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
not have saved him without his reading and much lesse would his reading have saved him without that favourable Law yet his life is a thousand fold more worth then his reading of two or three lines and therefore he owes a thousand times more thanks to his Prince for giving him his life upon such a condition then to himself for reading supposing his reading to have been the purchase of his life If a man sell a farme to his friend for five hundred for which another would have given him a thousand what more common then to say He hath given his friend five hundred in the buying 3. But in sober sadnesse doth Mr. Eyre think the welch man speaks §. 25. properly in his God blesse her father c That were a jest indeed How comes it then to be a ridiculous object if there be not some h pleasing deformity in it that flatters the fancie and surprizeth k See Sie râ—de la Câ—ambre Charact. of the Passions ch 4. of laughter p. 210. the soule so moving laughter And what can that deformity be except the welch idiome but the fallacy of non causa pro causa putting that for the cause which is not the cause as we are wont out of Cicero when we see a little man girt with a great sword to transplace the Subject and the Adjunct and say who tied that man to that sword Had the welch man cried as he was bid God blesse the King and the Judge the propriety of the speech had spoiled the jest and deprived it of that facetiousnesse and lepidity which now causeth us to make merry with it A certain discovery that the speech is not proper nor the condition of reading the cause of his pardon the speech becoming ridiculous upon no other account but because it would insinuate that to be the cause which was no more then a condition But the serious judgement of all offendors who escape death by this means and the wisdome of our statâ— determining it to be an act of royal grace and favour to pardon a man on this condition might one would think be of as much authority as one welch mans word It is true indeed the Law nor the Judge could save him unlesse he read nor will God save us unleâ—â—â— we believe Heb. 3. 19. They could not enter in because of unâ—eliâ—f Not through defect of power or mercy in God which are both inâ—inâ—te but because he hath confined himself in the dispensation of pardon and salvation that he will bestow it upon none but them that believe Is it therefore not of grace because not without faith Whereas the Apostle sayes It is of faith that it might be of grace Rom. 4. 16. In that which followes I finde nothing which is not answered already §. 26. or must not be answered in due place for whereas Mr. Eyre sayes that the performance of the condition makes the conditional grant to become absolute the words are ambiguous If he mean it makes it absolute as that without which it had never been absolute I grant it if he mean it makes it absolute by contributing any direct causality I deny it for upon performance of the condition the conditional grant doth indeed become absolute not by the worth or efficacy of the condition but by the will of the Promiser that upon the existence of such a thing or action will be obliged and not without it We have already given several instances of conditions which have nothing of worth in them to engage the Donour and therefore cannot be the cause of the gift for nothing can produce an effect more noble and excellent then it selfe Nor doth it receive any addition of intrinsecal worth by being made the condition otherwise we might work as rare feats by the influence of our wills as l Magnet cure of wounds Van Helmont thinks may be wrought by the magick of the fancie 'T is but willing a pin to be worth a pound and it shall be done And when he addes in the next place that if faith be the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense as perfect obedience was the condition of the old man must needs be his own Justifier if he mean such in the matter and particular nature of the condition It is true if he mean such in the common nature of a condition it is false for we have shewed before both from Reason and Scripture Divines and Lawyers that some kinde of conditions are so far from being inconsistent with grace as that they advance it rather As suppose some benefit of very great value be bestowed on a worthlesse person upon condition that he acknowledge the rich superlative grace and love of the Donour to be the only cause of it Finally thus he speaks As in the old Covenant it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world just so in the New if it be a conditional Promise it is not the Promise that justifies a beleever but the beleever himself The answer is ready Death came into the world by sin as the culpable meritorious cause but sin could not have slain us but by the Law 1 Cor. 15. 56. Rom. 5. 13 14. Ergo. It is not warily said that Gods threat did not bring death upon the world 2. And when Mr. Eyre hath proved that our performance of the Gospel-conditions hath the same proportion to our salvation as sin hath to our destruction the Papists shall thank him Rom. 6. last The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Mens not-accepting of the grace of God may make that grace without effect as to themselves 2 Cor. 6. 1. Rom. 3. 3. But that therefore their acceptance is the cause of Gods being gracious to them is wilde reasoning And as to worthy Dr. Kendal out of whom Mr. Eyre quotes these passages he hath publickly enough and in Mr. Eyres hearing for one declared himself to be no enemy against conditions of Justification or salvation That he that is pardoned upon his reading doth not pardon himself §. 27. I proved thus because then he must concurre either to the making of the Law which gives pardon upon such a condition or to the pronouncing of the sentence of absolution upon himself according to that Law This Mr. Eyre saith is an impertinent answer because the question is not whether a man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification but whether he had any causal influxe in producing the effect thereof Rep. My answer if he will call it so was very pertinent as to the case of an offendor saved by his Clergy whose pardon is perfected by a Law which gives the remote right and sentence passed according to that Law which produceth his immunity it selfe If then the said offendor cause his own pardon it must be by concurring some way or other to the production of one of these The case is altogether
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
Gentiles through faith but how it should follow from hence that the Gentiles or any sinners else were reconciled to God immediately upon the deâ—th of Christ is beyond my comprehension And yet if I may speak my own judgement I see no reason why the words may not be understood metonymically and that be said to be done in the death of Christ whereof the death of Christ is the cause that it is done though it be not done presently but sometimes after for the death of Christ did indeed give the ceremonies their deaths wound but they did not totally and perfectly expire till sometime e Vide Scot in Sent. l 4. d 3. qu 4 n. 7. 8 9 12 c. See also D Godwin in Rom. 8. 34. sect 5. p 171 after the Gospel had been preached for surely some yeares after the death of Christ if the Jewes at least multitudes of them who lived farthest from the sound of the Gospel were not bound to observe the Laws of Moses yet they might observe them without sin which after the Gospel was fully preached they could not do But if Mr. Eyre himself or any man else shall think fit hereafter to engage in this Argument I shall desire him to forme his Reasons from these and the like texts into some Logical shape that we may be assured of what it is they ground upon otherwise men may accumulate texts of Scripture in insinitum and an Answerer be left uncertain what he opposeth The last text mentioned by Mr. Eyre is 2 Cor. 5. 19. God was §. 15. in Christ reconciling the world unto himself which words Mr. Eyre confesseth I thus glossed That God was in Christ acting towards the reconciliation of the world to himself but this glosse Mr. Eyre confuteth How Why he tells his Reader It is not so Is not this a gallant confutation But I am out of doubt that it is so and that the Apostles meaning is plainly not that sinners were reconciled immediately and presently by the death of Christ but that God appointed and accepted his death as a most sufficient meanes and cause by which they should be reconciled when they believed and not before the death of Christ effecting this immediatly That notwithstanding all their sins yet there lies not on them a remediles necessity of perishing but that if they shall beleeve on him that died for them they shall be justified and saved Even as if we should say of a Physician that hath found out a Catholicon that would cure all diseases Here 's a man that hath cured all diseases not that his remedy had actually cured them for there may be many thousands to whom it was never applied but that it cures all who will suffer it to be applied f Aquin. 3 â—â—q 49. art 1. ad 3 m. Christus in suâ passione nos liberavit causaliter id est instituens causam nostrae liberationis ex qua possent quaecunque pâ—ocata quandoque remitti vel praeterita vel praesentia vel futura Siout si medicus faciat medicinam ex quâ pâ—ssent quâ—â—unque morbi sanari etiam in futurum Of which more by and by That the place is thus to be interpreted is manifest from the context For after the Apostle had said God was in Christ or by Christ reconciling the world unto himself He addes And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ aâ— though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled unto God If we were reconciled in the death of Christ quoad effectum to what purpose are Ambassadours sent abroad into the world most earnestly and importunately to beseech sinners that they would be reconciled unto God It will be said the meaning of that exhortation is that sinners would â—ay aside the enmity of their hearts against God and returne to him by faith in his Sonne Jesus Christ Answ Most truly if one word more be added namely that we exhort men to beleeve on Christ that they may partake in the reconciliation prepared and purchased in his blood for all that come unto him for surely the reconciliation which the Apostle exhorts to is not only active in our â—aying aside our enmity against God but also passive in Gods being reconciled to us 1. That is the proper importance of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the passive voice though we cannot so happily render it in English as to expresse its significancy It denotes properly not our act of reconciling our selves to God for the word being of the passive voice notes that we also are passive in the reconciliation spoken of but our doing of that upon which another namely God is reconciled with us As when the same word is used in the same sense 1 Cor. 7. 11. But if she depart let her remain â—â—married or be reconciled to her hâ—sband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant of her laying aside of enmity against her husband but of her â—sing meanes to obtain the favour and affection of her hâ—sband that he may be reconciled to her So Matth 5. 24. Be reconciled to thy Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant properly of a mans reconciling himself to his brother but of doing what he can to gain his brothers good affection to him In the like sense doth Peter use another word Acts 2. 40. Save your selves from this untoward generation In the Greek the verbe is passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be you saved from this untoward generation that is convert unto God that you may be saved from the destruction which is coming on this generation In like manner when the Apostle sayes here Be ye reconciled unto God he exhorts us indeed unto faith not as that by which we reconcile our selves to God but as that by which we partake in Gods reconciliation with us If then we be perfectly reconciled before what needs this exhortation 2. Or that other in the next verse but one namely chap. 6 1. We then as workers together with him beseech you also that you receive not the grace of God in vain This grace of God is that which before he called the Ministery of reconciliation even the Gospel inviting us through faith to a reconciliation with God And what is the receiving of this grace in vain but a not believing of Christ and his Gospel through which unbelief the reconciliation begun in the blood of Christ and preached in his Gospel becomes of none effect to us If we were perfectly reconciled immediately upon his death our unbelief could not hinder our reconciliation As to Mr. Perkins testimony which Mr. Eyre in the words following §. 16. opposeth against me namely that the actual blotting out of sin doth inseparably depend upon satisfaction for sin if Mr. Eyre will square it to his own rule he must shew us that to depend insâ—parably and to depend immediately are all one
of the same kinde with our condemnation in Adam it is manifest it must be understood of reconciliation in the cause not in the effect Nor let it trouble the Reader that the Apostle speaks as if the effect §. 21. were wrought we were reconciled for nothing more common in Scripture then to speak of the effect as wrought when provision is made of a sufficient cause by which it shall or may be wrought Ezek. 24. 13. I have purged thee and thou wast not purged that is there was nothing wanting on Gods part that might conduce to her purging though the effect did not follow Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven not that every person and Nation had then heard the Gospel for they have not yet heard it but that by Gods permission and commandment they might hear it Christ hath abolished death 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely he is the authour and cause of its abolition or he hath abolished it quoad meritum for death is not destroyed de facto quoad effectum till the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 26 54. so in verbs of active signification Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God is powerful piercing to the dividing asunder c. Psal 19. 7 8. converting making wise rejoycing the heart enlightening the eyes all which do not so much signifie the act as the vertue and sufficiency of the cause In like manner when Christ is said to be the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2. 2. it is to be understood of the vertue and sufficiency of his blood to take away sin not of a propitiation then presently wrought and effected for there is none such before faith if the Apostle may be beleeved Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Multitudes of like instances are obvious A third Argument is that mentioned in my Sermon out of v. 11. §. 22. By whom we have now also received the atonement which in plainer termes is this That now that is since we are believers we are actually reconciled unto God Mr. Eyre answers 1. That I might as well argue that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15. 20. Now is Christ risen Ergo he was not risen before he wrote that Epistle Or from Eph. 2. 2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo he did not work in them before Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre then think that the particle now in this place is to be taken in the same sense as in those if he doth his next answer is a nullity if he doth not he might have spared this The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now hath several uses sometimes it is a meer supplement or redundancy Psal 39. 7. sometimes a note of transition as when it is said Now it came to passe sometimes of a continued act as Eph. 2. 2. Heb. 9. 24. sometimes of a supposition Rom. 8. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. sometimes of opposition or of assumption 1 Cor. 15. 20. Heb. 11. 16. but most commonly and naturally of time and particularly of the time of mens being converted Rom. 6. 19 21 22. and 1â— 30. Gal. 2. 20. and 4. 9. and elsewhere often so is it taken here as being distinguished from the time of the death of Christ ver 10. and superadding some other benefit then what was effected immediately in his death namely the receiving of reconciliation neither of which are to be found in either of the places mentioned by Mr. Eyre nor will any of the other sense of the word comport with this place His second answer therefore is We cannot receive or apply reconciliation to our selves but by faith yet it follows not that God did not account it to us before Rep. The accounting of reconciliation to us is an expression I never heard before 2. Justification and reconciliation are here used to signifie the same thing Ergo to receive the atonement is all one with the receiving of Justification or pardon of sin as Acts 26. 18. and 10. 43. which we have shewed before cannot be meant of our knowing our sins to be pardoned SECT V. FOr farther Explication of the difference between our reconciliation §. 23. in the death of Christ and after our believing I observed out of Grotius a distinction of three periods of the Will of God 1. As it may be conceived immediately after sin committed before the consideration of the death of Christ And now is the Lord at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and meanes by which he may returne to friendship with him again 2. As it may be conceived after the death of Christ and now is the Lord not only appeasable but doth also promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such â—â—â—mes as himself shall propose 3. As. the same Will of God may be considered after an intercession on Christs part and faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner Against any of these particulars Mr. Eyre excepts nothing but exclaims against the whole as extreamly grosse and why forsooth because it makes God changeable But as grosse as it is not our Protestants only but the Scriptures also own every syllable of it nor will the satisfaction of Christ stand without it God was in friendship with Adam while he continued righteous and without sin I conceive it is next to an impossibility that the righteous Lord should be at enmity with a righteous man who neither is a sinner nor in the room of a sinner After Adam had sinned was not God at enmity with him Yes surely unlesse Christ be dead in vaine by his death we were reconciled while we were enemies After the death of Christ God is reconciled unto sinners Lo here God is a friend an enemy and reconciled again and is this such monstrous Divinity with Mr. Eyre But for the Readers farther information I shall endeavour to shew how God may be first a friend then an enemy then reconciled without any variablenesse or shadow of changing in himselfe and then shall adde a word or two more concerning our reconciliation in the death of Christ and so return to Mr. Eyre Reconciliation is the redintegration or renewing of friendship §. 24. g Vide Arist ad Nichom 8. 2 7. and friendship is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those who may be equally serviceable one unto another in any office of love and friendly communication of good in a way of arithmetical proportion or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those that are of unequal condition the one excelling the other in dignity or age or power between whom there cannot therefore be any reciprocal communication of good but in a way of geometrical proportion he that is of low degree and meaner rank imparting love and honour and observance to him that is of high
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
similitude So saith he the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned What are these beams of love Is pardon of sin any of them if it be then behold the sense of the comparison viz. Christ having satisfied God can now pardon sin as freely as if men had no sin and so had never needed pardon This is a rare notion but there is yet something worse then non-sense included in it namely that sinners are discharged without pardon as having in Christ paid to the full the debt which they owed as swearers and drunkards are discharged upon payment of the mulct enjoyned by Law without the Magistrates pardon and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law as if they had never broken it If immediately upon Christs satisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the blessings of the promise as if they had never sinned there is then no need that they should beleeve and repent in order to the obtaining of life and salvation The fifth Argument succeeds If it were the will of God that the §. 9. sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for both of them were heads and roots of mankind But the sin of Adam did immediately over spread his posterity All men sinned in him Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual sin Ergo. Ans I deny both proposition and assumption First for the assumption I deny that any man is guilty of Adams sin till he exist and be a child of Adam He that is not is not under Law to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men sinned in Adam before they had any being of their own neither doth the text say so but only that death passed upon all men fâ—r that all have sinned which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have sinned as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipsis thus Death passed upon all men by him in whom all have sinned yet will it be short of his purpose Doth not the Apostle say in the same verse Death hath passed upon all men and v. 15. through the offence of one many be dead which many himself interprets of all v. 18. for as Beza notes well v. 15. many in this comparison is not opposed to all but to one Is it therefore lawfull to inferre that men are actually dead before they are borne Nothing lesse The meaning then of this speech All men are dead in Adam is no more but this That sentence of death passed upon Adam by virtue of which all that are borne of him eo ipso that they derive their being from him become subject unto the same death In like manner all are said to have sinned in him not that his posterity then unborne and unbegotten that is no body were immediately guilty of his fact but because by the just dispensation of God it was to be imputed to them as soone as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam His offence tainted the blood and according to Gods Covenant and way of dealing with him was interpreted as the act of the humane nature then existing in himself for tota natura generis est in qualibet specie but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular persons partaking in that nature before their own personal existence In short we sinned in Adam no otherwise then we did exist in him for operatio sequitur esse but to exist in Adam is not to exist simply but rather the contrary for when men are men and have a personal existence of their own they exist no longer in Adam but out of him as every effect wrought exists out of its causes but onely notes a virtue or power in him productive of us positis omnibus ad agâ—ndum requisitis So to sin or be guilty in him is not to sin or be guilty simply but onely notes the cause of the propagation of guilt together with our substance to be then in being If we apply this it will follow that as no man partakes in Adams guilt till he be borne a child of Adam so none partake in the righteousnesse of Christ nor the benefit of his satisfaction till they be borne unto him by faith And that doth the Apostle put out of question in this very dispute Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous which words were written many years after Christs death and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christs obedience Ergo they were not made righteous immediately in his death That for the minor The proposition comes next to be canvased where I deny that §. 10. there is the same reason for the transmission of Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse to their respective subjects for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind as the Apostle shews Rom. 5. 14. and so farre forth they agree both communicating their effects to their children Adam sin and death to his natural children Christ righteousnesse and life to his spiritual children yet the same Apostle in the same place shews that there is a divers dissimilitude or disagreement betwixt them and that in several respects v. 15 16 17 18. particularly in that he calls our justification by the obedience of Christ the gift and free gift in opposition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation v. 15 16. implying the obedience of Christ to be so performed as that there is yet required an act of grace on Gods part to give us the effect of it as well as an act of faith on our part that it may be given to us or that we may receive it of which the Apostle speaks in the next verse v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace shall raigne in life for we receive the grace of God by faith 2 Cor. 6. 1. suitable to what this Apostle had said before chap. 3. 25 26. that Christ was set forth to declare the righteousnesse of God that he might be thâ— justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus But the effects of Adams disobedience came upon his posterity by the necessity of the same judgement which passed upon himself as the natural father of all men so as there needs no other act either on Gods part or on our part but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment But
Gods freeing or taking off punishment from us is in nature before his laying it on Christ if the imputing it to Christ be formally the non-imputing it to us many other inconveniences attend this doctrine but it is needlesse to insist upon the mention of them Besides these Arguments there are several testimonies of Scripture §. 30. which M. Eyre mentions to prove our reconciliation to be the actual and immediate effect of Christs death let us view them Colos 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. Heb. 9. 12. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12 14. Colos 2. 10 13 14. Rom. 8. 33 34. Ans 1. We have already answered at large to Rom. 8. 33 34. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Eph. 1. 7. and by consequence to Colos 1. 14. for the words are the same in both those places We have therefore here to answer no more then the texts out of the Hebrews and one out of the Colossians let us take them in order Heb. 9. 12. Christ hath obtained eternal redemption for us I cannot assure my self how M. Eyre understands this text but if he see no more in it then all men I can meet with he can conclude no more from it then what was never denyed namely that Christ hath purchased eternal redemption for us But he hath also purchased eternal life and glory for us will it therefore follow that our glorification is the actual and immediate effect of his death he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity Tit. 2. 14. are we therefore freed from all sin immediately in his death The next is Heb. 1. 3. Christ by himself hath purged our sins and afterwards sate down as having finished that work Heb. 10. 12. Ans The former place according to the original saies no more then that Christ in his death made a purge of our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more then we have often yeelded that Christ hath made a plaister in his own blood for the curing of our wounds that is in dying he performed that righteousnesse which is the cause of our remission his blood being that which washeth us from all our sins But that this purge had its effect immediately upon its own existence is that which M. Eyre must give us another Text to prove whereas he addes that he afterwards sate down as having â—inished that work Heb. 10. 12. and good reason because that one offering of himself was so perfect and sufficient for all those ends unto which it was ordained that there is no need that himself or any thing else should be offered a second time for those ends But if M. Eyre mean that he hath so perfectly reconciled us in his death not only quoad constitutionem causae but quoad effectum as that there needs nothing more to be done towards our reconciliation he may do well to reconcile the Apostle to himself who tells us his work in heaven is to make reconciliation Heb. 2. 17 18. Wherefore in all things it beboved him to be made like unto his brâ—thron that he might be a mercifull and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people for in that he himself hath suffered being tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted compare Heb. 4. 15. and 7. 25. The like answer I give to Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected §. 31. for ever them that are sanctified namely that Christs death hath perfected us quoad meritum not quoad efficaciam The death of Christ saith the l Dr. Godwin in Rom. 8. â—4 sect 5. pag. 177. Author often commended was perfect for an oâ—lation to which as such nothing can be added there needed no more nor any other price to be paid for us But hence to inferre that therefore we were perfectly reconciled quoad effectum in the death of Christ is point blank against the Text which tells us in the very next foregoing words v. 13. that Christ doth yet expect till his enemies be made his foot-stoole amongst which the Apostle reckoneth sin and death 2 Cor. 15. 26 55 56. which though together with Devils they were destroyed in some sense in the death of Christ Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 14 15. Yet forasmuch as the holy Ghost witnesseth that Christ doth yet expect a farther destruction of them it lets us understand that these enemies and sin in particular was no farther destroyed in his death then as therein was laid the foundation and cause of a perfect and eternal remission which by virtue of that blood carried up and pleaded in heaven should be given unto them that by faith come for it unto the throne of grace as the Apostle explaines himself Heb. 4. 14 15 16. and in this very chapter v. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the truth there râ—mains no more sacrifice for sins implying that a wilful rejecting of Christ through unbelief which I conceive to be that special sin which the Apostle means deprives us of the benefit of remission of sins by his sacrifice which how it can be if sins were perfectly and absolutely pardoned immediately in his death I cannot conceive see also v. 38 39. The last place is least of all to purpose Christ saith M. Eyre §. 32. hath made us compleat as to the forgivenesse of our sins Colos 2. 10 13 14. Ans 1. The Apostle speaks to such who had already received the Lord Jesus v. 6. And of such no doubt it is true that all their sins are pardoned 2. But neither doth the Apostle limit our compleatnesse in Christ to the forgivenesse of our sins nor doth he say that we were made compleat in his death but rather in his exaltation And ye are compleat in him who is the Head of all principality and power His scope is to roote and establish the Colossians in the faith of Christ v. 7. in opposition to such innovators as would have introduced the worship of Gentile Daemons v. 8 18. or the observation of Jewish rites v. 20 21. as if without these Christ had not of himself been able to save them But ye are compleat in Christ saith the Apostle or be ye content with Christ as the words will beare to be rendred as who alone is most sufficiently able to give and increase you in all good and to deliver you from all evil and bestow on you the reward of eternal life v. 15 18 19. But what all this is to the purpose I know not It seems Mr. Eyre had a mind to bring it in for company CHAP. XI A reply to Mr. Eyres fifteenth Chapter of justification in Christ as a common person Justification not proved thereby to be before faith SECT I. WE are now come to the review of those two Arguments §. 1. mentioned in my Sermon which Mr. Eyre made use of to prove that the elect were justified before beleeving The former in short
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we are wont to render Covenant or Testament may be taken in such a signification which appeare not either in the Old or New-Testament unlesse where they are used Metonymically or Metaphorically or other wayes tropically in any other sense then of a Law or a Testament or a Convention And most strange that he should also tell us gratis that it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. not onely a parte post but a parte ante not onely as hauing no end but also as not having beginning when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it and it is most certaine that that Covenant made with David had a beginning recorded 2 Sam. 7. 16 19. and all the places mentioned in the margine as Gen. 17. 7. c. Do also speak of such everlasting Covenants as we know were not without beginning And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge that notwithstanding this Covenant be eternall yet there are more especially three periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam 2. At the death of Christ 3. When God bestowes on men the benefits of the Covenant If we are properly in Covenant from eternity there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant nihil agit in simile therefore these three periods of time are but three degrees of manifestation that we are in Covenant Accordingly as I argued before in the matter of Justification so now in the matter of the Covenant If the Covenant of grace consist essentially in Gods eternal purpose of blessing the elect then is not the word Covenant that Covenant I mean by which the elect are saved taken properly in all the Scriptures forasmuch as it no where signifies the foresaid purpose A thing as incredible and abominable as the former But let us farther examine this undenyable truth If the foresaid §. 14. purpose of God be the Covenant of grace then Christ did not obtaine by his death that God should make a Covenant with the elect But the consequence is false and Socinianisme Ergo so is the Antecedent Mr. Eyre answers Though we do not say that Christ procured the Covenant he might have added and therein we agree with the Socinians yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the blood of Christ as deliverance from the curse inherent holinesse c. Rep. Such a salve for the honour of Christs merits I remember we had before in the matter of Justification viz. That Christ merited the effects of Justification not the act even as he merited the effects of election but not the act As if the reason were the same between a particular univocall cause such as Justification is determined to a particular kind of effect which causes do alwayes produce their effects immediately without the intervention of any other cause and an universal cause of severall heterogeneous effects such as election is and therefore produceth nothing but by the sub-serviency of those severall kinds of causes ordained to their severall kinds of works But the like distinction here between the Covenant and its effects is of worse consequence if I mistake not Therefore against Mr. Eyres answer I have these things to object 1. It makes void the death of Christ for if the elect before the death of Christ haue a foederall right to the blessings of the Covenant then they are righteous before his death for to be righteous by righteousnesse imputed and to have right to blessednesse are inse parable But Christ is dead in vain if righteousnesse comes by any other way or cause then his death Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediatour they must have the blessings of the Covenant whether he die or no for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulnesse at least upon the Covenanter to fulfill his Covenant If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Christ with the Elect what should hinder their receiving these blessings without his death Either God is unable to fulfill his covenant but he is Almighty or he is unfaithful but he is a God that keepeth covenant or our sin hinders but he hath covenanted before the death of Christ that sin shall not hinder for pardon of sin is a special branch of the covenant Or finally he hath covenanted to give us these blessings through the death of Christ and no otherwise But then we are not in covenant before the consideration of Christs death and besides which I most stick at then the whole reason why God should punish his deare and only Sonne so grievously is this it was his pleasure so to do But surely he that doth not afflict men meerly because he will Lam. 3. 33. would much lesse deal so with his Son 3. Either Christ and his merits are part of the blessings of this covenant or no. If they be then it is false that Christ merits all the effects and blessings of the covenant for he did not merit that himself might merit or be by his death the meritorious cause of our blessings If not then the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent then the Old The first covenant was faulty because it could not bring sinners to perfect happinesse Heb. 8. 7 8 9. and 7. 19. Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the blessednesse it promiseth unlesse Christ merit and bring forth the effects thereof then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old a faire advancement of the Covenant of Grace 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can consist with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been disputing for viz. That the New Covenant was made with Christ he performed the conditions and we receive the benefit Christs death was either the condition of the Covenant or of the effect of it Not the former if it consist in Gods purpose Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines disgust a conditional purpose in God And how it should be the condition of the effects when it is not the condition of the Covenant it self I cannot reach I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of Gods purpose and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purposed But then that purpose is not a covenanr properly so called Metaphorically it may be it may so be called but then it is such a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Christ but with God himself being no more then his own resolution within himself And yet the foresaid position viz. That there are no conditions of Gods purpose though there are causes of conditions of the things purposed had need of a distinction too for so farre forth as they are the effects of purpose they have no other cause or condition and
e Epist â—â— the Reader page 1 2. â—â—bi pâ—ssion staturâ— not excepted All which things trouble me the lesse because I have such companions in these reproaches as I do not dare to compare my self with the meanest of them As not only Mr. Cranford Mr. Baxter my brother but all that stand in his way that is the maine body of Protestants who have wrote upon this subject ever since the name of Protestant was known upon the earth But it is somewhat strange to me to observe what measure Mr. Eyre meteth to all that cannot vaile to his judgement If Mr Baxter lay down principles inconsistent with his he must be represented as an Arminian a Papist a Socinian and what not If a faithful Christian and that in Mr. Eyres own judgement though none of the meanest rank of Christians neither do but ask him a question and that with all due respect he must be bid to f Page 9 10. I will not english the words for very shame The Profession there following will never be believed after such premises nor will they be any salve for such a publick putting to shame and spitting in the face of a member of Christ If my brother declare himself against his notions he must be g Page 84. printed as a desertor of his Church in New-England for the love of a better Parsonage in old Durus Sermo I could name many Ministers that since these times have returned from thence hither and have gained ten times more by their return then my brother hath or is ever like to do were they all desertors of their Churches for fatter morsels If a man should print of Mr. Eyre that he is of late grown an enemy to h Epist dedic the Councel of War before his Sermon Tithes that if they be sold he might adde some of them to his former Purchases or if they be put into a publick treasury he might take of them more liberally in the more reformed way of a State maintenance or because he envies bread to every Minister that cannot hold pace with him in the way he goes and would have them all at his mercy If I say a man should print these things of Mr. Eyre I should verily account him a slanderer unlesse he were able to prove it better then I am sure Mr. Eyre can prove his charge against my brother He findes fault with my brothers argument because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia and yet is his own practice faultlesse in judging of that which the Church may not judge of I mean the intentions of a mans heart It concernes not me to praise my brother his own innocency in many yeares Profession of Christ is a sufficient defence to him against a thousand such calumniations nor is he mindful to take so much notice of Mr. Eyres language as to give him an answer but content without envying Mr. Eyre his great yearly revenews to serve God with chearfulnesse in his poverty only for his arguments Mr. Eyre hath taken them up upon trust which was not faire dealing and his informer hath misrepresented them I had them and a Vindication of them under my brothers hand and was intended to have printed them as not fearing what Mr. Eyre or any man else could rationally have excepted against them but finding my book to be of it selfe growen beyond that proportion which I intended I have omitted it In his answer to me to leave these personal matters which can be neither grateful nor profitable to the Reader how often be dasheth himself against himself and in the whole scope of his Discourse opposeth himself against the body of Protestant Divines the Reader may in some measure see in this Reply So little cause hath he to charge the doctrine which my self or others maintain against him with a compliance with Popery If I delighted in recriminations I could tell him that his doctrine of eternal reconciliation is Socinianisme that his denial of the elect to be at any time punished for their sin is i Calv. instr advers Lib â—tiâ— cap â—4 pag. mihi 181. Libertinisme as also that God is well pleased with some men in the midst of all their ungodlinesse That his denying of the k Chap 1 § 1. p. â—10 compared with §. 7. Law any power to hold the transgressors of it under an obligation to the punishment which it threateneth is Antinomianisme l Page 152. §. 6. That the death of Christ tends not to the procuring of our Justification m Page 62. That sins are pardoned in nature and time before Christs satisfaction n Page 122. That sinners have no more right to salvation after their beleeving then before with many other Paradoxes of like complexion are Anti-Gospelism and may for ought I know out-vie the most pernicious doctrines amongst the Romanists As for his other charge of Arminianisme the Lord knowes and my own soul knows to my daily shame and sorrow I have as little reason as any man to expect Justification in a Popish or Arminian way Neverthelesse I am altogether proselyted to renowned Bp. Davenants judgement concerning the extent and effects of the death of Christ if that be Arminianisme especially since I read Daylee's late Vindication of Amyrald against Spanhemius And the chief reason that enclines me to it besides the evidence of truth is the advantage I have thereby to give a clear and smooth answer to all the Scriptures which the Arminians are wont to use in defence of their cause It is true Mr. Eyre alledgeth the testimonies of some Divines as speaking seemingly for him But that the same Divines do elsewhere more plainly speak against him hath been so fully evidenced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Warren and blessed Mr. Graile that I cannot account it worth while to take a particular view of his testimonies Only I intended to take some special notice of two of his Authors viz. Robert Parker my Reverend Grandfather and renowned Dr. Twisse As to that passage which Mr. Eyre hath picked out of my Grandfathers book De descensu Christi ad inferos it hath been already so cleared both by Mr. Warren and Mr. Baxter that I am perswaded if Mr. Eyre were to write his book again he would quit the hold he takes on those words Much lesse would he have declared so tragically against me as if I had no lesse then justified my Grandfathers persecutors in all their injurious and unworthy dealings against him in writing for that truth which he never denied But if I do anything unworthy of the name and memory of that Reverend man who yet was never persecuted for his book De descensu much lesse for being supposed to be an abettor of the Justification of impenitent and unbelieving sinners Mr. Eyre might have thought it no greater fault in me then in his own and only sonne my Reverend and much honoured Uncle Mr. Thomas Parker vir omni exceptione major who hath taught me long
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
just the effect which follows upon it is that we shall therefore be saved from wrath It seemes the distinction between the velle and the res volita in the matter of Justification was unknown to him 5. And his discourse supposeth that the love and grace of God is nothing so much commended by giving the effects as by putting forth the act of Justification for herein God commends his love towards us that while we were yet sinners he gave his Son to death for our Justification and then as a lesser matter he infers much more being now justified we shall be saved from wrath So also ver 10. Now if by Justification in Christs blood be meant the effects and not the act of Justification then the love and grace of God is nothing near so great in justifying us through the blood of Christ as in justifying us before without his blood But this is most notoriously false as is manifest not from this text only but from all the Scriptures which proclaim that temporal Justification which we have through the blood of Christ to be an act of greatest love and richest grace Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 20 21. Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 4 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 1. 14. Tit. 3. 4 5 6 7 6. The effects of Justification follow upon the act by moral necessity and without impediment Ergo the Justification here spoken of is not the effect precisely but the act The reason of the consequence is because the Justification mentioned in the text follows not upon any simple precedent act of Justification but is set forth as an act of such moral difficulty that it required no lesse then the precious blood of the Son of God to remove the obstructions and hindrances of its existence and to make it to exist The Antecedent is proved from his manner of arguing à majori ad minus being now justified much more shall we be saved implying that salvation follows as it were necessarily upon the position of the act of Justification Yea and I appeal to Mr. Eyre himselfe or any man else whether that act be not unworthy of the many glorious titles and epithets which are every where in Scripture put upon Justification and consequently unworthy of that name which being put in actu completo can yet produce no good effect to a sinner nor set him one degree farther from wrath then he was before unlesse some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects This mindes me of another Argument and that is this 7. Justification is not an act of grace simply but of powerful grace or of grace prevailing against the power of sin for this is that which creates the difficulty and so commends the excellency of the grace of Justification that it is the Justification of sinners Were it the Justification of such as had never sinned but had been perfectly righteous there were no such difficulty in that And therefore in the following part of the Chapter the Apostle expresly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us in that it abounds and is powerful to justifie above the ability of sin to condemn ver 15 17 20 Ergo the Justification here spoken of is the very act of Justification or there is no such thing at all for if we place it in a simple eternal volition there could be no moral difficulty in that no more then in the will of creating the world because from eternity there could be no opposition or hindrance for an act of grace to overcome 8. The Justification merited by Christ is not the effect but the act The reason we shall shew anon because it is absurd to make Christ the meritour of the effects when the act is in being before his merit But the Justification here spoken of is that which is merited by Christ Ergo I might also argue out of the following part of the Chapter from the opposition between Justification and the act of condemnation which passeth upon all men by vertue of the first transgression and therefore sure cannot consist in any eternal act of Gods will and from the method there used in comparing Adam and Christ and of our partaking first in the image of the first Adam in sin and the effects thereof before we be conformed to the image of the second Adam in Justification and the effects thereof but these Arguments out of the text it self shall suffice Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testifie that Justification §. 18. doth make a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum As Col. 2. 13. You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses To be dead in sins in this place is clearly to be dead in Law that is to be obliged by Law to the suffering of death for sin for it is opposed to that life which consists in remission of sin or Justification so 1 Cor. 6. 11. such were some of you but ye are justified of which place more hereafter See also Rom. 3. 19 20 21 22 23 24. and 5. 18 19 20 21. Eph. 2. 12 13 14 15 16. And indeed all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods justifying sinners If there be found out a new Justification which the Scriptures are not acquainted with may they have joy of it that have discovered it But I hasten to the second part of Mr. Eyres answer The change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the transgressour is unjust but being considered at the Tribunal of grace and cloathed with the righteousnesse of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the creature much lesse any inherent difference c. Answ These words are mysteries to me and I confesse have occasioned §. 19. me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts then all the book besides Before I can give any answer to them I must make some enquiry into the meaning of them And for avoiding of confusion in the words just and unjust their importance in this place is no more then to have or be without a right to salvation and life Now to be unjust by nature or in our selves may be understood in a threefold sense 1. Positively and then the meaning is that for the sin of nature or for mens sinfulnesse in themselves they stand obliged before God to the suffering of eternal punishment This is so far from being Mr. Eyres meaning that I suppose
and that by the Law of nature Rom. 2. 12 14 15. 4. If the Elect were never simply and absolutely unjust then Christ is not their Saviour But Christ is most surely the Saviour of the Elect Ergo. The reason of the Proposition is because if Christ be properly a Saviour then he saves either from that wrath which they do actually suffer which neither Mr. Eyre will grant nor my selfe without limitation or from an actual obligation to the suffering of wrath when the time is come and this Mr. Eyre denies But tell me then how is Christ called a Saviour seeing none can be properly saved but such as are subject to perishing either de jure or de facto If Adam had continued righteous he might well have propagated life to his children but not salvation because they had never been in danger of death And he that is simply and absolutely just though in some respect unjust is not in danger of perishing and therefore not capable of being saved If it be said that Christ saves us from wrath because we should have been obliged to wrath if some act of grace in God had not prevented there being matter enough in us for which we should have forfeited our right to life The answer is 1. Let that act then which prevents our obligation be called our Saviour and not Christ 2. And let the thing it selfe be proved viz. That supposing the Elect do now at no time stand obliged before God to punishment for any or all their sins that yet they should have been so obliged if Gods purpose had not hindred that is supposing the Law hath now no effect upon their persons as to the binding of them under wrath for sin that yet it should have had if the foresaid purpose had not prevented I deny it and if it be true yet I conceive it impossible for man to prove it But we must of necessity speak something more of these matters in another place and therefore here I supersede any farther arguings Let us therefore a little farther demurre upon Mr. Eyres words as § 21. he here presents them to us and I passe on to the next Argument 1. Whereas he saith that the change ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the different consideration of a person he may be pleased to consider that considerations make no changes Things are to be considered as they are and not by consideration made what they are not Our understanding will conceive of a man as cloathed with or abstracted from all moral qualifications and so consider him sometimes as just and not unjust sometimes as unjust and not just sometimes as neither just nor unjust But to consider an unjust man as he is just or a just man as he is unjust is to consider a man as he is a horse Obj. A man is not a horse therefore I cannot so consider him Answ No more is a justified man unjust nor an unjustified man just before God Obj. Yes that he is for he may be unjust by nature and yet justified of grace at the same time Answ True But then observe Reader that to be unjust by nature in this sense is terminus diminuens and so to consider a man as unjust by nature is not to consider him as unjust simply because to be unjust by nature is not to be unjust simply for a man is supposed to be just by grace at the same time therefore when it is argued a man may be unjust by nature and just by grace at the same time Ergo he may be just and unjust at the same time I deny the consequence He that hath nothing else to do may if he will consider the same man as just before God and unjust before man and according to the variety of humane Law multiply the notions of injustice and say he is unjust by the English Law but not by the Romane Law or by the Romane Law but not by the Grecian Law c. and when all this is done he may say he hath proved that a man is just and unjust at the same time before God but I will not believe him 2. And as it is contrary to reason so to the manner of speech in Scripture as was noted before Rom. 5. 8 9. we were sinners but now we are justified He doth not say we are sinners but are or were justified 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. You were unrighteous but now you are justified Must we read it thus you are unrighteous but you were or are justified Eph. 2. 3. you were the children of wrath He doth not say you are the children of wrath Col. 1. 21. You were alienated but now are reconciled In all which places we finde a state of righteousnesse succeeding a state of unrighteousnesse but of being righteous and unrighteous at the same time we have no mention 3. And what is it to consider a man as just or unjust either it is a meer speculative consideration apprehending in a man rationem justi without apprehending rationem injusti or è contra but how unreasonably is it said that the change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from such a consideration as this is which is as compatible to man as unto God and altogether extrinsecal and accidental to a mans being just or unjust or else it is a practical judicial consideration in order to Gods dealing with a man as just and unjust but surely Mr. Eyre will abhorre as well he may that God should intend to deal with his Elect as unjust 4. And to what he speaks of an imputed change 't is an expression I never heard before I have read of an imputed righteousnesse which makes a real change real I mean not as opposed to moral or relative but to mental or notional but an imputed change is a meer fiction and good for nothing as I know but to give just ground to the Papists to reproach us with a putative righteousnesse as they call it in a jeer But there be no fictions in God at all and by how much the more they are found in men by so much the more phantastical we account them unlesse they be rhetorical fictions used for doctrine or illustration or the like 5. And much like all the rest it is that he saith to be just and unjust is not a different state whereas himself so calls it but just before and immediately after tells us that men are accounted just in reference to their state by grace and unjust in reference to their state by nature Is a state of nature then and a state of grace different states if they be not why doth Mr. Eyre call them so if they be then a state of nature is a state of unrighteousnesse and a state of grace is a state of righteousnesse and so to be righteous and unrighteous is a different state or else there is no man in the world unrighteous before God or the unrighteous are in as good a state
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
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
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
be said that all the world are children of wrath by nature but by grace justified and children of life at the same time If not it must be yeelded that the elect and reprobate are both equally under the same condemnation both equally obnoxious to eternall punishment so long as they continue equally in a natural unregenerate condition 4. The parallel place before-mentioned Colâ—s 2. 13. confirmes all I have said And you being dead in your sinnes and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven you all your trespasses Beleevers then themselves were sometimes dead that is under condemnation and so under it as that they were then without remission of sins for their quickning is by remission and nothing is quickned except it be dead That the elect though children of wrath by nature may yet at the §. 12. same time be the objects of love is nothing to the purpose till that love be proved to be their justification which we have before disproved 2. That the elect are called the children of God before conversion I cannot conceive how it is proved from any or all the texts mentioned if Mr. Eyre had formed any Argument from them it should have had an answer Neverthelesse I acknowledge that elsewhere in Scripture they are so called but metonymically not because they are children properly for the relation of father and children supposeth the existence of the terms on both sides related take away one and the other also is taken away but because they were designed and predestinated to be children according to that of the Apostle Eph. 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself Even as the Lord tells Paul Act. 18. 10. That he had much people in Corinth that is many who were to be made his people by Pauls ministery though before they were not his people 1 Pet. 2. 10. And as God calls Cyrus his shepherd Isa 44. 28. Two hundred years before he was borne because he was designed to such an employment and so he is called not from what he was but from what he was to be as on the contrary others sometimes are named not from what they are but from what they had been in times past Matth. 21. 31. Publicans and harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before you that is such as had been so 3. That it is the good pleasure of God and not any inherent qualiâ—â—cation in us which makes us his children if it be meant of children by Adoption and of that good pleasure of God which is a temporal transient Act is true But it should have been proved that the said good pleasure of God makes us his children without any inherent qualifications in us The Scriptures tell us that we are the children of God by faith Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. and 4. 5. c. 4. I also yeeld that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to infants though they know it not and that so it is also to multitudes of grown Christians But it should be proved that such infants are uncapable of the habit of faith or that their parents faith doth not supply their incapacity as to their justification of which more hereafter SECT III. IN the next place Mr. Eyre gives us an account in what sense the elect though freed from wrath and condemnation may yet §. 13. be said to be under it namely in regard the Law doth terrifie and affright their consciences Rom. 4. 15. In which respect it is called a ministration of wrath and death 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Answ Whether Mr. Eyres intent in this undertaking be to give another exposition of the elects being children of wrath I cannot tell If it be he must quit the former for this will not consist with that There he told us the elect were children of wrath that is by nature or in themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam abstracting or rather prescinding from any effect of wrath that ever was or was to be upon them But here they are children of wrath in reference to the effects of wrath in their consciences 2. When he sayes the Law is called a ministration of death and condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. because it did terrifie and affright the conscience if he mean that this is the only reason why it is so called as if it did not condemn persons as well as their consciences I deny it altogether Death and condemnation when they expound one another as there they do signifie that of the person and not of the conscience only Rom. 5. 16 17. 3. In like manner when the Law is said to work wrath Rom. 4. 15. I deny it to be meant meerly of horrour of conscience but principally of that wrath which excludes them from a right to the heavenly inheritance which right is given by the promise v. 14. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the wâ—rkes of the Law are under the curse Mr. Eyre proceeds The wrath of God haâ—h a threesold acception §. 14. in Scripture 1. It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to inflict upon men the punishment which their sins shall deserve 2. It notes the threatnings of the Law Rom. 1. 18. Psal 6. 1. Hos 11. 9. Jon. 3. 9. 3. The execution of those threatnings Eph. 5. 6. Luk. 21. 23. Matth. 3. 7. The elect are under wrath in the second sense only Answ If the first sense be a Scripture-sense why have we not one word of Scripture to justifie it The reason 's ready because that will of God which we are wont to call Reprobation is neither wrath nor an Act of wrath in Scripture language 2. When Mr. Eyre grants that the elect are subject to the threatnings and comminations of the Law he explaines himself thus The threatnings of the Law do seize upon and arrest their consciences as well as others the Law as a rigid Schoole-master doth never leave to whip and lash them untill they fly unto Christ I asked then 1. Whether that paine and anguish of Spirit which the elect whiles unbeleevers feele be any part of the evil threatned in the Law If it be as most undoubtedly it is then Mr. Eyre contradicts himself in saying the elect are under the threatnings of the Law but not under the execution of them If it be not he contradicts himself againe in saying the Law doth whip and lash them It is not the Law that torments them but somewhat else what it is I cannot tell if their torment be none of that evil which the Law threatneth 2. I would ask also what power there is in these arrests of the Law to make them fly to Christ If by representing to them that they are under condemnation till they lay hold on Christ by faith then they are under condemnation till they believe which Mr. Eyre will not heare of If only that they are damnable in themselves as he
grounded in his displeasing quality viz. Of unbelief and on the contrary Enoch is here said by faith to please or to be pleasing unto God v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the word imports such a delight in or approbation of a person as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities and nothing in man is lovely in Gods eyes without faith for God delights not in his physical substance or natural perfections of any sort Psal 147. 10. it follows that when we are said by faith to please God or to be pleasing to him or that it is impossible to please him without faith it must be understood of the pleasingnesse of the person as well as of the action Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect even while they are most displeasing to him but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they beleeve They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. 2. Nor can I imagin how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do which yet he must be supposed to be if faith do only commend our actions not our persons unto God Amongst men it is unconceivable how a total displeasure with another mans actions can consist with well-pleasednesse with the person That which commends the work doth also commend the worker and if the work be unacceptable the worker also is so far unacceptable if all his works be unacceptable himself also is wholly unacceptable 3. I aske whether faith it self be pleasing unto God principally out of doubt Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience onely 4. And though it be most true that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith yet cannot Mr. Eyre owne it if he will be true to his doctrine that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being for that obedience wherein God seeth no sin is acceptable to him The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seeth no sin I speak of those works which they may performe before they beleeve as prayer hearing of the word c. Ergo it is acceptable to God The assumption is manifest for not to see sin and to pardon it are all one and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect as saith Mr. Eyre In the following part of this answer he gives us a reason why our §. 10. works without faith cannot please God for saith he bonum est ex causá integrá Now what is not done in faith is not done in love Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except onely 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of who when he had said without faith it is impossible to please God presently gives this reason for he that cometh unto God must beleeve that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it upon any other account then because that defect is sinful and the sinfulnesse being supposed to be pardoned and that from eternity it cannot make the work unacceptable pardoned sin and no sin are much of the same strength as to any harme it can do us 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good how comes it to passe that the person should be so hugely well-pleasing while there is nothing in him but evil mens persons are under Law as well as their actions Ars est in fabrica rei c See John Yates Mod. of Divin pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno Aâ—exand Richardsono Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of mans nature If an action materially good be yet displeasing because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner surely the person cannot be well-pleasing while he is every whit as much out of frame and fallen all in pieces as I may so speak and not so much as begun to be repaired againe by a spirit of renovation In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove §. 11. that Gods well-pleasednesse with the elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ If he mean immediate in respect of time and exclusively of every qualification in us without which God will not be well-pleased with us let us see his Arguments The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture First saith he That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect was the breach of the Law Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favour had as free a current as if they had not sinned Answ The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more and needed to be no more then a removens prohibens of our good which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter though most unjustly as a very heinous errour and exagitates it with aâ—rimony sufficient Therefore I shall not need to confute it yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration If the reason of Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners be this onely that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them then the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was and all mankind in him before the fall and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant but established the old But this is most notoriously false Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plaine for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance had all its causes in being before as if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of â—he shuts of the windows it supposeth the sun to be up Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life before the death of Christ was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him Ergo if Gods well-pleasednesse follow immediately upon the death of Christ as that which hath removed the hindrance it follows by virtue of that Covenant or by none at all 2. But if the well-pleasednesse of God do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null My answer therefore is That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition so as that it could not long stand but it did not totally demolish and throw it down presently because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking for our redemption which because I am purposely to prove by and by I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to
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
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
liberat intent that the debtor that is the sinner should be presently discharged as wel as himself That Christ had such an intent Mr. Eyre proves because his death was a payment or satisfaction The question then between him and me now is whether an agreement between a creditâ—r and a surety that the debtor shall not be discharged immediately upon the sureties payment be possible or consistent with the nature of that payment and satisfaction which a surety makes Mr. Eyre is for the negative and the Reader hath his word for it and nothing else instead of Argument I am for the affirmative upon the following grounds Peter owes James a 100. l. whereof he is not able to pay him one farthing John out of love and compassion to Peter and without his knowledge interposeth as a surety â—â—gageth to James that if he will accept of payment from him he will pay him the said 100. l. provided and agreed between them both that Peters bond shall remaine in full force and so himself not be discharged till a month after upon these terms John payes his mony and James receives it Here the summe is paid and yet the debtor remains for a time obliged Ergo he is not discharged immediately upon the sureties payment Nor is there any thing in this agreement inconsistent with the nature of payment or satisfaction 1. John the surety might have chosen whether he would have paid or engage to pay the said 100. l. 2. James the creditor also might have chosen whether he would have admitted John to be paymaster or no. 3. Forasmuch therefore as there is no Law to compel the one to pay or the other to receive but it is meerly the voluntary act of both which mutually engageth them it followes necessarily that it is in the power of them both to agree upon the tearms and time when Peter shall be discharged by virtue of this payment because it is in our power to put what Laws we please upon actions which depend meerly on our own will otherwise a man might be free and not free at the same time and in reference to the same action which is a contradiction Therefore payment is made for the creditor is possessed of as much as the debtor ought him yet the debtor is not presently discharged Ergo the payment of a debt or rather satisfaction for a debt doth not in all cases presently discharge the debtor Other cases the Reader may see in the civil Law which I desire him to looke in the places which I have directed him to in this and the former chapter to spare my self the paines of transcribing them Nor is there any thing in all this contrary to justice and equity as §. 5. Mr. Eyre pretends for against whom is this injustice Not against the creditor nor the surety for it is by the consent of them both that the debtor be not presently discharged and it is a known maxime volenti non sit injuria Not against the debtor for he hath not paid his debt nor did the surety pay it with this purpose and will that he the said debtor should be presently disobliged but in convenient time Yet that which follows That the same debt cannot be paid and unpaid is true but nothing to the purpose because our question is not whether payment or satisfaction be made but whether he that payes for another may not agree with the creditor that the person for whom he payeth shall not presently be discharged but at some distance of time after Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth That the effects of Christs death as it is the meritorious price of faith holinesse glory are not present but future But was not the death of Christ the meritorious price of our discharge from sin and the curse as well as of those blessings and if Christ did merit them to be given not presently but many years after his death why not this But let us see how Mr. Eyre illustrates this for proofe we have none §. 6. As when a man that is a trespasser or any one for him payes a summe of money which is sufficient both for discharge of his trespasse as also for the purchase of a piece of land from the trespasse his discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full though the enjoyment of the land may be in Diem Ans 1. But neither yet do we hit the mark for the question is not whether it be possible for a debtor to be discharged presently and immediately upon the payment which another makes for him which is the utmost this instance can reach to but whether it be not possible for him not to be discharged upon such a payment presently which universal negative one particular instance can never well prove especially when other instances without number may be invented which will infallibly prove the contrary 2. Still I long to know the reason of that peremptory necessity expressed in those words From the trespasse the discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full Cassius hath Maevius in suite for that his cattle have broke into his corne and done him dammage to the value of 5. l. Lucius gives the said 5. l. to Cassius that the next Term and not before he may discharge Maevius which accordingly he doth Is this contract impossible If it be shew us what contradiction there is in the tearms if it be not we are not bound to beleeve that the discharge must needs be immediate though Mr. Eyre say it 3. Nor yet am I able to conceive such is my dulnesse why the effects of satisfaction should be more immediate then those of merit Especially considering that the satisfaction of Christ is also the price of our peace and pardon and that the difference between them is rather respective then real the same obedience being called satisfaction as it is ordered to Gods honour and merit as it is ordered to our benefit and advantage The piece of land which one purchaseth for another might it not be enjoyed presently if the vendee and purchaser did so agree it might especially if the price be full as that is which Christ paid for us many years ago Is it not then the agreement between the vendee and purchaser which defers the possession till such a time it is so Why then should not the case be the same in satisfaction why saith Mr. Eyre a debt cannot be paid and unpaid No more can a price be paid and unpaid say I But neither doth the price nor satisfaction produce their effects necessarily or by way of natural causality but voluntarily according to the compact between the party paying and receiving which if it did not hinder the vendee were as much bound to give present possession of the goods bought having received the full price of them as the creditor to forbear the inflicting of evil upon the trespasser upon satisfaction made by a third person SECT II. THe fourth Argument is this If nothing
hindred the reconciliation §. 7. of the elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediately reconciled But nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. Ans This Argument were something if the sinner himself had suffered according to the Law As if it might be supposed that Adam after his sin could by suffering have satisfied for his disobedience no doubt but he had been presently restored into the same state of favour which he was in before and might have gone to work againe for life upon the security of the very same Covenant with good successe And if Christ had paid the idem a thing impossible unlesse he were a sinner or we were Christ then indeed had his sufferings delivered us ipso facto and we had not needed a Covenant of grace to pardon or save us but are in as good a capacity of life without it as Adam was before he fell as we have observed before But that first Covenant being violated and no satisfaction made or possibly to be made but by a voluntary surety God is left at liberty as I may so speak to propose what tearms and time he pleaseth for the restoring of sinners into a state of life and peace Gal. 3. 21 22. Now when Mr. Eyre says that nothing hindred the reconciliation of sinners with God but the breach of the Law the speech is somewhat improper for though sin made the breach between God and them yet it is not that properly which hinders reconciliation but the sinners inability to make satisfaction could he have satisfied sin could have had no power to have kept him at a distance from God and so I perceive doth Mr. Eyre mean by his explication God saith he having made a Law that the soul which sins shall die the justice and truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the elect no lesse then of other men To the Argument therefore the answer is ready If satisfaction were made so which it was not as that the Law had been answered in the very thing which it required viz. the sinners punishment then I would yeeld it wholly and more then Mr. Eyre will thank me for namely that life is given us by the very same Covenant which was made with Adam in his innocency But satisfaction being taken strictly for a payment refusable which one is admitted to make for another and then it produceth the effect of our reconciliation no otherwise then as he that admitteth and he that is admitted to make payment shall agree Wherefore I deny the proposition as being grounded in the former false supposal viz. That satisfaction cannot be made in any way but it must needs effect a present discharge which I have already disproved The explication of this Argument I â—nd no fault with more then that one expression That the onely cause of Christs death was to satisfie the Law whereas they that deny his death to have been satisfactory at all do yet assigne many causes of his death which our selves allow of but there is nothing in it which tends to prove the thing denied more then a comparison or two which need a little consideration As when the cloud is dissolved the Sun shines out when the partition §. 8. wall is broken down they that were separated are againe united so the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned Ans Now would I know what is that moral necessity of Gods communicating life to us upon Christs satisfaction which answers to the natural necessity of the Suns shining forth upon the dissolution of the cloud for to say that God may salvâ justitiâ communicate life to sinners Christ having satisfied is not to the purpose 't is a must and not a may which must make Mr. Eyres Argument consequent one of these three it must needs be either 1. A necessity of obligation by virtue of some Law or Covenant but the onely Covenant which God made with man before the fall was that made with Adam in innocency promising life upon perfect obedience If by virtue of that Covenant God stands still engaged to give life to men supposing satisfaction to be made for disobedience then doth that Covenant made with man in innocency stand still in force as the onely way of life and men at least the elect are legally and in strict justice as innocent as if they had never sinned both which are desperately false and overthrow the very foundations of faith or 2. The necessity of a decree God having decreed that the elect shall be reconciled immediately upon Christs satisfaction for their sins it must needs be that he having satisfied they must be immediately reconciled But the very supposing of such a decree is the begging of the question and being supposed it will not inferre that the elect must needs be reconciled by the death of Christ immediately quatenus it was a satisfaction but simply quatenus it was decreed to be immediately antecedent to their reconciliation or 3. A kind of natural necessity God being essentially good cannot but do good to an innocent sinlesse creature or to a sinful creature supposing satisfaction to be made for his sin which is all one as if himself had never sinned But this is wider of truth then either of the former for whatsoever may be said of it in reference to a creature perfectly righteous out of doubt there was no other necessity of Gods accepting Christs satisfaction then his own good pleasure He might justly have destroyed sinners and never provided a propitiation for them It is therefore as clear as the Sun when the clouds are dissolved that there is no necessity of an immediate reconciliation between God and sinners upon the death of Christ but only of a reconciliation to follow then and upon such tearms as God and Christ agree 2. Wherefore to the comparison I answer that Christ died not meerly to dissolve and scatter the clouds of sin but to create a Isa 51. 16. 65. 16. â— Cor. 5. 15. 17. new heaven and a new earth in which himself was to shine as the d Malac. 4. 2. Sun of righteousnesse and to dispel the clouds and darknesse of sin my meaning is Christ died not to repaire the old Covenant nor by removing of hindrances to make us capable of the influences of life and love in that way in which they should have been derived to us by the first Covenant but therefore died he that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions he might become that new and living way through which we might come unto God by faith and partake in life and remission of sins Heb. 9. 15. and 10. 17 20 22. compared 3. Observe one thing more Reader from M. Eyres application of his
of our first Justification but the first simple act of faith and perseverance in the faith to the end the condition of final Justification as Paul also doth 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith From HENCEFORTH there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousnesse c. So Rev. 2. 17. To him that overcometh will I give a white stone c. of which we have spoken before Wherefore I deny that which should be Mr. Eyres Assumption viz. That it was the Will of God that the elect should be perfectly and compleatly reconciled or justified whilest they live in thâ—â— world The reasons of which denial I have already given at large and shall not now repeat them And whereas Mr. Eyre thinks much â—â—at the elect should be denied perfect reconciliation not only till they beleeve but not till death He may be pleased to understand that I deny them to be perfectly justified or reconciled till the resurrection For as long as any enmity remaines undestroyed they are not perfectly reconciled But all enmity is not destroyed till the resurrection 1 Corinth 15. 25 26. And what hath Mr. Eyre against it words and nothing else §. 23. 1 Saith he innumerable Scriptures declare that the Saints are perfectly justified Aâ—sw But doth not quote us so much as one and a good reason why 2. That nothing shall be able to separate from Gods love Answ Not for ever but for a time it may tilâ— all enemies be subdued the last of which is Death The happinesse which the soule enjoyes in the mean time is its own not the happinesse of the person as our Lords Argument supposeth Mâ—t. 22. 31 32. 3. Justification is as full and perfect as ever it shall be it doth not grow and increase but is perfect at first â—nsw Prove it it grows in the renewed acts of pardon Hâ—l 12. 17 1 Johâ— 2. 1. 2. â—or God doth multiply â—orgivenesses Isâ— 55. 7. It grows in the perfection of its parts whereof the most absolute and compleat is our Justification in the day of judgement It grows in the perfection of its effects which are begun in the soule first and so take place upon the body and the whole man Râ—m 8. 10 11 23. Paul expected a farther participation in the righteousnesse of Christ then he attained to in this life Gal. 5. 5. Phil. 3. 8 9 11. 4. Baptisme saith Mr. Eyre which seales to us the forgivenesse of all our sins is administred but once in all our life-time to shew that our Justification is done all at once Answ Baptisme seals that Promise by which all sins past are forgiven f Luke 3. 3. Mâ—rk 1. 4. and all sins future shall be forgiven when committed the sinner continuing in the faith of Jesus Christ from which if he fall away it is impossible that he should be renewed again to repentance Hebr. 6. 6. or be capable of having another Covenant made or sealed to him by which his sins may be remitted Heb. 10. 29. Mr. Eyre here addes some texts of Scripture Ezek. 16. 8 9. Acts 13. 39. 1 John 1. 7. Col. 2. 13 14. to what purpose I cannot imagine unlesse it be to prove that all sins are forgiven at once for neither of these texts speak a word of Baptisme If he mean all sins past are forgiven upon the first act of faith I have granted it but if he mean all sins to come also it lies upon him to prove it that is that sins not committed are sins SECT IV. THe eleventh Argument proceeds thus If it were the Will of §. 24. God that the death of Christ should certainly and infallibly procure the reconciliation of his Elect then surely it was not the Will of God that it should depend on termes and conditions on their part because that which depends upon future conditions is as to the event altogether uncertain Answ 1. Neither doth this Argument prove that we are justified immediately in the death of Christ or before we beleeve 2. I deny the consequence with the proof of it for although that which depends upon future conditions as to the event be uncertain as the word uncertain signifies the same with contingent for it is a true rule in the Civil Law f L. Si pupillus ff de N vat Conditio necessaria non suspendit dispositionem yet is this uncertainty or contingency to be understood in reference to man and the second and immediate causes of a things existence not in reference to God to whom even contingent events g Vidâ— doctisfimum D. Ramum Schol. Dialect l. 5 c 6. are as certain as if they were necessary we shall make strange work in Divinity if events shall be denied to be contingent in their own nature because in reference to Gods Will or knowledge they are certain and infallible and so far forth necessary for example God did will the certain and infallible saâ—ety of all those that were in the ship with Paul Acts 27. 24. yet neverthelesse it came not to passe but upon condition of their abiding in the ship without the performance of which condition they had perished ver 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved And Mr. Eyre might easily have foreseen that this Argument wounds himself as much as us He acknowledgeth the Covenant made with Adam to have been conditional and in that very thing placeth the main difference between it and the Covenant of grace obedience then was the condition of Adams continuance in life and sin of his death But did not God know that Adam would sin and will to permit it or will Mr. Eyre deny this because his death was suspended upon a future condition and therefore was altogether uncertain as to the event Physician heal thy selfe It is by the Will of God that contingent things come to passe contingently Nor is the twelfth argument more happy If God willed this §. 25. blessing to the elect but conditionally then he willed their reconciliation and Justification no more then their non-reconciliation and condemnation for if he willed their Justification only in case they should beleeve and repent then he willed their damnation in case they do not beleeve and repent Ergo he willed their Justification no more then their damnation contrary to John 6. 38 39. and 17. 21 22 24. Answ h Vide Amyrâ—ldâ—m Spâ—â—im Animâ—d Speciâ—l coâ—tra Spâ—â—hâ—m à p. 146. ad siuâ—m libri Out of doubt God willeth the damnation even of the elect themselves in case they do not beleeve and repent though that case supposeth what is not to be supposed without more dâ—stinctions then my present matter will permit me to digresse into but Mr. Eyres inference that therefore he wills their damnation as much as their Justification is meerly drawn in without any disposition in it selfe to follow for the Promâ—se of remission upon condition of faith
common person is the act of them whom he represents But Christs satisfaction merits redemption and perfect obedience are not our act so as that we can be said to have satisfied merited redeemed our selves perfectly obeyed the Law and borne the curse thereof things for ever impossible for sinners to do Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6. Ergo they are not representable as doing of them Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth But the Scripture is expresse that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned so is it by the one righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ that all are justified Romanes 5. 17 18. The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another consideration §. 12. and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection then in his death Nevertheless neither in that do I approve the tearme unlesse it be understood in the second sense mentioned for the reason already given And to what Mr. Eyre addes of Parents being examples to their children he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example but the exemplary cause of our Justification Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners but they are not exemplary causes thereof This for the fallacie 2. Saith Mr. Eyre it is impertinent because Christs discharge §. 13. may be ours though we did not choose him but God did constitute and appoint him to be the Head Surety and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam and yet his sin was imputed to us Answ 1. Nor do I intend any thing more in changing the terme of a common person into that of an exemplary cause then to expresse that preheminence which Christ hath as in all things else so in his Justification which the terme of a common person is so farre from doing as that it supposeth the just contrary for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own as his whom he represents As what an Ambassadour doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings and what is done to him as such is more properly done to the King then to him In like manner if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us then are we properly the first risers from the dead and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours 2. That God appointed his Sonne to be the Head Surety and common Person of the Elect is a contradiction if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyres sense for one that represents others in what he doth and in what is done to him Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect so the Scriptures call him and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us But the common Person described as such is neither Head nor Surety because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly none other do the like and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them the case is the same in what he receives or in what is done to him as Head and Surety 3. Concerning Adam I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyres sense of that phrase and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him we have already largely opened His sin is indeed imputed unto us not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it for that is in it selfe an errour of falshood and besides is contrary to the Apostle who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many who never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression neither in individuo nor in specie Rom. 5. 14. but because by vertue of that sin we his children stand obliged to the suffering of death natural he being the common Parent who by Covenant received righteousnesse and life to be communicated to his children if himself continued obedient otherwise to lose it both to himself and us That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyres argument §. 14. is inferring our Justification before saith from our Justification in some sense in the Resurrection of Christ I said we may as justly inferre that our Resurrection is past already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justification is past before we beleeve because we are in some sense justified in Christ We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer Ergo we are sanctified before faith In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little purpose the summe of them is Our personal Resurrection necessarily supposeth our life and death But to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt c. Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand and Justification on the other is plain and obvious but the whole strength of Mr. Eyres Argument lieth in this one thing that we were justified in Christ as a common person Now if our rising in Christ as a common person will not infer that our Resurrection is before faith then neither is our Justification proved to be before faith because we were justified in Christ as a common person and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection â—t must be upon some other account then because we were justified in him as a common person 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny not publickly for feare of the people that we are risen in Christ as a common person Christ saith he fully merited our Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ a strange and unheard of interpretation that we should be said to be raised with Christ because he in his death merited our Resurrection which might have been true though himself had never been raised but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising a phrase not used in Scripture but admitted by me as agreeable or not contrary thereunto not for our Justification in him as a common person but for his merit or purchase of our Justification Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too though very privately and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words It is saith he no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Râ—surrection though we are not risen as to say he hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for to say a debt is discharged and yet justly chargeable is a contradiction Purchased why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection were really and formally the discharge of sinners and not whether he purchased
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose 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
in its formal notion includes not the non-imputation of sin or that non-imputation of sin which includes not essentially the imputation of righteousnesse He hath told us long since that both these are immanent and eternal acts of God and as such the death of Christ procures neither the effects of both are one and the same and it is therefore impossible to distinguish them in reference to their effects It is to me a mystery beyond comprehension how that imputation which constitutes a sinner righteous should yet include nothing of the non-imputation of sin or how sin can be non-imputed to a sinner and yet he abide unrighteous unlesse some other act concur to make him righteous His third answer is The non-imputation of sin to us antecedes §. 17. the imputation of righteousnesse to us in order of nature only not of time Rep. That is the righteousnesse of Christ avails nothing to the non-imputing of sin to us The very naming of these hideous doctrines is a sufficient confutation of them Should I have delivered such things the names of all the most loathsome hereticks that ever were would have been accounted too soft to have been thrown at my head Yet Mr. Eyre hath not done objectâ—ng against himself but in the §. 18. end of this third answer brings in some body objecting thus We were not then I suppose he means when Christ died Ergo righteousnesse could not then be imputed to us His answer is They might as well object our sins were not then Erge they could not be imputed unto Christ in the businesse of Justification God calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4. 17. Rep. 1. I deny the parity of reason between the one and the other Sin can neither be punished nor pardoned before it be committed in â—r to the person that sinâ—eth Neverthelesse he that hath the absolute dominion of his own life as Christ had may as a Surety suffer all that punishment which by the Law can at any time grow due to sin for even amongst men p L. Sâ—ipulaâ—â—s sum L. potest ss de fide juss §. side â—â—ss instit de fide-juss 〈◊〉 accipi potest in â—uturam obligationem Sureties are admitted upon future obligations If as soon as death by the Law was made the punishment of sin before men had broken the Law the Lord Jesus had given up himself to death that in case we should sin his death should have had the same effect as now it hath in this case our sin though then but possible had been imputed unto him for he had borne the penalty due to it and threatened against it but his righteousnesse had not been imputed to us upon the same supposition that we had not sinned In like manner though the sins of the elect were not in being I mean of all the Elect borne since his death when Christ died yet the full penalty which could at any time grow due to them was then in being and determined by the Law which punishment also in summe and substance he might and did undergo that when we should sin we might yet be washed in his blood from all our sins The future sins of the Elect Christ might make so farre present in himself as to endure all the penalty which they could at any time deserve it being not our desert of punishment which obligeth him to suffer it but his own voluntary submission to it which makes punishment due to him as our Surety before it become due to us as actual sinners But pardon of sin being essentially the destruction of that very obligation which the sinner hath contracted upon himselfe doth therefore essentially suppose the sinner and his sin in being though another may suffer for him yet another cannot be pardoned for him pardon of sin being a personal priviledge that is such as rests in the person of the sinner or nowhere 2. And that God in the matter of Justification calleth things that are not as though they were is no part of the Apostles meaning Rom. 4. 17. but to shew the ground of Abrahams stedfast believing on God for the obtaining of a blessing to sense and reason impossible namely that he should become the father of many nations his own body and Sarahs wombe being dead v. 19. The reason hereof was because God is he that raiseth the dead and is able to give being to things out of nothing for he calleth things that are not as if they were therefore Abraham against hope believed in hope v. 18. This is that faith through which he and all his children in the same faith obtain righteousnesse Having thus at large demonstrated the weaknesse of the argument §. 19. from our Justification in Christ as a common person to prove our Justification before faith I left this censure upon it they are credulous soules that will be drawn by such decayes as these into schisme and faction to the hardening and discomforting of more hearts in one houre then the opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands which censure is of such ill resentment with Mr. Eyre that he hath used no lesse then two leaves of paper to wipe off the dirt untruth slander and what he pleaseth cast upon himself and his Church thereby As to the Argument his own deserting it in plain ground is evidence enough that it is too weak to bear the weight which is laid upon it and if men will embrace opinions which have no stronger foundations is not their own credulity in fault The charge of schisme and faction was not intended against him or any of his charge in particular I little know whether all under his charge be of his opinion or whether all of his opinion in the place he lives in be under his charge but in general against all who without better ground then the foresaid Argument will afford them shall by jealousies separations envyings backbitings rash censurings c. violate the rules of Christian love and peace whereof if neither Mr. Eyre nor any of his charge are guilty yet some others of his judgement in this point are and that so foully that he would loath to undertake their defence if he will be true to the Profession which here he makes of himself CHAP. XII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Sixteenth Chapter concerning our being in Covenant with God before believing SECT I. THe third and last Argument for proving our Justification §. 1. to be before faith I thus proposed and as I thought according to Mr. Eyres minde If we are in Covenant before we believe then we are justified before we believe But we are in Covenant before we beleeve Ergo This Argument Mr. Eyre disclaims as being none of his at least as not being proposed in that forme in which he dressed it and hereupon expatiates in two leaves of paper upon the discourse which passed between himself and me shewing the orderly progresse in which his
grace made both with Christ and us which is Mr. Eyres Assumption And 1. I desire Mr. Eyre to reflect a little upon his own principles §. 4. and tell me whether pardon of sin be a blessing which God promiseth in his Covenant to give or the condition which Christ was to perform The former out of question if Scripture may be Judge Heb. 10. 16 17. But whether Mr. Eyre will allow it or how he can allow it I cannot tell We have seen him before very peremptory in these two assertions 1. That the imputation of our sins to Christ is formally the non-imputation of them unto us 2. That Christs satisfaction was formally the payment of our debt and so must needs discharge us ipso facto because the discharge of the debt is formally the discharge of the debtour How these principles clash one with another we have shewed already for Gods act in punishing of Christ is in nature before his bearing it or satisfying by bearing it as action is in nature before passion If then Gods act in imputing our sins to Christ that is punishing them in him be formally the non-imputing that is the pardoning them to us then the death of Christ as it was the payment of our debt is not the thing that dischargeth us and if this then not that But my business now is to infer if Christs death be the payment of our debt and so our formal discharge then our discharge from sin is the condition of the Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath modelled it not a promise upon the performance of the condition The reason is plain because Christs satisfaction which is the payment of our debt and formally the discharge of the debtour is the condition of the Covenant of grace according to Mr. Eyre But that cannot be the forme or tenour of the Covenant of grace which excludes the pardon of sin from being promised therein Ergo that is not the forme which Mr. Eyre presents us with 2. If the words aforesaid contain the substance and tenour of the Covenant of grace then the said Covenant doth not only not require and command faith and repentance as necessary meanes which we are bound to for obtaining the promise of life and salvation But whosoever shall preach such a necessity of faith and repentance doth in so doing contradict the tenour of the Covenant of grace The reason of the consequence is plain because to the obtaining of a Promise made upon condition nothing more is required then the performance of the condition If then Christ hath fulfilled the condition of the Covenant of grace nothing more can be enjoyned and required of us to the obtaining of any blessing of the Covenant and whosoever shall yet preach a necessity of faith and repentance as acts which we are bound to put forth that we may be saved destroys the Covenant of grace But both these are desperate consequences which we shew thus The Gospel and the Covenant of grace are both one Gal. 3. 8. compared with v. 15 16. 2 Cor. 3. 6. with chap. 4. 3 4. and Eph. 3. 6 7. and Col. 1. 23 But the Gospel obligeth all men to believe and repent the elect as well as others that they may be saved and thus did the Apostles the special Ministers of the New Covenant preach wheresoever they came Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 47. Mark 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19. and 20. 21. and 26. 20. Rom. 10. 6 8 9. Col. 1. 23 28. c. Ergo the Covenant of grace requires faith and repentance as necessary in point of duty that we may be saved or else the Apostle's Ministry had destroyed the Covenant Hence thirdly it will be impossible for any man to sin against the §. 5. Gospel or Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath framed it for none can sin against the Covenant but he that is a Covenanter either de jure or de facto I mean either such a one as actually is in Covenant or else is bound to enter into Covenant Now upon supposition that none are Covenanters but God and Christ there can be no breach of the Covenant but on one of their parts And consequently neither will it be any grace in God to preserve the Elect from a final breaking of Covenant such being the constitution thereof that it is impossible ex natura rei that it should be broken but by God or Christ nor can any by unbelief or Apostasie violate the covenant seeing it hath no preceptive part which is surely contrary to Scripture Heb. 10. 29. He hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing Hence 4ly No man becomes worthy of punishment for breaking the covenant of grace through unbelief or Apostasy as the Apostle in the same place saith they do and that most justly and I shall farther shew when I come to it Nor 5ly Is salvation and eternal life given as a reward to them that keep the covenant of their God which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures the reason is because the covenant promiseth a reward to none but unto them that fulfill the conditions of it If Christ onely fulfill the condition then our grace and glory may be his reward but glory is not the reward of our faith or obedience Mr. Eyre will say yes because glory follows our faith and obedience But though I readily acknowledge that glory is called our reward onely metaphorically and one reason of the similitude is that which Mr. Eyre mentions because glory follows our faith and obedience as wages follows the work yet is not that the onely or of it self a sufficient reason as we have shewed before nor are the Scriptures or our Divines wont to rest in it The Scriptures tell us that God will reward every man according to his works See Rom. 2. 6 7 8. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Gal. 6. 7. Rev. 22. 12. c. I acknowledge the sense in which our Divines understand the words viz. that the phrase according to his works doth not signifie the proportion of desert but the suitablenesse and agreeablenesse between works and the reward which God gives if the works be good the reward shall be good if evill the reward shall be evill also But this is as much as I need to shew that eternall life is not called a reward meerely because it follows faith and obedience For if so then a beleever quatenus a beleever or a godly man quatenus a godly man is no nearer the reward then if he had neither faith nor godlinesse upon any other score but this that these by Gods appointment are to go before the reward And if God had appointed that all that shall be saved should live to 20 or 30 years of age their arrivall at such an age had been every whit as conducible to their reward as now their faith and godlinesse is supposed to be Againe Our Divines account it no ascribing to the desert of
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