why Because it was the Will of God that none of the elect should perish or be condemned Answ True not executively But Mr. Eyre knows we put a difference between perishing and condemnation in this debate and that by condemnation we mean not the execution of punishment or wrath but a legal obligation to the suffering of it And though God did purpose that the elect should not perish or be condemned executively quoad eventum yet should Mr. Eyre prove that he purposed that the elect should not stand obliged equally with other sinners for some time to the suffering of wrath This if he prove I will yield the cause The purpose of God in it selfe makes no difference between men whose cause is the same before the just and impartial Judge Do we not know that a Prince may purpose to save the life of a Malefactour against whom notwithstanding the Law is in force and judgement proceeds and sentence passeth and the man thereby as much obnoxious to death as any other Melefactours till some other act of the Prince besides his meer purpose interpose and prevent his death But of this we have spoken largely already The Assumption namely that all the world is under condemnation §. 4. before faith I proved from the expresse testimony of the Lord Jesus John 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already That is saith Mr. Eyre He that never believeth as chap. 8. 24. If you beleeve not i. e. not at all you shall die in your sins Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that beleeve not by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them All the rest of the answer consents well enough with that Explication of the text which I gave in my Sermon Rep. First for that which is pretended to be our Lords intent in these words let me intreat thee Reader to peruse and ponder the text for I think thou shalt hardly meet with the like abuse of the Oracles of God in any Authour that acknowledgeth the Divinity of Scriptures ver 14. As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Son of man be lifted up ver 15. That whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 16. for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 17. for God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that beleeveth not is condemned already c. Thou seest Reader that the words contain a most serious and faithful testimony to a sinful world that though they had brought upon themselves eternal miseries yet God had sent his Sonne into the world not to condemn the world but to save them and if any man perish 't is not for want of a sufficient remedy provided in the death of Christ but for their own wilful refusal to embrace and make use of it as himselfe tells us ver 19. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Now what sayes Mr. Eyre why he will have us beleeve that the Lords intention is quite against his expression and that he is come to testifie to the world that their misery is certain and inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them It is time to burne our Bibles if such glosses as these must be received for truth 2. If the misery of those that beleeve not be inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law how is this to be understood either that the Law passed sentence upon them as unbelievers but this I suppose is too unreasonable to be affirmed or that the same men who afterwards prove unbelievers were before sentenced by the Law to certain and unavoidable misery But then their unbeliefe contributed nothing to make their misery unavoidable whereas our Lord chargeth the unavoidablenesse of misery upon wilful unbelief ver 19. This is the condemnation not that men are in darknesse but that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Were it not for this men might do well enough notwithstanding all that the Law had done against them Ergo misery is not made certain and inevitable to any by the Law before unbelief be added 3. Mr. Eyre told us but now that the Law condemned all men equally that 's the sense of his words if there be any sense in them The Law saith he doth not consider men as elect or reprobate I know not how it should for the Law is neither God nor man nor Angel as believers or unbelievers c. how comes it then to passe that misery should be made unavoidable to one and not to another by the same Law Next we shall enquire into Mr. Eyres Exposition of ver 18. §. 5. He that beleeveth not is condemned already that is saith he he that never beleeveth which is not only gratis dictum spoken without so much as a pretence of Reason but is manifestly inconsistent with the text Indeed condemnation is executed upon none but final unbelievers but unbelievers in the text are to be understood generally of all unbelievers whatsoever and not to be confined to final unbelievers 1. Such unbelievers are here meant who are part of that world into which Christ is sent for after the Lord had said ver 17. God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world by him might be saved He distributes this world into two parts Beleevers and Unbeleevers ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that believeth not is condemned already But final unbeleevers as such are no part of that world into which Christ is sent for a final unbeleever is he that dies in unbelief if he beleeve but one minute before his death he is not a final unbeleever And Christ is not sent to the dead but to the living 2. Such unbelievers are here meant whom Christ was sent to save ver 16 17. But Christ was not sent to save final unbelievers as such Ergo such unbelievers are not here meant 3. We have also mention of a double condemnation in the text one which Christ findes men under when he comes into the world and which he comes to deliver them from ver 17 18. The other which men are left under for final unbelief and rejecting of Christ the light of life ver 19. This is the condemnation c. for Christ could not finde men condemned for a final rejecting of him till he had been preached and tendered to them Ergo they that beleeve not ver 18. are unbeleevers in general 4. The condemnation here spoken of is
the words of Mark arguing manifestly from the right and authority which he had received to the lawful exercise of it in making and ordering to be published that Law or Act of Pardon whereof he doth then and there appoint his disciples to be Ambassadours I confesse I cannot imagine what can here be said unlesse it be one of these two things Either 1. That remission of sin is not contained in that salvation which is here promised to them that believe But this me thinks should be too harsh for any Christians eares to endure seeing it must contain all that good which is opposed to condemnation and therefore primarily remission of sins which is also expresly mentioned by the other Evangelists Luke 24. 47. John 20. 23. and by the Apostles in the execution of this their commission as a prime part of that salvation which they preached in the Name of Christ Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19 c. Or 2. That those words He that believes shall be saved are a meer description of the persons that shall be saved which I think is the sense that Mr. Eyre somewhere doth put upon them but this to me is more intolerable then the former partly for the reasons mentioned before chap. 5. and to be mentioned hereafter partly because according to such an interpretation the words will be no more then a simple affirmation or relation of what shall come to passe whereas by their dependance upon the foregoing All power is given to me in heaven and in earth it is manifest that they are an authoritative Sanction of the Lord Christ's an act of that jurisdiction and legislative power which he hath received from the Father and so the standing rule of remission of sins 2. If it be by the Promise of the Gospel He that believes shall not perish §. 19. but shall have everlasting life If I say it be by this Promise that God gives sinners a right to impunity and eternal life then by this Promise he justifies them But by the foresaid promise doth God give sinners a right to impunity and eternal life Ergo. The Proposition I passe as manifest by its own light The Assumption is delivered in several Scriptures Thus Paul Gal. 3. 18. God gave the inheritance to Abraham by Promise Ergo it is by Promise also that a right to life is given to all that have it This Promise is either particular or general The former it is not for God doth not now make any particular Promises to particular men such as was his Promise to believing Abraham Ergo it must be the general Promise wherein the same blessings as were given to Abraham are proposed to all men to be obtained by the same faith that Abraham had and by the same Promise given them when they believe which Promise is that before mentioned of life and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ the Apostle himself being Interpreter ver 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe The same doth he assert at large Rom. 4. 13 14 16 23 24. 3. The Lord Jesus sayes expressely John 12. 48. That the §. 20. Word which he spake shall judge unbelievers at the last day If a judgment of condemnation be ascribed to the Word in reference to unbelievers how can it be denied a judgement of Justification in reference to believers Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quà m dum illi judiciâ— potestas defertur Conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit saith Calvin upon the place Yea the Lord ascribes to the same Word a judgement of Justification ver 50. And I know that his Commandment is life everlasting that is the cause of it as Moses also speaks Deut. 32. 47. i See also Deuâ— â—â— v 15 â—â— It is your life though God be the principal cause and the Word but the k Vid. Synops pâ—r theol disp â—3 §. 10 Down of Jâ—stif c. â— â— 5. â—libi passim instrumental and therefore the power which it hath of judgement it hath from hence that it is the Word of God ver 49. For I have not spoken of my selfe but the Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say as the instrumental cause works not but in the vertue of the principal To this plain testimony let me adde an Argument as plainly deduced from it If judgement shall passe at the last day according to the Word then the Word is that Law which is the rule of judgement and by consequence to one is given by the Word a right to life and another is obliged to condemnation by the same Word But the antecedent is most true Ergo so is the consequent It is the work of judgement to give unto eâ—ery one according to what is due to him by Law if then a judgement of Justification passe upon any some Law of grace must be supposed according to which it becomes due for such a gracious sentence to passe upon him 4. And this is that which the Apostle James saith chap. 4. 12. §. 21. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy Beza observes that in foure ancient Greek Copies l As also in the Kings MS. See Dâ— Hammond Annot. in loc as also in the Syriack and the Latine Interpreter the word Judge is extant There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to save and destroy that is to whom pertaines the soveraign right and power of saving and destroying But whether the word be expressed or no it is surely implied for the Apostles scope is to disswade us from judging one another ver 11. because there is one Lawgiver to whom the power of judgment and so of absolving and condemning of saving and destroying doth appertain Now he that saves as a Lawgiver saves by absolution and he that absolves as a Lawgiver absolves by Law Ergo God absolves men that is pardons and justifies them by Law And when he shall judge all men at the last day his judgement whether of salvation or destruction shall proceed according to Law 5. Adde to this that the Apostle commends the excellency and glory §. 22. of the Gospel that God doth thereby justifie 2 Cor 3. 9. For if the ministration of condemnation he glory much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glory The ministration of condemnation is that which ver 7. he calls the ministration of death written and engraven in stones His scope is to shew the excellency of that Gospel which himself and other Apostles did preach and publish to the world above the ministration of the Law committed to Moses As then the ministration of death and condemnation was the ministration of that Law which did condemn unto death the effect being put for the cause so the
grounded in his displeasing quality viz. Of unbelief and on the contrary Enoch is here said by faith to please or to be pleasing unto God v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the word imports such a delight in or approbation of a person as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities and nothing in man is lovely in Gods eyes without faith for God delights not in his physical substance or natural perfections of any sort Psal 147. 10. it follows that when we are said by faith to please God or to be pleasing to him or that it is impossible to please him without faith it must be understood of the pleasingnesse of the person as well as of the action Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect even while they are most displeasing to him but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they beleeve They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. 2. Nor can I imagin how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do which yet he must be supposed to be if faith do only commend our actions not our persons unto God Amongst men it is unconceivable how a total displeasure with another mans actions can consist with well-pleasednesse with the person That which commends the work doth also commend the worker and if the work be unacceptable the worker also is so far unacceptable if all his works be unacceptable himself also is wholly unacceptable 3. I aske whether faith it self be pleasing unto God principally out of doubt Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience onely 4. And though it be most true that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith yet cannot Mr. Eyre owne it if he will be true to his doctrine that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being for that obedience wherein God seeth no sin is acceptable to him The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seeth no sin I speak of those works which they may performe before they beleeve as prayer hearing of the word c. Ergo it is acceptable to God The assumption is manifest for not to see sin and to pardon it are all one and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect as saith Mr. Eyre In the following part of this answer he gives us a reason why our §. 10. works without faith cannot please God for saith he bonum est ex causá integrá Now what is not done in faith is not done in love Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except onely 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of who when he had said without faith it is impossible to please God presently gives this reason for he that cometh unto God must beleeve that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it upon any other account then because that defect is sinful and the sinfulnesse being supposed to be pardoned and that from eternity it cannot make the work unacceptable pardoned sin and no sin are much of the same strength as to any harme it can do us 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good how comes it to passe that the person should be so hugely well-pleasing while there is nothing in him but evil mens persons are under Law as well as their actions Ars est in fabrica rei c See John Yates Mod. of Divin pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno Aâ—exand Richardsono Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of mans nature If an action materially good be yet displeasing because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner surely the person cannot be well-pleasing while he is every whit as much out of frame and fallen all in pieces as I may so speak and not so much as begun to be repaired againe by a spirit of renovation In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove §. 11. that Gods well-pleasednesse with the elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ If he mean immediate in respect of time and exclusively of every qualification in us without which God will not be well-pleased with us let us see his Arguments The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture First saith he That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect was the breach of the Law Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favour had as free a current as if they had not sinned Answ The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more and needed to be no more then a removens prohibens of our good which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter though most unjustly as a very heinous errour and exagitates it with aâ—rimony sufficient Therefore I shall not need to confute it yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration If the reason of Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners be this onely that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them then the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was and all mankind in him before the fall and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant but established the old But this is most notoriously false Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plaine for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance had all its causes in being before as if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of â—he shuts of the windows it supposeth the sun to be up Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life before the death of Christ was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him Ergo if Gods well-pleasednesse follow immediately upon the death of Christ as that which hath removed the hindrance it follows by virtue of that Covenant or by none at all 2. But if the well-pleasednesse of God do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null My answer therefore is That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition so as that it could not long stand but it did not totally demolish and throw it down presently because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking for our redemption which because I am purposely to prove by and by I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to
that God through the death of Christ hath so far forth laid aside his enmity against sinners as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will beleeve and repent whereof also he hath given them such assurance in his Gospel that if now they be not reconciled it is because they wil not be reconciled if they die it is because they will die But if his meaning be that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Christ then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word but seeing reconciliation hath its degrees let him demonstrate that it must-be understood not of the first degree which I stand for but of the second which begins in application 2. I desire also to know by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Christs death Is it by some act of his minde surely that will be very dangerous to affirme that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Christ Is it a transient act shew us then its object it is past imagination how an effect can be wrought and exist in or upon an object which it selfe hath no existence Lastly iâ— the benefits purchased in the death of Christ be none of them applied or actually given us before Christs sitting down at the right hand of God then neither was reconciliation applied to us or given us immediately in or upon the death of Christ But the first is true Ergo so is the second Heb. 5. 9. Being made perfect that is exalted into glory see chap. 2. 10. he became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him without this we could have received l See Dr. Reynolâ—s in Pâ— 110. p. 427. 429. Dr. Goâ—win on Rom. 8 sect 5. p. 71 177. none of the benefits purchased in the death of Christ and therefore surely reconciliation was not begun to be applied immediately in or upon his death Heb. 8. 4. If he were on earth he should not be a priest Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not raised you are yet in your sins And a general rule it is amongst Divines that Christ in his intercession is the applying cause of all the benefits purchased in his death Seeing then it is certaine that our reconciliation though purchased in the death of Christ yet is not applied and actually given us till his entrance into heaven if now it be asked when Christ in heaven doth give us this reconciliation I answer in the words of the Apostle Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sin which is the reconciliation we speak of and 2 Cor. 5. 20. we are Ambassadours for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be you reconciled unto God And now I returne to Mr. Eyre SECT VI. I Had said in my Sermon that it is through the death of Christ that §. 29. the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled to God after we do beleeve This after Mr. Eyre hath represented and paraphrased as he pleased and charged it of course with the imputations of Arminianisme and Popery at last he advanceth foure Arguments against it as he saith but if the Reader will peruse them he will find there is not one I say againe not one but all of them levelled against a position which never came into my mind to owne viz. That Christ purchased only a conditional promise Si sat sit accusasse quis erit innocens I say therefore that Christ did indeed purchase the conditional Covenant but I say withal that if we look to the intention of Christ in purchasing he purchased the infallible application or donation of every blessing of the Covenant unto some namely the elect If this be Arminianisme I am an Arminian yea and so strong in the persuasion that I cannot hope of my self that I shall be altered by any mans writings which I have seen or am like to see while I live But what cannot a general pardon be purchased for all because it is intended that some shall infallibly be pardoned and saved by it or is not such a pardon the first Act and degree of our reconciliation because other things are purchased as well as it more then this I shall not need to say to any of Mr. Eyres Arguments nor do I intend to say more to the three last the first because it pretends some Scriptures for an immediate reconciliation in the death of Christ I shall answer to particularly The Argument then is this The Scripture no where saies that Christ died to obtaine a conditional grant but to make an end of sin Dan. 9. 24. By the blood of his crosse he hath made peace Colos 1. 20. Broken down the partition wall Eph. 2. 14. Delivered us from the curse Gal. 3. 13. And our Saviour doth not say Math. 26. 28. That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the elect Answ Of the first part of the answer more anon As to Dan. §. 30. 9. 24. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that learned men are of different ways in expounding what it is to make an end of sin m Vide Jâ—nium Willet Hexapl. in loc some interpreting it of that end of sin not which Christ made but which sinners themselves make by repentance n Vid. Rolloc comment in loc some of restraining and confirming the godly that they might not be guilty of a defection from God But understand it of the end made by the death of Christ what is the inference Ergo it is not through the death of Christ that the promise is made by and according to which we are reconciled to God when we believe Doth Mr. Eyre think this consequence needs no proofe If this text afford him any thing for his purpose it will exclude the intercession of Christ and the Covenant of pardon made in his blood from being at all necessary or useful to the making an end of sin To Colos 1. 20. It pleased the Father having made peace through the blood of his crosse by him to reconcile all things to himself c. The answer is ready That the making of peace in the death of Christ is here mentioned as the means to that reconciliation of all things to himself which the Father intended thereby for both the making of peace and reconciliation are here mentioned as the acts of God as the first and principal cause and the latter the effect and end of the former God hath made peace in Christs death that he might reconcile us to himself I appeal to any man that knows what a consequence is whether it will
nothing for never man was nor ever shall be the better for this supposed Will of God precisely of not punishing for if it produce us any good it is either from eternity or in time Surely from eternity we are never the better for it if in time what is that good I suppose it will be said freedome from punishment Well But doth it effect this freedome mediately or immediately mediately it can do nothing for it is determined precisely to a non-punition and containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of our deliverance Election indeed may very well concurre to our discharge wrought by the death of Christ because it is a pre-ordination of Christ himself and of all other more immediate causes that work in their several orders and dependances for our dâ—scharge If immediately then the death of Christ interposeth no cauâ—ality for the effecting of the said freedome of which notwithstanding Mr. Eyre asserts it to be the adequate and immediate cause in his next Proposition 3. To give a peculiar name to the volition of one part of the meanes as distinct from the volition of all the rest unlesse there be some special reason of such denomination is but to impose upon our understandings for why may not Gods Will of sending Christ of publishing the Gospel of renewing our natures of raising our bodies of glorifying our whole man each of them deserve a more proper and significant name then Election as well as his Will not to punish for as to the act of this Will eâ—dem mâ—do se habet circa omnia objecta volita it respecteth all the meanes willed equally and in the same manner the persons to whom this impunity is willed lay under no other consideration as the objects of this will then as they are the objects of the will of calling sanctifying glorifying so that neither from the act nor the object is there any reason of such denomination Indeed the objects I mean the media volita of election and reprobation being contraries in the utmost degree and irreconcileable in the same person our weak understandings do therefore conceive of those acts as differing specie and accordingly we diversifie their names But the objects of Election being amongst themselves consentanies and subordinate in their execution one to the other and having no other entity or modality before their own existence in time then precisely ut volita it is altogether beyond the reach of my understanding to imagine any reason why the volition of one meanes should have a name proper to it self incommunicable to the volition of any other means willed by the same act to the same end 4 But the answer yields as much as the objection seeks for it grants Justification to be part of election namely Electio ad impunitatem Whereas 1. Scripture-Justification is a forensical act say all our Protestants against the Papists I spare quotations because the thing is too well known to be denied This cannot be affirmed of Election 2. The object of Election is neither a sinner nor a righteous person precisely but one that is not for we are chosen before the foundation of the world Eph. 1. 4. before we have done good or evil Rom. 9. 11. but the object of Scripture-Justification is a sinner Rom. 4. 5. whether believing or unbelieving we dispute below 3. Election is not properly an act of mercy but of absolute dominion and liberty Scripture-Justification is every where reported as an act of mercy Psal 51. 1. Luke 1. 78 79. Matth. 18. 33. Luke 18. 13 14. Heb. 8. 12. Eph. 2. 4 5. Ergo Justification is not Election nor any part of it If it be said that the name of pardon and Justification in these and other places signifies not the act but the effects I shall refer to my vindication of the next objection which is as followeth SECT VI. THe second objection therefore is this Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum Which cannot be §. 15 attributed to the decrees of God I shall divide Mr. Eyres answer into two parts First saith he if Justification be taken for the thing willed viz. the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made thereby he that was a childe of wrath by nature hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose any such change as if God had first a Will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them Rep. Plain dealing is best in a good cause If Mr. Eyre had told me roundly that the effects of Justification make a change in a persons state but the act doth not I had then known what I had to do But I know not very well what to make of these lines 1. The objection in forme is this Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum But velle nen punire or any other eternal purpose of God makes no such change of a persons state Ergo To say now that the Will of God not to punish supposeth no such change is to yield the Conclusion that therefore it is not Justification 2. What means he by a sinners delivery from the curse of the Law either it supposeth that a sinner doth actually suffer the curse of the Law or some part of it till Justification deliver him but this he denieth of such persons for whom Christ hath satisfied namely the Elect page 60. 61. § 2. or it supposeth an obligation of such persons by Law unto future punishment till they be justified But this he denieth too of the same persons page 110. 111. § 2 3 5. and what it is to deliver a sâ—nner from the curse which he neither suffers at present nor is obliged to suffer for future I want an Interpreter to tell me 3. Nor can I tell in Mr. Eyres sense what it is to have peace and reconciliation with God If he meane it of peace of conscience through the sense of reconciliation himselfe will deny that that is the immediate effect of our delivery from the curse for faith apprehending reconciliation doth intervene and that as a true proper cause of such a peace If he mean it of a state of peace and reconciliation before God he should not need to ascribe that to the thing willed seeing the erernal Will of God is most sufficient unto that according to him as being a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin and he layes it down for an undeniable truth That the Elect were in Covenant with God before the foundations of the world page 170 171. 4. The great change which he speaks of made by this delivery from the curse of the Law viz. That he that was a childe of wrath by nature hath peace and reconciliation with
it is the very thing which he intends to deny by these obscure expressions as he also often doth in other parts of this book for it is impossible that a man should stand before God obliged to punishment and disobliged at the same time 2. Or purely negatively as denying nature to be the cause of our Justification But neither do I think this to be Mr. Eyres meaning because the sense will be so pitifully jejune for thus to be just by grace and unjust by nature is no more then that it is grace and not nature which justifies us and he that sayes a man is justified by grace and not by a piece of bread and butter or by the flying of the clouds over his head speaks every whit as much to purpose 3. Diminutively in sensu diviso secundum quid that if we suppose there were no act of grace to hinder men must needs be condemned there being in themselves sufficient cause of condemnation and in the Law sufficient power to oblige them to it but the grace of God doth hinder both the one and the other from coming forth into act so that they never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment notwithstanding their own sinfulnesse and the Lawes rigour This if any thing must be our Authours meaning as best suiting with what he sayes here and elsewhere as page 111. § 5. By nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam the Elect were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath from God And again beleevers considered in themselves and as they come from the loines of Adam are sinful and cursed creatures And again page 113. § 7. The Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law Let us see then what Mr. Eyre would have this I think it is That there is in all men even the Elect themselves sufficient cause of condemnation that is sufficient cause on their part why they should lose all right to salvation and life and be actually damned and also that there is nothing wanting in the nature and constitution of the Law which is required in a Law to make it able to binde or oblige men even the Elect themselves unto punishment And all this is true questionlesse But it is withal affirmed that the Elect by the gracious and eternal act of Gods Will are absolutely just before God and by the same Will is the Law though broken by them disabled from binding them actually unto punishment So that they are said to be unjust by the Law or in themselves or by nature not that they are at any time absolutely unjust or without all right to life for they are supposed to be absolutely just from eternity but as it were materially because if the foresaid act of Gods Will had not prevented they had been unjust simply and absolutely Against which doctrine I have several things to oppose 1. In §. 20. general whereas the intent of it is to prove that a sinner may be justified and unjustified both at once it is manifest that these words are used in some other sense then what the Scriptures are wont to take them in because to be a sinner and to be righteous to be justified and to be condemned to have ones sins retained and remitted according to Scripture are contraries and never agree to the same person at the same time John 3. 17 18. Rom. 8. 1 33 34. and 5. 8 9. John 20. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. and many other places 2. If an elect sinner be never unjust but in this respective diminutive sense then it is impossible for the act or effects of Justification to make any change upon him because it is impossible but that he who is justified meerly of grace should be unjust in himself even glorified Saints are to all eternity unjust by nature or of themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam 3. If this be the whole of a sinners unrighteousnesse then by the Law of nature sinners are not unjust simply and universally so as to have no right at all to life but only in some respect so as to have no right by that Law which they have transgressed But all sinners are universally unjust by the Law of nature which I thus prove 1. If Adam while he continued obedient had by his obedience a right to life and had no right at all but by his obedience according to the Law then upon his disobedience he became universally unjust by the same Law The reason 's plain because if there be but one rule of righteousness in being then he that is not righteous by that rule is not righteous at all Sublat â causà totali tollitur effectus totaliter But Adam whiles he continued obedient had by his obedience and by the Law a right to life and had no right at all but by his obedience Ergo. The Assumption is thus confirmed If Adam had any other right then by the Law then it must be by some grace of God But this cannot be according to Scripture because to have a right by grace and works too is inconsistent according to Scripture Rom. 11. 6. If by grace then not of works otherwise grace is no more grace If by works then not of grace otherwise work is no more work How long Adam continued innocent I cannot tell If but half a day if but half an houre it is all one to my purpose it being concluded by Divines that Adam and Eve one or both were saved and therefore were elect and Adams case was then the case of all men one as well as another he being as it were the epitome of all mankinde in what he did and in what befell him 2. The Apostle also witnesseth that the Gentiles whiles they continued in their Gentilisme were all of them equally alienated from God Col. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separate from Christ strangers from the Covenant of Promise and without hope Eph. 2. 11 12. till by the faith of that Gospel which the Apostles preached ver 20. they ceased to be any more strangers and forreigners and became fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God ver 19. Had the Apostle spoke these words concerning reprobate Gentiles I am perswaded it would never have come into any mans minde no not Mr. Eyres himselfe to deny but that they did signifie those Gentiles to be without all right to life and salvation and other priviledges immunities and dignities given by the great Charter of the Gospel to the City and Family of God But the Apostle doth here describe the miseries of a Gentile state and therefore of every one that was a Gentile for their condition is equally the same till they turne Christians Ergo these Gentiles that now beleeved were yet sometimes without all right to life that is they were universally unrighteous or unjust
as the righteous But I will puzzle my selfe no longer with these ambiguous Oracles SECT VII THe third objection succeeds and that is this If justification be §. 22. an immanent act in God it is antecedent not only to faith but to the merits of Christ which is contrary to many Scriptures that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood as the meritorious cause Mr. Eyre answers That although Gods Will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet for all we may be said to be justified in him because the whole effect of that Will is by and for the sake of Christ As though electing love precede the consideration of Christ John 3. 16. yet are we said to be chosen in him Eph. 1. 4. because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him Reply Here again I must complain of Mr. Eyres mincing Had he said the Act of Justification goes before the death of Christ but the effects follow he had spoken plainly But when we are disputing that Gods Will is not our Justification because our Justification according to Scripture is a fruit of Christs merit which an immanent act of Gods Will cannot be to tell us now that indeed Gods Will is antecedent to Christs merits is to yield the Argument that therefore it is not our Justification for nothing more certain from Scripture then that our Justification is the fruit of the merits and blood of Christ Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 8 9. and 4. 25. and 8. 3 4. 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. Gal. 3. 13 14. Eph. 1. 7. Col. 2. 13 14. Heb. 9. 12 22. and 10. 14 18. and sundry other places 2. It is also unworthy of the precious blood of the Sonne of God to ascribe no more to it then that it merits the effects of our Justification seeing it is a farre lesse matter to purchase the effects then to purchase the act which is the cause of them as I have before observed from the Apostles manner of arguing Rom. 5. If while we were sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified shall we be saved from wrath 3. It is also no little undervaluing of the glorious blessing of Justification to suppose it so impotent as that it cannot produce its own effects nor do the sinner any good at all unlesse the Son of God interpose by his death to make it effectual I desire to speak of spiritual things with feare and trembling But I am not afraid to say such a Justification as this is not worth grammercy If it be objected that I may say as much of Gods electing love for neither doth that produce its effects without the death of Christ I answer no such matter for the death of Christ it selfe and all other particular causes of our salvation are the effects of election which it selfe produceth in their respective subordinations But Justification is a particular cause determined precisely to a non-punition which yet it cannot effect Nor doth Mr. Eyre himself make the death of Christ an effect of Justification and if he did he must reade the Scriptures backward but of this more by and by 4. I deny that the effects of Justification can be merited without the act for this eternal Justification according to Mr. Eyres theologie is an actual and real discharge from all sin and condemnation a compleat non-imputation of sin and imputation of righteousnesse Therefore it is impossible but that by this act the Elect must have a right given them to deliverance from wrath which is so evident that himselfe contendeth that the Elect even whiles they are in actual rebellion against God have a right to salvation grounded in the Purpose of God page 122. And what then did Christ merit for them Not a right to deliverance from wrath for that they have already and o Vid. Aquiâ— 1. q. 62. 4. â— 12. q. 1 â—4 5. â— 3. q. 19. 3. â— Nullus meretur quod jam habet what one hath already that cannot be afterwards merited Christ is dead in vain as to the purchasing of this right if they had it before Upon this ground do our p Jun. Animad in Bell. l. 5. c. 10. Divines deny that Christ merited any thing for himselfe because there was no advancement of soule or body but was due to him upon an antecedent title Nor yet doth Christ merit the continuance of this right for it is impossible it should be forfeited for a man can forfeit nothing with God but by sin and sin if it be pardoned as here it is supposed to be even all sins and that from eternity hath no strength to work such a forfeiture no more then if it never had been committed Nor doth he merit the possession of that which they have a right to for the effect of merit is properly acquisitio juris the acquiring or obtaining of the right it selfe q Duranâ— â— 2. dist 5 q 3. 8. Nullus meretur id quod est suum sed per meritum facit quilibet ut aliquid efficiatur ei debitum per consequens suum quod ei prius non erat debitum nec suum Indeed men may by violence be kept out of the possession of that which is their own But God is not wont to deny possession where himself hath given a right and if sinners have from eternity a firme and valid right to life and salvation Christ should not need to have put himself to the expence of his blood to have purchased possession Wherefore the effects of Justification being inseparable from the act Christ merited the act as well as the effect or else he merited neither The comparison brought in for illustration makes the matter worse §. 23. then it was before For 1. It is utterly false that all the effects of Gods electing love are given for the merits of Christ for the giving of Christ to death is an effect of Gods electing love and yet Christ did not merit his own sending into the world 2. That the parallel may consist it must be first supposed that the intention of particular meanes have particular names as so many particular acts or causes and then determined that Christ merited not those acts but their effects As for example That Gods intention to make us his children is our Adoption and Christ merited not our Adoption but the effects thereof His intention to sanctifie us is our sanctification and Christ merited not our sanctification but the effects of it His intention to glorifie us is our glorification and Christ merits its effects even as his intent to pardon us is our Justification and Christ doth afterward merit the effects but not the act Thus must the comparison run or it leaves the matter darker then it found it If Mr. Eyre will not allow of this let him acknowledge his doctrine to be without parallel 3. The effects of Christs merits are also the effects of Gods electing love
because the merits of Christ themselves are the effects of the same love and the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused But if our Lords death had been only from his own will not pre-ordained of God in the decree of election all the benefits purchased by it must have been ascribed to it as the first cause and Gods Will of bestowing them had not been causal but meerly concomitant or consequent Now his will not to punish containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of this impunity Ergo if Christ merited it it must be ascribed to him as the principal and only cause and not to Gods Will of not punishing because that Will of God is not the cause of the merits of Christ as being determined precisely to a non-punition And so there will be the effects of Justification without an act or the act of Justification produceth its own effects but by accident or rather doth not produce them at all but stands by without efficacy whiles another cause doth the work Therefore herein also the comparison halts The fourth and last objection which Mr. Eyre makes against himself §. 24. is this We may as well call Gods Will to create Creation and his Will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his Will to justifie Justification His answer is Creating calling and glorifying import an inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God Rep. 1. The answer contradicts it selfe for it yields it to be a proper speech to say that God doth will or purpose to justifie even as proper as to say he doth will or purpose to create to call to glorifie and yet beares us in hand that Justification is perfect and compleat in the minde of God Whatsoever is purposed is future If it have already an actual existence it is not capable of being purposed to exist But the immanent acts of Gods minde are not future but from eternity 2. Though Justification do not make an inherent change yet it makes an adherent change as was largely proved from Scripture but now even as if a Malefactour be condemned and afterwards pardoned his condemnation and pardon make an adherent change that is a relative though he remain the same man that he was and be not changed inherently and really And I wonder why the purpose of an act which makes an adherent relative change should be called by the name of that act rather then the purpose of such an act which makes an inherent real change should be called by its name Ars posterior utitur prioris operâ— Morality supposeth nature 3. It is true that Creation c. do make an inherent change But the question is whether we have not as much ground from Scripture to understand those words as signifying not the act but the effect of Creation c. as Mr. Eyre hath to interpret the word Justification in Scripture for the effects not for the act Suppose a man should be so void of sobriety as to say the words Creation Vocation Glorification and what of like nature signifie not those several acts but their effects what could Mr. Eyre say against it To say Creation c. makes an inherent change is to say nothing for it will quickly be answered that the effects of Creation Vocation c. do make an inherent change not the acts If he tell me the words are never used in Scripture but as importing such a change I answer still as he doth of Justification that the words where-ever they are to be found in Scripture are to be understood of the effects not of the act If he yet say that it is contrary to all our Protestant Divines I say so too Et nomine mutato narratur fabula de te Thus much for the vindication of the foure objections which Mr. Eyre proposeth against himselfe He concludes this discourse thus SECT VIII HOwever were it granted that there was in God from everlasting §. 25. an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this controversie were ended Answ Such a purpose I acknowledge in God to justifie his Elect when they should beleeve and being justified not to deal with them as sinners but as with righteous persons yet so as that they are equally with others obliged by the Law to punishment till they do beleeve and subject actually to the bearing of the temporal penalties of sin If this will satisfie Mr. Eyre let him make his most of it But let us see how it ends the controversie First saith he Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely negative but privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of righteousnesse is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentia 2. This non-imputation of sin is actual though the â—â—n not to be imputed be not in actual being So is the imputation of righteousnesse 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it selfe Answ If the begging of the question be the ending of a controversie we have done It is here supposed that the aforesaid Purpose of God is the imputation of righteousnesse and the non-imputation of sin which should have been proved and not begged And therefore the foundation failing there needs no more to be done to demolish the superstructure yet a word or two of that also 2. I say therefore that an eternal actual privative non-imputation of future sin is either non-sense or a contradiction let Mr. Eyre take his choice and consider withal what he is like to make of Justification at last for that which is only future can be deprived of nothing but its futurity and if it be ab aeterâ—o deprived of its futurity then it is ab aeterno non futurum and if ab aeterno non futurum then it is ab aeterno undepriveable of its futurity for that which is never future is never capable of being made non-future unlesse we could in eternity concâ—â—e one moment wherein it is made future and another moment wherein it is made non-future which cannot be because in eternity there is neither prius nor posterius Now this privative non-imputation of future sin what doth it privare Not the futurity of sin for then there never was nor shall be any such thing as sin in the world for nothing exists in time which before its existence was not future That then which this non-imputation is privative of must be the imputation of sin to a person cui debitum est imputari for that is the habit which only is contrary to it for as the privative non-imputation of sin present and in actual being is privative only imputationis nunc debitae so the like non-imputation of sin future is privative only imputationis futurae debitae The Argument therefore returnes for if this
imputation be ab aeterno non-futura then is it ab aeterno undeprivable of its futurity for nothing but that which is future can be deprived of its futurity and if it be future ab aeterno 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
and not acquitted discharged and not discharged what can be more contradictorious or who can conceive what is that security discharge and acquittance from all sin wrath punishment condemnation which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law and without freedome from punishment till Christ buy it with the price of his blood 3. Our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment may be understood either de jure in taking off our obligation unto punishment and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God to the suffering of punishment as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3. or it may be understood de facto in the real and actual removal of all kindes and degrees of punishment but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ by it self or with the former The Purpose of Gods Will saith Mr. Eyre chap. 10. § 10. pag. 108. secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it So that what is left for the death of Christ to do I must professe I cannot imagine seeing the act of our Justification and our disobligation from wrath and our real impunity do all exist by vertue of another cause But for further confirmation of this Proposition Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him and say no more to it till we come thither His third Proposition is this Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and §. 27. forgivenesse and thus God is said to justifie men when he reveales and makes known to them his grace and kindnesse within himselfe Answ Understand Reader that when we say Justification is a declared sentence of absolution it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned but of that publike declared Law of faith namely the Gospel it self which is to be preached to every creature under heaven He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life By which Promise whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book so much as one text wherein Justification must signifie a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken If he mean it is so taken in Gods language let him shew where if in mans I will not dispute with him how men take it And as to that text Gen. 41. 13. me he restored but him he hanged which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in to prove that things in Scripture are said to be when they are only manifested if he had consulted Junius he would have told him that the word He relates not to Joseph but to Pharaoh Me Pharaoh restored but him that is the Baker he hanged The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning §. 28. the several times and wayes in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people In which there is nothing of distinct controversie but what hath its proper place in the following debate some where or other And most of what he sayes may be granted without any advantage to his cause or prejudice to thâ— truth there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time but declares something of his gracious purpose as every effect declares and argues its cause And so our Justiâ—â—cation it selfe declareth that there was a purpose in God to justifie because he acteth nothing but according to his purpose I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter though there be many things therein which I can by no meanes consent to but set down in the following Propositions how far I consent to each of his 1. I consent that God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to believers in his Word and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents The seed of the woman shall break the Sâ—rpents head 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins and his raising of him up for our Justification doth manifest yet more of the same purpose 3. That baptisme sealing to a believer in act or habit the remission of sins past and entring him into a state of remission for the future doth also further declare something of the same purpose 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himselfe or any immediately upon their first believing at least in these dayes I am in doubt 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement doth most fully perfectly and finally declare the same purpose as being the most perfect compleat and formal justification of all And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyres doctrine I come next to a vindicaiton of my own CHAP. III. My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered Rom. 5. 1. vindicated And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture SECT I. FOr proof of our Justification by faith the doctrine §. 1. insisted on in my Sermon I advanced several places of Scripture to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter which we shall here take a view of that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for But before he gives his answer to particular places he thinks fit to informe the Reader that I began my Sermon and concluded it with a great mistake The mistake in the beginning is that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romanes was to prove That we are justified by faith i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we beleeve and that faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification which is a mistake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God The Apostle tells us himself that his scope is to prove that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in Gods sight ver 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith ver 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith I know not what is And that faith here is to be taken properly we prove at large below If this be not the Apostles scope
idem planè genus causae utrinque notari Is any man amongst the Papists so sottish saith k Bell eneâ—v Tom 4. c. 4. p. 3â—6 dued Dr. Ames as that he will dare to affirme that in these oppositions the same kinde of cause is signified on both sides The like I say to the third when we are said to be justiâ—â—ed by Christ by his death by his blood c. the particle By doth denote the proper meritorious cause of our Justification But that it may not in other sentences signifie some other Argument as well as a cause must remain to be proved till the time when we are to expect Mr. Eyres Rejoynder SECT III. THe fourth Argument succeeds To make faith a condition morally §. 12. disposing us to Justification makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification Answ I deny it utterly A double Argument Mr. Eyre presents us with for proof 1. We should not be Justified freely by his grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification for a condition whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the Promiser is bound to give and then Justification should not be of grace but of debt Answ Gladly am I come to this objection and I shall give it a large answer not for any strength there is in it but because Mr. Eyre pretends in his title-page and the inscription of his book throughout to oppose the ancient Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith upon the quarrel of free grace And it is upon the point the total summe of all he hath to say for his neoterick notion but they may be taken with words that will The place which he alludes to in the objection is Rom. 3 24. Being justified freely by his grace But which of these two words is it that excludes conditions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace or freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l Vide â—rist Rhet. l 2. c 7. Grace as it is a vertue or affection in man is that which enclines us to bestow of what we have to them that are indigent and necessitous not for any thing we have received nor for any profit and advantage we expect by what we give from him to whom we give but that he may be beneâ—â—ted by us Accordingly it is accounted great and the Scriptures amplisie the grace of God from the same Arguments either in respect of the persons that receive our gratuities if they be extream m Ezek 16. pertot Rom. 5. 6. indigent and impotent or in respect of the things given if they be Eph 7. Rom. 5. 7 8. and v 6. 0 1 John 4. 19. John 3. â—6 great difficult or seasonable or in respect of the giver if â—e be the first or only or principal But surely this grace doth not exclude all manner of conditions Jacob sent a present to Esâ—u that he might sinde grace â—â— in his sight Gen. 32. 5 21. and 33. 8. the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Prov. 3. 3 4 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee So shalt thou finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace in the sight of God And the Apostle exhorts that we come to the throne of grace that we may finde grace Heb. 4. 16. Is grace any whit the lesse gracious because we are required to seek it that we may finde it Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it is of faith that it may be by grace And more places which we shall mention below The Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a qualification of the former and expresseth §. 13. the freenesse of grace by removal of worth and sufficiency in the person who of grace receives a benefit Thus Mat. 10. 8. Freely you have received freely give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As their power cost them nothing but was freely given them so should they do good with it freely without payment or recompence So the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth an act which is only from the will and inclination of the Agent without any sufficient external meritorious cause Psal 35. 7. Without cause have they hid for me their net Psal 69. 4. They hate me without a cause and 119. 161. Princes have persecuted me without a cause David saith He will not offer to God gratis or of that which cost him nothing 2 Sam. 24. 24. Thus servants went out freely when they did not purchase their liberty but it was given them without price Exod. 21. 2 11. as also the p L. mandatum F. mand contra C. L. 6. 7. §. Non est ignotum Civil Law determines And what in Isa 55. 1. is called a buying without money is expounded Rev. 22. 17. A taking of the water of life freely So that unlesse it can be proved of which more presently that all conditions whatsoever are meritorious causes proportionable in value to the benefit a man obtains upon performance of the condition the name of free grace will prove but an empty noise and a cloak of errour We must therefore with our Protestants distinguish of conditions §. 14. Thus q In disp de satisfact p. 365. Cameron Si multae conditiones requiruntur in justificandis quae habent proportionem cum justitiâ Dei concedo Sed si conditiones quae requiruntur in justificandis nullam habent proportionem cum justitiâ Dei nego inde effici justificationem non esse ex mera gratia nam non excluduntur conditiones omnes sed eae quae possunt habere rationem meriti The sense of which words is given us by r Comment in Ep 250. Paul Bayne There are some conditions whereon they only interceding we promise and undertake to do a matter or bestow a kindnesse on any As Go with me to such a place and I will give thee hidden treasure or come to me to morrow and I will give thee a hundred pounds There are other conditions which have the reason of a cause meritorious such do not only intercede but deserve upon contract as much as we promise As Do my work well and I will pay you truly c. Thus he s Gerhard de Evang. cap. 3. §. 26. Quando Evangelicas promissiones conditionales esse negamus non quamvis conditionem sed in specie conditionem nostrorum meritorum excludimus Alia igitur est conditio fidei à conditione operum illa non opponitur gratuito dono haec verò opponitur In eundem seâ—sum Rolloc de vocat p. 16. and others to the same purpose A distinction which we are necessitated to make use of though it distinguish rather the matter of a condition then the formal nature of it for if any condition be proportionable to the reward promised that is not because it is a condition but because it is t Aliae sunt conditiones praeter causas efficientes Ames contra Bellarm. de neces oper ad salut
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
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
must come to passe or in reference to us and so that is necessary which is enjoyned us by precept as a means appointed and ordained of God for such or such an end The necessity of faith in the former sense will by no means inferre that it is a condition but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life and yet our believing remaine necessary as a means appointed for the obtaining of life then the right we had before was but conditional The necessity of faith compared with election is only a necessity of existence upon supposition of a powerful and immutable cause Obj. But I my self grant will it be said that faith is necessary as a means of obtaining life yet are we elected unto life so that hitherto the case is still the same Ans Therefore we distinguish farther Gods giving life may be considered either simply as it is Gods act and the execution of his eternal purpose or as withal it is our blessednesse reward In the former respect faith hath no other order to life then purely of an antecedent because he that purposed to give life purposed also to give faith before it but it is neither means nor condition nor cause of life no more then Tenderton steeple was the condition or cause or means of Godwin sands or an earthquake over night of the suns rising the next morning It is in reference to life only as by the promise it is made our reward that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it Now if faith according to the constant language of Scripture be necessary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward then whatsoever justification adjudgeth us to life before faith must be conditional But upon supposition of election both unto faith and unto life if there were no other act of God which made faith necessary to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be only necessary in regard of its presence or existence but not at all necessary as a means to be used by us in order to our receiving of righteousnesse and salvation and so election will neverthelesse be absolute And therefore the third answer which Mr. Eyre gives as most direct §. 27. to the Argument namely that justification is absolute though faith be necessary because faith is necessary only as a consequent is without strength For 1. If by consequent he mean that which is purely and only so sin and death will put in for as necessary an interest in justification as faith it self 2. If by consequence he mean an effect then is it againe supposed that faith is an effect of justification which should be proved and not unworthily begged I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteousnesse of being justified unto beleeving I read not a word 3. Mr. Eyre himself when he would distinguish justification from election determined the former precisely to a non-punition If now it lay claime to faith too as it 's genuine proper effect his distinction evaporates into a nullity 4. Nor doth he ascribe any thing more to faith in the matter of justification then all our Divines with one consent ascribe to works namely a necessity of presence for the necessity of faith as a consequent is no more Which they indeed ascribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture he to faith without any evidence at all And so much for the defence of the Arguments which I advanced to prove that we are not justified till we beleeve CHAP. IX A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures which seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ without the intervention of faith SECT I. AGainst what we have hitherto been proving I know §. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures more then a Text or two that seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ which if it be so then their justification is not suspended upon believing and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves But the Arguments drawne from those places which seeme to favour it most are so inconsequent and contrary testimonies so many and irrefragable that I am very little solicitous about the issue Both these things we shall shew in order and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front This is my beloved sonne §. 2. in whom I am well pleased that is saith Mr. Eyre with sinners The inference should be Ergo God was well pleased with sinners that is reconciled to them immediately in the death of Christ To this in my sermon I gave a double answer 1. That the well-pleasednesse of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ who gave himself unto the death an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Mr. Eyre in his reply to this produceth many testimonies of Musculus Calvin Beza Paraeus Ward Ferus and some reasons to prove that which never came into my minde to deny namely that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners To all which I shall need return no other answer then an explication of that which is given already The words therefore may be understood either 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of and well-pleasednesse in Christ as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends and producing those effects for which it was offered Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only and above all other men or Angels or 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing namely Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners for Christs sake Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say the words may be taken only in the former sense and so confined to the person of Christ that I must be printed as a man that thinks my self worth a thousand such as Colvin Beza Paraeus c Whose judgements I had not then consulted nor do now finde any thing which I consent not to except one passage in Beza When 1. Mr. Eyres exposition cannot consist without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased he must adde in whom I am well pleased with sinners 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters nor of the New Testament is acquainted with namely that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should governe two dative cases one of the cause and the other of the object Adde the word sinners and the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Eyre match this construction if he can 3. And if he give the right sense of the words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom is
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
which will be hard to do Doth not our Glorification depend inseparably upon our Predestination yet not immediately And when afterwards Mr. Pemble is quoted with great ostentation to justifie that God is well pleased with the persons of the elect unregenerate but not with their unregeneracy it may be of some authority with men that cannot reade English Mr. Eyre sets down his words at large and what saith he why that God loves the persons of the elect but not their vices as Parents love their childrens persons even while they chastise them for their vices But is God therefore well pleased with the elect because he loves them that is hath purposes of doing them good or because Parents love their children and would do them all the good they can are they therefore well pleased with them even while they are correcting them for their vices let themselves judge We have shewed before that well-pleasednesse imports an approbation of a person and supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities And as for the inference which I made upon Mr. Eyres distinction between unregenerate men and their unregeneracy it was grounded upon presumption that the said distinction intended to shew the difference between Gods well-pleasednesse with the Elect before and after their Conversion otherwise I undertake not its defence In the next place Mr. Eyre addes something to clear up the difference §. 17 between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons As 1. That the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the elect yet are they not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Answ The best actions of unregenerate men are materially good as Prayer hearing of the Word Almesdeeds c. It is the want of a good principle and a good end which makes them unacceptable unto God 2 Chron. 25. 2. If the sinfulnesse of them be pardoned they must needs be acceptable as we observed before 2. Saith he The best works of good men are acceptable and pleasing unto God 1. Abstractly and in themselves thus faith hope love are pleasing to God 2. Concretely as they are acted by us and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ Answ 1. Abstracta dicunt essentias faith hope and love in their abstract nature are not considered as our actions but as vertues and in themselves good therefore that part of the answer is impertinent might we suppose that these vertues might be found in persons not elect their own goodnesse would commend them to God as much as when they are in persons elect 2. For a work to be washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ is to have the sinfulnesse thereof for his sake pardoned which because it is done to the elect as much in their unregeneracy as after the good works they do when regenerate can be no more acceptable then before SECT IV. OF all the places in Scripture which speak of our reconciliation unto God by the death of Christ I know none that seem to §. 18. make it an immediate effect of his death but that in Rom. 5. 10. and therefore I opposed that to my selfe and answered it in my Sermon And that the truth of my answer and the impertinency of all that Mr. Eyre sayes against it may the better appear I shall transcribe the text at large ver 8. But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us ver 9. much more then being nâ—w justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him ver 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life ver 11. And not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement The main objection is out of ver 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne The answer which I gave to it in short was this That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled which that it is the Apostles meaning we shall prove by and by in the mean time let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it His exceptions are six 1. Saith he It offers a manifest violence to the text To say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled Answ And it is a manifest violence to my words to say that I so interpret it I say we were reconciled quoad meritum immediately in the death of Christ that is his death purchased reconciliation for us and therefore through that death it is that we are reconciled actually and effectivè whensoever it be The second exception is the old irrational notion That if reconciliation depend upon conditions to be performed by us then we are the causes of our own reconciliation Where not only the consequence is false as we have largely shewed above but the antecedent also impertinent I am not now disputing whether reconciliation follow faith but whether it exist immediately upon the death of Christ The third This reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo before our believing Answ Yet will it not follow that it was made immediately in the death of Christ which is the thing Mr. Eyre should prove If we be not reconciled before we are born it is sufficient to prove that we were not reconciled in the death of Christ immediately whether faith be supposed to be necessary or no. 2. The word reconciled is used twice in ver 10. If they both relate to one and the same reconciliation of which I doubt as I shall shew farther by and by yet I readily grant that it was made in the death of Christ Were not my words plain enough before That we are said to be reconciled unto God in the death of his Sonne inasmuch as Christs death was the price of our reconciliation The cause was then in being though the effect do not follow till some time after The fourth If the meaning were no more but this That it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous Answ The emphasis of those words is plain God reconciles his enemies to himself whensoever it be that he reconciles them and Christ purchased reconciliation for enemies not for friends See Câ—l 1. 21. The fifth God was in Christ not imputing our sins to us 2 Cor. 5. 19. Answ That doth not prove but that I rightly interpret the Apostle here 2. In 2 Cor. 5. 19. reconciling and non-imputing are all one the latter interprets the former God did act towards the reconciliation of sinners and
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have 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
hence follow that sinners were reconciled immediately in the death of Christ without the intervention of a Covenant that is without the ministry of reconciliation Yea rather the just contrary follows for making of peace in Christs death is here made the means and cause of a future reconciliation that follows when even when by the Gospel sinners are converted unto God As is evident in the example of these Colossians v. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled As also by that place altogether parallel to this Eph. 2. 15 16 17. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the Law of commandments so making peace And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse and came and preached peace unto you c. Here we see 1. What is meant by making of peace viz. A plucking up the bounds and throwing down the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews and by consequence from God or an obtaining of a Covenant of peace that might reach even unto the Gentiles who before wâ—re afar off and strangers from the Covenants of promise v. 12 13. that they also might be fellow heires and of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel chap. 3. 6. 2. Here is the end of this peace made by the crosse viz. That both Jews and Gentiles in one body might be reconciled to God that is through the same faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but all are one in him through the same saith Gal. 3. 28. and 5. 6. 3. The means by which they came to be of the same body namely by the preaching of peace v. 17. Can any thing be spoken more fully against the immediate reconciliation of sinners in the death of Christ or for proofe that Christ obtained that Covenant of peace through the preaching of which the Gentiles were converted and so reconciled unto God Gal. 3. 13. saith that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law that is paid the price of our redemption or obtained eternal redemption for us as Heb. 9. 12. but doth it say that we are delivered without a Covenant made in the same blood and death of Christ nay the Apostle supposeth the just contrary namely that blessednesse whereof sure our reconciliation with God is no small part is given to us by Covenant v. 11 14 15 16. Even that which he calls the promise by faith in Jesus Christ v. 22. The last text is that mentioned in my sermon Matth. 26. 28. Christ saith Mr. Eyre doth not say that he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many Ans But he sayes his blood was the blood of the New-Testament which was shed for the remission of sins Of which former words Mr. Eyre is content to take no notice But out of doubt they teach us this or they teach us nothing that by the blood of Christ was the Covenant of remission obtained and sealed or that Covenant by which sin is pardoned to them that beleeve for the blood of Christ pardons not sin immediately but unto them onely that drink it by faith Joh. 6. 53 54 55 56 57. Hence the Apostate from the faith is said to count the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified an unholy thing Heb. 10. 29. SECT VII HAving thus shewed from the Scriptures that sinners are not immediately §. 31. reconciled in the death of Christ I proceeded farther to shew the grounds of it and they are two partly because the death of Christ was noâ— â—olâ—â—â—ejujdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of the equivalent and therefore doth not deliver us ipso facto partly the agreement betwixt the Father and the Son of which more by and by Mr. Eyre answers to the former Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or â—antidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction Rep. Yea Then the Lawyers abuse both themselves and us for there is scarcely a determination more common in the Law then o L. mutuum §. 2. ff de reb cred l. cum â— de sol l. Debitor ff de sol ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem l. si â—c §. 3. ff de re juâ— that a debtor is not discharged ipso facto upon the payment of any other thing then of that same which is in the obligation Titius is bound to pay Sempronius a hundred pounds in current mony of England when the day of payment is come he brings the full value in corne or he is bound to pay silver and he brings gold is he hereby discharged No. But if he bring the very same thing which he was bound to he is discharged ipso facto Now if when he brings gold instead of silver or corne instead of mony some act of the creditour is requisite to admit the payment of one instead of the other that so the debtor may be freed then is it also in the creditors power especially the debtor also consenting to propose upon what tearms he will that the debtor shall be freed either presently or after some time either upon condition or without which is all I seek for at present the consequence of this we shall see by and by In the mean time Mr. Eyre will have me prove that the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem A service which I little expected to be put upon by an English Divine p Vide librum â—vi mei reverendissimi Robertâ—â— arkeri de descensu l. 3. §. 57 58. p g. 108 109 The Assemb larg Catech. oâ— justi q. 2. 1. All our Divines acknowledge that Christ made a true proper satisfaction unto God for our sins q L. â—â—tisfact ff de solut Ergo his death was not solutio ejusdem the payment of the very same which was in the obligation but of the equivalent onely 2. Mr. Eyre himself but just before did intimate some kind of acknowledgement that the death of Christ was a payment of it self refusable Ergo it was not solutio ejusdem r L. quod in di em ff de sol l. quod quis 49. ff â—â— Action l. Accept 19. c. de usur for no creature can refuse to admit of that 3. It was not Christs death but ours that was in the obligation for the Law requires that he that sins dye and no man else If he that sinneth not dye that death cannot be the same which was in the obligation s Ut in contractu ersenali de facto Ulpian in l. inter â— rtif 31. ff de sol In corporal punishments which
if they be both in the very same bond and obligation hath some thing of truth in it though then also the surety hath the same action against the 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
hindred the reconciliation §. 7. of the elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediately reconciled But nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. Ans This Argument were something if the sinner himself had suffered according to the Law As if it might be supposed that Adam after his sin could by suffering have satisfied for his disobedience no doubt but he had been presently restored into the same state of favour which he was in before and might have gone to work againe for life upon the security of the very same Covenant with good successe And if Christ had paid the idem a thing impossible unlesse he were a sinner or we were Christ then indeed had his sufferings delivered us ipso facto and we had not needed a Covenant of grace to pardon or save us but are in as good a capacity of life without it as Adam was before he fell as we have observed before But that first Covenant being violated and no satisfaction made or possibly to be made but by a voluntary surety God is left at liberty as I may so speak to propose what tearms and time he pleaseth for the restoring of sinners into a state of life and peace Gal. 3. 21 22. Now when Mr. Eyre says that nothing hindred the reconciliation of sinners with God but the breach of the Law the speech is somewhat improper for though sin made the breach between God and them yet it is not that properly which hinders reconciliation but the sinners inability to make satisfaction could he have satisfied sin could have had no power to have kept him at a distance from God and so I perceive doth Mr. Eyre mean by his explication God saith he having made a Law that the soul which sins shall die the justice and truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the elect no lesse then of other men To the Argument therefore the answer is ready If satisfaction were made so which it was not as that the Law had been answered in the very thing which it required viz. the sinners punishment then I would yeeld it wholly and more then Mr. Eyre will thank me for namely that life is given us by the very same Covenant which was made with Adam in his innocency But satisfaction being taken strictly for a payment refusable which one is admitted to make for another and then it produceth the effect of our reconciliation no otherwise then as he that admitteth and he that is admitted to make payment shall agree Wherefore I deny the proposition as being grounded in the former false supposal viz. That satisfaction cannot be made in any way but it must needs effect a present discharge which I have already disproved The explication of this Argument I â—nd no fault with more then that one expression That the onely cause of Christs death was to satisfie the Law whereas they that deny his death to have been satisfactory at all do yet assigne many causes of his death which our selves allow of but there is nothing in it which tends to prove the thing denied more then a comparison or two which need a little consideration As when the cloud is dissolved the Sun shines out when the partition §. 8. wall is broken down they that were separated are againe united so 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 Ans Now would I know what is that moral necessity of Gods communicating life to us upon Christs satisfaction which answers to the natural necessity of the Suns shining forth upon the dissolution of the cloud for to say that God may salvâ justitiâ communicate life to sinners Christ having satisfied is not to the purpose 't is a must and not a may which must make Mr. Eyres Argument consequent one of these three it must needs be either 1. A necessity of obligation by virtue of some Law or Covenant but the onely Covenant which God made with man before the fall was that made with Adam in innocency promising life upon perfect obedience If by virtue of that Covenant God stands still engaged to give life to men supposing satisfaction to be made for disobedience then doth that Covenant made with man in innocency stand still in force as the onely way of life and men at least the elect are legally and in strict justice as innocent as if they had never sinned both which are desperately false and overthrow the very foundations of faith or 2. The necessity of a decree God having decreed that the elect shall be reconciled immediately upon Christs satisfaction for their sins it must needs be that he having satisfied they must be immediately reconciled But the very supposing of such a decree is the begging of the question and being supposed it will not inferre that the elect must needs be reconciled by the death of Christ immediately quatenus it was a satisfaction but simply quatenus it was decreed to be immediately antecedent to their reconciliation or 3. A kind of natural necessity God being essentially good cannot but do good to an innocent sinlesse creature or to a sinful creature supposing satisfaction to be made for his sin which is all one as if himself had never sinned But this is wider of truth then either of the former for whatsoever may be said of it in reference to a creature perfectly righteous out of doubt there was no other necessity of Gods accepting Christs satisfaction then his own good pleasure He might justly have destroyed sinners and never provided a propitiation for them It is therefore as clear as the Sun when the clouds are dissolved that there is no necessity of an immediate reconciliation between God and sinners upon the death of Christ but only of a reconciliation to follow then and upon such tearms as God and Christ agree 2. Wherefore to the comparison I answer that Christ died not meerly to dissolve and scatter the clouds of sin but to create a Isa 51. 16. 65. 16. â— Cor. 5. 15. 17. new heaven and a new earth in which himself was to shine as the d Malac. 4. 2. Sun of righteousnesse and to dispel the clouds and darknesse of sin my meaning is Christ died not to repaire the old Covenant nor by removing of hindrances to make us capable of the influences of life and love in that way in which they should have been derived to us by the first Covenant but therefore died he that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions he might become that new and living way through which we might come unto God by faith and partake in life and remission of sins Heb. 9. 15. and 10. 17 20 22. compared 3. Observe one thing more Reader from M. Eyres application of his
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
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
I thus proposed If we are justified in Christ then we are justified before we beleeve But we are justified in Christ Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon shewing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prosecuting his Argument the summe is Christ was justified in his resurrection as a common person Ergo the elect were then justified in him My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct The summe is if justification be taken properly I deny that we were justified in Christ if improperly I deny that it will follow that we were justified before faith because we were justified in Christs resurrection no more then it will follow that because we are said to be risen with Christ Ergo men are risen from the dead before they are borne or dead or while they are lying in their graves But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it First then I say we may conceive of a threefold justification 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justification purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ Heb. 9. 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ who himself was justified in his own resurrection and thereby became the exemplary cause of justification to beleevers by virtue whereof themselves shall also be justified in due time c. What says Mr. Eyre to this 1. He infers in general that then by my own confession justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered chapt 1. § 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God as purchased by Christ as exemplified in his glorification I should not count him worthy of a reply that should inferre that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before believing Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification tells his Reader before hand that That were a poore put off because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of justification simply there is no man but understands it of actual justification Which makes me beleeve his report concerning his book at least some parts of it that it had cost him but little paines for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much I mention justification cum adjecto with a limitation and in the close of my answer oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called and this I may not be allowed to do because of Analogum per se positum c. Nextly He speaks something on each member of the distinction §. 2. and says 1. That which I called justification purposed in the decree of God is real and actual justification Ans Thou hast then thy choise Reader whether thou wilt beleeve the Apostle or M. Eyre The Text quoted Gal. 3. 8. says thus The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The justification here spoken of is surely justification simply so called because it is put by it self without any Term of restraint or diminution and M. Eyres rule is Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato And this justification according to the Apostle was a thing foreseen a thing that God would do a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abraham all which notwithstanding M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our justification But of this we have spoken already as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the distinction The great exception is against the third branch wherein I say that §. 3. Christ in his resurrection being himself justified became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should beleeve I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this as I meet with in M. Eyres answer to it 1. Saith M. Eyre there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or patern of our justiâ—â—cation Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person in which he so much delights attributed to Christ 2. If concerning that which is equivalent surely the Term of an exemplary cause is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we beare the image of the heavenly Adam 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ from the beginning to the end of our faith Rom. 8. 29 17. Now wherin we bear Christs image therein was he an exemplary cause for to an exemplary cause no more is required then that another thing be conformed to it as its image and exist by virtue of it which I desire the Reader to observe because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause as if there were no difference between them If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ then he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours And whereas M. Eyre says that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary but a meritorious cause it is not universally true For the resurrection and ascension of Christ were acts of Christs as Mediatour and yet in them he was not the meritorious cause of any thing He proceeds thus It was needlesse Christ should be a patern §. 4. of our justification for this patern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not to God because he needs no patern to direct him Rep. The disjunction is imperfect for it was needful for the glory of Christ as the Apostle expresly witnesseth Rom. 8. 29. Them he also did prâ—dâ—stinate to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the first born among many brethren It is no small part of Christs glory to be the first begotten from the dead and a person so farre advanced above all others that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him and in being fashioned according to his image 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects as if we are said to be justified in Christs resurrection as a common person whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives or the influence which it hath upon our justification And whereas Mr. Eyre saies it can be of no use to us because we do not justifie our selves
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
exemplary cause rather then of a common person I give the Reader a little below 2. And that our Divines do usually call Christ a common person is a thing so well known that M. Eyre should not need to have quoted my Grandfather Parker to convince me of it He should have shewed that they call him so in such a sense as cannot be expressed by the tearm of an exemplary cause So doth not my Grandfather at least in the point of Christs resurrection of which he there speaks not a word but m Do descens lib. 4 sect 75. elsewhere saies with Athanasius Anima Christi descensum suum ad inferos peregit ab inferis resurrectionem produxit ut nostrae resurrectionis imaginem concinnaret which in sense is the very same that I say concerning Christs becoming an exemplary cause in his resurrection 3. Nor are our Divines such strangers to the use of that expression as M. Eyre represents them n Sound Beleev pag 79. 80. edit 1653. M. Shepheard useth it verbatim There is saith he a merited justification by Christs death and a virtual or exemplary justification in Christs resurrection as our head and surety So o Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. th 16 17. Dr. Amese finis resurrectionis fuit ut se justificatum alios justificantem ostenderet 5. ut resurrectionis nostrae tam spiritualis quà m corporalis hypostasin exemplar initiatio fieret Christus enim exemplaris causa est nostrae resurrectionis ut à morte resurgens p Lud. Croc. s Theol. l. 2. cap. 12. p. 353. So others His last Argument is that this expression savours rankly of Pelagianisme §. 9. and Socinianisme For they make the second Adam a meer paterne and example of our reconciliation Rep. I have read indeed concerning the Pelagians that they deny the propagation of Adams sin any otherwise then by imitation and that the Socinians say Christ shews us the way of salvation by the example of his own life I know But if I who thankfully acknowledge our Lords merits and satisfaction and live by the faith thereof am yet guilty of Pelagianisme and Socinianisme for affirming that as in all things else so in his justification he had this preeminence above others as not only to be justified himself but to become the justifying cause of others after his own paterne and similitude I am content to beare the reproach of both SECT II. IN the next place I gave the Reader an account why I used the §. 10. tearme of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person in these words I use the tearme of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Common-wealth but Christ is such a common person as that he is the cause of those whom he represents in every thing in which he represents them This excuse saith M. Eyre is both fallacious and impertinent Fallacious because it seems to intimate that an exemplary cause doth expresse as much as a common person which is clearly false for the act of the exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents Parents are examples to their children not common persons Rep. Know Reader first that we are not now speaking of our active voluntary imitation of Christ in duties of obedience but of our being passively conformed and fashioned like him in the participation of his spiritual blessings according to our condition and capacity Thus in our justification do we bear his image and partake in his likenesse who as he was the first borne from the dead so is he the first borne of them that are justified forasmuch as his resurrection was his justification And as our resurrection from death whensoever it shall be exists by virtue of his Joh 14. 19. He being risen as the first fruits of them that slept 1 Cor. 15. 20. So also doth our justification 2. This being premised I adde that to say that Christ in his resurrection was the exemplary cause of our justification is far more pertinent and significant then to say we were then justified in him as a common person especially according to M. Eyres use of that tearme of which more presently the reason is ready because the former phrase expresseth the influence which his justification hath upon ours and the dependance which ours hath upon his which the latter doth not for to be justified in another as a common person doth neither declare his justification to be the cause of ours nor ours the effect of his could we have delegated a person to have received from God that sentence of absolution in our names as Israel sent up Moses into the mount we had all of us been justified as immediately as himself nor had our justification had any dependance upon his though we had then been justified in him as a common person 3. Wherefore as to the tearme of a common person concerning which I have made a more toylesome search into the civil law and those few Civilians which I have then the moment of the matter requires it may be understood in a double sense either 1. fictione suppositi when a person by a kinde of civil metempseuchosis doth so represent another in what he doth or is done to him as that the same things are said to be done by or to the person whom he represents As Ambassadours represent the person of the Princes that employ them what they do as such is reputed the act of the Prince that sends them forth and what is done to them as such is reputed as done to him We do or receive that which our Attorney doth or receives in our name Or 2. Ex re gestâ when a person doth that in the effects of which be they good or evil others partake as well as himself Thus the punishment of high treason is common with the Traitour to his children though he do not represent them neither in offending nor in being punished Thus a Surety payes his money as a common person because the Debtour as well as himself if no compact hinder hath the benefit of a discharge though he do not represent the debtour in making payment In this latter sense I readily acknowledge that Christ was a common Person in his Death and Resurrection because we receive the benefit of both in our measure and kinde as well as himself And in this sense an exemplary cause expresseth as much and somewhat more then a common person But Mr. Eyre will have Christ to be a common person in the former §. 11. sense and that as well in his Death as his Resurrection That he was so in his death I deny roundly The reason is that for which Mr. Eyre chooseth to call him a common person rather then an exemplary cause because saith he the act of a
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose then nothing at all As to the reason added we have already shewed at large in what sense Christs death may be called the payment of our debt A debtour cannot discharge a debt and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid or upon some condition to be performed by him I shall beleeve when I see not words but power and argument which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre The Conclusion therefore and summe of my Answer was this Justification §. 15. is either causal and virtual or actual and formal we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things already confuted concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ and the payment and satisfaction in his death but upon the distinction it self he fixeth nothing By all which I perceive he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resurrection to prove ours I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection and he answers I know not what concerning Christs death Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration I grant saith Mr. Eyre that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us formally And therefore Christs dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase Rom. 58 9 10. Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before nor can I understand now viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ as it was his death not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth yet is the speech strangely improper As if a broken undone debtour seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him then his debt comes to should say his debt is virtually paid or himself virtually discharged by that mans money 2. To say that Christs satisfaction doth justifie us formally is to deny our Justification formal to be Gods act for it was not God but Christ that satisfied or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him or that he was justified before us yea rather we are first justified if his satisfaction justifie us formally because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified never till now that it justifies formally 2. The next observation that Christs dying for us or for our sins and our being justified are Syâ—â—nyma's in Scripture is most plainly refuted by Scripture Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered namely unto death for our sins and rose again for our Justification In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection §. 16. not made by me but by some others and it is here brought in by head and shoulders without the least occasion offered saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person to the Purchase of Justification in his blood Neverthelesse because the truth is on the objectours side and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself let us see what is said The objection is this 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the righteousnesse of God in him Ergo the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Thou seest Reader that the scope of the objection is to prove that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which Mr. Eyre after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it doth now plainly deny and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects What have we heard so often of Christs procuring meriting purchasing Pardon and Redemption when he is here denied to have done any thing tending to the procuring of our Justification But let us see Mr. Eyres answer it consists of three parts 1. Saith he That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause as when it is said That light is let in that darknesse may be expelled Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely if at all used in the New Testament and improperly wheresoever it is used and thrice in this chapter but a little before used in its most obvious sense verse 10. 12 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer that the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us do differ But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us Ergo the making of him to be sin for us and of us righteousnesse in him is not formally the same Mr Eyre 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act differing only in respect of the terminus à quo ad quem Rom. 4. 6 8. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin and the non-imputation of it is all one Rom. 4. 7 8. Ergo it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse but not the non-imputation of sin that is it procures positive blessings but not the destruction of or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse which
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we are wont to render Covenant or Testament may be taken in such a signification which appeare not either in the Old or New-Testament unlesse where they are used Metonymically or Metaphorically or other wayes tropically in any other sense then of a Law or a Testament or a Convention And most strange that he should also tell us gratis that it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. not onely a parte post but a parte ante not onely as hauing no end but also as not having beginning when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it and it is most certaine that that Covenant made with David had a beginning recorded 2 Sam. 7. 16 19. and all the places mentioned in the margine as Gen. 17. 7. c. Do also speak of such everlasting Covenants as we know were not without beginning And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge that notwithstanding this Covenant be eternall yet there are more especially three periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam 2. At the death of Christ 3. When God bestowes on men the benefits of the Covenant If we are properly in Covenant from eternity there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant nihil agit in simile therefore these three periods of time are but three degrees of manifestation that we are in Covenant Accordingly as I argued before in the matter of Justification so now in the matter of the Covenant If the Covenant of grace consist essentially in Gods eternal purpose of blessing the elect then is not the word Covenant that Covenant I mean by which the elect are saved taken properly in all the Scriptures forasmuch as it no where signifies the foresaid purpose A thing as incredible and abominable as the former But let us farther examine this undenyable truth If the foresaid §. 14. purpose of God be the Covenant of grace then Christ did not obtaine by his death that God should make a Covenant with the elect But the consequence is false and Socinianisme Ergo so is the Antecedent Mr. Eyre answers Though we do not say that Christ procured the Covenant he might have added and therein we agree with the Socinians yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the blood of Christ as deliverance from the curse inherent holinesse c. Rep. Such a salve for the honour of Christs merits I remember we had before in the matter of Justification viz. That Christ merited the effects of Justification not the act even as he merited the effects of election but not the act As if the reason were the same between a particular univocall cause such as Justification is determined to a particular kind of effect which causes do alwayes produce their effects immediately without the intervention of any other cause and an universal cause of severall heterogeneous effects such as election is and therefore produceth nothing but by the sub-serviency of those severall kinds of causes ordained to their severall kinds of works But the like distinction here between the Covenant and its effects is of worse consequence if I mistake not Therefore against Mr. Eyres answer I have these things to object 1. It makes void the death of Christ for if the elect before the death of Christ haue a foederall right to the blessings of the Covenant then they are righteous before his death for to be righteous by righteousnesse imputed and to have right to blessednesse are inse parable But Christ is dead in vain if righteousnesse comes by any other way or cause then his death Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediatour they must have the blessings of the Covenant whether he die or no for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulnesse at least upon the Covenanter to fulfill his Covenant If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Christ with the Elect what should hinder their receiving these blessings without his death Either God is unable to fulfill his covenant but he is Almighty or he is unfaithful but he is a God that keepeth covenant or our sin hinders but he hath covenanted before the death of Christ that sin shall not hinder for pardon of sin is a special branch of the covenant Or finally he hath covenanted to give us these blessings through the death of Christ and no otherwise But then we are not in covenant before the consideration of Christs death and besides which I most stick at then the whole reason why God should punish his deare and only Sonne so grievously is this it was his pleasure so to do But surely he that doth not afflict men meerly because he will Lam. 3. 33. would much lesse deal so with his Son 3. Either Christ and his merits are part of the blessings of this covenant or no. If they be then it is false that Christ merits all the effects and blessings of the covenant for he did not merit that himself might merit or be by his death the meritorious cause of our blessings If not then the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent then the Old The first covenant was faulty because it could not bring sinners to perfect happinesse Heb. 8. 7 8 9. and 7. 19. Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the blessednesse it promiseth unlesse Christ merit and bring forth the effects thereof then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old a faire advancement of the Covenant of Grace 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can consist with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been disputing for viz. That the New Covenant was made with Christ he performed the conditions and we receive the benefit Christs death was either the condition of the Covenant or of the effect of it Not the former if it consist in Gods purpose Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines disgust a conditional purpose in God And how it should be the condition of the effects when it is not the condition of the Covenant it self I cannot reach I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of Gods purpose and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purposed But then that purpose is not a covenanr properly so called Metaphorically it may be it may so be called but then it is such a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Christ but with God himself being no more then his own resolution within himself And yet the foresaid position viz. That there are no conditions of Gods purpose though there are causes of conditions of the things purposed had need of a distinction too for so farre forth as they are the effects of purpose they have no other cause or condition and
so farre forth as they have other conditions or causes they are not the effects of purpose The existence and order of the things purposed is from Gods purpose For example he did purpose that first he would give up his Sonne to death for us then call us then justifie us then glorifie us and had there been nothing else but Gods purpose these foure had been the simple successive effects of his purpose but had not had the relation of cause and effect amongst themselves That Christs death merits our salvation is not from Gods purpose but from the convention between the Father and him That faith is the condition of justification and glorification is from the promise of grace made with us That glorification is also a reward is from the same promise That it is not only a consequent but an effect of our justification ariseth from the nature of that act as being an adjudging unto glory that it is an inheritance is because it is given by Testament Wherefore all these purposed acts of God may be considered either simply ratione existentiae in respect of their existence and so they have no other cause but his purpose or quoad modum essendi according to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude or relation which they have one to another in their execution arising either from the nature of the things themselves or some Law Covenant and constitution of God and thus they are not the effects of his purpose But I have been two long in my reply to this answer of Mr. Eyres A word more to prove that Gods eternal purpose is not the New Covenant and I passe on That Covenant which is of the same common nature with those §. 15. Covenants that are wont to be made amongst men doth not consist ◠Vide Less de Iust jur lib. 2. cap. 13. D. 1. 5. Grot. dejure Belli lib. 2. cap. 11. 2. in the meer will or purpose of God The New Covenant or Covenant of Grace is of the same common nature with those that are wont to be made amongst men Ergo the New Covenant doth not consist in the purpose of Gods minde or will The proposition is certain Because whether Mr. Eyre will allow Gods Covenant to be a Covenant properly so called or will rather call it a promise it is certain there are no Pacts Conventions Covenants Stipulations Restipulations Testaments Pollicitations Promises or Contracts of any kinde made amongst men which consist in the internal purpose of the minde and therefore if Gods Covenant or Promise be of the same common nature with these neither can that consist in his purpose The assumption is supposed by the Apostle Gal. 3. 15. Brethren I speak after the manner of men though it be but a mans Covenant yet if it be confirmed no man disannulleth or addeth thereto and ver 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ c. Where the whole strength of the argument lyes upon this supposition that the covenant made with Abraham was a true formall Covenant or Promise such as usually passeth between man and man See to the same purpose Heb. 9. 15 16 17. many more arguments I could adde if need were SECT III. The direct answer to the Argument and the proof of it out of §. 16. Heb. 8. I thus delivered in my Sermon In the Covenant as recorded in Heb. 8. There are three things of distinct consideration the confusion of which so it should have been printed not the conclusion and so it is printed in the second Edition of my Sermon is the only support of Mr. Eyres Argument 1. There is the matter and blessings of the Covenant on Gods part I will be their God and they shall be my people 2. The bond and condition of it on our part and that is faith in those words I will put my Lawes in their mindes c. In these two things is the tenor and formality of the new Covenant They that believe the Lord will be their God and they shall be his people 3. There is also a promise and declaration that God will work this condition by which men shall have an interest in this Covenant and a right and title to the blessings of it I will put my Lawes into their mindes that is I will give them faith which faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant already made but as a means by which we are brought into Covenant and thereby invested in a right to all the blessings of it c. That this is the true meaning of the text Reader thou shalt see proved below In the mean time according to my promise take a farther Explication of the words which I shall set down in distinct propositions that Mr. Eyre may see what little ground my words afford him of all his wonderments and paratragediations Prop. 1. The Old and New Covenant so called ver 8. and 13. §. 17. are not two Covenants opposed in their nature and substance but one and the same Covenant of grace under an Old and New Administration This many learned men have proved and our Divines generally grant it and Mr. Eyre himselfe for one in this his seventeenth Chapter § 2. and therefore I set it downe without farther proof Prop. 2. Therefore that which is called the New Covenant and described ver 10 11 12. doth not containe the form and tenour of the Covenant of grace but only the differences between the Old Covenant and the New and the matter wherein the latter excells the former And that the name of a Covenant is given to it doth not alter the case it being so frequent in Scripture to use the name of Covenant when not the forme but the matter or quality and efficacy of it is signified 2 Cor. 3. 14. Rom. 9. 4. 1 King 8. 21. Hos 2. 18. Job 5. 23 c. Prop. 3. The differences between the Old Covenant on the one side and the new on the other are thus stated in the text The Old in generall is called faulty ver 7 8. and the faultinesse of it described in two particulars 1. That it could not give strength and ability to the people to fulfill it and by consequence 2. That it could not make them blessed in the favour and enjoyment of God ver 9. They continued not in my Covenant and I regarded them not saith the Lord. In respect of which it is elsewhere called weak and unprofitable and unable to make any thing perfect chap. 7. 18 19. compare also Rom. 8. 3. and Gal. 3. 21. On the contrary the New Covenant in general is called better ver 6. and its betternesse beare with the Anglicisme expressed in two opposite respects 1. That it should minister ability and strength to keep Covenant 2. And by consequence perfect the people in the favour and enjoyment of God ver 10. I will put my Lawes into their minde And I will be