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 then 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 then 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. Eyres 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 remaines 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 duenesse of punishment which may arise either from the nature of sin in it self 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 it selfe punishable or worthy of punishment even as on the contrary vertue is in it self 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. Eyres 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 before-hand 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 adde this That according to Mr. Eyres 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 protasâ—s of the similitude is a debt between man and man is a sinners 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 carcasse of unrighteousnesse 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 Ergâ— he doth never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment nor is ever actually and formally indebted And whose debt then it was that Christ paid or what debts they are which we are to pray for forgivenesse of Matth. 6. 12. I must confesse 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 adde 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. Eyres 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 then 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 himselfe also as Lord of soules and having all judgement committed to him by the Father joynes 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 compleat 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 freedome from punishment I think for my part it is beyond mans ability to invent or utter more palpable contradictions To be secured from wrath and not secured acquitted
not have saved him without his reading and much lesse would his reading have saved him without that favourable Law yet his life is a thousand fold more worth then 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 farme 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 sadnesse doth Mr. Eyre think the welch man speaks §. 25. properly in his God blesse 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 fancie and surprizeth k See Sie râ—de la Câ—ambre Charact. of the Passions ch 4. of laughter p. 210. the soule so moving laughter And what can that deformity be except the welch idiome 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 welch man cried as he was bid God blesse the King and the Judge the propriety of the speech had spoiled the jest and deprived it of that facetiousnesse 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 then a condition But the serious judgement of all offendors who escape death by this means and the wisdome of our statâ— 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 welch mans word It is true indeed the Law nor the Judge could save him unlesse he read nor will God save us unleâ—â—â— we believe Heb. 3. 19. They could not enter in because of unâ—eliâ—f Not through defect of power or mercy in God which are both inâ—inâ—te 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 sayes It is of faith that it might be of grace Rom. 4. 16. In that which followes I finde nothing which is not answered already §. 26. or must not be answered in due place for whereas Mr. Eyre sayes 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 then it selfe 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 magick of the fancie 'T is but willing a pin to be worth a pound and it shall be done And when he addes 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 shewed before both from Reason and Scripture Divines and Lawyers that some kinde 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 worthlesse 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 beleever but the beleever 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 Gods 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. Mens 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 wilde reasoning And as to worthy Dr. Kendal out of whom Mr. Eyre quotes these passages he hath publickly enough and in Mr. Eyres 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 then he must concurre 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 influxe 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 it selfe 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
Gentiles through faith but how it should follow from hence that the Gentiles or any sinners else were reconciled to God immediately upon the deâ—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 deaths 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 c. See also D Godwin in Rom. 8. 34. sect 5. p 171 after the Gospel had been preached for surely some yeares after the death of Christ if the Jewes 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 forme 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 glosse 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 meanes and cause by which they should be reconciled when they believed and not before the death of Christ effecting this immediatly That notwithstanding all their sins yet there lies not on them a remediles necessity of perishing but that if they shall beleeve 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 â—â—q 49. art 1. ad 3 m. Christus in suâ passione nos liberavit causaliter id est instituens causam nostrae liberationis ex qua possent quaecunque pâ—ocata quandoque remitti vel praeterita vel praesentia vel futura Siout si medicus faciat medicinam ex quâ pâ—ssent quâ—â—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 addes And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ aâ— though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled unto God If we were reconciled in the death of Christ quoad effectum to what purpose are Ambassadours 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 â—ay aside the enmity of their hearts against God and returne to him by faith in his Sonne Jesus Christ Answ Most truly if one word more be added namely that we exhort men to beleeve 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 â—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 expresse its significancy It denotes properly not our act of reconciling our selves 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 â—â—married or be reconciled to her hâ—sband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant of her laying aside of enmity against her husband but of her â—sing meanes to obtain the favour and affection of her hâ—sband that he may be reconciled to her So Matth 5. 24. Be reconciled to thy Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant properly of a mans reconciling himself to his brother but of doing what he can to gain his brothers good affection to him In the like sense doth Peter use another word Acts 2. 40. Save your selves from this untoward generation In the Greek the verbe 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 sayes here Be ye reconciled unto God he exhorts us indeed unto faith not as that by which we reconcile our selves to God but as that by which we partake in Gods 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 Ministery 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 shew us that to depend insâ—parably and to depend immediately are all one
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 debtour 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 Si quid possessor ff de Pet. Haered l. Papin ff Maâ—d civil Law If the payment of the surety do presently discharge the debtour it is because he agrees with the creditour that the payment which he makes shall be accepted for the present and immediate discharge of the debtour which is the second thing I beganne to mention before and shall now farther explaine 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 Gods 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 debtour for Christs satisfaction was admitted that our obligation might he destroyed by the intervening act of God the supream Governour of mankind Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation that he may be the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Moreover Christ being not a sinner but a surety and his payment not the payment of the principal debtour 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. Eyres second exception viz. That Christs payment is lesse efficacious then if we had paid our selves if we be not thereby discharged presently because Christs 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 greatnesse of the effect which could not be wrought by any meer 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 beleeve we carry the cause by Mr Eyres owne 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 downe so peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proofe 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 â— 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 yeelds that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Sonne the discharge obtained in Christs 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 denyed it were easie 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 performe with a promise that if it be performed he will yeeld the cause and that is to shew that it was the will of the Father and of the Sonne that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do beleeve For proofe of this I quoted the words of the Lord Jesus wherein §. 36. he gives us an account both of his own and his Fathers will in this matter Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life To which Mr. Eyre answers This Text and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit thâ—y that beleeve Rep. An answer which lets me see something of what the wit of man can do in darkening plaine 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 then a jury of Arguments in â—hap 5. 8. two places and therefore here I shall speak but briefly to it 1. Iâ— this and the like Texts do only shew â—â—o are the persons that have the enjoyment of Christs benefits namely beleevers then either they shew that beleevers as such in seâ—s◠〈◊〉 are the subjects of that life which is here promised and then I have what I would have for if men as beleevers are the subjects of this life then the prooâ—â—s full that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are beleevers much lesse before they are borne and least of all at the time of the death of Christ nor was it the will of the Father or of the Sonne that they should so do Or the meaning is that the persons who enjoy this life are such whose property and priviledge it is to be beleevers some time or other sooner or later though they may not be beleevers when they first begin to partake therein and so they are described à câ—nsâ—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 shew 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 yeeld him the cause at lest so farre 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 least he become guilty of that which he doth elsewhere groundlesly charge upon me I meane of attempting to suborne the spirit to serve his own turne 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 threatned How many hundreds of times are such sentences in Scripture As for example Matth. 5. 22. Whosoever is
Argument is this The Covenant between God §. 2. and Christ was that upoâ— giving up himselfe to death he should purchase a seede like the starres of Heaven Isaiah 53. 10. Answ What 's the inference Ergo it was the Will of God that Christs death should be avâ—â—able to their immediate reconciliation Can any man divine how this inference follows especially when it is against the expresse letter of the text which I wonder Mr. Eyre would take no notice of v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righâ—â—â—us sâ—â—vâ—nt justifie many And for the other text which follows Hâ—â— 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. Eyrâ— had yielded it a thing possible for such an agreement to have passed between the Father and the Sonne 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 passe between the Father and the Sonne as it is most certain it did then must this Argument needs be inconsequent which infers the actual and immediate freedome 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 debtour In the mean time I except 1. Against the confused use of those two termes payment and satisfaction which in this Argument ought to be distinguished the former noting such a payment as is of the thing it self in the obligation the latter a payment refusable 2. That the will of God is here made the cause of Christs death being a satisfaction in which though I beleeve 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 Christs offering which made it a satisfaction as the will of God who would accept it as satisfactory 3. But to the Argument it self That Christ paid our debt is an ambiguous expression either it signifies 1. That he was punished for our sins and so paid that summe 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 Atturnies that pay and receive monies or transact businesse in our name and Ambassadours whom Princes send into forraigne Nations or by the authority of Law as what Tutors do in the name of their Pupills 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 then his payment was more properly our Act then his own we our selves have satisfied merited and redeemed our selves which a Christians eares can never endure Now to apply the distinction When Mr. Eyre sayes that Christs death was the payment of our debts if he mean it in the former sense of what is â—quivalentèr the payment of our debt I deny his proposition If he mean it in the latter sense of what is our debt subjectivè I deny his assumption and say that it was never the will of God that Christs death should in this sense be the payment of our debt And the phrases of Scripture which declare that Christ dyed for us and for our sins do indeed well prove the former that Christ was substituted in our roome 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 then those words a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 2. 22. Archelaus reigned in the roome 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 Christs satisfying in our names and in our person as meaning no more then 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 delictâ— 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 then satisfaction for our debt The proposition is most faulty and that which I deny The proofe of it is this It is contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is payed 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 sate downe at the right hand of God for ever Neverthelesse the sinner who is obliged ex delicto is not freed in the sureties discharge unlesse it be proved that the surety made payment with this b Videl Cassiâ—s 16 l. quoties 37. â—â—f de silut
Indeed it were ridiculous to suppose that God should make any action which is wholly and immediately from himselfe the condition of any blessing he gives as that he should promise to glorifie us upon condition he raise us from the dead to raise us upon condition he justifie us to justifie 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 beleeve and not God though he make us to beleeve 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 Neverthelesse 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 Gods power and providence did they move from place to place Hundreds of like instances are obvious One thing more Mr. Eyre addes 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 controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs 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 sayes in the place mentioned Meritorious causes saith he do actually ipso facto produce all those effects which immediâ—tâ—ly slow from them not in an immediation of time but of causality I doubt not but the death of Christ hath in its kinde 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 perswaded 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 aime at As to the second thing that then all the controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs 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 Christs Purchase and Gods special purpose of giving faith to some the same faith as it is a voluntary act of ours may not by Gods Will of Precept be made the condition of our partaking in righteousnesse and reconciliation by the death of Christ This is the thiâ—g which Mr. Eyre should have disproved if he had intended his Argument should have concluded any thing We have already shewed 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 adde any thing more The Lord Jesus hath put the matter out of Question to me John 6. 39 40. And this is the Fathers 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 seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I wil raise him up at the last day The former verse declares his own and his fathers special Will to save the elect The latter that yet the condition of beleeving 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 Christs sake forgive any mans sin as the Apostle saith he doth Eph. 4. 32. the reason is plain because it was not for Christs sake that himself was punished Our pardon is not the effect of Christs 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 Pauls 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 lyen 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 nonpâ—nition and by way of influence it can do nothing because
e Epist â—â— the Reader page 1 2. â—â—bi pâ—ssion staturâ— not excepted All which things trouble me the lesse because I have such companions in these reproaches as I do not dare to compare my self with the meanest of them As not only Mr. Cranford Mr. Baxter my brother but all that stand in his way that is the maine 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 meteth to all that cannot vaile 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. Eyres 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 publick 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 Councel of War before his Sermon Tithes that if they be sold he might adde some of them to his former Purchases or if they be put into a publick 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 unlesse he were able to prove it better then I am sure Mr. Eyre can prove his charge against my brother He findes fault with my brothers argument because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia and yet is his own practice faultlesse in judging of that which the Church may not judge of I mean the intentions of a mans heart It concernes not me to praise my brother his own innocency in many yeares 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. Eyres language as to give him an answer but content without envying Mr. Eyre his great yearly revenews to serve God with chearfulnesse in his poverty only for his arguments Mr. Eyre hath taken them up upon trust which was not faire dealing and his informer hath misrepresented them I had them and a Vindication of them under my brothers 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 it selfe growen 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 my self 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 Socinianisme that his denial of the elect to be at any time punished for their sin is i Calv. instr advers Lib â—tiâ— cap â—4 pag. mihi 181. Libertinisme as also that God is well pleased with some men in the midst of all their ungodlinesse That his denying of the k Chap 1 § 1. p. â—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 Christs satisfaction n Page 122. That sinners have no more right to salvation after their beleeving then before with many other Paradoxes of like complexion are Anti-Gospelism and may for ought I know out-vie the most pernicious doctrines amongst the Romanists As for his other charge of Arminianisme the Lord knowes 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 Neverthelesse I am altogether proselyted to renowned Bp. Davenants judgement concerning the extent and effects of the death of Christ if that be Arminianisme especially since I read Daylee's late Vindication of Amyrald against Spanhemius And the chief reason that enclines 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 alledgeth 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 Grandfathers book De descensu Christi ad inferos it hath been already so cleared both by Mr. Warren and Mr. Baxter that I am perswaded if Mr. Eyre were to write his book again he would quit the hold he takes on those words Much lesse would he have declared so tragically against me as if I had no lesse then justified my Grandfathers persecutors in all their injurious and unworthy dealings 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 lesse 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 sonne my Reverend and much honoured Uncle Mr. Thomas Parker vir omni exceptione major who hath taught me long
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 possesse 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 Jewes 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 finde mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. which questionlesse is meant of the day of judgement of which himselfe also speaks a little before ver 12. I am perswaded 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 righteousnesse 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 Dâ—od Eng. Annot in loc which having allusion to the custome of the Romanes in judgement condemning by a black stone and absolving by a white doth therefore signifie 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 meâ— 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 §. â— God in the Question 1. As it signifies Gods 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 meer 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 himselfe rejects two as impertinent to the matter in hand and yet states his answer thus If we take Gods sight in the last construction viz. for his making us to see then we are not justified in Gods sight before we believe 2. If we referre 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 referre it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himselfe not to impute to us our sins c. As who should say If you take Gods sight in such a sense in which it is never taken in all the Scripture by Mr. Eyres 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 then so If some other senses of the sight of God as when it signifies his favour his assistance his approbation and witnessing c. had been set down that we might have known when we are justified in Gods sight in those senses it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question As first to tell us that Gods sight doth never signifie his knowledge in the matter of Justification and then to adde in the same breath that to be justified in Gods 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 Gods knowledge for surely he knows both these no lesse then his Purpose and Determination within himselfe 3. We shall see by and by that Mr. Eyre maintaines that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to sinners by the eternal Act of Gods 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 justifie us in his legal justice and yet not by imputing the righteousnesse 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 justifie us but if he know that then 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 sinne unto his people 2. For the effect of Gods 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 grosse mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression As 1. That absurd conceit that Christ
told them If Christ were not risâ—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 sayes Mr. Eyre 4. Our preaching is vain for we are to preach to every creature under Heaven That except they beleeve 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 Gods fore-knowledge Mr. Eyre is better read in Dr. Twisse then to be ignorant of what inextricable inconveniences that answer is liable to But let us heare Mr. Eyres proofes of his Assumption God saith he loved the Elect from everlasting and his love is velle dare bonum c. 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 ruine of Christs 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-pleasednesse 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 unlesse it be to finde 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 Politick and Church-State who were originally the fewest and meanest of all people and in a spiritual sense is the life which he breaths into sinful soules But what Mr. Eyre would inferre from hence himselfe best knows In short I readily grant that Gods eternal love doth concurre 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 Gods velle non punire is that act by which we are discharged and acquitted from sin and secured from wrath I wish he had shewed me how this Conclusion issues from these premisses His Argument in forme must run thus Gods eternal love discharges the Elect from sin and secures them from wrath Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods eternal love is a sinners discharge from sin Gods velle non punire is part of his eternal love Ergo. If the major be true Gods purpose of giving Christ of calling sinners of sanctifying them yea of afflicting them and of administring 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 least verbo tenus that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish the Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others If this be true then the eternal act of Gods Election in it selfe 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. Eyres second proof and that is from §. 10. Scripture Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods 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 Gods 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. Eyres 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 Gods Elect if of the Act then the Elect were from eternity unchargeable and whose charge then did Christ beare and why doth Mr. Eyre all along tell us that our discharge from the curse is the fruit of Christs merits yea and what more as to the tâ—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
just the effect which follows upon it is that we shall therefore be saved from wrath It seemes 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 Christs 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 lesse then 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 himselfe 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 then he was before unlesse some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects This mindes 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 expresly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us in that it abounds and is powerful to justifie 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 shew 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 vertue 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 it self shall suffice Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testifie 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. Eyres 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 transgressour is unjust but being considered at the Tribunal of grace and cloathed with the righteousnesse 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 lesse any inherent difference c. Answ These words are mysteries to me and I confesse have occasioned §. 19. me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts then 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 our selves may be understood in a threefold sense 1. Positively and then the meaning is that for the sin of nature or for mens sinfulnesse in themselves they stand obliged before God to the suffering of eternal punishment This is so far from being Mr. Eyres meaning that I suppose
believe c. Answ I am sure he knows that many famous Protestants assert this as well as I and we shall see proof sufficient of it in due place and of the last also that none were to have any benefit by the death of Christ till they beleeve But Mr. Eyre takes special notice of one passage in this Argument §. 38. wherein I say that neither Justification in conscience nor before men are of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large answer § 11. which I am apt to think he would have taken no notice of but to acquaint the world with his good wishes concerning me He refers me to some texts of Scripture to learn what account the Apostle had of Justification before men and in conscience though I cannot learn what account he had of the former from any of the texts mentioned But be it what it will be I give him this brief reply That in comparison of Justification before God neither the one nor the other are much worth though they may be of some worth in these inferiour Judicatories Not only children but grown persons for ought I know may be saved without being justified of men or of their own consciences And I will never beleeve that that Justification is worthy of those many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Justification by faith which one may live and die without and yet be saved Who will prove to me convincingly that a Christian may not live many years and die at last in melancholy or madnesse under which distempers the judgement of men or of conscience is not much valued and yet be saved or that a soul may not for some grievous sin go with sorrow and darknesse to the grave and never see light till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light CHAP. V. An Answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter whether faith be the condition of Justification The Affirmative proved from Scripture Mr. Eyres Arguments to the contrary all invalid SECT I. TO Mr. Eyres Argument That if we were justified by §. 1. faith we were not purely passive in our Justification I gave this answer That to beleeve is a formal vital act of thesoul in genere physico but the use of it in Justification is to qualifie 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 joyne 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 Arminianisme Here therefore I shall shew three things 1. What a condition is 2. That faith according to Scripture is the condition of Justification 3. That all Mr. Eyres Arguments §. 2. to the contrary are most miserably inconclusive A condition then is diversly described by divers Authours Some describe it thus a Navar. Enâ—hâ—r page â—8 Conditiâ— est suspensio ali cujus dispositioniâ— tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Others thus b Baldus apud Joh. Baptist in verb Conditio est adjectio quaedam per quam dispâ—situm habet in sui esse pendentium existentiam vel defectum Others thus c Pet. de Perus ibid. Est verbâ—rum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam dâ—â—ponens vult dispositum regulari d In L. 1. F. de â—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 pertaines 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 righteousnesse to a sinner is so plain and evident to me that I confesse 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. de cond Demonstr Azor. Inst Moral par 3. l. 4. c. 24. Civilians and Moralists as signes or notes of a condition and scarcely one can I finde 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 righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved That salvation here includes Justification appears from the very next words ver 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse And I appeal to common sense whether the particle If in this place be not a manifest signe of a condition upon which Justification is suspended or whether it be possible for mortal men to invent any words that can more plainly expresse 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 vertue 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
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 then a condition without which we are not justified if it be he doth ill to talke of my putting faith in the same kinde of cause with Christs 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 then I of advancing faith beyond its due place 3. By faith we concur to our own Justification not causally but objectively terminativè 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 influxe 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 minde 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 c. 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 Authours 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 c. Take works as they are opposed to faith whereof the words quoted are an uncontrollable evidence If Mr. Eyre had shewed 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 roote 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 qualifie 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 fâ—fth book of the Digests De Conditionibus Demonstrationibus Causis Modis eorum quae in Testamento scribuntur Which the f Dyon Gotho â—red Not. in hunc tit Wâ—semb paratit in eund Cujac l. 2. observ c 39. G. Tholos Syâ—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 dâ—pingit Conditio suspendit transmissionem legati c. Which differences they fetch out of the Law it selfe 3. If all conditions be causes then 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 meerly casual should be the cause of a giâ—t is that which the h Vide P. Nic. Moz de contract c. 2. de do nat p. 141. Ratio est quia cum conâ—itio dependet à caâ—u fortuito non censetur donaâ—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 summe with a Proviso that if he die before the age of twenty one then 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 meerly 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 meerly casual or voluntary And therefore when Mr. Eyre sayes 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 then 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 confesse his fault he will pardon him 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 shewed 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 then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour 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 yeares 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 unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew 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 Sonne not of our actual and compleat 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 Christs 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 then being justified now by his blood c. 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 expressely separated from the time of Christs 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 shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past 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 then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 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 Sonne 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 it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes 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 vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde 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 mens 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 vertue 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 confesse 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 yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
of the same kinde 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 Gods 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 Gods permission and commandment they might hear it Christ hath abolished death 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely he is the authour 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 c. Psal 19. 7 8. converting making wise rejoycing the heart enlightening the eyes all which do not so much signifie the act as the vertue 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 vertue 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 beleeved 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 termes 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 meer supplement or redundancy Psal 39. 7. sometimes a note of transition as when it is said Now it came to passe 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 mens being converted Rom. 6. 19 21 22. and 1â— 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 our selves 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 signifie 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 shewed 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 meanes by which he may returne 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 â—â—â—mes as himself shall propose 3. As. the same Will of God may be considered after an intercession on Christs part and faith on the sinners 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 extreamly grosse and why forsooth because it makes God changeable But as grosse 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 unlesse Christ be dead in vaine 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 shew how God may be first a friend then an enemy then reconciled without any variablenesse or shadow of changing in himselfe and then shall adde 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
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 c. 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 shew in this verse what justifieth but what are the exercises of godlinesse in which Christians must be occupied And he doth not shew how faith justifieth but how it may be discerned to be true faith namely by love But neither doth this intend any thing more then to shew 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 Kingdome 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 Sonne hath life he that hath not the Sonne hath not life Mr. Eyre answers He doth not say that all who have not faith except final vnbelievers have not the Sonne or any beneâ—t by him Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true 1. Life doth here signifie all that blessednesse 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 Sonne for to have the Sonne is to believe on him Ergo he that believeth not hath not the Sonne nor any benefit by him That we have the Sonne 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 Sonne 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 Sonne the same hath not the Father but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne hath the Father also suitable to what this John records in his Gospel chap. 12. 44 45. He that beleeveth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me And more expressely 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 Sonne 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 justifie 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 Sonne hath life even that eternal life whereof he spake in the verse immediately foregoing If the Son may be had without believing then eternal life may be had without believing also wherefore we winde up the Argument If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Sonne till by believing he had the Sonne then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did beleeve The reason is because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne 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 adde 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 beleeve 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 Inseriâ— fidem ut doceat fidem esse conditionem sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium Dav. 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 kinde 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 â—ffectum in the blood of Christ till we beleeve Again the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne 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 Christs offering himselfe for them and bearing their iniquities but not before their faith but through it ver 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie 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 beleeve 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 beleeve even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical but supposed on the offendors part the concurrence of some act as a Lev. 5. 5. câ—nfession b Chap. 23. â—9 30. humiliation c â—b 1. 4 3 2 â—assim laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice d Lâ—v. â— 16. â—ide Joma Peâ—râ—k 8 8 â— or the like signifying that faith by which sinners should be justified when Christ the true sacrifice should
similitude So saith he the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods 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 then non-sense 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 enjoyned 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 Christs 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 beleeve 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 then it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousnesse 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 Adams 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 fâ—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 lawfull to inferre that men are actually dead before they are borne Nothing lesse 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 unborne 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 soone as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam His offence tainted the blood and according to Gods 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 onely notes a virtue or power in him productive of us positis omnibus ad agâ—ndum requisitis So to sin or be guilty in him is not to sin or be guilty simply but onely 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 Adams guilt till he be borne a child of Adam so none partake in the righteousnesse 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 mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous which words were written many years after Christs death and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christs 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 Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse to their respective subjects for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind as the Apostle shews Rom. 5. 14. and so farre forth they agree both communicating their effects to their children Adam sin and death to his natural children Christ righteousnesse and life to his spiritual children yet the same Apostle in the same place shews 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 Gods 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 raigne 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 righteousnesse of God that he might be thâ— justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus But the effects of Adams 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 Gods part or on our part but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment But
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 needlesse 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 Christs 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 then 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 my self 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 denyed 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 sate down as having finished that work Heb. 10. 12. Ans The former place according to the original saies no more then that Christ in his death made a purge of our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more then we have often yeelded that Christ hath made a plaister in his own blood for the curing of our wounds that is in dying he performed that righteousnesse 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 addes that he afterwards sate down as having â—inished 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 brâ—thron that he might be a mercifull 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 succour 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 Christs death hath perfected us quoad meritum not quoad efficaciam The death of Christ saith the l Dr. Godwin in Rom. 8. â—4 sect 5. pag. 177. Author often commended was perfect for an oâ—lation to which as such nothing can be added there needed no more nor any other price to be paid for us But hence to inferre 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 foot-stoole 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 explaines himself Heb. 4. 14 15 16. and in this very chapter v. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the truth there râ—mains 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 compleat as to the forgivenesse 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 compleatnesse in Christ to the forgivenesse of our sins nor doth he say that we were made compleat in his death but rather in his exaltation And ye are compleat in him who is the Head of all principality and power His scope is to roote 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 compleat in Christ saith the Apostle or be ye content with Christ as the words will beare to be rendred 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. Eyres 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 beleeving The former in short
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 then a paterne of our release Rep. More then a patern 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 entred 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 tearms 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 no where His third Argument chargeth high magnis tamen excidit ausis §. 6. take it at large If Christ were only a patern and example of our justification then 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 patern of our justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed Rep. 1. This the charge this the proofe But because M. Eyre is so carelesse of what he speaks let us see whether the matter be mended according to his own principles He then 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 tearm and should have been described more plainly then 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 summe 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 then 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 then 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 our selves 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. Eyres 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. Eyres Argument if it may so be called I deny his consequence §. 7. as evident as it is and the proofe of it To the former I say that Christs resurrection was his discharge from his own obligation which he voluntarily undertooke to suffer and satisfie for our sins and therein he became the exemplary cause of a like discharge which should follow on them that beleeve from that obligation which comes upon them involuntarily and necessarily because of sin To the proof I say that Christs 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 beare 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 mens 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 tearm 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 tearm of an
into covenant If the assumption be denyed we confirme it diversly 1. From the plaine 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 darknesse and slavory of a sinful condition into the way of life Jude v. 5. that he might be their God Lev. 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 obtaine that which was promised to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt though they obtained it not because they continued not in Gods 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. c. Where the writing of Gods 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 obtaine for herein lay the imperfection and faultinesse of that covenant that they brake 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 referre 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 mans part for his entrance into covenant Let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it and first in generall from § 4. downward First he excepts against the fitnesse of my expression in calling our conversion the first grace which he saith is more properly spoken nf Gods eternall love or of Christ himself Answ But the question is onely 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. c. 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 holinesse 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 Gods Laws in our heart c. Then shall I also deny that faith in Christ is herein promised but onely a greater measure of grace to them that beleeve 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 it self 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 cleane water upon you and you shall be cleane from all your filthinesse and from all your Idâ—ls 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 expressely opposed to their defiling themselves with Idols chap. 37. 23. Neither shall they dâ—file themselves any more with Idols But I will cleanse them and that for this end that he might be their God Which by Mr. Eyres own acknowledgment 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 feare me for ever for the good of them and of their children after them to which I adde the next verse v. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turne away from them to do them good c. Here indeed it cannot be denyed but that Gods giving a heart to feare him is mentioned after the promise of forgivenesse 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 turne away from us to do us good Ergo it is promised for this end that he may be our God because as we have shewed before for God to be our God is all one as to be our benefactor and to do us good Wherefore this verse followes the former in place or writing not in dependance declaring the way which God will take that he may be our God namely by putting his feare into our hearts and so advanceth what Master Eyre would prove from it by overthrowing it Secondly He utterly denyes that the giving of a new heart is §. 5. promised as a means on mans part for his entrance into covenant For 1. The Scripture no where affirmes it and it is weakly concluded hence because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recitall of the covenant c. Answ Whether it be
the absolutenesse 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 Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle 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 nâ—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 Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe 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 Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve 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 beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane 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 fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—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 c. Râ—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 beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall 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 generall 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 it self 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 Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies 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 c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely 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 it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne 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 non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve 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 heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not