sufficient cause of condemnation though he be not actually condemned for want of the concurrence of some other cause but what that actuall condemnation is which is hereby intended to be excluded we must farther enquire Condemnation which we are forced often to observe signifies either the sinners obligation to punishment or the execution of punishment in the former sense he is condemned who by the Law is guilty of death in the latter sense he who is actually damned and suffers the punishment threatned In distinction from one or both of these it is that a man is said to be damnable in himself If from the former the meaning is this That all the world the elect and all have wrought that evill which were most sufficient to work the forfeiture of their right to life and make them lyable to eternal death if there were any Law in force against them If this be the sense Mr. Eyre will have the Apostle speak in when he sayes all the world is become guilty before God marke what follows 1. Then the Law neither doth nor ever did condemn any man living for men are supposed to be damnable and but damnable not actually condemned for want of a Law in sorce to condemn them that is to hold them under an obligation to punishment The Law doth but shew its teeth pardon the expression reader but it neither doth nor ever did bite any man no not the most presumptuous transgressours of it though transgressours be as fit objects as can be for the Law to take hold of if it had power so to do Hence secondly I would ask whether ever God did condemn any man If he did by what Act not by the Law that shews indeed who are damnable in themselves not who are condemned of God I suppose it will be said that some are condemned by the eternall Act of Reprobation â—ut I leave it to Mr. Eyre to prove that the name or nature of condemnation can agree to that Act according to Scripture which if he cannot prove as sure enough he cannot nor all the men on earth it must needs follow that there is no such thing as the condemnation of any man according to Scripture Against this sense of the text I could adde much more if I could perswade my self to think that it were needful for the help of any man But it may be this damnability is opposed to damnation executed §. 19. and then the meaning is That the Law doth not shew whom God damneth that is punisheth with damnation but who are damnable or punishable in themselves if God should try and judge them according to the Law But 1. This is nothing to the purpose It is no part of my undertaking to prove that every one who at present is an unbeliever is damned as that word notes the execution of damnation or wrath actually inflicted but that he is condemned that is under a legal obligation to punishment till some gracious act of God discharge him When therefore Mr. Eyre opposeth that men are not condemned by the Law but damnable he fights with a shadow for he that is damnable executively is condemned legally which is that I am proving for it is the work of judgement to execute Laws and to give to every man according to what is due to him by Law if then upon supposition that men were to be tried and judged by the Law of works they would be found damnable it must be also supposed that they were before obliged by Law to the suffering of damnation 2. Otherwise the Law is but the carcasse of a Law and called a Law equivocally as we call a dead man a man for example There was a Law in Israel that whosoever should not humble himself upon the day of expiation should be cut off Lev. 16. which Law is now abrogated Neverthelesse it may be truly said that if a Jew who now keeps not that day were to be tried and judged by that Law he would be found punishable If it be said that Law is now abrogated and so no man incurres the penalty upon the non-observance of it It is most true yet may he be said to be punishable by it in sensu diviso in the very same sense in which Mr. Eyre allows sinners to be damnable by the Law of works namely upon supposition it were in force to make the penalty due and sinners were to be tried and judged by it 3. And was it not worth the while for the Lord Jesus to come down from heaven to redeem sinners from the curse of the Law and that at no easier a rate then by being made a curse for them when the Law never cursed or condemned any man but only shews who are damnable in themselves if they should be judged by the Law From which way of judgement the Elect are supposed to be secured by an antecedent act of God SECT V. MY second Argument to prove that the condemnation mentioned §. 19. John 3. 18. cannot be meant meerly of condemnation in conscience was this The condemnation of an unbelievers conscience is either true or false If true then it is according to the judgement of God and speaks as the thing is and so God condemns as well as the conscience If false c. Mr. Eyre answers There is a threefold act of conscience about sin 1. When it witnesseth to us about the desart of sin 2. When it witnesseth to us concerning the act of sin 3. When it witnesseth to us concerning our final state and condition before God Now if conscience bear witnesse to a man concerning what he hath done and what is his desart in so doing it doth but its duty But if it tell a man that for the sins which he hath done he is a damned creature and must perish everlastingly such a conscience is both penally and sinfully evil Rep. The Argument is wholly untouched For the question is not whether an unbelievers conscience condemn him truly in reference to his final estate but whether it condemn him truly in reference to his present state If it tell him that at present he is in a state of condemnation doth it speak true or false Herein Mr. Eyre will not answer me but saith only that if it tell him his case is desperate and without hope it speaks false I need not tell Mr. Eyre that his answer is impertinent I am perswaded he knows it well enough conscience may tell an unbeliever that he is condemned and herein it speaketh true though it do not tell him that there is no way of coming out of this state of condemnation which were false 2. The two former answers also are not much to purpose for to witnesse concerning the act and desart of sin is as proper to the conscience of a believer as of an unbeliever whereas our question is only concerning the unbelievers conscience And if this be the whole of what conscience can justly charge upon an unbeliever then is the
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
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
be offered up And as to Mr. Eyres two evasions that to be justified by faith doth sometimes signifie By faith to know that we are justified He might as well say the world was made by faith For by faith we know that the world was made Heb. 11. 3. And that otherwhile faith signifies Christ believed on we have often and I trust satisfactorily discovered that they are inventions from beneath not doctrines from above Let us now see what Mr. Eyre brings to prove that it was the §. 42. Will of God and Christ that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part Foure principles he lays down which neither singly nor joyntly can bring forth the Conclusion they are in travel with 1. Christ by the Will of God gave himseâ—f a ransome and sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God Answ But the Question is Whether it were the Will of God that remission should follow immediately upon the offering up of this sacrifice before the sinner beleeves and repents 2. That this ransome was alone and by it selfe a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to divine Justice for all their sins Answ But the Question is whether satisfaction may not be made by a voluntary surety with this agreement that they for whom it is made shall not be freed by it till they performe such or such a condition If it may as Mr. Eyre granted but now then he should have told us not only that Christ made satisfaction but that he made it with this intent that the elect should be presently discharged by it Otherwise he begs the Question a second time 3. God accepted it and declared himself well-pleased therewith insomuch that he hath thereupon covenanted and sworne that he will never remember their sins nor be wroth with them any more Isa 43. 25. and 54. 9 10. Answ The Question is still begg'd No doubt but God was well-pleased with the death of Christ as with a sacrifice or satisfaction in it self so perfect that his justice could not require more But whether he accepted it and was well-pleased with it so as that it should presently without the intervention of faith produce the pardon of any is the question which is here resolved by a go-by It is certain that some effects of Christs satisfaction are not communicated to the elect before they believe much lesse immediately in the death of Christ and seeing we are to grow up in him in all things till we have attained to the fulnesse of the life of Christ I confesse it is beyond my comprehension how we come to be perfect in one part of his life that is in one fruit and effect of his death while we remain imperfect in all the rest As to the Covenant which Mr. Eyre speaks of that God will never remember the sins of the elect nor be wroth with them any more Isa 43. 25. and 54. 9 10. The former place proves no more then that God takes it as one of his royal prerogatives to be a God that pardoneth sin as he also doth elsewhere Exod. 34. 6 7. Mich. 7. 18. the latter that the pardon which he gives is eternal neither that the elect are pardoned immediately in the death of Christ or while they continue in unbelief But the contrary is plainly supposed Isa 54. 1 2 3. 4. That by this ransome of Christ they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4. 4. and 3. 13. Answ Quoad meritum not quoad effâ—ctum till they believe as we have shewed before Christs death hath redeemed us from the power of sin as well as from the curse of the Law 1 Pet. 1. 18. were the elect therefore sanctified immediately in the death of Christ He hath redeemed our bodies as well as our soules yet are not our bodies redeemed quoad effâ—ctum till the Resurrection Râ—â— 8. 23. till then they lie in their graves by vertue of that common obligation unto death which the first Adam brought upon all men 1 Cor. 15. 22 49 56. And thus thou seest Reader with what successe Mr. Eyrâ— hath attempted to prove That it was the Will of God in giving his 〈◊〉 death and the Will of Christ in giving himself that his 〈◊〉 should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part â—is next undertaking is to prove That there was no such compact and agreement between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but only upon conditions performed by them In the issue of which whether he hath been any whit more happy then in the former we come now CHAP. X. An Answer to Mr. Eyres fourteenth Chapter and all the Arguments therein contained by which he endeavours to prove that there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods elect by his death and to suspend this effect thereof upon termes and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the Will both of God and Christ that his death should be available to their immediatâ— and actual reconciliation and Justification without any Condition performed on their part SECT I. HIs first Argument is this There is no such Covenant doth appear in Scripture Ergâ— there is none §. 1. Answ That the Antecedent â—s false hath been already proved from John 6. 40. and 3. 15 16 19. and Gal. 5. 2 3 4 5 6. and 1 Joh. 5. 11. and Rom. 3. 25. and Isa 53. 11. and all those places which declare Justification to be consequent to faith or wherein men are perswaded and commanded to turne unto God that their sins may be forgiven them Many such places have been already produced and vindicated against Mr. Eyres exceptions and it were no hard matter to produce many more as Jâ—r 26. 2 3. Stand in the Court of the Lords house and speak unto all the Cities of Judah all the words that I command thee diminish not a word If so be they will hearken and turne evâ—ry man from his evil way that I may repent me of the evil which I pâ—rpose to do unto them And Jer. 36. 3. It may be that the house of Judah will heare all the evil which I purpose to do unto them that they may returne every man frâ—m his evil way that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin Plainly discovering our conversion unto God to be the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy Which doth also notably appear by the contrary steps which sinners tread in working out their owne damnation Mark 4. 12. That seeing they may see and not perceive and hearing they may heare and not understand lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them But of this we have spoken enough before His second
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
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
came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God whereas saith he we say that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others And 2. Their notion who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature c. Answ Here is the foundation of all the following obscure discourse which I perceive Mr. Eyre had rather we should take for granted then he be put to prove I do therefore deny 1. That Justification doth any where in Scripture signifie Gods eternal Will or Purpose not to punish of which more presently 2. That it is any where in Scripture put pro re volitâ for the thing willed formally and under that habitude or relation Justification is the discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment whether it were willed or not willed from eternity is but extrinsecal and accidental to the Act it selfe 3. That Justification is any where used in Scripture for the effects of Justification though I deny no man the liberty of making use somtimes of such a trope but we are now enquiring de nomine concerning the use of the Word The Apostle makes that one Act of Election the cause of all spiritual blessings Eph. 1. 3 4. of which our Justification is one ver 6 7. no lesse then Adoption ver 5. which is an Act of the same common nature with Justification and by some eminent d See Dr. Reignolds Life of Christ page 402. Divines made a part of it and that suitably enough to Scripture phrase even when it is made consequent to our faith John 1. 12. Gal. 3. 25. with 4. 5 6. 4. Our discharge from the curse is either our discharge from an obligation to it or from our actual suffering it In this latter sense it is indeed an effect of Justification but in the former sense it is the very life being and forme of it unlesse it be understood passively and so that also may be called an effect of Justification because the immediate effect of a discharge active is a person discharged These observations Reader thou wilt finde useful in the following debate That absurd conceit as he calls it that some have inferred upon §. 5. an eternal Justification viz. that then Christ came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God is so natural a consequence of his doctrine that it will never be put off with a cold Negatur And I presume Mr. Eyre is not ignorant that it is a maine principle upon which the Socinians deny the satisfaction of Christ And if he will owne what himselfe hath wrote in this book he must joyne with them He affirmes that Gods eternal Will not to punish is the very essence of Justification page 64. 2. That by this Will men are secured from wrath and discharged and acquitted from their sins that it is a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin page 67. § 6. upon which premises I demand Whose debt did Christ pay his own That 's little lesse then blasphemy Ours why our bond was cancelled long before and our selves discharged and acquitted from all sinne and death really actually compleatly if Mr. Eyres doctrine be true And where then is any place left for satisfaction e De satisfact p. 119. Grotius hath well observed Obligationis destructio liberatio dicitur Hanc praecedere potest solutio sequi non potest quia actus nullus versari potest circa id quod non existit amplius To the same purpose f In tert Tho. tom 1. disp 4. sect 8. p. 58. edit Venet. Suarez Propriè non dicitur satisfactio quae post remissionem debiti sit sed quae fit ad debiti remissionem Est enim remissio debiti terminus satisfactionis non principium ut communi sensu omnium hominum constat Nec dici potest eandem peccati remissionem quae facta fuit gratis ante satisfactionem postea etiam fieri per satisfactionem quia repugnat idem debitum gratis remitti per justam solutionem But what need we the testimony of man the testimony of God is greater The text is plain Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sin is there is no more offering for sinne Ergo if sin were remitted from eternity Christ neither did nor could make any satisfaction If it be said that God did discharge us upon the foresight of Christs satisfaction I beleeve it to be most true of all the godly that lived before Christ but Mr. Eyre that makes this discharge to be an immanent not a transient act in God will not may not endure that it should be caused by the foresight of Christs satisfaction The next grosse mistake which Mr. Eyre tells us some have fastened §. 6. upon the doctrine of eternal Justification is theirs who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature thus If men are justified from eternity they are from eternity And I confesse Mr. Eyre hath well removed this consequence if his principle be good that esse justificatum is a terme of diminution But verily if the Scriptures have rightly informed us in the nature of Justification I do not see how the consequence can be avoided for Justification is one of the most eminent blessings contained in that Promise I will be their God So Paul Rom. 3. 29 30. Is he the God of the Jewes only and not of the Gentiles also yea of the Gentiles also seeing it is one God who shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living Matth. 22. 32. And if not the God of the dead who yet live as to their soules then much lesse is he the God of them that are not nor never were Ergo he doth not justifie them that are not Again He that is justified is blessed Rom. 4. And he that is blessed from eternity is from eternity for he that is not is neither blessed nor miserable To say he is blessed from eternity in Gods intention is no more then that there was a preparation of blessednesse for him in Gods intention which I readily grant and it profits Mr. Eyre nothing But it little concernes me to make good the foresaid consequence something more of it the Reader shall finde a little below in the mean time we come to the great Question whether Justification consist formally in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish SECT III. THe Will of God as Divines are wont to distinguish is either §. 7. voluntas beneplaciti or voluntas signi The former is the Intention Decree or Purpose of God concerning some Act of his owne to be done by himselfe in his due time The latter to confine it to our present use is his signal legislative revealed royal Will by which
he determines as supream Governour of the world what shall be our duty to do or not to do and what shall be due to us according to our doing or not doing of this Will Hence the Word and Lawes of God are called in Scripture his Will in hundreds of places By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity which is their proper Justification whereof his not punishing them de facto is the effect This I shall prove God willing when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre In the meane time the thing which he undertakes to prove is That the very essence and quiddity of a sinners Justification is Gods Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him I deny it and shall subjoyne some reasons against it by and by besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book But first let us see what he hath to say for it Thus then he begins Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse to a person Psal 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person is his non-imputing sin to him Ergo. Answ I grant the major but I do very much long to see what §. 8. definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification that may include Justification in Gods knowledge and in his legal justice and in our consciences that I might know whether these three be three several sorts or only three degrees of one and the same Justification but let that passe I deny the minor For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeales to the Original words both Greek and Hebrew both which saith he doth signifie an act of the minde or will Mr. Eyre is to prove that they signifie the purpose or resolution of the will in which sense they appear not so much as once neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Interpreters nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense and therefore that observation might have been spared 2. An act of the understanding they signifie often but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation but thinking devising esteeming or the like for example Isa 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Neither doth his heart think so Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendred Neither doth his heart impute se In like manner Psal 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt where the words are the same both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint And cannot be rendered Against me do they impute my hurt So Isa 53. 3. He was despised and we esteemed him not where the words are still the same It would be worthy sense to render them He was despised and we imputed him not Multitudes of like instances might be given But when the words will beare to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation they then signifie not an immanent act of the understanding or will but a transient act containing an objectum Quod or something that is imputed and an objectum cui some person to whom it is imputed who also is thereby changed physically or morally And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another Numb 18. 27 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned or imputed to you as though it were the corne of the threshing sloâ—re and ver 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it then it shall be counted or imputed to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floore c. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corne of the threshing floore for that had been a fiction or an errour and imperfection of the understanding but because by the determination of the Law it was made equivalent thereunto or equally available to all effects and purposes This is a transient act 2. When a man is charged as the Authour of such or such a fact 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris Junius This also is a transient act 3. The giving of a reward to a man whether the reward be of debt or of grace is Imputation Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. because punishment is the wages of sin and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law is the non-imputing of sin Psal 32. 1 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action which otherwise he might have expected that action is said to be non-imputed to him Lev. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him This also is a transient act In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament Righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur Beza Mr. Eyres glosse upon that text we shall meet with in due place and Paul prayes for them that deserted him in his troubles that their sin may not be imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyres Argument upon himself If Justification be a non-imputation of sin then it is a transient act and not an immanent act of Gods Will. But the first is true ex concessis Ergo so is the last And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weaknesse of his proofe The original words note an immanent act when they signifie some other thing then imputation Ergo imputation is an immanent act So much for the first Argument The second is this that which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification But by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. Answ The Proposition I readily grant the Assumption I deny §. 9. â— and detest For 1. It makes void the death of Christ for what sayes the Apostle Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain The case is altogether the same as to any other way by which men may be said to be justified for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ then was it a vaine needlesse thing that he should die for our Justification 2. Nor was there any need as to our Justification that he should rise again from the dead whereas the Scripture saith Arose from the dead for our Justification Rom. 4. 25. And therefore saith Paul 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins he speaks to those that did confesse his death but he was out when he
told them If Christ were not risâ—n they were yet in their sins seeing they were discharged and acquitted from them so long before 3. His intercession is also vain for he lives to intercede for us to save us from wrath Rom. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 17. and 7. 25. We are secured from wrath before sayes Mr. Eyre 4. Our preaching is vain for we are to preach to every creature under Heaven That except they beleeve they shall be damned Mark 16. 15 16. and multitudes even all the Elect are secured from wrath before 5. It doth also imply a contradiction that a man should be acquitted from sin who was never a sinner or discharged from condemnation who was never condemned If it be said the Elect were sinners and condemned in Gods fore-knowledge Mr. Eyre is better read in Dr. Twisse then to be ignorant of what inextricable inconveniences that answer is liable to But let us heare Mr. Eyres proofes of his Assumption God saith he loved the Elect from everlasting and his love is velle dare bonum c. Answ Which as was observed before is one of the g Vid. Croll Cont. Grot. cap 5. par 6. 7. cap. 1 p. 1. Socinians weapons by which they attempt the ruine of Christs satisfaction against which our Divines have provided sufficient armour A love of benevolence or good will moving God to seek out a way of satisfaction to his own Justice and of Justification of a sinner we readily grant h Vid Joh. Cameron oper p. 361. f. But his love of friendship and well-pleasednesse with a sinner was not from everlasting but in time as being a consequent of the death of Christ in whom he hath made us accepted Eph. 1. 6. as Mr. Eyre doth not only yield but contend below from Mat. 3. 17. and so saith the Apostle Rom. 9. 25. I will call her beloved who was not beloved out of the Prophet Hos 2. 23. and as for the text which Mr. Eyre quotes Ezek. 16. 6. I cannot divine to what end it is unlesse it be to finde me work seeing the love there spoken of is manifestly temporal ver 8. and the life mentioned ver 6. in the latter is the flourishing and honourable condition unto which God had raised Israel both in respect of their Politick and Church-State who were originally the fewest and meanest of all people and in a spiritual sense is the life which he breaths into sinful soules But what Mr. Eyre would inferre from hence himselfe best knows In short I readily grant that Gods eternal love doth concurre ut causa universalis prima as the first universal cause not only to our Justification in time but to all other our spiritual blessings but an universal cause produceth nothing without particulars and the quality of the effect is not to be ascribed to the universal but to the particular cause 2. Mr. Eyre is proving that Gods velle non punire is that act by which we are discharged and acquitted from sin and secured from wrath I wish he had shewed me how this Conclusion issues from these premisses His Argument in forme must run thus Gods eternal love discharges the Elect from sin and secures them from wrath Gods velle non punire is his eternal love Ergo. The major is already disproved The minor if understood of the love of God in whole confounds Election and Justification which yet Mr. Eyre is careful to distinguish a little below for what is Gods Election but his Love or his velle dare bonum If of the Love of God in part the Argument will run thus That which is part of Gods eternal love is a sinners discharge from sin Gods velle non punire is part of his eternal love Ergo. If the major be true Gods purpose of giving Christ of calling sinners of sanctifying them yea of afflicting them and of administring any Providence towards them which in the issue proves for their good may as well be called their Justification as his velle non punire 3. Mr. Eyre hath already granted at least verbo tenus that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish the Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others If this be true then the eternal act of Gods Election in it selfe considered gives the Elect themselves no more security from wrath then if they had not been elected Surely that concession will never be reconciled with the doctrine here delivered But we come on to Mr. Eyres second proof and that is from §. 10. Scripture Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Proposition is either an universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or an universal affirmative All elect persons are free from the charge of sin Answ Mr. Eyre should have put in the Apostles answer to the Question and then he had prevented mine The words are these Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that justifieth Hence it follows either negatively that no elect person being justified can be effectually charged with sin or affirmatively that all the elect that are justified are free from such a charge free I say not because elect but because justified for the charging of sin is manifestly opposed not to their Election but to their Justification but that their Justification is their Election or any part of it or contemporary with it as I may so speak is an inference without any foundation in the text 2. Yea it cannot be inferred according to Mr. Eyres principles though we should grant the Election here spoken of to be that which is from eternity of which presently for the Justification here spoken of is that which is grounded in the death of Jesus Christ Who shall condemn it is Christ that died But the eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre is pleading for from the text is not grounded in the death of Christ for it is an Act in God from eternity Now observe Reader that Mr. Eyre denies Christ to have merited the Act of Justification but only the effects I would know then whether the Apostle speak of the Act or effects of Justification in those words Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect if of the Act then the Elect were from eternity unchargeable and whose charge then did Christ beare and why doth Mr. Eyre all along tell us that our discharge from the curse is the fruit of Christs merits yea and what more as to the tâ—rminus à quo of our salvation I say what more could Christ merit possibly then that we should not be chargeable with sin And if that were done before by an eternal act there will be no effects of Justification left for Christ to merit as to our deliverance from sin But if the Justification here spoken of be meant not of the act but of the effects Mr. Eyre will grant me without
God this great change I say is a huge nothing for saith he a little below to be just and unjust is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person The Elect themselves then even when believers are children of wrath by nature yea of the Saints in glory considered according to what they are by nature it may be said that they are children of wrath And is not that a great change from wrath to reconciliation which leaves a man every whit as much a childe of wrath as he was before 5. I beleeve with Mr. Eyre that the Will or Purpose of God makes no change in a persons state but I wonder what he meanes by the reason added As if saith he God had first a Will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them As if God could not will a mutation in the creature without a mutation in his own Will He made the world by his Will and he also wills the dissolution of it after such a period of time this is a mutation in the world but none in God In like manner he may will that the elect for a time shall stand obliged by Law to the suffering of condemnation and yet also will that after a time this obligation shall cease and all this without any change in his will But we shall prove hereafter that is not the Will of Gods purpose but his declared Lawes by which a sinner is constituted just or unjust But let us come to a more close encounter Justification saith the §. 16. objection imports a change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum And if Scriptures be intelligible by the sons of men it cannot be denied Rom. 5. 8 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified in his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him Whether we are justified by the blood of Christ without faith or through faith we reserve to be debated in its proper place for the present it sufficeth us to observe from hence that Justification makes a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum in sensu forensi And what can mans reason require more for proof of it then these words afford Had the Apostle said You were sometimes cold but now you are hot you were sometimes servants but now you are free you were sometimes enemies but now you are friends he would scarcely be accounted a reasonable creature that should deny such expressions to import a mutation from one terme to another And must not then the like change be signified when he saith You were sometime sinners but now you are justified especially if we consider which I perceivâ— all men do not observe that the word sinners by which the Apostle expresseth their state before Justification doth not signifie precisely transgressours of the Law for even they that are justified are in that regard sinners 1 John 1. 8 10. Nor yet only and precisely such as are under the reigning power of sin though it be true that all the unjustified are so because their sinful condition is here opposed not to Sanctification formally but unto Justification And they of all men that maintain Justification to be perfect in the death of Christ may not so understand the word sinners in this place For these Romanes for example were not sinners after their Justification in that sense in which the Apostle tells them they were sinners befâ—re their Justification for the time of their being sinners is directly opposed to the time of their Justification But if they were justified immediately in the death of Christ it is beyond dispute that sin might and did reigne in them after this Justification even until the time of their Conversion unto the faith By sinners therefore in this place are meant such sinners as were by Law bound over to condemnation and had not at present any right to deliverance from wrath for that right was given them in their Justification as appears by the Apostles arguing à majori ad minus being now justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much more shall we be saved from wrath Nor is it unfrequent in Scripture by the word sinner to signifie a maâ— obliged to punishment see 1 Kings 1. 21. Gen. 43. 9. Rom. 5. 15 Gal. 3. 22. especially as m Inâ—iâ— l. 3. c. 11. â— 3. Calvin well observes according tâ— the Hebrew Dialect Vbi etiam scelesti vocantur non modò qui sibi conscii sunt sceleris sed qui judicium damnationis subeunt Neque enim Bersabe 1 Reg. 1 21. dum se Solâ—monem dicit fore scelestos crimen agnoscit sed probro se filium expositum iri conqueritur ut numerentur inter reprobos damnatos Hence the Hebrew n Vid. Joâ— Merâ—er Hâ—u Aâ—n w. iâ— Gâ—r 43 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin doth sometimes signifie precisely an obligation yea when it results from a fact which is not sinful As the Nazarite that was defiled against his will by the touch of a dead body is yet commanded to offer a sin-offering the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the reason is added because he sinned by the dead Numb 6. 11. that is Reus est tacti cadaveris And what was offered for the cleansing of leapers and of men and women for natural and unavoidable defilements is called an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 14. 19. and 15. 15 30. If now Mr. Eyre shall say that when the Apostle sayes much more §. 17. being now justified c. he speaks not of the act but of the effects of Justification I reply 1. It is not lawful for man to teach the Holy Ghost to speak The Apostle tells us that God commendeth his love towards us in giving Christ to die for us while we were sinners that we might be justified in his blood ver 8 9. therefore that which in God is the cause of our Justification in the blood of Christ is his love and so to be called 2. If yet it shall be said that that love of God is our Justification then whereas it is said God so loved us as to justifie us in the blood of his Sonne it must be said henceforward God so justified us as to justifie us in the blood of his Sonne which is ridiculous 3. If temporal Justification in the blood of Christ be but the effect of a former Justification which was from eternity what an empty noise hath the Apostle made in amplifying the love of God in giving Christ to die for the Justification of sinners and enemies whosoever is justified is not a sinner in the Apostles sense of that word but righteous not an enemie but reconciled 4. The Apostle if his judgement may be taken doth thus distinguish the act and the effects of Justification that the act is that by which of sinners we are made
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
Argument to prove that faith doth not evidence Justification §. 26. axiomatically was this The faith which justifies is that which is to be preached and pressed upon the whole world But we cannot presse it upon every man in the world to believe that he is justified and that if he doth not beleeve this he shall be damned Understand Reader that the direct tendency of this Argument is to prove that justifying faith is not a mans assurance that he is justified which I presumed was Mr. Eyres judgement because that Justification which is in Scripture made an immediate consequent of believing is with him a knowledge that we are justified I thought therefore that he had held faith to be an assurance because otherwise a man might beleeve and yet not be justified by faith And so the proving that faith was not an assurance would withal have proved that it doth not evidence Justification axiomatically or immediately But now I perceive that he doth not place the formality of faith in an assurance but rather makes this an essential property and effect of that if I understand him And so I confesse this Argument is not directly against him Neverthelesse it will not be amisse to examine his answer for if I mistake not either he must make faith to be an assurance tantamount or else he contradicts himself His answer therefore is this We do not presse every man to believe that he is justified but to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners 2. Amplexu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ Rep. I acknowledge this to be the very truth but Mr. Eyre cannot §. 2◠own it if he will be true to his own principles 1. He hath told us before that faith is essentially assensus cum gustu an assent with a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise assented to But this circumstance must concurre to make the Promise an object of my faith namely that I have right and interest therein otherwise I can taste no sweetnesse in it that is otherwise I could not truly beleeve it for to taste sweetnesse is essential to faith Wherefore when we presse all men to believe and all men equally and that with a true faith it is supposed that all men have equally a right in the Promise or else they are commanded to beleeve without an object to be believed for the object of faith is the Promise in which I have right and interest according to Mr. Eyre And this is that which I say is tantamount to a perswading of all men to beleeve that they are justified To argue it a little farther The right which I have in the Promise is either antecedent to my faith or consequent to it If antecedent I have what I would for then when in the preaching of the Gospel the Promise is proposed as an object of that faith which we perswade all men to the right of all men equally in that Promise must be presupposed it being not the Promise simply but the Promise in which men have right that is the object of faith If consequent then the first act of faith cannot be a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise because till I beleeve I have no right in the Promise and therefore can taste no sweetnesse in it according to Mr. Eyre To what he here sayes that we presse all men to believe there is §. 28. a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners because it is the summe of that which the soul assenteth to and tasteth sweetnesse in and thereby immediately comes to know its own Justification we must endeavour to understand more particularly 1. By sinners he meanes all or some only 2. The sufficiency of the merits of Christ must be understood either as distinguished from their efficiency and then the meaning is That Christ merited Justification for men sufficiently yet they are not thereby actually justified or as including their efficiency and then the meaning is that men were actually and most sufficiently justified in the meritorious death of Christ 3. The same sufficiency of Christs merits may be considered either absolutely and in themselves in respect of their own intrinsecal worth and value or relatively and ordinatively in reference to the ordination and intention of God in giving up his Son to death and of Christ in giving up himself which distinctions being premised it were an easie matter to ring the changes upon the foresaid Proposition and vary it into innumerable formes but I shall mention no more then I must needs When then it is said that every man is to beleeve that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners the meaning must be either 1. That the merits of Christ were of themselves sufficient to have purchased Justification for all sinners though they did not purchase it de facto for any This is false Or 2. That Christs merits are indeed sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but the effect which is the actual Justification of sinners is suspended till we beleeve Nor can this be proposed to be believed by all men equally for it is false in respect of the Elect who according to Mr. Eyre were justified actually sixteen hundred yeares ago in the death of Christ Or 3. That the merits of Christ were sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but were never ordained to be effectual to the Justification of all upon any termes or conditions whatsoever Nor can this be the Promise or Proposition which is the object of our justifying faith according to Mr. Eyre The reason is because supposing that every man in the world should beleeve this which is no contradiction and therefore may be supposed as possible yet they should not be justified notwithstanding seeing Christ never intended that every man should be justified by his blood upon any termes Or 4. That the merits of Christ were ordained of God and Christ to the obtaining of Justification for every sinner most sufficiently if they should or would believe This is most true but Mr. Eyre rejects it as too much gratifying those that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sense which is a needlesse feare and the two Arguments which he here proposeth against it he might have seen long since answered by Reverend and Learned Bishop Davenant of famous memory in his Dissertation De Morte Christi cap. 3. page 22 23 30 31. In short let Mr. Eyre state his Proposition how he will To say the merits of Christ are sufficient and but sufficient before faith to Justification is that which the Elect cannot believe without errour To say they are sufficient in reference to their own value and intrinseca◠greatnesse n Vid. Job Raynoll Apolog. thes parag 14. can neither be a motive to an unbeliever to come to Christ for righteousnesse nor can the believing it ever evidence
believe c. Answ I am sure he knows that many famous Protestants assert this as well as I and we shall see proof sufficient of it in due place and of the last also that none were to have any benefit by the death of Christ till they beleeve But Mr. Eyre takes special notice of one passage in this Argument §. 38. wherein I say that neither Justification in conscience nor before men are of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large answer § 11. which I am apt to think he would have taken no notice of but to acquaint the world with his good wishes concerning me He refers me to some texts of Scripture to learn what account the Apostle had of Justification before men and in conscience though I cannot learn what account he had of the former from any of the texts mentioned But be it what it will be I give him this brief reply That in comparison of Justification before God neither the one nor the other are much worth though they may be of some worth in these inferiour Judicatories Not only children but grown persons for ought I know may be saved without being justified of men or of their own consciences And I will never beleeve that that Justification is worthy of those many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Justification by faith which one may live and die without and yet be saved Who will prove to me convincingly that a Christian may not live many years and die at last in melancholy or madnesse under which distempers the judgement of men or of conscience is not much valued and yet be saved or that a soul may not for some grievous sin go with sorrow and darknesse to the grave and never see light till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light CHAP. V. An Answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter whether faith be the condition of Justification The Affirmative proved from Scripture Mr. Eyres Arguments to the contrary all invalid SECT I. TO Mr. Eyres Argument That if we were justified by §. 1. faith we were not purely passive in our Justification I gave this answer That to beleeve is a formal vital act of thesoul in genere physico but the use of it in Justification is to qualifie us passively that we may be morally orderly capable of being justified by God or though physically it be an act yet morally it is but a passive condition by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God As the reading of the book or acceptance of a pardon amongst men is a condition without which an offendor is not pardoned Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is not the condition of Justification wherein I do the more gladly joyne issue with him because upon this assertion of ours doth he take occasion to asperse the received doctrine of Protestants with the reproachful names of Popery and Arminianisme Here therefore I shall shew three things 1. What a condition is 2. That faith according to Scripture is the condition of Justification 3. That all Mr. Eyres Arguments §. 2. to the contrary are most miserably inconclusive A condition then is diversly described by divers Authours Some describe it thus a Navar. Enâ—hâ—r page â—8 Conditiâ— est suspensio ali cujus dispositioniâ— tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Others thus b Baldus apud Joh. Baptist in verb Conditio est adjectio quaedam per quam dispâ—situm habet in sui esse pendentium existentiam vel defectum Others thus c Pet. de Perus ibid. Est verbâ—rum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam dâ—â—ponens vult dispositum regulari d In L. 1. F. de â—oud demonstr Bartolus thus Conditio est quidam futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditur Any of these will serve my turn these things being agreed 1. That it pertaines to him that disposeth of any thing to propound upon what condition his will is that it be disposed of or not disposed of 2. That the nature of a condition consists mainly in suspending the actual obligation of the disposer until the condition be performed 3. That it is the will of him that makes the condition which is the cause of the obligation that comes upon him when the condition is performed of which we shall see more anon Now that faith is the condition upon which God hath suspended §. 3. his actual donation of righteousnesse to a sinner is so plain and evident to me that I confesse I cannot but wonder that men acquainted with the Scriptures should so much as question it Several expressions there are taken notice of by e Vide Bartelum late in L. 1. F. de cond Demonstr Azor. Inst Moral par 3. l. 4. c. 24. Civilians and Moralists as signes or notes of a condition and scarcely one can I finde which the Scripture doth not use somewhere or other in describing the order and habitude of faith to our Justification But I shall instance but in one or two I begin with that Rom. 10. 6 9. The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved That salvation here includes Justification appears from the very next words ver 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse And I appeal to common sense whether the particle If in this place be not a manifest signe of a condition upon which Justification is suspended or whether it be possible for mortal men to invent any words that can more plainly expresse the matter of a condition Try it by comparison with other Scriptures Gen. 43. 4 5. If thou wilt send our brother with us we will go down but if thou wilt not send him we will not go down and Gen. 34. 22. Only herein will the men consent to us If every male amongst us be circumcised Herein will they consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is upon this condition will they consent as we render that word 1 Sam 11. 2. on this condition will I make a Covenant with you See Gen. 18. 26. 28 30. Exod. 4. 23. Prov. 2. 1 4. Jor. 18. 8 10. and hundreds of other places In all which the particle If is manifestly conditional nor upon the strictest observation which I have made in reading the Scriptures am I able to espy so much as one place wherein the said particle hath any other use when it supposeth to any thing that is future by vertue of a Promise Indeed Mr. Eyre did f Chap. 5. §. 6. before mention two places wherein he will have the particle If not to propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but only to describe the person to whom it belongs viz. 2
hath been transacted between God and Christ And doth not Mr. Eyre see that if he yield it to have the nature and operation of a Law in discharging sinners he contradicts himself in his next answer wherein he denies that Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared act that is by a Law Indeed such a Gospel as he here speaks of may declare the sinner to be discharged by some former act but it selfe cannot be his discharge and therefore the answer is nothing to the purpose 2. The atonement made by Christ may be said to be perfect two wayes 1. In respect of it self and so it was most perfect as wanting nothing that was requisite to constitute or make it a compleat cause of our peace 2. In reference to its effects and so it is yet imperfect and shall continue so till the Saints be glorified because till then they shall not have the full effect or perfection of peace purchased in the death of Christ If Mr Eyre mean this latter sense when he sayes the Gospel declares a full and perfect atonement made by Christ he begs the question In the former I grant it 3. And so that the Elect were cleansed from their sins in the death of Christ quoad impetrationem because he obtained eternal redemption and cleansing for them but not quoad applicationem till they do beleeve because the remission purchased in the death of Christ is not applied or given to us till we believe 4. Though the Priest made an atonement for all the sins of Israel upon the day of expiation Lev. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themselves and humbling their soules on that day ver 23. otherwise they should have no benefit by that atonement Lev. 23. 29. Whatsoever soule shall not be afflicted on that same day he shall be cut off from among his people Is not this to teach us that without faith and repentance we shall not have remission by the death of Christ Secondly Mr. Eyre denies the Proposition which stands upon §. 2. this ground That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act Where note Reader that by a declared act I mean not an act of God declaring and manifesting to a sinner that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth willingly mistake me and thereupon patcheth a non-sequitur upon me which I intend not to unstitch but such a declaration of his will as is essential to make it a Law for the very essence of a Law consisteth in this that it is the declared will of the Law-giver Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11 12 13 14 15 16 c. which is the only rule that determines both de debito officii of what shall be our duty to do and de debito poenae praemii of what rewards or penalties shall become due to us Accordingly the thing I maintain is that our discharge from punishment due by Law must be by the revealed will that is by some contrary Law or Constitution of God And I very well remember that in private conference with Mr. Eyre about nine or ten yeares since I told him my judgement was so then and that our Divines were generally dark in opening the nature of Justification for want of taking notice of it to which he then consented But Tempora mutantur c. the thing it self I thus proved Sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. Ergo neither is righteousnesse imputed without Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it yet God may for his hating of a person is his imputing of sin The scope of Rom. 5. 13. is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently that there was a Law before the Law of Moses Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre indeed think that when it is said Sin is not imputed where there is no Law the meaning should be men will not impute sin to themselves where there is no Law To impute sin hath but two senses in Scripture 1. To punish it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and then the meaning is that men will not punish themselves where there is no Law and because the punishment which the Apostle doth here instance in is death therefore the full sense will be this that men will not kill themselves where there is no Law a very probable glosse Or 2. To accuse or charge the guilt of sin upon a person But the use of the Word will not allow us to understand it of a mans imputing or charging sin upon himself a Vid Guil. Esthi in loc For it is never used in all the Scriptures to signifie the act of a man upon himself but perpetually the act of another as Paul to Philemon ver 18. If he owe thee any thing impute it to me especially when it is put passively as here it is sin is not imputed See Rom. 4. throughout 3. And I do heartily wish Mr. Eyre would have given us a short paraphrase upon the thirteenth and fourteenth verses that we might have seen what tolerable sense could have been made of them according to his Exposition and whether the Apostle do affirme or deny that men did impute sin to themselves before the Law especially if the Apostles scope be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely to shew that sin in being supposeth a Law how can it be conducible to that scope to speak of mens not imputing sin to themselves without a Law 4. The grand designe of the Apostle is plainly to illustrate our salvation by Christ by comparison of contraries and the similitude in its full explication stands thus As by the disobedience of Adam sin and death entred upon all his children so by the obedience of Christ life and righteousnesse betides all his The Proposition is set down ver 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned This is proved ver 13 14. and the summe of the proof as I take it is this Sin was imputed and that unto death from the beginning of the world Ergo there must be some Law in being according to which sin was imputed for it cannot be imputed where there is no Law ver 13. This Law must be either the Law of Moses or the Law given to Adam The former it cannot be for sin and death were in the world long before that Law was given even as long as from Adam to Moses ver 14. Ergo it must be the Law given to Adam And so hath the Apostle his purpose That it was by the disobedience of one namely Adam that sin entred into the world and death by sin From whence it is manifest that God doth never impute sin without a Law that is doth
neither charge persons as guilty of sin nor punish them for it other sense the phrase of imputing sin hath none in all the Scripture for from the imputation of sin unto death the Apostle infers the necessity of a Law according to which sin was imputed in the long tract of time between Adam and Moses 2. Gods hatred of reprobation is not his imputing of sin as being §. 3. antecedent to any act of the creature whether good or evil Rom. 9. 13. If Mr. Eyre think otherwise why have we not one syllable of proof neither from Scripture nor reason to warrant us to call the acts of God by such new names as they were never known by before since the world was made The Apostle prayes that the sin of those that deserted him be not laid to their charge or imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 16. and the same sense hath the prayer of Stephen for his murderers Acts 7. 60. Lord lay not this sin to their charge both which suppose the imputation or non-imputation of sin to be a consequent to it not antecedent And against the constant language of Scripture and of all men must we be forced upon no other Authority then Mr. Eyres bare word to beleeve the imputation of sin to be from eternity and when the Apostle says sin is not imputed where there is no Law we must beleeve for Mr. Eyre sayes it that the meaning is There is no sin where there is no Law Briefely if sin be imputed from eternity men are miserable from eternity which is impossible for he that is not is not miserable Mat. 26. 24. Therefore Mr. Eyre hath a second answer and that is That §. 4. there is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but righteousnesse is the gift of God Rep. What then yet there may be and is the same reason of imputing sin and imputing righteousnesse which are both Gods acts It is but changing the terme and the matter will be clear To impute righteousnesse and not to impute sin are termes much of the same signification with the Apostle Rom. 4. 6 8. Now to impute sin and to non-impute sin are contraries though the latter be expressed by a negative terme Ergo they are both of them actions of the same kinde and common nature Contraria sunt opposita sub eodem genere proximo Ergo there is the same reason for the one and the other that if sin cannot be imputed without Law then neither non-imputed More particularly thus I argued that as condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth so on the contrary our Justification must be some declared sentence or act of God which may discharge the sinner from condemnation Mr. Eyre answers That as condemnation comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam so our Justification descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the second Adam which New Covenant and not the Conditional Promise as Mr. W. would have it is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. Rep. The reason then is acknowledged to be the same on both § 5. sides Ergo as condemnation is by a Law so must Justification be which was before denied To what is here said for explication I reply 1. That the former part of it supposeth that which I will never grant nor Mr. Eyre ever prove and that is That there is no condemnation which comes upon sinners for moral transgressions but by the Law given to Adam Indeed that Law condemned him as the head of mankinde for his first disobedience and so condemneth all his posterity for original sin But his posterity are not concerned in those personal sins which he committed after his first transgression nor in the condemnation which became due to him for them no more then they are subject to condemnation for one anothers sins But that Law which was given to him at first as the common head of mankinde and had effect upon him as such became afterwards of meer personal obligation both upon him and all men else for personal actual sins So that no man now is or ever was since the first transgression subject to condemnation by that Law quatenus it was given to Adam as a publick person for any personal sins of their own but as it was obliging immediately upon each man in his own person And therfore the Law of Mâ—ses speaks more personally Cursed is every man that continueth not in every thing which is written in the Law to do it Gal. 3. 9 10. And by this Law is every transgressour condemned not with a derivative condemnation such I mean as is derived and as it were propagated from another but such whereof every sinner in his own person is the first and immediate subject And unto this condemnation is our Justification most frequently opposed in Scripture The Argument therefore hath yet no answer nor nothing like it The condemnation of a sinner for his own personal sins is an act of God condemning by a Law Ergo the Justification which is opposed thereto is an act of God by a Law in like manner 2. I deny that condemnation comes upon any man by vertue of the Law given to Adam till himself be borne a childe of Adam Ergo from the acknowledged pnrity of reason it must follow that no man is justified by the Covenant made with Christ till himself be borne of Christ that is by faith Gal. 3. 26. John 1. 12. 13. and 3. 5. so that in this respect the Argument is yielded For clearing of the antecedent note That when it is wont to be said we were condemned in Adam it is not to be understood properly but with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an As I may so say to use the Apostles expression in a case not much unlike Heb. 7. 9 10. As I may so say Levi also paid tithes in Abraham for he was yet in the loines of his father Not as if we were then actually condemned who then had no existence for he that is not can be no more under Law then he that is dead and free from Law Rom. 6. 7. and 7. 3. and condemnation by Law being a transient act requires an object existent upon which it may passe But because the very same sentence which condemned him then takes hold without any renovation of all his posterity successively unto the same condemnation Even as when it is said in Adam all diâ— 1 Cor. 15. 22. Not as if men could die before they are borne but because it was appointed and determined by the foresaid Law that all borne of Adam should die Heb. 9 27. And in this respect our spiritual being in the second Adam is as necessary to our partaking in his
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
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher
that which is avoidable and is actually avoided by beleeving Ergo it is not the condemnation of final unbeleevers The Antecedent I proved in my Sermon from ver 36. He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him implying that the wrath of God by the Law is upon every sinner for he is condemned already yet not so necessarily and remedilesly but that by beleeving he may escape it but if he beleeves not then it abides on him To this Mr. Eyre tells me That to say the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborne the Spirit to serve our turne A short way of answering Arguments y Contra Crell p. 452 453. This very interpretation doth Essenius vindicate at large against Mr. Eyres friends in the point of eternal reconciliation the Socinians and urgeth the significancy of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abideth according to its constant use in Scripture though I stand not so much upon the bare word The same interpretation doth z Tract 14. in Joan. Non dicit Ira dei venit ad eum sed manet super eum c. Augustine give of it and many others Protestants and Papists Chemnitius a Analys in loc Piscator Aretius Beza Dyke Jansenius Tolet Ferus c. Who being such professed enemies in religion cannot be rationally suspected of a confederacy against the Spirit I had thought a Minister might have said not only to each man distributively but to the whole world collectively if he were able to speak to their hearing believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved without being guilty of suborning the Spirit to serve his own turne And yet surely in so saying he doth more then hint that the wrath of God may be escaped by believing 5. And that I do not erre in the meaning of the holy Ghost I am yet farther convinced because the Lord came not into the world to §. 6. give life simply but to give salvation v. 17. that is to give life to them that were dead Ergo they whom he saves were dead de jure or de facto as the Apostle argues 2 Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all then were all dead And to be dead in Law is to be under condemnation Now whom doth Christ save not final unbeleevers but such as are unbeleevers for a time only Ergo they who are now beleevers were sometime under condemnation or else Christ never saved them If they are only condemned in themselves or by the Law in that diminutive respective sense in which Mr. Eyre useth that phrase they are never a whit the more in danger of perishing for that and therefore not capable of being saved properly 6. The comparison which our Lord proposeth v. 14 15. and upon which this whole discourse dependeth puts it yet farther out of doubt As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wildernesse even so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have eternal life Concerning which words we debaâ—e more particularly under the third generall Argument following and therefore here I shall only make some brief observations upon the coâ—parison and passe on 1. As then the people for whom the serpent was lifted up were all mortally stung of the fiery serpents see the story it self Numb 21. 6 7 8 9. So is all the world become subject to condemnation through sin for the people that were stung in the type are the world in the Antitype and their mortal wound there is condemnation here by our Lords own exposition v. 16 17 19. 2. That as the serpent was by Gods appointment lifted up in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed of the mortal bites of the fiery serpent and live so is the Sonne of man lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life by Gods appointment in like manner v. 15 16. 3. That as the serpent was not lifted up to destroy any of the people for they were mortally wounded before but to heale them so Christ was not sent into the world to condemn the world for they are condemned already but to save them v. 17. 4. Yet they that looked not on the serpent so lifted up did thereby procure unto themselves a certaine death because it was to be absolutely unavoydable by any other means whatsoever so they that beleeve not on the Sonne of God but love darknesse rather then light do thereby procure to themselves certaine and remedilesse condemnation v. 18 19. There remaining no more sacrifice for sin as the Apostle speaks Heb. 10. 29. Hence I deduce these four Corollaries 1. That condemnation lyes upon all men without difference for sin 2. Yet there is a remedy and way of escape from this condemnation revealed in the Gospel 3. That the way to escape condemnation is to beleeve on Jesus Christ 4. The contempt of Christ by positive unbelief makes condemnation unavoidable Ergo every man in the world whiles an unbeleever or so long as he continues in unbelief is under condemnation And as to the Text which Mr. Eyre brings in for illustration §. 7. Joh 8. 24. If you beleeve not you shall die in your sins I consent to Mr. Eyres interpretation that the meaning is if you beleeve not at all or if you never beleeve you shall die in your sins And it informes us in the truth of those two things which I have been hitherto contending for 1. That because of their sins they became lyable to eternall death 2. That yet their condemnation was not peremptory and irrevocable unlesse to all their other sins they added unbelief final for if at any time they did beleeve they should escape that wrath which was due to them for sinne As when Paul saies Act. 27. 31. Except these men abide in the ship you cannot be saved He shews them that they were in eminent danger of perishing in the waters and yet that they might be safe enough if the men aforesaid continued in the ship That place therefore makes against Mr. Eyre altogether SECT II. BEfore we speak any further of this place we must attend M. §. 8. Eyre who interposeth another Text which I mentioned not under this but under the former Argument to the same purpose and that is Eph. 2. 3. Where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to eternall life chap. 1. 4. that they were by nature children of wrath as well as others Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they wâ—re under condemnation before conversion Rep. This might have been spared if this text had been answered in the place where I produced it and so it may yet for wrath and condemnation often signifie one and the same thing in Scripture Joh. 3. 19 36. 1 Thes 1. 10. Rom. 1. 17 18. 2.
5. with Rom. 8. 1 34. And to the same sense doth Mr. Eyre himself expound it in his maine answer which is this By nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God Yet this hindred not but that by grace they might be the children of his love for so all the elect are while they are in their blood and pollution Ezek. 16. 4 8. The Lord calls them his sonnes and children before conversion Isa 43. 6. and 53. 11. and 8. 18. Heb. 2. 9. For it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children Eph. 1. 5. Rom. 8. 29. Joh. 17. 6. Elect children have the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to them though they know it not and I know no reason saith he why it should not be imputed to the rest of the elect before conversion Rep. Two things I have here to do 1. To shew what the Apostles §. 9. sense is in these words 2. What is Mr. Eyres sense and how inconsistent with the Apostles 1. When the Apostle saies we were by nature children of wrath by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature I understand their whole naturall condition from their very first originall wherein they began to be the children of Adam unto the time of their conversion unto Christ And so his meaning is that during the whole time of their naturall unregenerate estate they were under an obligation to eternal punishment for the sinfulnesse of their nature and b per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc in loco intelligi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ait Suidas in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad finem lives That this is his meaning is manifest not only from this verse Amongst whom we all had our conversatiou in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath even as others and from the words following v. 4 5. But God when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ but also from that other place altogether parallel to this Colos 2. 13. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses c Vide Esthium Davenanâ— Bâ—zam Dâ—odat Hemming alios Expositors are agreed that by the uncircumcisâ—on of the flesh is meant the sinfulnesse and corruption of nature and therefore by comparing the places together it is manifest that for the sinfulnesse of their nature and conversation the two parts of the naturall man the Apostle pronounceth these Ephesians to have been in times past children of wrath and damnation no lesse then any other Now for Mr. Eyre we must a little enquire what is his meaning §. 10. when he says that beleevers were children of wrath namely by nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam and againe that considered in themselves and as they come from the loynes of Adam they are sinful and cursed creatures Which being to be understood in a diminutive sense only secundum quid for Mr. Eyre will not allow us to inferre that because they are under wrath by nature Ergo they are under wrath simply nor because they are cursed in themselves Ergo they are cursed simply must therefore be extended no farther then may consist with a state of blessednesse and freedom from wrath which the same persons are in at the same time And so the meaning is that there is in every man even the elect themselves naturally and as they are the children of Adam sufficient ground and matter of condemnation though they never stand actually condemned either in respect of their obligation to or the execution of punishment because of the grace of God preventing and hindring it Even as he said before that the Law condemned the elect whom yet he denies to be ever condemned simply by the word condemneth a verbe of active signification expressing not the effect which the Law produceth for it is impossible men should be condemned and not condemned both at once but the faculty power and virtue that is in the Law to condemne sinners if the Act of it were not hindred and bound up by grace Thus do we often speak in ordinary discourse as when we say Rhubarbe purgeth Choler not relating to the actual operation of it though the verb be of active signification but to the virtue of it for such an operation and light makes all things manifest relating still to the faculty and property of it not to the Act or exercise for the words may be spoken at midnight And as in these and the like expressions the verbe active signifieth not the Act or present influx of the cause but the power and virtue of it so when it is said that a man is accursed condemned in himself or by nature or the like the verbs passive do not note the effect wrought and existing but the morall capacity of a person to be the object of condemnation nothing on his part hindring it but rather preparing and disposing him for it This if any thing being Mr. Eyres sense we are next to shew §. 11. that it is altogether inconsistent with the Apostles meaning in this text And that appears 1. From that the Apostle doth not say we are the children of wrath by nature but we were the children of wrath by nature namely in times past as he doth twice expresse himselfe v. 2 3. plainly opposing the time present to the time past wherein they were children of wrath but now were ceased to be so Whereas according to the sense which Mr. Eyre puts upon the words it is impossible that a sinner should be delivered from being a child of wrath either in this world or in the world to come Even glorified Saints considered according to what they are by nature or in themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam are children of wrath and so they remaine to all eternity 2. The phrase here used as Beza well observes children of wrath is borrowed from the Hebrews who are wont to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sonne of death who is designed or adjudged to die or hath contracted upon himself an obligation unto death without any present actuall reversion as he that is found guilty of stripes and adjudged to be beaten is called a sonne of stripes Deut. 25. 2. see also 1 Sam. 20. 31. and 2 Sam. 12. 5. Psal 102. 20. Therefore the same phrase applied here to the elect in their unbelief notes that they were then under such an ordination to death as did exclude their present d C ram Deo damnati Calvin pardon and absolution They that were pardoned were children of life not of death 3. We were also children of wrath saith the Apostle even as others Will it
in Psal 19 4. Poni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grammar Indefinita sunt tempora incertae significationis sumuntur enim pro praeteritis interdum pro praes Futur The same doth Eustathius observe on that of b Iliad a. ciâ—ca princip Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some latter copies read it Examples are frequent in Scripture Joh. 15. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 23. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 6. 5 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and many other places Examples of the present tense put in the signification of the future I alledged these Joh. 4 25. The Messiah cometh that is will shortly come Mr. Eyre will have this sense of it The promise of the Messiah draws nigh to be fulfilled Rep. But we are not now enquiring into the theological truth but grammatical construction of the words If Schoole-boyes should construe the words as Mr. Eyre doth english them I beleeve their Master would con them thanks Another place was Joh. 5. 25. The houre is coming and now is M. Eyre answers The dead then did heare the voice of the Sonne of God Answ Whatsoever be the meaning of the words the same houre could not be that is now exist and yet be coming too Another place was Joh. 14. 3. If I go I come againe This I think Mr. Eyre grants to be for my turne for he excepts nothing against it and one place is as good as a hundred and if it were worth while I would also vindicate the next place which is 2 Cor. 3. 16. In the mean time the judgement of our translatours is sufficient to oppose to Mr. Eyres Who if they had not thought verbes of the present tense might have the signification of the future would not so have rendred them Examples of verbes of the present tense as notes of affirmation §. 7. without reference to any determinate time were these Rom. 8. 24. By hope we are saved that is it is in the way of hope and patient expectation that men are saved whensoever it be that they are saved Mr. Eyre answers They are saved by hope that is they have now the joy and comfort of their salvation through faith and hope They are now saved by hope or they shall never be saved by hope in the world to come they are saved by sight not by faith or hope Rep. 1. But the Apostle supposeth the salvation he speaks of to be absent not present because we hope for it 2. We have observed before that joy and comfort are sometimes expressed by the name of life never by the name of salvation in the New-Testament 3. To be saved by sight â— little better then non-sense what Divine can be found that ever penned such uncouth language sight is it self our positive salvation And we are saved in the world to come by that hope which we exercise in this present life forasmuch as salvation is the end of our hope and faith 1 Pet. 1. 9. I must confesse I am so well acquainted with the abilities of the Author whom I oppose that I know not almost what interpretation to put upon these his strange kinde of disputings Another Text is 1 Cor. 15. 57. Thankes be unto God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ The meaning is it is through God that we have the victory over death be it when it will be that we have it Mr. Eyre will have it read thâ—nks be unto God who giveth us or hath given us the victory for saith he the Saints have already obtained victory over death and the grave in Christ their head Rep. But the Apostle speaketh manifestly of the victory which God giveth them in their own Persons the time of which he doth also describe in general a little before v. 54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality then shall be brought to passe the saying that is written death is swallowed up in victory This therefore is the victory which God giveth So Heb. 10. 35. Your confidence hath a great recompence of reward That is saith Mr Eyre in the present effects which it did produce as inward peace joy c. Rep. And yet in the very verse foregoing v. 34. it is called that better and enduring substance in heaven and in the following verse v. 36. The promise which is obtained after that with patience we have done the will of God and v. 39. The saving of the soul The last place I mentioned was Jam. 1. 17. Every good gift cometh down from above Not as if it must needs be coming down when the Apostle spake those words but that whensoever any one receives a good gift it is from God Against this Mr. Eyre excepts nothing If then in these and many other places and that by Mr. Eyres own confession for he acknowledgeth an heterosis of tenses to be a trope very frequent in Scripture verbes of the present tense have sometimes the signification of verbes future sometimes are only notes of affirmation without respect to any definite time Why doth Mr. Eyre make such outcries against me to so little purpose for interpreting the present words In whom I am well-pleased according to the Analogy of other places Why saith he I should have shewn that it must be so expounded here §. 8. Rep. Nay but by his leave I have performed my undertaking in shewing that they yeeld him no proofe of what he sought in them Besides my judgement of the words is that they ought to be confined to the person of Christ and that I thought and yet think sufficiently proved because they mention no other persons and they are a compleat sentence without the addition What I speak of this second answer is upon allowance to Mr. Eyre of the selvidge he would sow upon them to shew that notwithstanding that addition yet the words do not come up to his purpose SECT III. NEverthelesse I did also farther shew that his interpretation §. 9. could not be right because the Text would then contradict plaine testimony of Scripture particularly that in Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God or to be pleasing unto God Mr. Eyre answers The Apostle speaks there of mens works and actions not of their persons Rep. 1. But the Greek b See 2 Cor. 5. 9. Rom 12 1. 14. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it denotes Gods well-pleasednesse with a person is never used but to signifie Gods complacency in or approbation of a person because of his qualities or actions or both So doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also when it notes not the decree or purpose of the will as sometimes it doth but the affection as when it is said in chapter 10. 38. If any man draw back namely by unbelief Heb. 3. 12. my soule shall have no pleasure in him Where Gods displeasure is with the person but
it 3. In the mean time I must confesse to Mr. Eyre I do not understand what he means to tell us of a wall of partition raised between God and the elect What are they justified and all their sins pardoned and that from eternity and yet is there a wall of partition between God and them Is pardoned sinne able to separate between the soul and God Woe to poore sinners if this be true But let us see his Scriptures for one Text of Scripture is of more §. 12. consequence to me then a hundred such Arguments they are these Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 13 14. Colâ—ss 1. 20 21. and 2. 13 14. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rep. To Ephes 1. 6 7. we have answered before and have shewed from the very letter of the Text that it doth not only not exclude faith from being necessary to Gods acceptance of us but also doth necessarily include it Eph. 2. 13 14. speaks not of a partition wall between God and sinners but between Jews and Gentiles The words are these But now in Christ Jesus yea who sometimes were afarre of are made nigh by the blood of Christ for he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us Indeed in ver 16. there is mention made of reconciliation unto God but such as throws down the wall and bulwarks which Mr. Eyre would build upon it And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Crosse having slain the enmity thereby Can any thing be more plain then that Jewes and Gentiles are first made one body by faith before they are actually reconciled to God by the vertue of the Crosse of Christ Therefore holy Bayne observes well upon the place That we must get fellowship with Christ we must be incorporated with him and with believers before we can be reconciled with him And surely this incorporation is by faith ver 13. 17 20. chap. 3. 6 12. and 4. 4. John 10. 16. The same I say to Col. 1. 20 21. And having made peace or making §. 13. peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the blood of his Crosse by him to reconcile all things to himselfe by him I say whether they be things in earth or things in heaven And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your minde by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death c. Doth not the Apostle speak as plainly as it is possible for mans tongue to utter it that by the body and death of Christ these Colossians were reconciled now which particle now is expressely opposed to the time wherein they were alienated and enemies in their mindes by wicked works I shall here transcribe something of a reverend and renowned d â—p Davenant on the place Doctour of our own because his words are so cleer and full Ex hoc loco colligimus c. Out of this place we gather that there is a double reconciliation considered in Scripture the one general finished in the sacrifice on the Crosse of which the Apostle spake in the verse foregoing It pleased the Father by the blood of the Crosse to reconcile all things to himselfe and John chap. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world This I call general because it is considered according to the value of the sacrifice which is not only general but infinite and according to the manner of proposing it in the preaching of the Gospel which is also indefinite and general But besides this reconciliation in the Crosse and generally Applicable unto all the Scripture shews us also a particular and applied reconciliation in the hearts and consciences of particular men namely when that sacrifice of Christ which hath in it an universal power of reconciling all men is actually applied to the reconciliation of this or that man Of this speaks the Apostle when he says Now hath he reconciled you 2ly we are taught when and how men are made partakers of this particular reconciliation namely by the faith of the Gospel As Rom. 3. 22. Thus farre Davenant If then Mr. Eyre will urge this place aright it overthrows the thing which he would prove by What consequence is this The Scriptures â—ear witnesse that they that believed were reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne Ergo They were reconciled while they were in unbelief The next place is Col. 2. 13 14. And you being dead in your sinnes §. 14. and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses If Mr. Eyre will argue from this verse his inference must be this Ergâ— all their trespasses were forgiven them immediately upon the death of Christ But the Adverbs of time though they be not here expressed yet are they necessarily implied as appears plainly from the parallel place Eph. 2. 1 2 3. where their death in sin is expresly limited to the time past namely the time of their unbelief in opposition to the time present namely the time of their Conversion which words if we borrow from thence and put them here the Apostles sense is plainly this you were in times past dead in sins but now since you have believed are quickened that is to say have your sins pardoned which to be his meaning is undeniable from ver 12. the verse next foregoing where he tells them that they were risen with Christ in Baptisme through the faith of the operation of God And then presently addes as another excellency and priviledge of the same faith if at least the priviledge be not the same in other words that they were quickened together with Christ through the pardon of their sins where as their being raised with Christ in Bapptisme doth by no means note simultatem temporis that they were baptized at the same time as Christ was raised but similitudinem qualitatis that by faith and baptisme they were conformed spiritually unto the image of Christ in his Resurrection See Rom. 6. 4 5 6. so neither doth their being quickened with Christ in the forgivenesse of their trespasses signifie that their sins were then forgiven when he was quickened much lesse immediately upon his death which Mr. Eyre should and would prove but our conformity to him in our deliverance from death moral as he was raised from death natural But it may be 't is the next verse which Mr. Eyre thinks more for his purpose ver 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us which was contrary to us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Crosse The words as I conceive with our Expositors are to be understood of the abrogation of the ceremonial Law by which the Jewes were separated from the Gentiles and the Gentiles from that accesse unto God which the Jewes had And this indeed was a necessary and faire preparation to the reconciling of the
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
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
angry with his brother without a cause Whosoever shall say unto his brâ—ther Racha Whosoever shall say thou foole shall be in dangâ—r of such and such punishments Can these or the like expressions any where else be onely the descriptions of persons that shall be punished and that from the consequent of their punishment as already begun 2. The Lord by comparing faith to seeing seems to allude to Israels §. 37. looking up to the brazen serpent for healing Numb 21. As he also doth almost in the same words altogether in the same sense Joh. 3. 14 15. As 〈◊〉 lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish c. Now I would know when it is said Numb 21. 8. Every one or whosoever looketh upon it sâ— the Serpent do the words onely describe the persons that should be healed from their property oâ— looking up or do they also proâ—â—â—â— the Act upon which their healing was suspended If the latter 〈◊〉 those words Whosoever seâ—â— and beleeveth the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life must be understood in the same sense If the former thâ—n the Israelites might also have been healed before they looked up to the serpent for to denominate them lookers it is sufficient that they looked up at any time whether before or after they â—â—re healed But I will not do one work twice enough hath been spoken already against this notion unlesse it had some better authority then meerly mans invention The next place I mentioned was â—â—l 5. 2 4. without faith Christ §. 38. shall profit us nâ—thing 〈◊〉 it was not the will of God nor of Christ that any man should be justified by the death of Christ till he doth beleeve But sâ—ith Mr. Eyre this place is pâ—lpâ—â—ly abâ—â—eâ— Thâ— Apostle doth nâ—t 〈◊〉 withoâ—t faith Christ shall profit â—s nothing but if we 〈◊〉 any thing 〈◊〉 Christ as necessary to attaine salvation we are not beleâ—vers our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing Rep. Where doth the Apostle say these words If M. Eyre give us onely the sense of them we shall shew presently that what I say is included as part of the sense But I will never beleeve while I live that Mr. Eyre hath rightly expressed the Apostles sense As if the Apostle spake against joyning of any thing with Christ as necessary to attaine salvation unlesse by joyning with Christ he mean in an equal degree of causality or as sharing in that kind of causality which Christ put forth for our salvation For out of doubt Faith and Repentance are necessary to be joyned with Christ that we may be saved 2. But to discover how palpably Mr. Eyre hath abused me in charging me with an abuse of the Text let us transcribe the words v. 2 3 4 5 6. If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole Law Christ is become of no effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law you are fallen from grace For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by Love 1. I do here observe the Apostles Argument by which he proves that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing Thus it runs He that is bound to keep the whole Law for justification to him is Christ of no effect for justification He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law for justification v. 3. Ergo Christ is of no effect to him or as the Apostle varies the words v. 4. Ergo he is fallen from grace whosoever he be that expects to be justified by the Law In opposition to this he declares in his own and other Christians example the only way how Christ may become profitable and of effect to us for justification and that is by faith without legal performances v. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith And have I yet abused the Text because I say it hath this sense that without faith Christ shall profit us nothing yea 2. The whole discourse of the Apostle proceeds upon this ground that legal observances make Christ of none effect to us because they overthrow faith For he that will be justified by the Law must keep the whole Law and that destroys faith as he had also often and plainly told them before chap. 3. 12. 10 11 17 18. compare Rom. 4. 14. 3. Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth in the very next words that the Apostle attributes that to faith which he denyes â—o other works v. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love I assuâ—â— But the thing denied to other works is that they are able to justifieâ— yea rather that they make it impossible for us to be justified because they make Christ to become of none effect to us v. â— 4. Ergo the thing ascribed to faith is that by it we are justified and through it doth Christ become profitable and grace of effect to our Justification Ergo without it Christ profits us nothing as to that end and purpose Therefore Mr. Eyre contradicts himself immediately in his Comment upon that v. 6. When he sayes that the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the exercises of divine worship in which Christians should be conversant But out of doubt his meaning was to shew how Christ and grace become effectual to our Justification if he do here ascribe to faith that which before he had denied to other works which is Mr. Eyres own grant and the Apostles unquestionable intent for the words as appears by the particle for in the beginning of the verse are the reason why through faith he expected Justification and not in the way of circumcision ver 5. to wit because circumcision availeth nothing no nor uncircumcision neither but faith which worketh by love which reason of his faith he had also given before chapt 2. 16. As to those two truly godly learned Authours Calvin and Perkins whom Mr. Eyre alledgeth as abetting what he saith concerning the Apostles intent if the cause were to be carried by number of voices we could quickly dispatch it But neither do either of these gratifie Mr. Eyre a whit Calvins words are these Quantum ad praesentem locum attinet Paulus nequaquam disputat an charitas ad justificandum cooperetur fidei sed tantùm indicat quae nunc sint vera fidelium exercitia i. e. As to the present place Paul doth by no meanes dispute whether love do cooperate with faith unto Justification but only intimates what are now the true exercises of the faithful Is this all one as if he had said faith availes us nothing in order
Argument is this The Covenant between God §. 2. and Christ was that upoâ— giving up himselfe to death he should purchase a seede like the starres of Heaven Isaiah 53. 10. Answ What 's the inference Ergo it was the Will of God that Christs death should be avâ—â—able to their immediate reconciliation Can any man divine how this inference follows especially when it is against the expresse letter of the text which I wonder Mr. Eyre would take no notice of v. 11. By his knowledge shall my righâ—â—â—us sâ—â—vâ—nt justifie many And for the other text which follows Hâ—â— 2. 13. 〈◊〉 I and the children whom God hath given me The Apostle mentions it to prove that both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one v. 11. But what it is Mr. Eyre would conclude from hence at least how these words should afford him that which he would conclude from them is that which I have no hope to understand till he hath informed me He must needs be unanswerable that so writes as his Reader shall never be sure of his meaning The third Argument is this If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full §. 3. satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his Will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate But it was the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debts and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. The Assumption Mr. Eyre supposeth will not be questioned The Proposition he thus proves because it is contrary to justice and 〈◊〉 that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the 〈…〉 ty or the Principal Answ I see now I was mistaken in the former chapter I thought there Mr. Eyrâ— had yielded it a thing possible for such an agreement to have passed between the Father and the Sonne as that the Sons satisfaction should not presently and immediately effect the discharge of those for whom he satisfied But this argument supposeth that the death of Christ was neither payment nor satisfaction if such a Covenant passed between them If it be possible that there might be such an Agreement passe between the Father and the Sonne as it is most certain it did then must this Argument needs be inconsequent which infers the actual and immediate freedome of the elect in the death of Christ because his death was a satisfaction We shall therefore prove by and by that satisfaction doth not necessarily infer the discharge of the debtour In the mean time I except 1. Against the confused use of those two termes payment and satisfaction which in this Argument ought to be distinguished the former noting such a payment as is of the thing it self in the obligation the latter a payment refusable 2. That the will of God is here made the cause of Christs death being a satisfaction in which though I beleeve Mr. Eyre means no ill there may be a very great mistake for it seems to imply that it was not so much the value and worth of Christs offering which made it a satisfaction as the will of God who would accept it as satisfactory 3. But to the Argument it self That Christ paid our debt is an ambiguous expression either it signifies 1. That he was punished for our sins and so paid that summe which otherwise should have been required of us and in this sense it is most true or 2. That he translated our very obligation upon himself and so paid as in our names and as representing us in making payment and thus I deny it as dangerously false The reason is ready because what is done as in our name and person is not so much his Act that doth it as ours whom he represents in doing it whether he represent us by our will and consent as Proctors and Atturnies that pay and receive monies or transact businesse in our name and Ambassadours whom Princes send into forraigne Nations or by the authority of Law as what Tutors do in the name of their Pupills and Minors in all which whatsoever is done as in the person of another is not so properly his Act that doth it as theirs whose person he represents And if Christ thus paid our debt then his payment was more properly our Act then his own we our selves have satisfied merited and redeemed our selves which a Christians eares can never endure Now to apply the distinction When Mr. Eyre sayes that Christs death was the payment of our debts if he mean it in the former sense of what is â—quivalentèr the payment of our debt I deny his proposition If he mean it in the latter sense of what is our debt subjectivè I deny his assumption and say that it was never the will of God that Christs death should in this sense be the payment of our debt And the phrases of Scripture which declare that Christ dyed for us and for our sins do indeed well prove the former that Christ was substituted in our roome to make satisfaction to the Law for our sins but they do by no means prove that he paid our debt in the latter sense viz. as standing in the same obligation with us and representing our persons in the payment which he made no more then those words a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 2. 22. Archelaus reigned in the roome of his father Herod will prove that Archelaus represented the person of his deceased father as then King in Judea Though I will not deny that our Divines are sometimes wont so to understand the phrase of Christs satisfying in our names and in our person as meaning no more then simply a commutation of persons he suffering that which otherwise we should have suffered But if we will speak properly Christ stood not as a sinner or as a debtor ex delictâ— but as a surety for sinners and a debtor by voluntary contract in dying for us But the assumption will not be disputed if Mr. Eyre by his payment of our debt mean no more then satisfaction for our debt The proposition is most faulty and that which I deny The proofe of it is this It is contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is payed should be charged either upon the surety or principal Ans Which is very true when that which is paid is the same which was in the obligation Solutione ejus quod debetur tollitur obligatio Now the obligation of Christ was obligatio fidejussoria which he hath fully discharged in his death so that it cannot be required of him a second time being once dead he dieth no more but is sate downe at the right hand of God for ever Neverthelesse the sinner who is obliged ex delicto is not freed in the sureties discharge unlesse it be proved that the surety made payment with this b Videl Cassiâ—s 16 l. quoties 37. â—â—f de silut
similitude So saith he the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned What are these beams of love Is pardon of sin any of them if it be then behold the sense of the comparison viz. Christ having satisfied God can now pardon sin as freely as if men had no sin and so had never needed pardon This is a rare notion but there is yet something worse then non-sense included in it namely that sinners are discharged without pardon as having in Christ paid to the full the debt which they owed as swearers and drunkards are discharged upon payment of the mulct enjoyned by Law without the Magistrates pardon and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law as if they had never broken it If immediately upon Christs satisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the blessings of the promise as if they had never sinned there is then no need that they should beleeve and repent in order to the obtaining of life and salvation The fifth Argument succeeds If it were the will of God that the §. 9. sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for both of them were heads and roots of mankind But the sin of Adam did immediately over spread his posterity All men sinned in him Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual sin Ergo. Ans I deny both proposition and assumption First for the assumption I deny that any man is guilty of Adams sin till he exist and be a child of Adam He that is not is not under Law to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men sinned in Adam before they had any being of their own neither doth the text say so but only that death passed upon all men fâ—r that all have sinned which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have sinned as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipsis thus Death passed upon all men by him in whom all have sinned yet will it be short of his purpose Doth not the Apostle say in the same verse Death hath passed upon all men and v. 15. through the offence of one many be dead which many himself interprets of all v. 18. for as Beza notes well v. 15. many in this comparison is not opposed to all but to one Is it therefore lawfull to inferre that men are actually dead before they are borne Nothing lesse The meaning then of this speech All men are dead in Adam is no more but this That sentence of death passed upon Adam by virtue of which all that are borne of him eo ipso that they derive their being from him become subject unto the same death In like manner all are said to have sinned in him not that his posterity then unborne and unbegotten that is no body were immediately guilty of his fact but because by the just dispensation of God it was to be imputed to them as soone as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam His offence tainted the blood and according to Gods Covenant and way of dealing with him was interpreted as the act of the humane nature then existing in himself for tota natura generis est in qualibet specie but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular persons partaking in that nature before their own personal existence In short we sinned in Adam no otherwise then we did exist in him for operatio sequitur esse but to exist in Adam is not to exist simply but rather the contrary for when men are men and have a personal existence of their own they exist no longer in Adam but out of him as every effect wrought exists out of its causes but onely notes a virtue or power in him productive of us positis omnibus ad agâ—ndum requisitis So to sin or be guilty in him is not to sin or be guilty simply but onely notes the cause of the propagation of guilt together with our substance to be then in being If we apply this it will follow that as no man partakes in Adams guilt till he be borne a child of Adam so none partake in the righteousnesse of Christ nor the benefit of his satisfaction till they be borne unto him by faith And that doth the Apostle put out of question in this very dispute Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous which words were written many years after Christs death and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christs obedience Ergo they were not made righteous immediately in his death That for the minor The proposition comes next to be canvased where I deny that §. 10. there is the same reason for the transmission of Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse to their respective subjects for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind as the Apostle shews Rom. 5. 14. and so farre forth they agree both communicating their effects to their children Adam sin and death to his natural children Christ righteousnesse and life to his spiritual children yet the same Apostle in the same place shews that there is a divers dissimilitude or disagreement betwixt them and that in several respects v. 15 16 17 18. particularly in that he calls our justification by the obedience of Christ the gift and free gift in opposition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation v. 15 16. implying the obedience of Christ to be so performed as that there is yet required an act of grace on Gods part to give us the effect of it as well as an act of faith on our part that it may be given to us or that we may receive it of which the Apostle speaks in the next verse v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace shall raigne in life for we receive the grace of God by faith 2 Cor. 6. 1. suitable to what this Apostle had said before chap. 3. 25 26. that Christ was set forth to declare the righteousnesse of God that he might be thâ— justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus But the effects of Adams disobedience came upon his posterity by the necessity of the same judgement which passed upon himself as the natural father of all men so as there needs no other act either on Gods part or on our part but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment But
of this we have spoken more largely before The sixth Argument follows If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately §. 11. available for the typicall cleansing under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately availeable to make a real atonement for all those sins for which he suffered The reason of the consequence is because the real sacrifice is not lesse efficacious then the typical But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part Lev. 16. 30. Ergo. Ans 1. I except against the proposition because there is no necessity of the consequence The atonement made by sacrifices might be available to an immediate cleansing though Christs be not because 1. God might will the former though not the latter 2. The people cleansed by sacrifice were all in being 3. And all actually guilty of those sins from which they were cleansed by sacrifice 4. And the punishments from which they were delivered were for the most part carnal and outward and as it were present being either actually upon them as their separations from the congregation for leprosie or other defilements suddaine plagues destroying multitudes of them c. or in sight as it were and neere at hand in which respect it was necessary that the atonement made by sacrifice should have the more immediate effect But they who are purged by the sacrifice of Christ many of them were not in being when his sacrifice was offered nor multitudes of them yet much lesse had they then committed those sins from which his sacrifice doth afterwards purge them nor is the punishment of their sins already upon them but put off in expectation of repentance If Mr. Eyre will give me that liberty which â—e takes himself I might as well argue thus If the sacrifices under the Law obtained no pardon but for sins committed then neither doth the sacrifice of Christ obtaine present pardon for sins to come not yet committed But the first is true Ergo so is the last I doubt he would not grant my proposition The reason which he addes for confirmation of his own hath no weight for the efficacy of the sacrifices typical and real is rather to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect wrought then by their quicknesse in working them That sacrifice is of greatest efficacy which produceth the greatest effect whether it produce it immediately or no for example The sacrifice of Christ is of greater efficacy then those under the Law because they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh but the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience Heb. 9. 13 14. But it did not purge our consciences immediately as soon as it was offered for we had then no consciences to purge Yet I hope Mr. Eyre will not say that Christs sacrifice is therefore of lesse efficacy then the other But the assumption is that which I do most except against viz. §. 12. That those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part How doth Mr. Eyre prove this Thus it is said Lev. 16. 30. the Priest shall make an atonement for you Ergo there was no condition required on the peoples part But neither was the atonement perfectly made by the offering of the sacrifice but it was moreover required on the Priests part that he entred into the holy of holies and made atonement there to v. 12 15. a type of our Lords entrance into heaven to make reconciliation there for our sins Heb. 9. 24. and 2. 17 18. and 4. 14 15. and on the peoples part that they did upon that day humble and afflict their soules otherwise they could not have any benefit by that atonement as we have observed before out of v. 29 30. and Lev. 23. 27 28 29. We have also already shewed that in some other cases some actions were required as conditions without which sinners received not the benefit of that typical atonement But for the general this may suffice that the people who received the benefit of those sacrifices were a people in Covenant with God and worshippers of him Heb. 10. 1 2. which was the grand condition of their partaking in the effects of that whole ceremonial service and were therein types of the spiritual worshippers of the new Testament who come by faith to the blood of sprinkling even to Christ crucified for a spiritual and eternal cleansing SECT III. WE come now to Mr. Eyres seventh Argument Some of §. 13. the Elect are reconciled to God immediately by the death of Christ without any condition performed by them viz. elect Infants Ergo all the elect are so reconciled Answ I deny the consequence because it infers an universal from a particular The Apostle sayes It is appointed unto all men once to die Heb. 9. 27. and through death to enter into Heaven shall I say this is false because Enoch and Elijah went to Heaven and never saw death If the general directions commands and promises in Scripture must all be arraigned of falshood if they be not applicable to Infants as well as unto persons that have understanding to know their Masters will we shall make sad work exceptions of particular persons make no breach upon a general rule The Apostle sayes He that will not work must not eat If we should give Infants no more food then they work for the world would be soon at an end 2. But I deny the antecedent also viz. That elect Infants are immediately reconciled to God by the death of Christ without any condition performed on their part A double answer therefore are our Divines wont to make to this objection 1. That Infants may have the seed or habit of faith though it be not wrought in them in the ordinary way of preaching 2. That their Parents faith is the condition of their salvation if they die before they are capable of putting forth the act of faith themselves Mr. Eyre will not hear of either of these answers but invades them both The former 1. Because Infants have no knowledge of good or evil §. 14. Deut. 1. 39. and there cannot be faith without knowledge 2. Faith cometh by hearing of the Word preach't Rom. 10. Now Infants heare not or if they do they understand not what they hear Answ 1. Wilt thou see then Reader what is the aime and upshot of all Mr. Eyres discourse this it is that there is no necessity of believing or repenting that men may be saved for Infants are saved without it as not being capable of so much as the habit of either and God doth not give salvation unto Infants in one manner and to men in another these are his own words therefore men also may be saved without it 2. Or if he shall say as he doth somewhere else that God hath purposed to give faith to all that are of yeares of discretion before he give them salvation yet still we retort upon him what he
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
Which way doth this prove that Gods eternall Election is the thing in respect of which he is our God and we his people 4. That the said Covenant was a type of the Covenant made with Christ Yet againe The Prophet inferres this their relation unto God from his everlasting love Jeremiah 31. 1 3. Answ Negatur The Apostle likewise Romans 8. 31. Answer Negatur So 2 Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of God standeth sure The Lord knoweth who are his Implying that the Election and foreknowledge of God doth make men his Ans Mr. Eyre knows how Mr. Mede and others expound this place Prove 1. That by Gods foundation and knowledge is meant his Election and foreknowledg 2. That his are meant of his by Election It may be meant of such as are his by sincerity of faith 3. That if men were called his in reference to his Election of them it must therefore needs be understood in the same sense as when he is said to be our God and we his people The second Argument is this God is a God not only to his §. 3. people who are called and do believe but to their seed who are not called and do not yet beleeve As the God of Abraham and his seed So Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children This is the ground of Infant Baptisme Answ It is not then in reference to Election that God is said to be our God and we his people for certainly all the children of faithful Parents are not elected 2. The children of the faithful are altogether in the same Covenant with their Parents whiles by reason of their infant age they are in morall consideration raâ—â—er parts of their parents then divided from them by a personal subsistence of their own as not being then able either to owne or reject their Fathers Covenant Neverthelesse when they come of age they must themselves answer and fulfill the conditions of the Covenant as their Fathers did else will God call them as he did Israel Hos 1. 6 9. Lo Ammi Lo Ruhama ye are not my people nor will I be your God And thus I think are all those Covenants to be understood wherein God promiseth mercy to the faithful and to their seed God promised mercy to David and his house yet so that thy children take heed to their way to walk in my Law as thou hast walked before me 2 Chron. 6. 16. and chap. 7. 17 18 19. God promised mercy to Abraham and his seed by vertue of which promise he was gracious to the children that had not rebelled against him though the same promise profited not their Parents because of their unbelief Deut. 1. 39 40. With Heb. 4. 1 2. and often doth the Lord require of them to return to him and obey his voice that he might give them the blessings of their Fathers Covenant See Lev. 26. 40 41 42. Deut. 29. 12 13. and other places innumerable In like manner the promise is to you and your children saith Peter Act. 2. 39. therefore are they exhorted to repent and be baptized that they and their children might continue the people of God and partake in the full blessednesse promised long before and now exhibited in Christ Jesus The same promise is left to all in the Church under the Gospel Heb. 4. 1 2 c. But it concerns them to see that they do not fall short of it through unbelief as the Apostle there speaks The sum is God is the God of the infants of faithful Parents in signe whereof they are baptized But they when they are grown up must see that they personally fulfill the conditions of the Covenant otherwise God remaines no longer their God unlesse it be externall and in regard of outward Administrations which doth not concerne our question Thirdly thus he argues They whom the Lord hath purchased §. 4. to be a peculiar people to himself have the Lord to be their God Answ I deny this proposition Christ purchased his wife before he made her his wife and he purchased a people out of the hands of those Lords that ruled over them Sin Satan the Law and God himselfe as the Judge and Executioner of his Law before he made them his people Indeed Mr. Eyre tells us a little below that by the purchase of the blood of Christ we were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peculiar people Tit. 2. 14. when the text saies no such thing but the just contrary He gave himself for us that he might purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works He might as well say that by the death of Christ immediately we are made zealous of good works or redeemed from all iniquity that is made to deny all ungodlinesse and worldly lusts for that 's the meaning of those words here as appears by their opposition to verse 12. That which makes us a pâ—culiar or a choise and excellent people is Christs purifying us which purifying being the effect and end of his death is some other act then his dying for us Compare Eph. 5. 25 26. 2. This Argument contradicts the first There Mr. Eyre argued that God was our God and we his people by the act of eternal election if that be true then the purchase of Christ is not that which immediately makes God our God and us his people 3. The promise that God will be our God and we his people is no effect of Christs death if his purchase immediately made that God was our God and we his people for what was already done could not be promised to be done But saith Mr. Eyre What a man purchaseth he obtains a Legal right and propriety in therefore the Apostle concludes from hence that we are not our own but Gods because we are bought with a price 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. Answ A right Why I doubt not but God and Christ have a right not onely by creation but by redemption to the obedience and subjection of all the world at least wheresoever he comes by the Gospel to challenge it that they should not live to themselves but should wholly addict themselves to glorifie God in their souls and bodies Otherwise let Mr. Eyre tell me how men can be said to deny the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But if this were not so and that it were no sin in men to deny the Redeemer to be their rightfull Lord as the Apostle sayes he is Rom. 14. 9. What hath Mr. Eyre gained If I buy a piece of Land to make it a Garden an Orchard or a Vineyard 't is neither of these till I have made it so Or if I purchase a servants freedome that I may make him my heire some other act besides the meer purchase is necessary that he may be my heir In like manner if Christ purchase sinners that he may purifie them and make them his peculiar people they are not his people nor is he their God meerly because of his