anothers sin but he imputeth that which is their own that is the sin of the whole nature Now I take this as an errour of great consequence that Master Eyre saith that we are not sinners by Adam or that the issues of Adams sin came not upon his posterity by propagation but by vertue of the Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of his posterity for many reasons 1. Because he maketh Adams sin only to be ours by imputation or an act of pure and absolute Sovereignty and Prerogative and no way an act of justice when as it is a mixt act not only an act of Prerogative and Sovereignty in ordaining Adam to be a common person and so his sin to be the sin of the whole nature for God could have ordered it so had it been his pleasure that this sin should only have been personal as his other sins after the fall are But it is an act of justice also for death is inflicted as a punishment upon all which is an act of justice The reason followes in the fifth of the Romans Because in him all have sinned so that death is the wages of that sin because it is our sin all sinned in him and it is not only Adams sin but their own sin by vertue of their relation to him being in his loynes And to make the bare and strict imputation of another mans sin which is no way ours but by imputation the sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment of condemning all mankinde to eternall death which is one of the most weighty acts of Gods judgement that was ever executed in the world is to represent God not so much as a just Judge as one that delighteth in the death of his creature in the blood and ruine of his creature when as he professeth that as he doth live he hath no delight in the death of a sinner much lesse of a creature that were not a sinner if it were not for his imputation And although I doubt not but God may as an act of Sovereignty adjudge an innocent creature unto pain and misery if it were his will and that it would less reflect upon God to say he dit it because it was his absolute pleasure then to pretend or conceive that the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin was the cause of it yet I have no warrant to say that ever God did or will do such an act to make the creature miserable meerly to shew his Sovereignty And what is there in the imputation of Adams sin if this imputation be grounded upon his will and not that naturall union and relation between Adam and his posterity to free it from such an act of pure Sovereignty therefore I look upon it as an act of justice as well as prerogative the equity of which act lieth much in the relation of Adam and his posterity to one another 2. I urge as before I hinted If death entred by sin then Gods imputation is not the onely cause of it But it entred by sin as the Apostle saith Death passed upon all inasmuch as all have sinned 3. Then Adam was only the occasion of our sin but God the Authour for if Adam had sinned if God had not imputed it we had not been sinners But this is an insufferable blasphemy to make God the Author of sinne Therefore Gods imputing it is an act of justice and not of Sovereignty only 4. This overthrowes the community of his person for if it be meerly an act of his will he might have done this though Adam had not been a publick person 5. This ascribeth to God a fallible judgement in esteeming him a sinner that is innocent and is not a sinner but by his imputation 6. This ascribeth injustice to God to impute sin to him that is no sinner but by his imputation which the sinner would be delivered from and consents not to it as the regenerate that bewaile it and earnestly desire to be delivered from it 7. The very necessity that there was for Christ to be borne of a Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost to prevent his being a sinner confutes this conceit for if Adams sinne be ours only by imputation let but God not impute Adams sin to Christ and he intended not so miraculously to be borne for it behoved him to be like us in all things and why not by the help of man to be borne if Adams sin be ours by imputation only and not by propagation also Thus you see how many errours Mr. Eyre is driven unto to hold and maintaine one Nor are his reasons of any weight that he produceth to prove that the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should not be imputed untill they are actually propagated if he meant of an actual and formall imputation of sin it is granted that sin is not so imputed till an actuall being For the understanding of this we must know what imputation of sin is it implieth either an estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner or an adjudication of punishment for that sin or the execution of that punishment now look in what manner we are sinners in that manner is the imputation for Gods judgement must be according to truth now as we are but seminally potentially and virtually sinners because we had but a virtual existence in Adam for it is a known rule and of approved verity Operatio rei consequitur esse rei The acts and operations of things still follow the being of things and are suitable and proportionable thereunto so we are reputed by God only virtually sinful in Adam and so not actual sinners nor so reputed by God nor formally obliged to punishment nor any punishment actually or formally to be inflicted till we have an actuall existence hence by vertue of that Covenant made with Adam we are not actually and formally constituted sinners till we are actuall members and so his argument will return upon himself For if the righteousness of Christ come upon us in the same manner to Justification as Adams sin to condemnation then as we are not actually sinners till we have an actual being so neither are we actually justified till we be actuall members of Christ by faith His second Reason halteth right down and is pittifully inconsequent for it doth no way follow that if the sinne of Adam be ours by propagation that therefore the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as from Adam but rather the consequence should be Therefore our next parents do as truly transmit and propagate that sin as Adam to their children and this is true and will advantage your cause nothing nor hinder ours but it followes not that their personall sins should be imputed as was Adams first sin For if no more of Adams
required as he sheweth for * Lex non requirebat ut Deus moreretur neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur neque requirebat mortâ—m talem tantae efficaciae quae esset ut non mortem abolereâ— solùm sed etiam vitam introduceret eà mque illâ quam Adamus terresti perdedirat multis nominibus praecellentiorem the Law did not require that God should die nor that any should die that had not sinned nor such a death of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life and that by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam had lost so then Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the Elect so as that God neither will nor can in justice require any thing more at the hand of the surety nor of the sinner for whom he died by way of satisfaction Sixthly It will not be denied that God may be said to be reconciled in some sense by the death of Christ as a meritorious cause by death removing the cause of enmity and meriting the favour of God for us for although God loved us from eternity yet this was amor ordinativus not collativus God did bear them good will in time to make them heires of grace and gloâ—y by Jesus Christ Bâ—ll on the Covenant of Grace p. 292. and this excludes not but includes the necessity of Christs satisfaction but such as God did Elect he did not love them as already made heires of Grace by the influence of his love For the full understanding of this you must know that although God dâ—d so love the Elect as to fore-ordaine them unto eternal salvation yet it was never the will of God that his Elect should for no space of time be children of wrath that is subject unto death and eternall damnation for their sins but he did decree to permit them to fall in Adam and to be equally guilty of and liable to eternal death with others for which cause the Apostle calls them children of wrath as well as others Man being created after Gods own Image free from sin before the fall was intimately conjoyned to God God loving and delighting in man and man loving and delighting in his God but man lapsed by voluntary Apostasie from God there is an avulsion of the creature from God and an aversion of God from the creature and by this sin the Covenant of friendship between God and man is dissolved so that God who loved man created by him as his childe and from eternity willing him good for I speak only of the Elect in justice cannot but hate him now as corrupted by sin as a rebell against him not by any change of affection but of his outward dispensation and having included him under guilt as a son of Adam he is equally involved in the wrath due to that sin which God hath threatened with eternal death and resolved by an immutable decree never to pardon it to any without a satisfaction to his offended justice for the breach of his Law that the truth of his threatning may be fulfilled and the authority of his Law preserved and the evil of sin discovered and Gods exceeding love and mercy in a way mixt with mercy and justice may be manifested in the salvation of his Elect So that although there be a new relation in the Elect upon their fall in Adam unto God yet the change is in the creature and not in God for as the Schoolmen well observe these relations which are attributed unto God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord put not any new thing in God but there is an extrinsecal denomination added to him so that when the world is created God who was not a Creatour before is now a Creatour thus when sin took hold of the Elect he that once was a childe of love is now a childe of wrath not by any new accident in God but by a new effect in the creature so that in this estate God cannot bestow upon him the good intended in election For the better understanding of this that of Aquinas is of great use God may velle mutationem where he cannot mutare voluntatem God may will a change though he doth not change his will Thus in Adam while he continued a man after Gods Image free from sin God willed him to be the object of his love and delight and when he was fallen to be the subject of his displeasure and anger in the effects of it being liable unto his wrath and eternall death yet is not here a change in God but in Adam Thus God with the same will decreed from eternity to make such a one a vessel of mercy and yet to permit him to sin and fall in Adam and so to remaine a childe of wrath deserving condemnation wherein God cannot actually save him considering his decree without a satisfaction by Christ applied by faith Here is a change and a very great one in man but not in God a new relation yet no new immanent act in God Thus we may understand that of venerable Beda in the 5. Beda in Rom. 5. ad Rom. Deus miro modo quando nos oderat diligebat odit in unoquoque nostrûm quod feceramus amavit quod fecerat When God did hate us he wonderfully loved us he hated that in all of us that we had done he loved what he had made that is as the Schoolmen say Dilexit humanum genus quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit odit quantum ad culpam quam homines contraxerunt He loved mankinde in respect to the nature he had made or as his creature and hated him as a sinner But now through the satisfaction of Christ God is so farre reconciled that the cause of enmity is removed although it was agreed upon between the Father and Christ as I shall shew without any wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit shall not be enjoyed till faith yet the cause of enmity is causally taken away by the death of Christ as Aquinas speaks well in this case Aquin. p. 3 qu. 49. Artic. 4. Non dicimur reconciliati quasi Deus de novo nos amare inciperet nam aeterno amore nos dilexit sed quia per hanc reconciliationem sublata est omnis odi causa tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris boni Aug. in Joh. Tract 110. And before him Augustine Quòd reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Christi non sic audiatur non sic accipiatur quasi ideò nos reconciliaverit illi Filius ut jam amare inceperit quos oderat sed jam nos Deo diligenti reconciliati sumus cum quo propter peccatum inimicitias habebamus Lombard l. 3. distin 19 pag. 596. Lombard also gives in his suffrage in the like manner Reconciliati sumus Deo ut dit Apostolus quod non sic intelligendum est quasi nos ei
called uncertain or contingent and this is no more then what is unanimously acknowledged by the Orthodox and that no way hinders the salvation of the Elect. And by this time I hope the Reader plainly seeth this truth of Christ that the very Elect are without Christ and without hope in the world as the Apostle affirmeth untill faith that they have no actuall right or interest in the death of Christ until faith and so as to their present estate there is no difference between them and Reprobates being children of wrath as well as others this is that which the tender eares of Mr. Eyre cannot bear but I believe it sounds not so harsh in the ears of a judicious Reader as being an undoubted truth of God but let it be compared with that filthy and dirty opinion of Mr. Eyre more beseeming the Gnosticks of old or the present Ranters of this age then a sober Christian which is this Master Eyre page 61. That the Elect while they are unregenerate while they lie like swine wallowing in the miâ—e of sinne antecedently to faith are justified and so though Infidels and wicked yet divine justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve but contrarily he beholdeth them as perfectly righteous and accordingly deales with them as such who have no sin at all in his sight And I doubt not but the naming of his will vindicate mine and render his justly abhorred to an utter nauseating saying Durus est hic sermo who can bear it And those monstrous absurdities which he chargeth our Doctrine with I doubt not but the intelligent Reader seeth that they are as unjustly fathered upon us as his deformed errour is by himself stiled with the same likenesse of truth to have the complexion of a saving truth CHAP. II. Containing a Vindication of my Argument drawn from the Parallel between the first and the second Adam shewing that as no man is lyable to condemnation by the first Adam but such as are in him by natural generation descending from him so no man is freed from condemnation till they be in Christ by supernatural and spiritual regeneration AGainst this Errour of the Antecedency of Justification to Faith I used in my Serm. at N. Sarum this Medium As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternal death but he that is a member of him by naturall generation so Christ freeth no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till he be a member of him by supernatural generation But this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as received him to them gave he power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty right power priviledge or prerogative to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Therefore no man stands reconciled before God though Elect persons till by faith they are incorporated into Christ and have this priviledge to be the children of God Now let us see what Mr. Eyre replieth to this he saith that this maketh much against me Mr. Eyre p. 6. for saith he If the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle sheweth it doth Rom. 5. then it must follow that the righteousnesse of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a being and then much more before they do believe in him for Adams sin it is evident that it came upon all men to condemnation before they had a being For by the first transgression sayes the Apostle ver 12. sin entred into the world and more plainly death passed upon all men The reason followes because in him or in his loyns all have sinned so Mr. Eyre For answer whereunto I shall premise this that I did not affirme that we are no way guilty of Adams sin before we have a being For I willingly grant that of Augustine * Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manif stùque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo fuerunt Aug. de peccat merit Remist l. 1. c. 10. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manifestúmque est alia esse propria c. Adam was as it were we all we were all that one Adam it is most certain and manifest that some sins are proper to every one in which they only sinned whose sins they were this one sin is another in which all have sinned seeing all were that one man and it is a general received truth among the Orthodox that there was an inexistence or being of all men in Adam And therefore I willingly grant that we did no lesse sin in Adam then Levi paid tithes in Abraham Heb. 7.6 because as he was in the loynes of Abraham when Melchisedech met him so were we all in the loynes of Adam and when I said that no man is guilty by the first Adam of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation I intended nothing but to shew that we are not guilty of Adams sin so as to be actually and formally sinners though virtually we are untill we be in him by naturall generation and so actually members and so I grant we are virtually justified from the death of Christ not formally And 2. I intended to shew that as Adams sin is not ours but as we are in him so Christs righteousnesse is not ours unlesse united to him this premised I shall now reply to Mr. Eyre's Objection That I apprehend in his answer a double Errour 1. He takes that for granted which will not be yielded that the Apostle saith We were formally constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam as we are by his opinion formally not only virtually justified at the death of Christ Vide Mr. Eyre page 68. so he expresseth his meaning p. 68. and herein he is contrary to all Orthodox Antiquity Learned Wotton doth deny it in expresse termes in his answer to Hemingius his Argument whose words are these Wotton de Recon pecc par 2. l. 1. c. 9. p. 148. Primam propositionem nego quia sumit pro concesso Apostolum dicere nos Adami inobedientiâ formaliter factos esse peccatores quod parùm liquet certè alia fuit antiquorum Theologorum sententia and reciteth for that end Chrysost Theophilact Pacianus Anselm Haymo Hugo Aeterianus OEcumenius Calvin Who so please to read them may finde them in the fore-cited place of Wotton We therefore affirme that although Adams sin was not altogether another mans but in some sense ours because we were seminally in
habere vim ad justificandas homines quà m Adami peccatum ad nos condemnandos which because it is the same in effect with mine I shall spare to English The next words of Mr. Eyre relating to this businesse are these Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous Besides the former errours it is guilty of I finde a double violence offered to the sacred Text. First in that he limiteth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the all that sinned in Adam to them that shall perish as if the Reprobates only sinned in Adam and not the Elect and as if they were not in the same sin and condemnation which it may be he doth because he is of his brethrens minde the rest of the Antinomians who affirming that they are justified from eternity and so God seeth no sin in them and he himself saith pag. 61. That the Divine Justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least punishment which their sins deserve But contrarily he beholdeth them as persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them as uch who have no sin at all in his sight And yet this man is offended to be called an Antinomian though he is not ashamed to be one but against this grosse conceit because it is sufficiently confuted by others I will say no more but alledge two Scripture-testâ—monies 1 Joh. 1 last ver The first is in the 1 John 1. the last vers After the Apostle had said that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin ch 2.1 yet he saith If any man say we have not sinned he maketh God a liar and his Word is not in us And in the second Chap. ver 1. for the sins of the justified he is an Advocate to procure pardon 1 Cor. 11.30 My little children if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous The other is that of the believing Corinthians For this cause many are sick c. Nor will the Antithesis bear him out for the Apostle doth not compare the Elect with the Reprobates but all that sinned in Adam which is all mankinde with all that shall be saved by Christ A second violence offered to the Scripture such men are fit to make their own Creed is in that he saith that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous the Text saith no such matter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that shall be made righteous not were made righteou which if Mr. Eyre might have done the office of a Gamaliel to the Apostle he would have counselled him to say were made righteous if Mr. Eyre's opinion of an actual justification from the time of Christs death be true he ought to have said were made righteous but the Apostle saith they shall be made righteous No wonder if he misrepresent what I said when he makes so bold with the Apostle and sacred Text and here let me returne that most justly upon Mr. Eyre which he saith to Mr Woodbridge * Vide Mr Eyre p. 10. This is not to interpret Scripture but to deny it such a liberty to alter tenses and formes of speech at our pleasure will but justifie the seâ—uits blasphemy that the Scriptures are but a leaden rule and a nose of wax which may be turned into any forme Turpe est doctori cùm culpa redurguet ipsum But now it is observable in this diversity that the Apostle saith not many were made righteous Hosius lib 3. de Auth Scrip. c. As in Adam many were made sinners but many shall be made righteous by this it is observable that the Apostle doth contradict what Mr. Eyre hath affirmed that the righteousnesse of Christ came upon the Elect in the same manner antecedently to their birth as the sinne of Adam came upon all to condemnation antecedently to their being And the reason of this diversity is because the Apostle had respect to all those Elect who have not yet believed either because as yet they were not in being and those that were in being were not all as yet called And truly this is a very great difference between the manner of communicating Christs righteousnesse and Adams sin for we being seminâ—lly in Adam Vide Downh Cov. of Grace p. 296. and having a natural relation to him sinned in him as being in 〈◊〉 â—oynes and hence we were as truly sinners in him though not as compleatly and formally sinful as he And by generation the sin of Adam is actually communicated to all his posterity and to all alike because we were all alike in him When they actually exist and no sooner are they partakers of the human nature but they are formally constituted sinners and partake iâ—â—is sin But now it is a manifest errour to think that we are all thus seminally in Christ and have any such union with him â—nâ—ecedently to faith as shall be made hereafter more evident or that the community of his person is equivalent to such an unâ—on and therefore the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ is not communicated to all from the time of their participation in the humane nature as for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration and the fuller answer to that I referre till I shall speak to his Argument drawn from them We are not then in our generation much lesse before made partakers of Christs righteousnesse but in our regeneration when faith is ingenerated by the Holy Ghost in our souls Hence then that we should not dream of being borne just as we are borne sinners which indeed were a contradiction to imagine that we should be borne both just and sinfull under the guilt of sin at the same time and that we should not neglect the grace of justification as though we had it already and brought it into the world with us as we brought sin in The Apostle speaks of it in the future tense to signifie that we are not immediately constituted righteous but must expect this benefit in our effectuall vocation when we are brought to faith for Whom he predestinated them he calleth and whom he calleth them he justifieth and no other and properly never till then and to this purpose Dr. Downham Cov. of Grace p. 296. Reverend Dr. Downam expresseth himself in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace And hence we see there is not the same reason for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to all the Elect before their birth or faith that there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a being because as Mr. Burges hath observed the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do
come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel he implanteth us into Christ hereby we are only united and now being one hence his death and sufferings in the merit of it is imputed to us and hereby are we actually acquitted and justified and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath liable to condemnation at our birth and then were not justified from eternity for if we were justified from eternity then we never were borne sinners under the guilt of sin liable to condemnation for Justification is a removal of this guilt therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature denieth this eternall Justification and so the Minor is also made evident 2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer where he saith that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words by nature where he saith that in reference to their estate in Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but fiery indignation yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love c. Where observe That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate what it is as they are descended from Adam but he speaketh of it what it was as that which they were actually delivered from and are now not in the same state they were And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification for it implies a contradiction that they should be in both at the same time and that in reference to God 't is true they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man but no man can actually be in both these estates sure they are two different estates the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam another in Christ by faith and at their birth they were in the first in which they could expect nothing but wrath and God in that estate could not pardon them keeping to his own order of salvation therefore then they were not justified therefore when he saith that this first estate hindered not but that by grace they might be the children of love if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of benevolence and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate it is not denied but if he mean that they were not then guilty of and subject to the wrath of God and so were objects of Gods love of complacency and justified and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell and actuall right to salvation it is denied and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost who saith they are children of wrath John 3.36 and that while they remain in unbelief the wrath of God abideth on them there it was and will remain till removed by faith and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost He addeth that God calleth them his Sons and Children before conversion be it granted yet this is not because they actually are so but certainly shall be made so and to distinguish them for whom Christ died from them that shall perish and to shew that it was not for any thing in them that he first set his love upon them therefore he calleth them so not because they were such antecedently to their conversion but consequently should be made such He addeth likewise that it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive moving cause inward or outward that moveth God to make and take them for his children it is readily granted but if he deny any inherent qualification to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship that he hath predestinated us unto he contradicteth the Holy Ghost which saith John 1.12 John 1 1â— To as many as received him to them gave he power not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity but predestinated to the Adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus He further answereth pag. 112 by concession Mr. Eyre pag. 112 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath because the Law doth terrifie their consciences but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their conscienceâ— but threateneth death and damnation to their persons and God by the Law so long as they remain unregenerate and not only their consciences as he affirmes but their persons are under wrath and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God and how God doth account of them till they are delivered from that estate by grace and not only what he is by nature For the Law is the Law of God and what power it hath to threaten and condemne it hath it from God and therefore when that condemneth God condemneth if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing so that it is not a meer scare-crow or bug-beare to affright the consciences of the Elect when it cannot reach their persons for it holdeth their persons under condemnation till by faith laying hold upon Christ they are delivered from the sentence of the Law for Paul speaketh of himself and the believing Romans Rom. 7.5 that While they were in the flesh that is in their unregenerate estate wherein they could not please God the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our Members to bring forth fruit unto death the corruptions of nature took occasion by the Law forbidding sin to commit sin more greedily so to bring forth fruit unto death i. e. death eternal which is the wages of all sin and thus they did but heap up and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate till they were married to Christ and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law and of their corrupt nature The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God First he saith It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve Secondly It noteth the threateniâ—gs and comminations of the Law Thirdly It notes the executions of those threatenings In the first and third sense the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath but in the second sense they are under the threatening of the Law
did not intend a direct Series and order of the causes of salvation in this place from whence then it may be concluded those that are uncalled are unjustified so are the Elect Jewes Therefore A third reason is because they who are alienated from God they are not reconciled and by consequence not justified So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled Therefore c. As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake that is as * De Judaeorum gente in genere disserit qui quòd Evangelium idest quatenus Evangelium non admittunc nempe in praesenti conditiâ—ne sunt Deâ— exosi c. Beza saith upon the place Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt sunt Deo exosi quod ad Electionem attinet c. That is as they refuse the Gospel they are enemies or hateful to God in the present condition for your sakes which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good that upon their rejection they might be called but as concerning the Election they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers but as to their present condition they are hatefull to God therefore unjustified Eleventhly That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false cannot be true But to make unbelievers though Elect persons the subjects of Justification doth this Therefore c. The assumption only needeth proof Rom. 8.15 yet it is evident because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate that they are in a state of bondage whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth therefore the Elect unregenerated are not justified CHAP. VIII Shewing that we are justified by faith and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith it doth not understand it only declaratively but really in the sight of God nor objectively excluding the act and the instrumentality of Faith is proved HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand I shall premise First That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists as if it did justifie us per modum causae efficientâ—â— morâ—â—oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour câ—â—â—e which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification so Bellarmine saith Bellar De Justific l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie impetrando promorendo inchoando justificationem Nor Secondly Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect â—ighteousnesse Thirdly Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righteousnesse as a grace or a work or an act or a habit but the matter of our Justification is Christs righteousnesse and obedience Fourthly Faith is not to be taken objectively only that is for Christ as Mr. Eyre interprets it though it be willingly acknowledged that we are justified by no other righteousnesse then the righteousnese of Christ But Fifthly I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification and so it is to be taken with connotation to its object That if you ask for what I am justified I say the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed if you ask by what I am justified I answer by Faith as an hand to put on Christ as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin Sixthly This grace of Faith is the free gift of God not the birth or spawn of free will but the effect of Election and a fruit of Christs death Seventhly When the Scripture saith We are justified by faith it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object and by applying Christs righteousnesse a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate from death to life so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Justification to the conscience but instrumentally it justifieth us so as that I must be justified by it though I am not justified for it These things premised I shall now prove it It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so but only the difference is how this is to be taken whether properly metonymically or both to which last I incline in the sense explained So that neither Christ alone nor Faith alone do justifie but that they are social causes though not co-ordinate and ejusdem generis of the same kinde or worth but Christ is a morall meritorious cause Faith the instrumental working only virtute agentis principalis by the power order constitution of the principal agent to the production of an effect far above its own native-worth or power Argument the first against declarative Justification The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justification but by what means we are justified it is of farre greater concernment to be justified then to know his Justification he said we were justified by faith they by the Law whence I reason If faith taken subjectively for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification then we are no more justified by faith then by works But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification The consequence is evident because works may evidence Justification nay works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works not only to others but to our selves and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner is apparent Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we know that we are passed c. 1 John 3.14 Now the Assumption I confirme thus that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood And when the Apostle speaketh of Justification by faith he meaneth of a Justification before God as in that third to the Romanes he concludeth by a sound argument that we are justified in the sight of God and not before conscience Thus if all have sinned and are come short of the glory of God and so are inherently wicked then we are
for the want of Faith as a meanes to unite the soul to Christ hindered it for as none are partakers of Adams sin but such as were in him so none are partakers of the reconciliation wrought by Christ but such as are in him Now it is by Faith that we are implanted into Christ and therfore until Faith we are not partakers of the benefit of actual reconciliation Mr. Eyre doth erre toto coelo when he thinketh we conceive a new will and affâ—ction to be in God upon believing which was not before for we acknowledge no new immanent act in God this were to make him mutable but we acknowledge a transient act of God to passe upon the believer and that there is a change of Gods dispensation toward the believer though not a change of affection and God loved them before with the love of benevolence not with the love of complacency and delight which he could not do while they remained unjustified The first love is terminated upon their persons yet the nature of Justification consists not in it because it is a love of good-will and purpose to do them good The second is a love terminated upon their graces and so a delighting in his own work so a loving them for what he hath wrought in them and now he pardoneth by vertue of the Covenant of grace and the promise Whosoever believe shall not perish but have everlasting life Fourthly If it were the will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was the will of God that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect This consequence is denied the reason that he bringeth is that there is the same reason for the immediat transmission of both to their respective subjects for as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.14 both of them were Heads and Roots of mankind To which I answer deny that there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both for though they be both Roots of mankinde yet we are in the first Adam in a naturall way and so sinned in him before we had a being and were formally and actually sinners as soon as we had an actual being but we are in the second Adam by a supernatural work of the Spirit working Faith and this is not wrought alwayes at our birth but a long time after Besides the scope of the Apostle is not to compare Adam and Christ as causes in eodem genere of the same kinde that did in the same manner in every respect communicate the issues of their actions to their respective members but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious nay more powerfully efficacious to save all that are in him then Adams sinne were to condemn all that are in him and the efficaciousnesse of Christs death consists not in the immediate conferring of the things purchased for though in regerd of causality the effects are immediat yet not in respect of application but in the certainty of collating the things purchased and the excellency of the things obtained for it is farre moâ—e efficacious to save one man then to damn all the world The first is an act of Impotency this an act of Omnipotency and they for whom Christ died shall as certainly be justified and saved as if the work were already done Fifthly If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the typical cleansing of sins under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available to make a real atonement for all those sinnes for which he suffered The reason of which consequence is this because the real sacrifice is no lesse efficacious then the typical Heb. 9.14 But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition perfermed on the sinners part Lev. 16.30 I answer that the consequence of the major may justly be questioned for if they were immediate it followeth not that therefore Christs sacrifice must be so or else it is of lesse efficacy First because that such as brought those sacrifices were actually the people of God and professed faith in Christ and if the Profession were outward only they had an outward cleansing if real they had by faith in Christ a spiritual cleansing signified by the outward cleansing but all that shall be cleansed by the sacrifice of Christs death were not in being much lesse had an actual faith to apply it nor is the death of Christ lesse efficacious because they did but typically cleanse they could not purge the conscience Heb. 9.25 26. hence they were often repeated but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath cleansed us they had their power and efficacy only in reference to Christs blood which was typified thereby Secondly we say that Christs death doth immediately cleanse in respect of causality though not in respect of actual application the defect is not in Christs blood but in the want of faith that it might be applied But Thirdly I deny the minor those legal sacrifices did not immediately make atonement without any condition on the sinners part for that is apparently false For First the man that would have an atonement made for him by sacrifice must have it be done by the slaying of a beast offered up and burnt with fire to signifie that without blood there 〈◊〉 no remission Levit. 1. and to set forth the grievous sufferings of Christ Secondly Levit. 1. he must bring his sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle without which it should not be accepted yea blood should be imputed to him and he should be cut off Lev. 17.4 this Tabernacle signified Christ Heb. 9.11 Heb. 9.11 by whom all services as a door must have passage to and acceptance with God and he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary Profession of faith though it were a duty commanded and a sin not to do it yet he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary service and profession of faith in Christ Thirdly he must put his hand upon the head of the beast Levit. 1.4 Exod. 29.10 Lev. 1.4 whereby he confessed his sins and worthinesse to die though through Gods mercy this death was inflicted on the beast by which was signified that he must confesse his sins and worthinesse to die and that God hath laid his iniquities upon Christ and by this laying on of the hand is signified his apprehending Christ Exod. 24.8 and likewise the blood was sprinkled upon the people Heb. 9.19 Heb. 9.19 The Priest took the blood of calves and of goats and he sprinkled the book and all the people under which is typified the application of Christs blood to the conscience upon believing Hence Calvin saith upon Heb. 9.19 Calvin apud marl Heb. 9.19 Quòd autem ex hyssopo aspergillum fiebat lanâ cotcinâ non dubium est quin mysticam asperginem quae fit per Spiritum representaverit
him that were virtually sinners in him and that act of his in eating the forbidden fruit was as truly ours though not so compleatly and perfectly as his for we are not formally constituted sinners till we are actually members of him by natural generation 2. A second Errour I conceive him guilty of is in that he saith That the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation and it 's so much the worse that he will father it upon the Apostle which he no way intended in that place that as Adams sin came upon men to condemnation before they had a being that so the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed to the Elect before they had a being To which I answer that it is a manifest untruth for the sin of Adam descends upon us not only by imputation but by propagation so doth not the righteousnesse of Christ that is ours only by imputation The sin of Adam becomes ours by vertue of a natural union in whom we are seminally antecedently to our birth but Christs righteousnesse becometh ours by spirituall and supernatural union to whom we are strangers and alienated from him by nature we are virtually united to Adam because we had existence in him as in our first Parent before we had a being but we were actually sinners whâ—n we had an actuall being because we had a compl aâ— being out of our cause but we are not actually united to Christ before faith Wotton de Râ—con pecc par 2. l. 2. c. 2â— p. 210 Hence learned Wotton in answer to this Objâ—ction saith Nos unum fuisse cum Adamo credentes unum esse cum Christo si utrumque verè dici possit tamen alio atque alio modo haec vera essâ— intelliguntur unum suimus cum Adamo originaliter liceat enim his verbis uti seminaliter ut arbor ejúsque omnes rami in glande aut alio quovis semine inesse dicuntur hác ratione fit ut non minùs verè in Adamo peccâsse quà m Levi apud Apostolum Heb. 7.9 decimatus esse in Abrahamo affirmatur jam verò longè alio modo in Christo esse censemur non naturâ aut proprie sed improprie per similitudinem quandam Praeterea semper ex quo creatus est Adamus unum cum illo in illo fuisse deprehendimur ut cum illo etiam quodam modo peccare potuerimus Quod de nostrâ cum Christo conjunctione sive unione affi mari non pâ—test uniri enim nos Christo cum illo conjungi oportet priusquam unum esse cum illo possimus existimari wh ch for the Readers sake I will English Although it may be truly said that we were one with Adam and believers are one with Christ yet this is to be understood in a different manner we were one with Adam and in him naturally originally and let it be lawful to use these words seminally as a tree and all his branches are said to be in the 〈◊〉 or in any other seed By this reason it comes to passe that we know that we sinned no lesse in Adam then Levi by the Apostle is said Heb. 7.9 to have paid tithes in Abraham But now we are reputed to be in Christ in a farre different manner not by nature or properly but improperly and by a certain similitude Moreover from the time that Adam was created we were alwayes one with him and in him that with him we may be said after a sort to have sinned which cannot be affirmed concerning our conjunction with or union to Christ for it behoveth us to be joyned and united to Christ before we can be esteemed to be one with him and he addes Quare tum primùm in Christo esse incipimus quum in illum credimus Wherefore we then first begin to be in Christ when we believe in him And let me adde that there are many different considerations and circumstances between the bringing in of salvation by the one and condemnation by the other and the Apostle giveth instance in Rom. 5.15 16. And besides these there are many other I shall think fit to adde but one Vide John Goodwin Treat Justifica part 2. pag. 17. taken nootice of by Master John Goodwin in his Treatise of Justification and in hâ—s words The sin of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posterity as his own in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but the obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence with truth be said to have been theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not been saved at all It is said indeed that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 but it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it self to God Let no man blame me for his authority fas est ab hoste doceri And the ground of Mr. Eyre's mistake if it be not wilfull is that he thinks the Apostle doth compare the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ as causes of the same kinde which produce their effects after the same manner which was not the intent of the Apostle but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious unto Justification to them that are his one with him then the sin of Adam was to condemnation to them that were in him but not to shew that we were in Christ as we are in * Câ—nfertur autem A la nus cum Christo tum in re simili cùm in contrariâ siwiles enim sunt in eo quòd uterque quod suum est cum suis communicat sed in eo planè dissimiles quòd ille pecatum in suos naturâ derivat ad mortem Christus verò suam justitiam cum suis communicat per gratiam ad vitam Beza large Ann. on Rom. 5.12 Wotton de recon peccat par 2. l. 1. c. 9 p. 149 Adam that as we were in Adam antecedently to our being that so the Elect are in Christ antecedently to their birth and faith for as in the next Argument that I shall vindicate I shall shew that we are not united to Christ until faith And the very same answer doth Wotton give to Hemingius whose words are these Quod ad assumptionem attinet sumet ille pro concesso Apostolum Adami inobedientiam tanquam ejusdem generis causas comparare quae eodem plane modo effecta sua producant At verò id potiùs agere videtur Apostolus ut Christi obedientiam non minùs ad justificationem valere quà m Adami in obedientiam ad condemnationem imò Christi justitiam majorem
sins be imputed then that first transgression why should the sins of any other parents be imputed And the reason is not alike for none but Adam could be a publick person representing all mankinde and that sin was not only personal and proper to Adam but common to the whole nature and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person For it is a mixt act in God when he doth impute Adams sin partly arising from his Sovereignty and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are and may be imputed to the children And whereas he saith Unlesse they can shew any proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force I answer here needs no other proviso or restriction but only to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we are in Adam and therefore the benefits of his death cannot immediately follow our birth or be antecedent to it but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ and the parallel holds firme for as in Adam we all virtually sinned and so were virtually condemned so we grant Christ hath meritoriously redeemed us and we are virtually justified in him and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity till they have an actuall being and are actually members of Adam so are not we actually justified till we be actual members of Christ by faith As for the Logical Axiom Non entis nulla sunt accidentia it was used in my next Argument and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ shewing that where there is no union there can be no communion his unjust charge refuted and the nature of our union with Christ further declared MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence was drawn from our union to Christ Where there is no union there can be no communion for union is the ground of all communion which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union But we are not united unto Christ untill faith Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification And in the further prosecuting of the Argument I shewed that this union is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union it must require our existence for an accident cannot subsist without its subject because * Where I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio quâ— tenus opponit sub stantiae ne strictè pro omâ— quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio Accidentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it for Non entis nullae sunt affectiones and that this union was the formal effect of faith Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument First he saith that I called our union with Christ a personall union which seems to fav ur that absurd notion that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personaliâ—y also and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word and his shamelesse dealing in this respect is the more injuriously evident in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses that I neither said nor did own any such thing but did declaâ—e that I said and meant that it was such a union whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever yet is he a man of that face and fore-head to print and declare that to the world which he hath God Angels and men if not his own conscience to witnesse against him but this he hath done to render me odious to the world the Lord forgive him and let him see the evil of these and the like slanders against me and others of his brethren that differ from him And let him now know that I utterly abhor that Familistical notion that there should be an hypostaticall union between Christ and a Believer for Christ is one person and a Believer another Apage Theologiam hanc erco relegandam I forced my self publickly to oppose it as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Doctor doth condemne Dr. Chambers that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the person into the nature and person of the Son of God I desire no better Umpire to determine I affirme that the union made between us and Christ by faith is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ What is here that savours of such a notion yea Mr. Hooker Souls union pag 7 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise called the Soules Exaltation and in the Sermon called the Souls Vnion with Christ expressing what this union is and how it is made by faith hath this passage he saith It is a totall union the whole nature of a Saviour and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church not only according as he is God but as he is God and man and a Believer is a member not only according to his body but according to his body and soul whole Christ being the Head and the whole Believer being a Member therefore a whole Christ and a whole believer must be joyned together Perkins 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20 p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78 The whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins Of this conjunction saith he two things may be noted The first that it is a substantial union in that the person of him that believeth is united to the person of Christ but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith Because saith he they are given to Christ and Christ to them