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
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
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
similitude So saith he the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned What are these beams of love Is pardon of sin any of them if it be then behold the sense of the comparison viz. Christ having satisfied God can now pardon sin as freely as if men had no sin and so had never needed pardon This is a rare notion but there is yet something worse then non-sense included in it namely that sinners are discharged without pardon as having in Christ paid to the full the debt which they owed as swearers and drunkards are discharged upon payment of the mulct enjoyned by Law without the Magistrates pardon and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law as if they had never broken it If immediately upon Christs satisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the blessings of the promise as if they had never sinned there is then no need that they should beleeve and repent in order to the obtaining of life and salvation The fifth Argument succeeds If it were the will of God that the §. 9. sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for both of them were heads and roots of mankind But the sin of Adam did immediately over spread his posterity All men sinned in him Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual sin Ergo. Ans I deny both proposition and assumption First for the assumption I deny that any man is guilty of Adams sin till he exist and be a child of Adam He that is not is not under Law to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men sinned in Adam before they had any being of their own neither doth the text say so but only that death passed upon all men fâ—r that all have sinned which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have sinned as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipsis thus Death passed upon all men by him in whom all have sinned yet will it be short of his purpose Doth not the Apostle say in the same verse Death hath passed upon all men and v. 15. through the offence of one many be dead which many himself interprets of all v. 18. for as Beza notes well v. 15. many in this comparison is not opposed to all but to one Is it therefore lawfull to inferre that men are actually dead before they are borne Nothing lesse The meaning then of this speech All men are dead in Adam is no more but this That sentence of death passed upon Adam by virtue of which all that are borne of him eo ipso that they derive their being from him become subject unto the same death In like manner all are said to have sinned in him not that his posterity then unborne and unbegotten that is no body were immediately guilty of his fact but because by the just dispensation of God it was to be imputed to them as soone as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam His offence tainted the blood and according to Gods Covenant and way of dealing with him was interpreted as the act of the humane nature then existing in himself for tota natura generis est in qualibet specie but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular persons partaking in that nature before their own personal existence In short we sinned in Adam no otherwise then we did exist in him for operatio sequitur esse but to exist in Adam is not to exist simply but rather the contrary for when men are men and have a personal existence of their own they exist no longer in Adam but out of him as every effect wrought exists out of its causes but onely notes a virtue or power in him productive of us positis omnibus ad agâ—ndum requisitis So to sin or be guilty in him is not to sin or be guilty simply but onely notes the cause of the propagation of guilt together with our substance to be then in being If we apply this it will follow that as no man partakes in Adams guilt till he be borne a child of Adam so none partake in the righteousnesse of Christ nor the benefit of his satisfaction till they be borne unto him by faith And that doth the Apostle put out of question in this very dispute Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous which words were written many years after Christs death and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christs obedience Ergo they were not made righteous immediately in his death That for the minor The proposition comes next to be canvased where I deny that §. 10. there is the same reason for the transmission of Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse to their respective subjects for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind as the Apostle shews Rom. 5. 14. and so farre forth they agree both communicating their effects to their children Adam sin and death to his natural children Christ righteousnesse and life to his spiritual children yet the same Apostle in the same place shews that there is a divers dissimilitude or disagreement betwixt them and that in several respects v. 15 16 17 18. particularly in that he calls our justification by the obedience of Christ the gift and free gift in opposition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation v. 15 16. implying the obedience of Christ to be so performed as that there is yet required an act of grace on Gods part to give us the effect of it as well as an act of faith on our part that it may be given to us or that we may receive it of which the Apostle speaks in the next verse v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace shall raigne in life for we receive the grace of God by faith 2 Cor. 6. 1. suitable to what this Apostle had said before chap. 3. 25 26. that Christ was set forth to declare the righteousnesse of God that he might be thâ— justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus But the effects of Adams disobedience came upon his posterity by the necessity of the same judgement which passed upon himself as the natural father of all men so as there needs no other act either on Gods part or on our part but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment But
of 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
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
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
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
of the same kinde with our condemnation in Adam it is manifest it must be understood of reconciliation in the cause not in the effect Nor let it trouble the Reader that the Apostle speaks as if the effect §. 21. were wrought we were reconciled for nothing more common in Scripture then to speak of the effect as wrought when provision is made of a sufficient cause by which it shall or may be wrought Ezek. 24. 13. I have purged thee and thou wast not purged that is there was nothing wanting on Gods part that might conduce to her purging though the effect did not follow Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven not that every person and Nation had then heard the Gospel for they have not yet heard it but that by Gods permission and commandment they might hear it Christ hath abolished death 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely he is the authour and cause of its abolition or he hath abolished it quoad meritum for death is not destroyed de facto quoad effectum till the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 26 54. so in verbs of active signification Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God is powerful piercing to the dividing asunder c. Psal 19. 7 8. converting making wise rejoycing the heart enlightening the eyes all which do not so much signifie the act as the vertue and sufficiency of the cause In like manner when Christ is said to be the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2. 2. it is to be understood of the vertue and sufficiency of his blood to take away sin not of a propitiation then presently wrought and effected for there is none such before faith if the Apostle may be beleeved Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Multitudes of like instances are obvious A third Argument is that mentioned in my Sermon out of v. 11. §. 22. By whom we have now also received the atonement which in plainer termes is this That now that is since we are believers we are actually reconciled unto God Mr. Eyre answers 1. That I might as well argue that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15. 20. Now is Christ risen Ergo he was not risen before he wrote that Epistle Or from Eph. 2. 2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo he did not work in them before Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre then think that the particle now in this place is to be taken in the same sense as in those if he doth his next answer is a nullity if he doth not he might have spared this The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now hath several uses sometimes it is a meer supplement or redundancy Psal 39. 7. sometimes a note of transition as when it is said Now it came to passe sometimes of a continued act as Eph. 2. 2. Heb. 9. 24. sometimes of a supposition Rom. 8. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. sometimes of opposition or of assumption 1 Cor. 15. 20. Heb. 11. 16. but most commonly and naturally of time and particularly of the time of mens being converted Rom. 6. 19 21 22. and 1â— 30. Gal. 2. 20. and 4. 9. and elsewhere often so is it taken here as being distinguished from the time of the death of Christ ver 10. and superadding some other benefit then what was effected immediately in his death namely the receiving of reconciliation neither of which are to be found in either of the places mentioned by Mr. Eyre nor will any of the other sense of the word comport with this place His second answer therefore is We cannot receive or apply reconciliation to our selves but by faith yet it follows not that God did not account it to us before Rep. The accounting of reconciliation to us is an expression I never heard before 2. Justification and reconciliation are here used to signifie the same thing Ergo to receive the atonement is all one with the receiving of Justification or pardon of sin as Acts 26. 18. and 10. 43. which we have shewed before cannot be meant of our knowing our sins to be pardoned SECT V. FOr farther Explication of the difference between our reconciliation §. 23. in the death of Christ and after our believing I observed out of Grotius a distinction of three periods of the Will of God 1. As it may be conceived immediately after sin committed before the consideration of the death of Christ And now is the Lord at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and meanes by which he may returne to friendship with him again 2. As it may be conceived after the death of Christ and now is the Lord not only appeasable but doth also promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such â—â—â—mes as himself shall propose 3. As. the same Will of God may be considered after an intercession on Christs part and faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner Against any of these particulars Mr. Eyre excepts nothing but exclaims against the whole as extreamly grosse and why forsooth because it makes God changeable But as grosse as it is not our Protestants only but the Scriptures also own every syllable of it nor will the satisfaction of Christ stand without it God was in friendship with Adam while he continued righteous and without sin I conceive it is next to an impossibility that the righteous Lord should be at enmity with a righteous man who neither is a sinner nor in the room of a sinner After Adam had sinned was not God at enmity with him Yes surely unlesse Christ be dead in vaine by his death we were reconciled while we were enemies After the death of Christ God is reconciled unto sinners Lo here God is a friend an enemy and reconciled again and is this such monstrous Divinity with Mr. Eyre But for the Readers farther information I shall endeavour to shew how God may be first a friend then an enemy then reconciled without any variablenesse or shadow of changing in himselfe and then shall adde a word or two more concerning our reconciliation in the death of Christ and so return to Mr. Eyre Reconciliation is the redintegration or renewing of friendship §. 24. g Vide Arist ad Nichom 8. 2 7. and friendship is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those who may be equally serviceable one unto another in any office of love and friendly communication of good in a way of arithmetical proportion or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those that are of unequal condition the one excelling the other in dignity or age or power between whom there cannot therefore be any reciprocal communication of good but in a way of geometrical proportion he that is of low degree and meaner rank imparting love and honour and observance to him that is of high
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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