is not any men●ion at all of the least condition, Jer. 31. 33. Ezek. 36. 25, etc. Hos. 2. 18, 19, 20.  
Answ. This is answered already. In these and the like places, not the form and tenor, but the quality, virtue and effects of the Covenant are described, 2. And so described as that a condition is plainly supposed: because one effect of the Covenant is, to give strength to fulfil it. 3. The tenor of the Covenant is elsewhere described as manifestly conditional for the word of faith which the Apostles preached is the New Covenant, 2 Cor. 3. 6. But the tenor of the word of faith which the Apostles preached is this, If thou believe thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10. 8, 9 Again, the promise by faith of Jesus Christ is conditional. The New Covenant is a promise by faith of Jesus Christ, Gal. 3. 22.  
The second Argument is this. All those Covenants which God 
§. 3.  made to prefigure this Covenant, were free and absolute without any condition. Ergo, the Covenant itself is much more so. The Antecedent Mr. Eyre proves, in the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. with Noah, Gen. 9 11. with Phinehas, Num. 25. with David, 1 Samuel 13. 13, 14. Isaiah 54. 3. Psalm 89. 20.  
Answ. A Covenant may be called absolute, either antecedently, when in its essential constitution it hath no condition, neither required, nor supposed, expressed nor understood. Or consequently, when it becomes absolute upon the performance of the condition. In this latter sense I yield the Covenants mentioned to have been absolute: In the former I deny it, because the faith of the parties with whom those Covenants were made, was supposed and in being, before those promises were given them, and that as the ground and reason (though not the cause) of their being given them. This doth the Scripture testify of every one of them, of Noah, Gen. 6. 18. with 7. 1. But with thee will I establish my Covenant, for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Whence he is said to be heir of the righteousness which is by faith, Heb. 11. 7. Of Abraham, Nehem. 9 8. Thou foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a Covenant with him. See also Rom. 4. 13, 21, 22. Of Phineahs', Numb. 25. 11, 12, 13. Wherefore say, behold I give unto him my Covenant of peace— Because he was zealous for high God. Of David, Acts 13. 22, 23, 32, 33. compared, and therefore he (amongst others) is said by faish to have obtained promises, Heb. 11. 32, 33. Indeed faith was not in these Covenants proposed to them as the condition which they were to perform: (it needed not they being believers before:) but when God promiseth the same blessings (in substance) to a sinful world, as he had before done to them, it is expressly upon condition of the same faith, Romans 4. 12, 16, 23, 24. Galatians 3. 7, 9, 14. etc.  
Thirdly, thus he argues. If there were any condition required 
§. 4.  in the New Covenant to entitle us to the blessings of it, it would not be a Covenant of pure grace; To give a thing freely and conditionally are contradictories, works and conditions which men perform are their money, Isa. 55. 1, 2.  
Answ. This is the Argument of the Quorum, without which nothing can be done. Many things we have already spoken from Scripture, Reason, Divines and Lawyers to evince the falsehood of it: something more I will here add (according to my promise) to the same purpose. 1. If every conditional promise be contrary to grace, than neither can God encourage us to any act of obedience by a promise of rewarding it, nor may we take encouragement to obey out of respect to the reward, without prejudicing the Grace of God. The Reason is, because, do thus or thus, and I will give thee this or that, is a conditional promise: more than such a form of words we have not to prove that God ever made a conditional promise. But the consequence in both the parts of it is grossly false: for God doth make conditional promises to encourage us to obey his will: and we are to take encouragement from them for that end. For example, he promiseth, Leu. 26. 3, 12. If ye walk in my statutes and keep my commandments, and to them,— I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. Which, that it pertains to Christians as well as to the Jews, the Apostle expressly teacheth, 2 Cor. 6. 16, 17, 18. And from thence infers immediately, Chap. 7. 1. Having therefore these promises let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and Spirit▪ etc. The promises he mentions a●e Gospel promises, therefore promises of grace. Yet out of respect to the good promised are we to come out and separate from all filthiness of flesh and Spirit: and God hath given us these promises for this end. Moses rejected the pleasures of sin, because he had respect to the recompense of reward, Heb. 11. 25, 26. So Paul, 2 Cor. 4. 16, 18. So Christ himself, Heb. 12. 2. Multitudes of conditional promises we have in the Gospel: which therefore surely are not inconsistent with grace, Mat. 6. 14, 15. Joh. 14. 21, 23. Rom. 8. 13. Mat. 7. 7, etc. If a man promise another (to whom he hath no natural relation, but out of a mere desire of his good) that he will make him heir to five hundred per annum, on condition he will go no more into an Alehouse or into none of the Pope's dominions: in such a promise there would be found every thing which according to Scripture or Philosophy (as we have showed before, chap. 5.) is required to an act of grace, and yet the promise is conditional. If Mr. Eyre shall use his old evasion, and say, that in the places forementioned there is no proposing of a condition, but only a declaring of the persons, who shall enjoy such and such blessings: besides what hath been spoken against it before, I shall only add this, that then the said places, and innumerable others like them, do not declare that faith or righteousness, or prayer, or any other duty, to which the promise is made, is any whit more acceptable to God then unbelief; or unrighteousness, or neglect of prayer: but only that the person believing, the person that keeps the Commandments of Christ, the person that prayeth, etc. is more acceptable to God, than he that doth not these things: which is such a prodigious assertion, that till I know whether Mr. Eyr● will own it, I will not go about to confute it. 2. If the condition being performed (be it of what kind it will be) the thing promised do eo ipso become a due dept, then is it unjust to make the full price of a thing, the condition of any contract. The reason is, Because whatsoever becomes a debt by contract supposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repassum (as they call it) or an equality between that which I part with, and that which I receive for it: If then the full price be the condition another is bound to, then have I double as much as what I part with is worth. For if the condition had been the payment of six pence for what is worth a 100 l. the six pence being paid, it becomes by virtue of the contract, proportionable to that which is worth a 100 l. otherwise it could not make it a due debt. If then I have in six pence, what is proportionable to that I part with, then if the said 100 l. had been the condition of the contract, I had had double as much as that I part with is worth: because the said 100 l. is in itself proportionable: and again it becomes proportionable, by being made the condition of the contract: so that it hath a double proportion of worth, to that I part with for it:  
In the next place Mr. Eyre brings in his adversaries as objecting 
§. 5.  against this his third argument, and clearing themselves from any impeachment of God's grace, though they assert the covenant to be conditional. But in none of his objectionss doth he take notice of what he might very well suppose, would be principally insisted upon, for wiping off his aspersions. As 1. That the Covenant of grace is not made with righteous persons, but with sinners, and enemies, and children of wrath: who if they had had their due, and the rich grace of God had not prevented, had been past all capacity of having any new terms of life and peace proposed to them. 2. That the conditions required, are neither so much as is God's due, nor yet so much as man was once able to perform: which the Apostle mentions as a glorious difference between the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. 5, 8, 9 God accepteth the heart, though in many things we sin all. Therefore these conditions are such as are indeed available for our good, through the acceptance of a gracious and merciful governor (as Benhadad's servants prevailed with the merciful Kings of Israel, when they supplicated for life with sackcloth upon their loins, and ropes about their heads, 1 Kings 20. 31, 32.) though they avail us nothing in the trial of justice. But let us see Mr. Eyre's objections.  
First he supposeth us objecting thus. We ascribe no meritoriousness 
§. 6.  to these conditions, as the Papists do unto works. His answer is. 1. The Papists assert no other works and conditions to be necessary to justification and salvation than we do. 2. They ascribe no more meritoriousness to works than we do: for Mr. Baxter says, that the performers of a condition may be said to merit the reward. 3. The condition required of Adam himself was not meritorious in a strict and proper sense.  
Rep. 1. The first is a calumny. The Papists (some of them) dispute, that it is a thing possible to keep the Law of God; and that facile & parvo negotio: they are Bellarmin●s words, d● J●stif. lib. 4. cap. 11. 2. The second is a calumny: as Mr. Baxter (a man borne to reproaches) hath sufficiently showed in his admonition to Mr. Eyre. Reader, if thou art not read in the fathers, do but peruse V●ss●● Theses. De bonor. op●r. merit. or Bp. Ushers answer to the Jesuits challenge; or any other Protestant, who replies to the testimonies of the fathers, which the Papists are wont to boast of; and thou wilt find that they do all justify the sense, in which the father's use the word merit, though they disclaim the term, as Mr. Baxt●r also doth. The Fathers indeed intending no more thereby, then simply to obtains. As when they say of the Virgin Mary. M●ruit ●sse mater redemptoris. She obtained (this honour or privilege) to be the mother of the Redeemer. Sine merito nostro meruimus, we have obtained it without our merit, and the like. 3. The third (I confess) is to me a very difficult question, viz. Whether Adam in the state of perfection did or could merit any thing of God? on the one hand I see the Apostle asserting roundly, that to him that works, the reward is imputed of debt, n●t of grac●, Rom. 4. 4. On the other hand I am not able to conceive how the creature can lay an obligation of justice upon his maker, Rom. 11. 35. Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him against? Nor am I certain what life it was that was promised to Adam. Some Divines are of opinion that it was the same and ●o other, which is now promised through Christ to them that believe: others (and particularly Mr. Burroughs') are peremptory, that the 
a Gosp conver●. ●er 3. pag. 43.  Law to Adam, had only the promise of a natural life to be continued. I shall wave all dispute concerning it, and deliver my opinion in these four conclusions.  
1. There is a proportion between a spotless, perfect, sinless righteousness, and the reward of a happy and an unafflicted life. That he, that never did any evil, should never suffer any evil (unless he become a surety for another that hath wrought evil) is but just. So much at least is signified by the Apostles expression, R●m. 4. 4. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt, not of grace. And the law of nature (the rule of natural justice) written and acting in men's consciences, in their excusations and justifications of themselves, for what they have well done, Rom. 2. 15. attests the same.  
2. God, as author of his creatures being, and all his faculties and abilities, hath a right of absolute sovereignty and dominion over him: by virtue of which he may justly challenge, the utmost service the creature can perform, without engaging himself to give him a reward. It was therefore (I do not say of grace, but) o● his goodness and bounty, that he would condescend to promise a re●ard to man for his obedience to the Law. This ●●ay down as a concession.  
3. God's promise of rewarding man's obedience▪ doth not make himself a debtor to man properly, but makes the life promised to become a debt. Life may be legally and in justice due, and yet God not a debtor: For there is d●bitum real, as well as personale, suitable to the distinction of actions in the 
b U●pian. l. Action. Gen. ff. de oblige & Act.  Law, into real and personal, the former per quam rem●● stram quae ab ●li● p●ssi●●●r p●tim●s: though he be 
c Justit. l. 4. c. 6. §. omnium autem.  ●●l●o jure nobis obligatus: of which they give 
d Ibid. § aeque si ag●t.  several instances. The latter, Qu● cum eo agim●s qui ●●ligatus ●st n●●is, ad faci●ndum aliquid, vel dandum: 
e Inst. eod. §. omnium a●tem  idque vel ex c●ntract● vel ●x 〈…〉 l●ficio. Whence it is manifest, that an action purely real, and not mixed with a personal (as sometimes it is) supposeth no person to be, in justice, obliged as a debtor: and yet the thing a due debt. In like manner, life might have been given to Adam as a due debt; he being worthy of such a reward: and yet God in promising it become a debtor to none but to himself only.  
4. Therefore Gods rewarding Adam (supposing him to have continued perfectly righteous) is an act of goodness and faithfulness, quoad exercitium, but an act of justice quoad specificationem. That is, it was God's goodness to promise a reward of life to him, and his faithfulness to execute it: but upon supposition that he deal in rewarding him, jure rectorio as a good and equitable Governor, 'tis just that he reward him with a life, as perfectly free from all mixture of evil, as his obedience was free from all mixture of sin, Gen. 18▪ 25. That be far●e from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be fare from thee: ● all not the Judge of all the earth do right?  
The next objection he thus proposeth. The conditions required 
§. 7.  of Ad●m were legal: but the conditions of the New Covenant are evangelical. He answers. All conditions performed for life, are legal conditions: the precepts, both of Law and Gospel have the same matter.  
Rep. Repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ, were neither required in the Law given to Adam, nor in that given to Israel; Gal. 3. 12. 2. The conditions required of Adam, were as much as justice itself could exact of him: The conditions required of us are such, as nevertheless justice might condemn us: and avail us nothing, but in God's gracious and merciful acceptation, Jer. 3. 1, 12. Thou hast played th●●●rlot with many l●vers, yet return again to me 〈◊〉 and I will not cause mi●●●ng●r to fall ●pon you, for I am merciful saith the Lord. Hence thirdly, perfect sinless obedience, of itself commended man unto God (his equitable Governor) as worthy, not only not to be punished, but to be rewarded suitably to his nature: (that it did not merit of God, so as to lay an obligation of justice upon him to reward it, is merely by accident; because of the infinite distance and supremacy of God over man.) But faith and repentance do only dispose us to be enriched, enlivened and perfected by the fullness and sufficiency of another, even the Lord Jesus Christ: even as poverty may be said to commend one to a liberal man, inasmuch as it disposeth him to be a fit object for liberality to exercise itself upon. And this is intimated in the place which Mr. Eyre quoated but now, Isa. 55. 1, 2. if his exposition of it be true. viz. the conditions which men perform, are their money, for v. 1. it is said, come buy wine and milk, without money and without price, which coming, is saith; and this faith, as it is the condition upon which we partake in the blessings promised, is therefore metaphorically called a buying (and thus fare forth it agrees with legal conditions;) but as it is a buying without money or price, it supposeth the said blessings to be freely given (as Rev. 22. 17. it is expounded) and thus fare forth it is opposed to legal. This I put here, because I had forgot to do it in its right place, which was, §. 4.  
Thirdly, he supposeth us thus objecting. Evangelical conditions are more facile and easy then legal were.  
His answer is. There can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then adam's was, viz. to abstain from the fruit of one tree.  
Rep. 1. Our Divines are not wont to place the whole of the condition required of Adam in that one precept of not eating the forbidden fruit, any otherwise then symbolically: for as that tree had the nature of a Sacrament, and the not eating of it, a visible profession of universal subjection unto God: so the eating of it was a visible and universal renouncing of his authority, and of that obedience which Adam owed him. 2. The objectors (who they are I know not) have (I presume) this sense. 1. That if we compare the nature of the acts, it is fare easier to believe, then to keep the law, and this is certain: for de facto multitudes believe, who never kept the Law perfectly. 2. That it is an easier way of salvation to be saved only by committing ourselves to Christ in his way, that he may save us, then to have the whole care and burden of so great a work upon ourselves: this also is true; because in this way our salvation is sure: in the other it was uncertain, even when man was righteous (as the event proves sadly) and unto sinners impossible 3. That the commands of Christ are nothing so grievous to be borne, as those given to the Church before his coming, this also is undoubted, Act. 15. 10. 4. That faith in exercitio, or to believe, is fare easier to us, through the strength of God enabling us, than it was to Adam to keep himself in that state of righteousness in which he was made: for it is God which enables us to perform those acts which himself hath made the conditions of our interest in his covenant. So (will Mr. Eyre say) Adam's ability to keep the Law, was given him of God. True. But 1. Not of grace, but ut naturae debita (as we maintain against the Papists) as due to his nature, out of that common goodness, which furnished every creature in its kind, with those principles and abilities which were necessary to them for the attaining of the respective ends to which they were created: which if they had wanted, the work of God had been imperfect, and unlike himself: but the creature had been in no fault 2. The use and improvement of those abilities was left to Adam's free will, supposing that common concourse of divine providence, without which no creature can move, in its kind, toward its own end. But to quicken us when we were dead, and restore lost abilities: yea, to vegetate and maintain them against contrary principles and inclinations from within, and oppositions from without, is such special grace as Adam in that state received not.  
Some other reasons Mr. Eyre adjoins: but he tells the Reader, that he hath mentioned them before (more than once or twice) and I also have answered them before: and therefore shall refer the Re●der thither, and so pass on to his twentieth chapter.    

CHAP. XVI.  
A reply to Mr. Eyrs twentieth chapter, containing the solution of his Arguments, tending to prove, that God is the God of his people before they believe.  

SECT. I.  
FRom the Apostles description of the New Covenant, 
§. 1.  Heb. 8. I retorted▪ this argument upon Mr. Eyre. If God be not the God of any, nor they his people before they believe, than none are in Covenant with God before they believe. But God is not the God of any before they believe. Ergo. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes against the assumption largely: and advanceth many arguments to prove, that God is the God of his people before they believe. Let us take them in their order.  
First, If God be their God whom he doth peculiarly love, 
§. 2.  and whom he hath chosen, then is he a God to some before they believe. But God is their God whom he hath chosen.  
Answ. If by choosing be meant from eternity, of which the Apostle speaks, Eph. 1. 4. I deny the Minor, God is never said in Scripture to be the God of any in reference to his eternal election of them: that being no more than a purpose of making them his people, and of becoming a God to them. God is not the God of them that are not, Matth. 22. 32. Let us see the proofs. God was the God of Israel: now he became their God by setting his love upon them and choosing them, and by separating them from other people, Deut. 7. 6, 7, 8. Leu. 20. 24, 25. Answ. 1. I deny, that either the choosing of them, Deut. 7. or the separating of them, Leu. 20. are to be understood of eternal election; of which nevertheless Mr. Eyre pretends to be understood in his Major, by quoting for proof, Eph. 1. 4. otherwise I would have denied the Major for even in vocation (which also is sometimes in Scripture called choosing, as we have showed elsewhere, God separates men to himself from the rest of mankind: yet will it by no means follow that therefore he is the God of some that believe not: for vocation is the giving of faith. As to the texts before us, it is manifest that the choosing, spoken of, Deut. 7. is a temporal act, for the cause of it is set down, ver. 8. Because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto their Fathers: expressed more plainly, chap. 4. 37. Because he loved their Fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. So also chap. 10. 15. 2. Much less is it said, that this love or choosing them was the thing in respect of which he is said to be their God and they his people: but the contrary is employed, verse 6. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself above all people, etc. Where the making of them to be his people (which also includes the correlate of becoming their God) is mentioned as the end and effect of his choosing them: which effect, when it is wrought is easy to learn from Exod. 19 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, than ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people.  
Again (saith Mr. Eyre) the Lord, Ezek. 16 8. declares concerning spiritual Israel, that they became his, whilst they were in their blood; that he swore unto them and entered into Covenant with them: which swearing, as it refers to spiritual Israel must be understood of the oath which he made to Christ concerning the blessing of his seed.  
Answ. Nothing but uncertainties. 1. It is not fair in a dispute to ground a conclusion upon Types, unless we have firm demonstrations of the Antitype. Mr. Eyre should therefore prove that the words there spoken are not peculiar to Israel in the letter. 2. That the spiritual Israel typified are the Elect as such, and not believers as such. 3. That the Israel there spoken of were his, before he entered into Covenant with them. The text is express against it. I entered into Covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine; Which way doth this prove that Gods eternal Election is the thing in respect of which he is our God and we his people? 4. That the said Covenant was a type of the Covenant made with Christ.  
Yet again, The Prophet infers this their relation unto God from his everlasting love, Jeremiah 31. 1, 3. Answ. Negatur.  
The Apostle likewise, Romans 8. 31. Answer. Negatur.  
So 2 Tim. 2. 19 The foundation of God standeth sure— The Lord knoweth who are his. Implying, that the Election and foreknowledge of God doth make men his. Ans. Mr. Eyre knows how Mr. Mede and others expound this place.  
Prove, 1. That by God's foundation and knowledge is meant his Election and foreknowledge. 2. That his are meant of, his by Election. It may be meant of such as are his by sincerity of faith. 3. That if men were called his in reference to his Election of them, it must therefore needs be understood in the same sense, as when he is said to be our God and we his people.  
The second Argument is this. God is a God not only to his 
§. 3.  people who are called and do believe, but to their seed, who are not called and do not yet believe. As the God of Abraham and his seed. So Act. 2. 39 The promise is to you and your children. This is the ground of Infant Baptism.  
Answ. It is not then in reference to Election that God is said to be our God and we his people, for certainly all the children of faithful Parents are not elected. 2. The children of the faithful are altogether in the same Covenant with their Parents, whiles by reason of their infant age, they are in moral consideration, ra●●er parts of their parents then divided from them by a personal subsistence of their own, as not being then able either to own or reject their Father's Covenant: Nevertheless when they come of age they must themselves answer and fulfil the conditions of the Covenant, as their Fathers did: else will God call them (as he did Israel, Hos. 1. 6, 9) Lo Ammi, & Lo Ruhama; ye are not my people, nor will I be your God; And thus I think are all those Covenants to be understood, wherein God promiseth mercy to the faithful and to their seed. God promised mercy to David and his house, yet so that thy children take heed to their way, to walk in my Law as thou hast walked before me, 2 Chron. 6. 16. and chap. 7. 17, 18, 19 God promised mercy to Abraham and his seed: by virtue of which promise he was gracious to the children that had not rebelled against him: though the same promise profited not their Parents because of their unbelief, Deut. 1. 39, 40. With Heb. 4. 1, 2. and often doth the Lord require of them to return to him, and obey his voice, that he might give them the blessings of their Father's Covenant. See Leu. 26. 40, 41, 42. Deut. 29. 12, 13. and other places innumerable. In like manner the promise is to you and your children (saith Peter) Act. 2. 39 therefore are they exhorted to repent and be baptised, that they and their children might continue the people of God, and partake in the full blessedness promised long before, and now exhibited in Christ Jesus. The same promise is left to all in the Church under the Gospel, Heb. 4. 1, 2, etc. But it concerns them to see that they do not fall short of it through unbelief, as the Apostle there speaks. The sum is, God is the God of the infants of faithful Parents (in sign whereof they are baptised.) But they when they are grown up must see that they personally fulfil the conditions of the Covenant: otherwise God remains no longer their God; unless it be external, and in regard of outward Administrations, which doth not concern our question.  
Thirdly, thus he argues. They whom the Lord hath purchased 
§. 4.  to be a peculiar people to himself, have the Lord to be their God.  
Answ. I deny this proposition. Christ purchased his wife before he made her his wife: and he purchased a people out of the hands of those Lords that ruled over them, (Sin, Satan, the Law,) and God himself as the Judge and Executioner of his Law before he made them his people. Indeed Mr. Eyre tells us a little below, that by the purchase of the blood of Christ we were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peculiar people, Tit. 2. 14. when the text says no such thing, but the just contrary. He gave himself for us that he might purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. He might as well say that by the death of Christ immediately we are made zealous of good works, or redeemed from all iniquity, that is, made to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts (for that's the meaning of those words here, as appears by their opposition to verse 12.) That which makes us a peculiar (or a choice and excellent) people is Christ's purifying us: which purifying being the effect and end of his death, is some other act then his dying for us. Compare Eph. 5. 25, 26. 2. This Argument contradicts the first. There Mr. Eyre argued that God was our God and we his people by the act of eternal election: if that be true, than the purchase of Christ is not that which immediately makes God our God and us his people. 3. The promise, that God will be our God and we his people, is no effect of Christ's death if his purchase immediately made, that God was our God and we his people; for what was already done could not be promised to be done.  
But (saith Mr. Eyre) What a man purchaseth he obtains a Legal right and propriety in, therefore the Apostle concludes from hence that we are not our own but Gods, because we are bought with a price, 1 Cor. 6. 19, 20.  
Answ. A right! Why, I doubt not but God and Christ have a right, not only by creation, but by redemption to the obedience and subjection of all the world (at least wheresoever he comes by the Gospel to challenge it) that they should not live to themselves, but should wholly addict themselves to glorify God in their souls and bodies. Otherwise let Mr. Eyre tell me how men can be said to deny the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But if this were not so, and that it were no sin in men to deny the Redeemer to be their rightful Lord (as the Apostle says he is, Rom. 14. 9) What hath Mr. Eyre gained? If I buy a piece of Land to make it a Garden an Orchard, or a Vineyard, 'tis neither of these till I have made it so. Or, if I purchase a servants freedom that I may make him my heir; some other act besides the mere purchase is necessary that he may be my heir: In like manner, if Christ purchase sinners, that he may purify them and make them his peculiar people, they are not his people, nor is he their God, merely because of his purchase. See Exod. 19 5. We shall clear all this by a distinction at the end of Mr. Eyre's Arguments.  
Mr. Eyre proceeds fourthly. We receive faith itself upon this 
§. 6.  account, because we are God's people. Ergo, God is our God before we believe. The antecedent he proves, Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba father. So. Isa. 48. 17. I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to prof●t.  
Answ. I deny the Antecedent. The proof is such as I never expected to have met with from a Scholar and a Divine. To Gal. 4. 6. I deny that the Spirit of the Son there mentioned is to be understood of faith, but of that Spirit of prayer (which includes that boldness, liberty and confidence spiritual) which God gives to them that are his Sons by faith; For we are the Sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ, saith this Apostle, not fare before chap. 3. 26. and receive the Spirit of the Son through faith, ver. 14. a Spirit given to believers, not a Spirit given to make men believers, Joh. 7. 38, 39 Rom▪ 8. 14, 15. for we are believers before we are Sons, Joh. 1. 12. as to the other text, Isa. 48. 17. I consent to Junius that the meaning is, Praesto quod mearum est partium: not that they had actually believed (which sense the very next ver. contradicts) but (as Piscator in his Scholia upon the place) because he had taught them, ea quae apta, vel comparata sunt ad prodessendum, those things which if they had observed, would have been very much for their profit and advantage.  
Fifthly, (saith Mr. Eyre.) None do or can believe and repent 
§. 7.  but they to whom the Lord doth manifest this grace; That he is their God. Erg●, the Lord is our God before we believe and repent.  
Answ. This is strange Divinity, that the soul must be assured by revelation that God is his God, before he can believe or repent. If this be true, souls are in worse condition after they have repent and believed then before: many faithful souls are groaning all their days after this manifestation of God to be their God. But what is the proof? We ch●se and love him because he chose and loved us first, Joh. 15. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 10, 19 H●●. 2. 23. And Burroughs, Rivet and Zanchy are quoted to prove, what? That God gins with us first, and makes us his people, before we owne●▪ him for our God.  
Alas, the thing to be proved is, not that God gives faith and repentance (of which there was never an● question between Mr. Eyre and me) but that he is our God and we his people▪ before he give it us: we have showed from Scripture that he gives faith that he may be our God and we his people. And if God make us his people (viz. by giving us faith and repentance) before he be our God, (which is the sense of the Authors whom Mr. Eyre quotes) have they not fairly proved his proposition, viz. That none can believe and repent but they to whom God hath manifested himself to be their God?  
His sixth and last Argument is. They to whom God is a Father 
§. 8.  and a Shepherd, have the Lord for their God. But God was our Father and Shepherd before we believed. All the Elect are the sheep and children of Jesus Christ before they believed, Joh. 10. 16. Isa. 53. 10. Heb. 2. 13. Jer. 3. 19  
Answ. I deny the assumption. Indeed the Elect are called the sheep of Christ, Joh. 10. 16. not that they were his sheep at present (for none of the qualities of sheep mentioned or not meant oned in that Chapter a gree to men dead in sin and ungodliness: and much less to men that are not: and a shepherd actually there cannot be where there are no sheep;) but proleptically from what they should be: of which manner of speech we have given many instances before from Scripture. Thus saith Abraham to his servant, Gen. 24. 4, 38. Thou shalt go unto my kindred and take a wife unto my Son Isaac. Not that she was his wife, or any man's else before he took her: but because she was to be made his wife, or she whom God had appointed for him, ver. 44. and if Abraham knowing Rebeckah, had said to his man (as is usual to be said amongst ourselves in like cases) I have a wife for my son in such a place: it would have argued no more, then that he had an intention (if he could) to make such a one his son's wife. Thus 
a Quest. super. L●v●t. cap. 23. & Hieron. in Ez●k. 30.  Augustine observes, that before the ordination and sanctification of the Priests, they are yet called by the name of Priests, Exod. 19 22. Non quia jam sacerdotes erant, sed quia futuri erant, hoc eos jam tunc Scriptura app●llavit, per anticipationem: sicut sunt pleraque talium locutionum. Name & filius Nave, Jesus appellatus est, cum longe postea hoc nomen ei Scriptura narret impositum. As to Isa. 53. 10. and Heb. 2. 13. We have spoken to them often. It should be proved, and not only said that the seed and children there mentioned are meant precisely of the Elect. As to Jer. 3. 19 But I said, how shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land— and I said, Thou shalt call me my Father, and shalt not turn away from me. Deodate giveth the true sense, viz. my will indeed is firm to re-establish you, but true conversion is the only means and necessary condition of it. God according to the order of government he hath▪ established, cannot give the inheritance of children to any but those whom he hath converted and made his children, Junius upon the place to the same purpose.  
Upon the survey of this whole dispute, I have only two things to 
§. 9  observe. 1. That whereas I have proved the words of those covenant, I will be their God, and they shall be my people, to be a promise made to them that believe; of the many places in Scripture, where those words are used, Mr. Eyre cannot find us so much as one, wherein they are applied to men that are not converted unto God. 2. His arguings from such passages of Scripture, wherein men are sometimes said to be the Lords, or to be Gods, or the Lord thy God, and the like, conclude nothing, till it be proved that such expressions imply as much and the same with those words in the Covenant, I will be their God, etc. forasmuch as men may be said to be his, and he theirs sometimes in some other sense then those words in the Covenant signify. All the earth is Gods, and all the fullness thereof, Psal. 50. 12, 10. 11. All men are his, Ez●k. 18. 4. generally, whatsoever is made by him, or used to his glory, or subject to his government, or separated more immediately to his service: as the Levites were, Numb. 3. 12. and the first borne, Exod. 13. 2, 12. or the like: these in a general sense are his. So the Lord thy God (a phrase which God often useth when he speaks to Israel) mostly signifies, the God whom they professed and externally worshipped: or at least, whom they ought to have worshipped▪ as is to be seen in places without number. Therefore it is not every sense, in which we are called his, or he ours, which will conclude him to be our God in the covenant sense, Jer, 7. 23. compared with Jer. 31. 33. where it is plainly a promise of spiritual, eternal, universal and perfect blessedness, though gradually accomplished. Accordingly, neither did I use any of the foresaid texts or phrases (though I might have used many with great advantage) to prove, either that I will be thy God, etc. contained all the blessings of the covenant on God's part, or that it is a promise made to them that believe and are converted: but those plain texts, where these words are set down syllabically, as the matter and sum of the Covenant: nor can Mr. Eyre gain any thing by the use of them, till he hath better reconciled the Scriptures to his cause.  
As to the following observation, which I had from some learned Jewish and Christian writers, viz. That God is never said to be our 
§ 10.  God in reference to his giving the first grace, but only in reference to the blessings which he promiseth to them that have faith. My memory did a little fail me in the words, but not at all in their sense. If Mr. Eyre must needs know my authors, they are 
b Upon Gen. 28. 13.  R. Solomon Jarchi, who says, that God is not in Scripture said, to be the God of any, whiles they are alive: endeavouring to prove it out of Job 15. 15. 
c It is in Tanchum fol. 13. Col. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est N●n in venimus in Scriptura, Deum nomen ejus junxisse▪ hominibus justis ●um in vivis sunt, ut scribe. retur ●eus cujus●●bet, etc. ● In Berachoth fol. 5. Col. 4  etc. and assigns a peculiar reason, why in that place of Gen. 28. 13. God saith he is the God of Isaac, whilst Isaac was yet alive. The same author doth there also repeat the words in Tanchuma (though he do not quote the place) where it is said, The holy blessed God, doth not join his name to the Saints while they are alive, but when they are dead, as it is said, to the Saints which are on the earth, etc. and to the same purpose the Jerusalem (d) Targum, though I know some of them, and particularly 
More N●▪ voch. part. 3 cap. 51  Maim●●des give a fare different reason of Gods calling himself the God of any one: though with fare less probability. As to the notion itself, I seek no more from it, then that God is called the God of a people or person, in reference to the blessedness and rewards which he gives to them, especially that of a heavenly and eternal life. And thus fare forth it is grounded on Scripture, Rev. 21. 3, 7. Otherwise I cannot conceive how our Lord concludes the resurrection from hence, that he calls himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Matth. 22. 32. and the Apostle so expounds it, Heb. 11. 16. He is not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for them a City; which place firmly shows that God is called their God, in reference to the reward of a heavenly blessedness specially, which he gave them. Mr. Eyre (whether willingly or ignorantly, himself best knows) quite mistakes the Argument from the place, as if it were no more but this, God was the God of Abraham Is●ack▪ and Jaco●, who were believers: Ergo he is not the God of any before they do believe. No. The Argument is grounded in the Apostles interpretation of the phrase: He is called their ●o●, inasmuch as he hath prepared for them a City. Nevertheless, ●f I had argued in his sense, the Argument had been strong and undeniable; for their faith is mentioned as the reason upon w●●ch God became a God unto them: as appears by the note of inference 〈◊〉 wer●f●re. Wherefore he is not ashamed to be called their God. Hence the Argument is (and let Master Fire answer it if he can) If Gods being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacoh were a consequent of their faith, then is it also a consequent of all other men's faith, or he is not the God of any other before they believe: the reason is, because he is the God of all men in the same way. Rom. 3. 29, 30. But the first is clear from the te●t; Wherefore▪ Ergo, so is the last, Mr. Eyre's parallel, if he will review it, he will acknowledge to be ridiculous and unworthy of an answer.  
And as thus, Gods being our God, is clearly made a consequent of 
§. 11.  faith, so elsewhere our being his people is made a consequent of the same faith, 1 Pet. 2. 10. In times past you were not a people, but are now the people of God.  
This (saith Mr. Eyre) is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant, and not the real participation or interest in the blessings of it.  
Rep. 1. If the words be spoken of Jews (to whom this Epistle is written, chap. 1. 1.) they were externally the people of God before: and in reference to them it must be therefore something more that is here promised then that they shall be externally the people of God. 2. If of Gentiles (whom the Apostle also includes in this promise, Rom. 9 25.) their condition had been happy, if the want of an external covenant had been the worst: and they had had right and interest in Christ and everlasting life by some Covenant internal. But all gentiles equally in their gentile state are strangers from the Covenants of promise, Eph. 2. 12. that is, have no right to any of those blessings which pertain to the household and City of God, v. 19 no more than Spaniards, or any other foreigners have a right to any of the privileges, honours, preferments of the City of London, or an Indian in America, hath right to inherit with the Son of an Englishman. 3. To be externally in covenant, is to be in covenant by visible profession: and it is opposed to him that is in covenant internally by true faith: this is the usual sense of that distinction; used by the Apostle (for substance) when he distinguisheth between: a Jew outwardly, and a Jew inwardly, Rom. 2. 28, 29 if M. Eyre have here the same sense (as he seems to ha●e, or at least willing to have) than when the Apostle says, you are now a people, and Mr. Eyre interprets him of a people only visible and external; either he supposeth that they had faith long before the time he speaks of, or that they were but hypocrites now, both which are absurd. If he use the distinction in any other sense, I know neither Scripture nor reason to justify it. 4. What manner of people they now were, and formerly had not been, is set down, v. 9 Yea are a choice generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, etc. all which they were internally (if Mr. Eyre's gloss be true) even while they were a generation of Vipers, base idolaters, a profane people, defiled with all manner of abominations: yea and multitudes, many years before they are borne: for this internal covenant is nothing else but God's election or Christ's purchase. 5. These words in Peter, are taken out of Hos. 2. 23. which text Mr. Eyre urged but even now in that very sense which here he opposeth. 6. The former part of the verse is an universal negative: you are sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not a people: Ergo, whatsoever God had done for them towards their salvation, before their conversion, was not sufficient to denominate them to be a people of God. 7. Especially when it follows, but now you are the people of God: which being the accomplishment of that promise so frequent in Scripture, they shall be my people, contains more than a promise of that, whereof a hypocrite, or a hypocritical people is as capable as themselves.    

CHAP. XVII.  
A Reply to Mr. Eyre's 21 Chapter, being a vindication of the additional Arguments proving the Covenant to be conditional.  

SECT. I.  
AT the close of my Sermon I added four brief Arguments, proving that we are not in Covenant 
§. ●.  with God be●ore we believe. The first was this, Isa. 55. 3. Come unto me (that is believe on me, Joh. 6. 35.) and I will make an everlasting covenant with you.  
Mr. Eyre answers. 1. The particle va● may be taken illatively, thus, come unto me, For I will make an everlasting covenant with you.  
Rep. 1. If this be the sense of the words, yet at first sight 'tis evident, that the rational particle for notes the following words to be a reason or motive to that act, which is here called a coming unto God, that is believing Ergo, the words still suppose that we must believe before God make a covenant with us: for his making the Covenant is proposed as the end of our coming.  
Or 2. (saith he) If we take the words as they are rendered, they are all one as if he had said, I will perform or give you all other benefits promised in my everlasting Covenant.  
Rep. This also yields the Argument, for hereby it is acknowledged that faith is required, as the means which we are to use for obtaining all other blessings of the covenant: and a means for obtaining good things by another's promise, is, formalissime, a condition: faith therefore is yielded to be the condition of obtaining pardon of sin, and all other blessings besides itself; which is that Mr. Eyre hath hitherto disputed against. What follows in this answer hath been spoken to largely already; and to what purpose it is mentioned here again I apprehend not.  
My second Argument was this. The voice of the Gospel (which 
§. 2.  is the covenant of grace) is every where, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, in opposition to the covenant of works, which saith, do this and live, Rom. 10, 5. 6, 9 This is the Covenant whereof Christ is mediator, Heb. 9 15, that they that are called (unto faith) shall receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.  
Mr. Eyre answers. The Gospel properly and strictly taken, consists neither in precepts, nor promises of the New-Testament, but in the declaration of these glad tidings, that the promises which God made unto his people in the Old-Testament, are now fulfilled.  
Rep. This is indeed a prime part of the Gospel; but no otherwise then as it tends to hold forth Christ Jesus as the only and most sufficient cause or author of salvation, to as many as will believe on him; and therefore the whole doctrine of the Gospel is summarily comprehended in this, that whosoever believes shall be saved, Mark. 1. 14, 15. and 16. 15, 16. Matth. 4. 17. 23. Heb. 4, 1, 2. Act. 20. 20, 21 and a hundred other places. If the Gospel have no precept, how are men then professedly subject to it? 2 Cor. 9 13. Or what is it to obey or not obey the Gospel? Rom. 10. 16. 2 Thes. 1. 8, 1 Pet, 4. 17. But what is the direct answer to the Argument? This.  
The command of believing; with the promise of life to believers are parts of our ministry, they are not the tenor of the Gospel or New Covenant.  
Rep. 1. A strange answer: our ministry is the ministry of the Gospel; Ergo when we command men to believe with a promise of life, we preach the Gospel: Ergo, such a command and promise are parts of the Gospel. 2. Yea, they are the sum of all we preach, if we preach no more than the Apostles, Rom. 10. 8, 9 The word of faith which we preach, and yet surely the Apostles were ministers of the New Covenant, 2 Cor. 3. Then Mr. Eyre tells us again, that the tenor of the New Covenant is, I will put my Laws into their hearts, etc. And I can but answer him again, that not the tenor, but the matter of the effects of the New Covenant are there described, Act. 5. 31. Christ is said to be exalted to give repentance, and remission of sin to Israel. Is not therefore repentance to be preached in his Name for the remission of sin? or may we not say, repent that your sins may be blotted out? To Heb. 9 15. He answers as to other texts formerly, that it describes only the persons that are saved, but not the terms or means by which they do obtain salvation. Seest thou not (Reader) how faith is denied to be so much as the means of salvation? and no more ascribed to it then to eating, drinking, sleeping, reasoning, crying, or the like, which do all of them in some degree describe the quality and condition of the persons that shall be saved? Though I confess not from that which is proper and peculiar to them; but that altars not the case. But of these things more at large before. Hitherto we have not one Scripture example of such phrase of speech, serving only for a description.  
My third Argument is this. The Covenant which is to be preacheed 
§. 3.  to every man, and every man called upon to fulfil the conditions of it (namely faith) that he may receive the blessings of it, is not an absolute promise. The Covenant of grace is to be preached to every man, and every man called upon to fulfil the conditions of it, that he may receive the blessings of it; Ergo, I have put it thus into form, because Mr. Eyre quarrels at the form. He yields,  
That the Gospel or Covenant of grace ought to be preached to every creature, Mark 16. 15. Matthew 28. 19 But denies that the absoluteness of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching; Because to preach the Gospel is no more then, 1. To publish that the Son of God is come to save men from their sins. 2. To press and exhort all men to believe on him. 1. With the assent of their minds. 2. With the embraces of the heart: to trust, rely, and roll themselves upon him, for all the purchases of his death, and in so doing, confidently to expect the fruition of them.  
Rep. Here are words enough: but whether they tend, I can scarcely see. I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres. 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man? If there be n●t; what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man? It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing: the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this, that it is the promise of the inheritance, G●l. 3. 18. If there be; whether that promise be absolute or conditional? If the former, every man shall be saved: if the latter, the cause is yielded. If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the form of promises, we might understand him better. If I tell a man then, that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sins, do I promise him any thing or no? If I do, let's know what it is, for my part I profess I cannot imagine: if not, I would ask. 2ly. Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ, or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christ's death? if we do, we press men to the performance of a condition; for a means used by us to obtain a benefit by another's promise, is a condition, as we have often observed: if not, whether the soul do not believe it, knows not why nor wherefore? Paul gives a better reason of his faith, Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we have believed. But more of this by and by. In the mean time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully, that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises; and that after so long a dispute, that it is an absolute promise.  
I said in the minor, that every man is pressed to fulfil the conditions 
§. 4.  of the Covenant, that he may obtain the blessings of it, and so says the Apostle, Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entering into his rest, let us fear l●st we fall short of it, viz. by unbelief, v. 2, 3. No (says Mr. Eyre) The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession, by a similitude taken from foolish racers, etc.  
R●p. As who should say, it is not faith, but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise. The promise mentioned is of such constitution, as that our obtaining or not obtaining it, is suspended upon our believing or not believing: so that if we believe; we obtain it, v. 3. if we believe not, we lose it; (as the unbelievers in Israel lost Canaan) v. 2. and chap. 3. 19 If a racer lose the Crown, because he gives over before he comes to the goal, than his running to the goal, was the condition of his obtaining the Crown, if it be obtained by virtue of another's promise.  
The major I cleared by several questions. 1. Whether there be 
§. 5.  an absolute promise made to every man, that God will give him grace?  
No (saith Mr. Eyre) yet the general promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith: forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners.  
Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith: because faith doth not receive itself. But the covenant which is to be preached to every man, is the promise of that good which faith receives: (for the covenant and the promise, are all one in Scripture, Gal. 3. 17, 18, 21.) Ergo, the absolute promise is not the Covenant.  
I asked, 2ly. Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of God's Covenant, or to enter into Covenant with God, if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on God's part? Mr. Eyre says yes. For to lay hold of the Covenant, is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners, and to resolve not to be beaten off, etc.  
Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language, is to join ourselves to the Lord (which is done internally by faith:) Isa. 56. 4, 5, 6. hereby do we obtain the promises there mentioned: for, by faith we obtain the promises, Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joining ourselves to the Lord, were not to take hold of his Covenant, it his Covenant did not require ●s to join ourselves to him: much less could we be said thereby (more than by any other act) to obtain the promises of his Covenant, if the said Covenant did not require this our joining as a means for that end. It is not only presumption, but naturally impossible, for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God, without a promise and a command to lay hold of it. But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant, which itself promiseth to give the very first act of faith: nor can they be commanded so to do. As to the other phrase of entering into Covenant, Mr. Eyre understands it of men's visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people. But that giving up of a man's self to God is surely an act of the heart: though a man may also with his mouth profess it: and hereby we are admitted, not into a Covenant of our own, but into God's Covenant: Ergo, his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise, because we cannot by any act of our own be admitted into that.  
I asked farther, whether, if the Covenant be an absolute promise, 
§. 6.  men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel? was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death, for not being the objects of an absolute promise? Mr. Eyre answers. The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ. Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose, himself acknowledgeth in his next words. Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent, and not the cause of their destruction. We seek therefore an answer. That's this, formally the cause of their damnation is not their nonbeing the objects of Gods absolute promise, but their disobedience to the command of God, viz. of believing. Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to believe? If it doth, it is not an absolute promise: if it doth not, their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant (in which yet the Apostle placeth the heinousness of the sin, Heb. 10. 29.) and therefore is not necessarily damning: for it is not any sin against the Law, but that which is called a putting from us the word of life, Act. 13. 46. a neglect of so great salvation, Heb. 2. 3. a refusing of him that speaketh from Heaven, Heb. 12. 25. which is peremptorily and remedi●essely damning. But if they are commanded to believe, I would know what? The promises of mercy to wretched sinners (saith Mr. Eyre) which all men are commanded to believe, both assensu intellectus & amplexu voluntatis.  
Answ. 1. The soul cannot embrace, or be commanded to embrace that good which is not offered it in a promise: no more than the eye can see, or the ear can hear, or the tongue can taste; without an object to be seen, or heard, or tasted. The question then still remains, what promise it is wherein that mercy is offered which all men are bound to embrace under pain of damnation? Is it absolute, or conditional? If the latter; the cause is again yielded. Not the former. 1. Because absolute promises offer no mercy to all men, but only declare what God will do to some men, and what is not off●●ed to all, neither can nor may be embraced by all. 2. 'Tis a contradiction, that a promise of mercy should be absolute, and yet m●● be bound to embrace it under pain of damnation. So that hitherto I cannot see any cause of damnation on man's part, in respect 〈◊〉 unbelief, if the Covenant be absolute: nor do I everexpect that Mr. Eyre or any man else should be able to declare it. 
§. 7.   
My last Argument was this. If the Covenant of grace be an absolute promise, than none but wicked and ungodly men are in Covenant with God. The sum of the reason is, because none else are capable of all the blessings of the absolute promise; whereof conversion itself is no small part. This Mr. Eyre owns. Against him I oppose. If men are required to convert unto God, that he may give them the blessings of his Covenant, than they that are converted are more capable of the blessings of the covenant, than they that live in sin and ungodliness. But men are required to convert unto him, that he may give them the blessings of his covenant: for the subjects of covenant-blessings are not the wicked, but the godly, Neh. 1. 5. Levit. 26. 3, 9, 40, 41, 42. Psal. 106. 4. 5. and 111. 5, 9 Deut. 7. 12. 2 Chron. 7. 17, 18. And from this Mr. Eyre (if he please) may rectify the mistake of his second answer.  
Upon the whole debate, I remain much more confident than before, 
§. 8.  that I spoke nothing contrary to truth or soberness, when I said of my Sermon, that something might be said to it, but nothing could be answered: whereof I am content that any man be judge, who acknowledgeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and can read English. And to those farther observations, which Mr. Eyre hath pleased himself in making upon the conclusion of my Sermon, I shall exercise so much self-denial as to forbear a reply, till my time and paper lie upon my hands.    
FINIS   

A Catalogue of some books printed for, and sold by ●amund Paxton, over against the Castle Tavern, near to the Doctor's Commons  
THe holy Ar●●●, containing the body of Divinity, or the sum and substance of Christian Religion; for the benefit and delight of such as thirst after righteousness; wherein also are fully resolved, the questions of whatsoever point of moment have been, or are, now controverted in Divinity, By John Godolphin, J. C. D. fol.  
The holy Lymbic or A Semicentury of spiritual extractions: wherein the spirit is extracted from the letter, of certain eminent places in the holy Scriptures. By John Godolphin, J. C. D. 12ᵒ.  
The Temple measured, or a brief survey of the Temple mystical, which is the instituted Church of Christ, wherein is solidly and modestly discussed, most of the material questions touching the constitution and Government of the visible Church, militant here on earth, etc. By James Noyes of New- England. 4o.  
The visions and prophecies of Daniel expounded, wherein the mistakes of former interpreters are modestly discovered, and the true meaning of the text made plain by the words and circumstances of it, By Thomas Parker of New- England. 4o.  
A copy of a letter, written by Thomas Park●r, to his Sister Mrs. Elizabeth Averey: touching sundry opinions, by her professed and maintained, in 4ᵒ.  
A precept for the baptism of Infants out of the New-Testament, where the matter is first proved from three several Scriptures, that there is such a word of command, secondly it is vindicated, as from the exceptions of the separation, by Nathani●l Stephen's Minister of Feny Drayton in Leicester shire, 4ᵒ.  
A brief and excellent treatise, containing the Doctrine of godliness or a living unto God, wherein the body of Divinity is substantially proposed, and metaphorically digested by way of Question and Answer, by Mr. John Norton of New- England, 8.  
The Quakers principles Quaking: or a pretended light proved darkness, and perfections found to be greatest imperfections, by Ralph Hall, 4ᵒ.  
England's complete Law-Judge and Lawyer, by Charles-George, Cock, one of the Judges of the High-Court of Admiralty of England, and also of the Court for Probate of Wills, and granting Administrations, 4ᵒ.  
Church-Members set in joint, or a discovery of the unwarrantable and disorderly Practice of private Christians, in usurping the peculiar office and work of Christ's own pastors, namely public preaching, 4ᵒ.  
Justification by faith, or a confutation of that Antinomian error, that Justification is before faith, being the sum and substance of a Sermon preached at Sarum; both by Benjamin Woodbridge in 4ᵒ.