Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	sin_n	wage_n	7,907	5	11.1189	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39120	Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ = Justification without conditions, or, The free justification of a sinner : explained, confirmed, and vindicated, from the exceptions, objections, and seeming absurdities, which are cast upon it, by the assertors of conditional justification : more especially from the attempts of Mr. B. Woodbridge in his sermon, entituled (Justification by faith), of Mr. Cranford in his Epistle to the reader, and of Mr. Baxter in some passages, which relate to the same matter : wherein also, the absoluteness of the New Covenant is proved, and the arguments against it, are disproved / by W. Eyre ...	Eyre, William, 1612 or 13-1670.; Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1654 (1654)	Wing E3947A; ESTC R40198	198,474	230

The ground whereon he builds these Assertions is a very sandy foundation to wit That the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of something equivalent and therefore it doth not deliver us ipso facto but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him I answer 1 Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or tantidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction But 2 Mr. W. might have thought we would expect a better proof then his bare word That the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem seeing the Holy Ghost shews First That Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under He was made under the Law not an other but the very same that we were held in Gal. 4.3 4. Ergo he paid the same debt that we did ow. Secondly That the Curse or punishment which we deserved was inflicted upon him Gal. 3.13 The whole wages or curse that is due to sin is Death and this Christ under-went for us Heb. 2.9 14. Isai. 53.4 5. What is it to die or to bear chastisement for another but to undergo that death which the other should have undergone If it be objected That the death which we deserved is Eternal such as the damned endure our Divines have answered long ago That Christs death was such in pondere though not in specie in potentia though not in actu The dignity of his person raised the price of his temporary sufferings to an equipollency with the other Mr. Owen says well That there is a sameness in Christs sufferings with that in the obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the Adjuncts or Attendencies Thirdly The laying of our sins upon Christ Isai. 53.6 subjected him to the same punishment which our sins deserved Fourthly If God would have dispenced with the idem in the first obligation Christ need not have died for if the justice of God would have been satisfied with less then that penalty threatned in the Law he might as well have dispenced with the whole So then his inference That the death of Christ doth not deliver us ipso facto being destitute of this support will fall to the ground of its own accord § 14. M. W. grants That if the debtor himself do bring unto the creditor that which he ows him it presently dischargeth him but the payment of a Surety doth not And why not Amongst men there is no difference so the debt be paid it matters not whether it be by the Principal or his Surety the obligation is voide in respect of both The case is the very same between Christ and us Secondly This Exception makes the payment of Christ less efficacious for the discharge of our debt then if it had been made by us whereas it is infinitely more acceptable to God then the most perfect righteousness performed by us But sayes he the payment of a Surety is refusable Not after that he is admitted by the creditor and taken into Bond with or for the principal debtor It is true God might have refused to be satisfied for our debt by a Surety but seeing he ordained his Son to be our Surety and entered into Covenant with him from everlasting to accept his payment on our behalf the debt which he hath fully satisfied cannot be charged again either upon the Party or Surety without manifest injustice But the Father and the Son have agreed between themselves that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe Shew us this agreement and we will yeeld the cause As for the Scriptures which he hath mentioned they speak of no such thing John 6.40 This is the will of him that sent me That every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life This Text and others like it do onely shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe The other Text Gal. 5.2 4. is palpably abused to serve his turn The Apostle doth not say Without Faith Christ shall profit us nothing but if we joyn any thing with Christ as necessary to attain Salvation we are not Believers or true Christians our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing and the reason hereof is because these two principles cannot be mixed A mans righteousness before God is either all by Works or all by Christ and therefore whosoever attributes any part thereof to Works he wholly renounceth Christ. At the sixth Verse he attributes that to Faith which he denies unto other Works In Christ Jesus saith he neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but Faith which worketh by love But as the Godly learned have well observed the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the Exercises of Divine Worship in which Christians should be conversant He doth not say That Faith working by love is available to us before God or in the sight of God but in Christ i. e. In the Church or Kingdom of Christ which consists in Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost though neither Faith nor Love are available to justifie us yet they are available i. e. Acceptable to God as acts or duties of Spiritual Obedience they are the onely acceptable service which we can perform to God The last place he hath mentioned is as little to the purpose as the rest 1 Joh. 5.11 He that hath not the Son hath not life True he doth not say That all who have not Faith except final unbelievers have not the Son or any benefit by him § 15. But says Mr. W. if our Adversaries could prove That it was either the Will of God in giving his Son or the Will of Christ in giving himself to the death that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part it were something to the purpose but till this be done which indeed can never be done they were as good say nothing Had not prejudice cast a mist before his eyes the Scriptures which have been brought already would be proof sufficient What clearer Testimony can be desired of the Will of God and of Christ in this point then those Sacred Oracles which shew us First That Christ by the Will of God gave himself a Ransom and Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor unto God in behalf of all the Elect Joh. 6.27 Heb. 5.10 10.9 10. Secondly That this Ransom was alone and by it self a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to Divine Justice for all their sins Heb. 1.3 10.10 12 14. 1 Joh. 1.7 Thirdly That God accepted

controversie would be but a meer Tautology for though it be the same Justification wherewith we are iustified in the sight of God and in the Court of Conscience yet the terms are not equipollent and convertible but do admit of distinct considerations though he that is justified in foro conscientiae is also justified in foro Dei yet every one that is justified in foro Dei is not justified in foro conscientiae § 3. Now according to these several Senses which are given of this forementioned phrase it will be easie to resolve the third Query concerning the time of our Justification when we were justified in the sight of God 1. If we take it in this last Construction I shall grant That we are not justified in the sight of God before we believe We do not know nor can we plead the benefits and comforts of this Blessed Priviledge until we do believe it is by Faith that the Righteousness of God is revealed to us and it is by his knowledge notitia sui that Christ doth justifie us or inables us to plead not guilty to all the Indictments and Menaces of the Law But 2. if we refer it to the justice of God which I conceive to be the most proper and genuine use of it we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his Blood for all our sins that ransome of his set them for whom he died free from the Curse of the Law cleansed them from all their sins and presented them holy blameless and unreproveable in the sight of God so that the eye of Divine Justice cannot behold in them the least spot of sin This perfect cleansing is the sole and immediate effect of the death of Christ in regard that no other cause concurs therewith in producing of it 3. If we refer it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himself not to impute to us our sins or to inflict those punishments upon us which our sins deserve but contrariwise to deal with us as righteous persons having given us the Righteousness of his own Son God doth certainly know whatsoever he wills Now God having from all eternity absolutely and immutably willed the Righteousness of his Son to all his Elect he saw or knew them to be righteous in his Righteousness even when he willed it § 4. For the clearer understanding of the Point in question I shall give in my Judgement concerning it as distinctly as I can in three Propositions proposition 1 The first shall be this That Justification is taken variously in the Scripture but more especially Pro volitione divina pro re volita as the Schools do speak 1 For the Will of God not to punish or impute sin unto his people and 2 for the effect of Gods Will to wit His not punishing or his setting of them free from the Curse of the Law That Justification is put for the effect of Gods will or the thing willed by that Internal Act to wit Our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment I suppose there is none will question the onely scruple that can arise is Whether the Will of God not to punish or charge sin upon a person is or may be called Justification I confess to the end that I might not offend the weak I have been sparing of calling this immanent act of God by the name of Justification and the rather because some gross mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of this expression As 1 that absurd conceit That Christ came not to satisfie the justice but onely to manifest the love of God which yet hath not the least countenance from our Doctrine seeing that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect we say That the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no less then for the sins of others And 2 their notion who upon this ground have asserted the Eternal Being of the Creature whereunto they were driven because they could not answer that Consequence Justificatus est Ergo Est which holds not in terminis diminuent ibus whether à priori as Electus est Ergo Est or à posteriori Mortuus est Ergo Est. Yet I must profess That I look upon Dr. Twisse his judgement in this point as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the Will of God not to punish Mr. Kendal though he makes Justification to be a declared sentence or transient act of God yet he grants That Gods Will or Decree to remit our sins carries in it a remission of them tan● amount for who shall charge them on us if God decree to remit them And again This Decree hath so much in it that looks so well like unto Justification that is may be called so without Blasphemy But I see no inconvenience at all but rather very much reason to adhere unto the Doctors definition That Justification is the Will of God not to punish 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives us of Justification is most properly applied to this act of God It is a certain rule Definitum est cui convenit definitio that is Justification whereunto the definition of Justification doth agree The definition which the Psalmist and from him the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and his imputing of righteousness unto a person Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 8. Now when God willeth not to punish a person he doth not impute sin to him The original words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified do make it more clear for both of them do signifie an act of the minde or will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used by the Psalmist is properly to think repute esteem or account and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification it is usually applied to Accountants who when they have cast up many sums do set down at the foot what they do amount unto So when a man hath accounted with himself the loss and benefit conveniencies and inconveniencies that may accrue unto him the result and issue of his deliberation is significantly expressed by this word it notes a stedfast purpose and resolution Quae quasi rationibus subductis explicatis conclusa est it is opposed unto a doubtful and uncertain opinion It notes either the purpose or determination of one alone or the consent and agreement of two between themselves whereof Camerarius gives us an instance out of Zenophon This word is fitly used to signifie this immanent act of God for though he doth not purpose and resolve in that manner as men do by comparing things together or by reasoning and concluding one thing out of another yet are his purposes much more firm and immutable Mal. 3.6 Jam. 1.17 Numb 23.19 The Lord therefore did non-impute sin

it and declared himself well pleased and satisfied therewith Matth. 3.17 Isa. 42.1 Insomuch that God hath thereupon covenanted and sworn that he will never remember their sins nor be wrath with them any more Isa. 43.25 54.9 10. Fourthly That by this Ransom of his they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4.4 3.13 Our Adversaries say That he paid the price for their Redemption but with no intent that they should be immediately and absolutely freed which is often boldly affirmed and as slenderly proved But why not immediately and absolutely There is saith Mr. W. a compact and agreement between the Father and the Son when he undertook to be our Surety that his death should not be available for the actual reconciliation of sinners till they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part Sed hoc restat probandum and I am perswaded will till the worlds end Let them shew us this Covenant and Agreement and we are satisfied till this be done we shall think our proofs sufficient and that the force of those Allegations is no whit invalidated by this Crude Assertion I confess I have heard much talk of this Suspensive Covenant but hitherto I have not had the hap to meet with that Author that hath attempted to make it forth though I might justly be excused from the labor of proving the Negative seeing that it lies upon our Adversaries to clear it up That there was such a compact and agreement made between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but onely upon conditions performed by them Yet because I intend not any other Reply and that Mr. W. may see I do not dissent because he hath said and not proved it which in controverted points were ground enough I shall offer him the Reasons which as yet do sway my Judgement to believe the contrary CHAP. XIV Of the Covenant between the Father and the Son concerning the immediate effects of Christs death THe Reasons which perswade me to believe 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 terms and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the will both of God and of Christ that his death should be available to their immediate and actual Reconciliation and Justification without any condition performed on their part Are as followeth First There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none Non est Scriptum Ergo There is no such thing hath hitherto been counted a good Argument amongst Christians It is not possible says Damascene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To speak ought of God beside the things which are divinely manifested in the Old and New Testament If there be any such Covenant let our Adversaries shew it and until they do we shall rest securely in the Negative they must pardon us if we yeeld not up our Faith to unwritten Verities Secondly The Covenant made between God and Christ was That upon giving up of himself to death he should purchase a Seed like the Stars of Heaven i. e. All the Elect of God Isa. 53.10 And our Saviour Christ after that he had tasted death to bring many sons unto glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Heb. 2.13 Behold I and the children whom God hath given me Ergo It was the Will of God that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be the children of Christ and the children of wrath at the same time § 2. Thirdly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his Will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate but it was the Will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debts and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I suppose the Assumption will not be questioned for though the word satisfaction be not used in Scripture yet the thing it self is plainly signified in those phrases of Redemption Atonement Reconciliation and in like manner all those places which declare that Christ died for us and for our sins and offences do imply the same scil That the death of Christ was the payment of our debts and the punishment of our sins that thereby he satisfied the Law for all those wrongs injuries we have done unto it Now the Sequel is evident If God willed that the death of Christ should be a full and satisfactory payment of our demerits then he willed that the discharge procured thereby should be immediate and present for it is contrary to Justice and Equity that a debt when it is payed should be charged either upon the Surety or Principal and therefore though God did will that the other effects of Christs death as it is the meritorious price of Faith Holiness Glory c. should be sub termino or in Diem not Present but Future yet he willed that this effect of it to wit our discharge from sin and the curse should be present and immediate because it implies a contradiction that the same debt should be paid and not paid that it should be discharged and yet justly chargable As when a man that is a Trespasser or any one for him payes a sum of money which is sufficient both for discharge of his trespass as also for the purchase of a peece of Land From the trespass his discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full though the enjoyment of the Land may be in Diem as the Vendee and Purchaser can agree the Case before us is the very same The death of Christ was both a price and a ransom it served both to pay our debts and to procure our happiness he did thereby purchase both our deliverance from sin and death and all those Spiritual Blessings present and future which we stand in need of The discharge of our debts and deliverance from punishment must needs be present and immediate upon the payment of the price though those Spiritual Blessings be not received till a long time after as God and Christ shall see it fit to bestow them on us To this I shall adde a fourth § 3. Fourthly If nothing hindered the reconciliation 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. It was sin alone that made a distance or separation between God and them Isa. 59.2 For which cause it is compared to a cloud or mist Isa. 44.22 to a partition wall Ephes. 2.14 It lay as a block in the way that God could not salva

of sins according to the riches of his grace not according to any condition performed by us he having obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9.12 And 2 Cor. 5.18 19. a place which we have often mentioned the Apostle shewes that Christ by his death made such a reconciliation for us as that God thereupon did not impute our sins unto us which was long before any condition could be performed by us Elsewhere That Christ by himselfe purged and expiated our sins Heb. 1.3 and afterwards set downe as having finished that worke chap. 10·12 Now sin that is fully purged and expiated is not imputable to the sinner The same Apostle addes that Christ by his sacrifice hath for ever perfected all them for whom it was offered Heb. 10.14 And in another place that he hath made them compleat as to the forgivenesse of their sins Col. 2.10 13 14. In Rom. 8.33 34. He argues from the death of Christ to the non-imputation of our sins Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth it is Christ ●hat dyed whereas notwithstanding sin would have been chargeable upon them and they condemnable if the death of Christ had not procured their discharge without the intervention of any condition performed by them CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection as he cals it concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person are examined THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference in this manner They that were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved were Justified before they beleeved But many were in Christ as a common person before they beleeved Ergo Mr. W. denyed both Propositions The major I proved in this wise If Christ was justified before many ●hat are in him doe beleeve then they that are in him were ●●stified before they beleeved But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve Ergo. His answer hereunto as I remember was I deny all And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8 9. in this manner Christ was justified at his resurrection but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve Ergo That Christ was justified at his resurrection is clear from this Text He is near that justifieth me c. Which words I said were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour in the time of his greatest humiliation who comforted himselfe with this that the Lord would shortly justifie him which was to be done at his Resurrection when the Lord publickly declared to all the world that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him and which he as a Surety undertook to satisfie The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem The acts of a common person doe belong unto them whom he represents whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands and therefore if Christ were justified all that were in him were justified also For seeing that he was not justified from his own but from the sins of others all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification Whereunto hee replyed That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned of which in its place § 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument which we find in his printed copy And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification 1 Purposed 2 Purchased and 3 Exemplified all which are before Faith So then by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith Which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed It may be he will say as Arminius doth that neither of these were actuall Justification which were a poor put off for as Dr. Twisse observes Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de Justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of Justification simply there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification And first That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God is reall and actuall Justification for if Justification be Gods will not to punish or to deal with his Elect according to their sins as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it then when Gods Will was in actual being their Justification was actual It is absurd to say That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever his Will being his Essence which admits no cause either within or without God 2 We have shewn before that Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will to wit our discharge from the Obligation of the Law it was actually because solely and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ there being no other cause out of God which concurs to the producing of this effect § 3. The third Branch of his distinction Justification exemplified is terminus redundans a member that may well be spared for 1 there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or pattern of our Justification For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience yet in his works of Mediation he was not so in these he was not an exemplary but a meritorious procuring cause an example is proposed to be imitated and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification or in justifying our selves It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification for this pattern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not unto God because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him 2 He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a pattern of our release Our real discharge is in his as our real debt was upon him And therefore his Grand-father Parker said well That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Just●fication both of him and us 3 If Christ were onely a pattern and example of our Justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins or else the example and counterpart do not agree 4 This expression intimates that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him so we

our Conference If Faith be given us by vertue of the Covenant made with the House of Israel then is it given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for the House of Israel is the whole company of Gods Elect who are therefore called Spiritual Israel Rom. 9.6 But Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant made with the House of Israel Jere. 31.31 Heb. 8.19 § 6. Whereunto Mr. W. answers 1 by way of retortion If Mr. E. saith he will urge the words of this Text rigorously they would prove more then he would have I hope there is no hurt in that though the place doth prove more that doth no whit invalidate its force as to the purpose for which we alledged it but what is that which it proves more It is manifest says he that this Covenant contains a promise of sending Christ into the world to die for our sins as the Apostle proves Heb. 10.14.15 16. So that we may as well infer from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the Mediator as that we are in Covenant before we believe and then his death shall serve not to obtain all or any of the blessings of the Covenant but onely as the Socinians to declare and confirm c. If he please to admit of a Reply we say 1 That he mistakes the inference that was drawn from hence The Proposition to be concluded was not That we are in Covenant before we believe but that Faith or the Spirit which works Faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us which is sufficiently secured by these Texts for if by the House of Israel be meant all the Elect as undoubtedly they are and the Spirit which works Faith is promised in the Covenant which is made with the House of Israel then the Spirit and Faith are given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us we being in the number of Gods Elect. 2 It is not so manifest as he pretends that these Texts do contain a promise of sending Christ to die for us The promises here mentioned do express onely what benefits do accrew to us by the Death of Christ I grant that this Covenant supposeth the Death of Christ as the onely meritorious procuring means by which these benefits do flow down unto us and therefore it is said In those days or after those days meaning the days of the Son of Man when the Messiah whom God had promised should be exhibited which in Scripture are called The last days the last times and the world to come c. Though the Apostle mentions the Covenant Heb. 10.15 it is not to prove That God would send his Son to die but that being come as these believing Hebrews acknowledged though they saw not the vertues of his death as to the abolishing of other Sacrifices he hath offered up a perfect Sacrifice Verse 10 12 14. and consequently they needed no other Sacrifice to take away sin for otherwise God had not made such ample promises in reference to the times of the Messiah as you finde he hath Jere. 31. That he will remember the sins and iniquities of his people no more c. For says the Apostle when there is such a full remission there needs no more offering for sin Verse 18. § 7. 3. Though we should grant him that this Text Jere. 31. contains a promise of sending Christ what were this to the purpose to weaken our inference That Faith is given by vertue of the Covenant made with us May not God in the same Covenant promise both Christ and Faith But sayes Mr. W. it will follow then that this Covenant was made with us or that we were in Covenant with God not onely before we believe but before the death of Christ. I am so far from looking upon it as an absurdity that I shall readily own and acknowledge it as an undeniable truth That the New Covenant was made with all the Elect in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid it being the fixed and immutable Will of God concerning all those good things which in time are bestowed upon them and therefore it is called an Everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23.5 not onely a parte post but a parte ante as it shall have no end nor be changed So it had no beginning God having from all eternity immutably purposed in himself to bestow upon them all those blessings which they do receive in time yet we say there are more especially three moments or periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1 immediately upon the fall of Adam when he first published his gracious promise of saving all his Elect by the womans Seed Gen. 3.15 The first Covenant being broken and dissolved the Lord immediately published that other Covenant which cannot be broken and hereunto as hath been shewed do those Scriptures relate Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 2 At the death of Christ because thereby all the benefits willed to us by the Everlasting Covenant were merited and procured for us the full price which was paid for them was then exhibited for which cause the New Covenant is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament which was confirmed by the death of the Testator Jesus Christ Heb. 9.17 And the Blood which he shed the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant Heb. 13.20 and the Blood of the New Testament Matth. 26.28 So that his charge of Socinianism doth not touch us for though we do not say That Christ procured the Covenant or that God should will to us ●hose mercies which are therein promised yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the Blood of Christ as our deliverance from the curse inherent holiness c. 3 The Covenant is said to be made with men when God doth confer upon men the benefits which are therein promised or at least makes them to know and understand their interest and propriety therein Thus is that to be understood Isai. 55.3 I will make an Everlasting Covenant i. e. I will fulfil my Everlasting Covenant or bestow upon you all those mercies which I have promised and which my Son hath purchased by shedding of his Blood And thus we grant That God makes his Covenant with his people when he gives them Faith when he enables them to lay hold of it and to plead it at the Throne of Grace now though in this sence God may be said to take men into Covenant when they doe beleeve yet will it not follow that the Spirit and Faith are not given by vertue of the Covenant which is made with us so that his retortion is pittifully unsuccessefull it gives not the least wound to the cause which we maintain § 8. The second branch of his Answer is That upon a most serious perusall of these Texts I finde them so contradictory to Mr. Eyres purpose

in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness 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 shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness 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 it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned 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 his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until 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 supernatural 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 unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given

any reall sweetnesse in Christ and the Gospel but must needs have some evidence of his interest propriety and title to him Now because as Dr. Ames observes by this act of Faith wherewith we rest and rely upon Christ proposed to us in the Gospell we doe immediately attaine to the assurance of this Truth that my sins in particular are pardoned by Jesus Christ therefore some have seemed to speake as if this Proposition I am Justified my sins are forgiven me were the proper object of Justifying Faith I shall not stand to defend this Expression though the Doctor doth highly approve of it Nor will I quarrell with Mr. W. about his Expression though I conceive his terme Axiomatical is somewhat too narrow for Faith may be said to evidence our Justification immediately though it doth it not Axiomatically but Organically to wit as it is the organ or Instrument whereby we doe apprehend and adhere unto Christ by whom we are justified in the sight of God the latter term is more adequate to the nature of Faith which is not only the assent of the Mind but the adhesion of the Will to the object beleeved But I shall yeeld him his term and do say that Faith may be said to evidence our Justification Axiomatically yet not by assenting to that which is not revealed but by assenting to and withall tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospell which by a secret and inscrutable worke of the Holy Spirit are applyed and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them So that Mr. Woodbridges exclamation against a carnall presumptuous and soule-damning Faith is altogether impertinent seeing we doe not say that a man is justified by his assent to written and therefore much lesse to unwritten verities If Justifying Faith were no more then an Axiomaticall assent as Mr. W. seems to intimate it is I see no reason why all they that have such a Faith as Devils and Reprobates who beleeve with an historical assent should not be justified this is really the carnall presumptuous damning Faith of the world § 8. His second reason against Faiths ev●dencing our Justification Axiomatically is nothing to the purpose The Faith saith he by which we are justified is the Faith which the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel are to preach to the whole world and to presse it upon their consciences Act. 20.21.13.38.39 But we cannot presse upon every man in the world to beleeve that he is Justified c. Seeing we do not presse every man to beleeve that he is justified though according to our commission given us from Christ we do presse all men to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowlege that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of Sinners that they themselves are such and that it is impossible for them to escape the curse by any other means 2. Amplexu vel motu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ being infinitely better for them then all the world besides By this it will appear what little reason Mr. W. hath to charge us with pressing men to believe a lie seeing we require no mans assent to any thing which is not true We do not press every man to believe That he is justified but to believe that there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to relie upon him and him alone for this Benefit § 9. So that there will be no need for Mr. Eyre to retract his Sermons as falshoods which he hath formerly preached against Universal Redemption For though the command of believing be to be pressed upon all men in that manner as hath been shewn yet it will not follow that Christ died for all men It seems Mr. W. is offended at those Sermons of mine since he hath had a smack of Mr. B. notions That Christ died conditionally for all men yea for the Reprobates themselves which though it be countenanced with the names of Cameron Testardus and Amyraldus of some others who are of great note amongst our own yet may I have leave to speak my minde I conceive it to be very unsound For 1. To say that Christ died for any upon an impossible condition is to say That he died in vain at least so far or in respect of them which the Apostle looks upon as a gross absurdity Gal. 2.21 2. For whom Christ died he without doubt purchased Faith and all necessary good things This the Apostle accounts unquestionable Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own Son but gave him to death for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things What is Mr. Woodbridges Judgement in this point I cannot tell nor doth it much matter that I should enquire I need not inform him what advantage they that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sence do make of his Doctrine of a Conditional Justification impetrated by the death of Christ It is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they have to shelter their heads withal when they are pressed That if Christ died for all then all shall be saved because it must needs be that Christ must have the purchases of his death John 11.42 Isa. 53.11 No say they it will not follow because some do not perform the condition required on their parts These two Propositions Christ redeemed all men and yet the impenitent unbelieving and reprobate World shall never be saved by him may be easily reconciled because the benefits of Christs death are given upon condition not absolutely and therefore they that do not perform the condition shall never be saved by his death It were easie to shew that this salvability or conditional Salvation is the very Corner Stone in the Remonstrants building § 10. This passage puts me in minde of two absurdities which Mr. J. Woodbridge my Antagonists Brother who a while after came and preached over his Brothers Arguments with some small Additions charged upon our Doctrine The first was That it doth necessarily infer Universal Redemption Will it follow That because the Elect are justified in for● Dei before they believe therefore all men are redeemed and justified One may as well reason Some men were elected before they believed Ergo All men were elected Perhaps he will say we cannot press or exhort every man to believe That he is justified unless all men are justified There is no more necessity that we should press every man to believe that he is justified then that he is elected This is pitifully inconsequent The second was That it raseth the Foundation of all actions tending to the gathering and reforming of Churches why should any be excluded from Church Ordinances if they are justified 1 I must tell him That I cannot think him an hearty friend to the gathering and reforming of Churches who

man any thing which is neither in the word nor necessarily deduced from it the testimony is false and sinful For understanding whereof we must know that there is a threefold act of conscience about sin the first When it witnesseth to us concerning the desert of sin the second When it witnesseth to us concerning the act of sin or the sins which we have done the third is When it witnesseth to us concerning our final state and condition before God Now if Conscience doth bear witness to a man concerning what he hath done and what is his desert in so doing it doth but its duty Rom. 1.34 But if it tell a man that for the sins which he hath done he is a damned Creature and must perish everlastingly such a Conscience is both penally and sinfully evil The Conscience of an unbeliever accuseth truly when it convinceth him of sin that Death eternal is the wages of it and that by the Law he can expect no other But if it proceeds to tell a man that his case is desperate and without hope it pronounceth a false sentence For though he be a Reprobate and consequently the sentence is true in it self yet it is a false testimony in him for as much as conscience witnesseth that which it cannot certainly know how much more is it a false testimony when the Conscience of an Elect person doth make such a conclusion against himself That God hath absolutely condemned him to Hell torments it is false in it self and false in him If it were a true sentence it were then impossible he should be saved For condemnation as Mr. W. confesseth a little after is opposed to Salvation and the Law saith not Now cursed but cursed for ever Matth. 25.41 And therefore I say If the Conscience of any sinner either Elect or Reprobate shall in this life pass such an absolute and peremptory sentence against himself that the curse of the Law shall be inflicted upon him he sins both against the Law and the Gospel 1 Against the Law by applying the Ministery thereof to a wrong end and not as God hath intended it for the Law was not given ex primaria intentione to condemn men but to further and advance the Ministery of the Gospel that men seeing what they are by nature and what they have deserved might flee for refuge unto Jesus Christ. Now when men hearing the Curse of the Law conclude that surely this must be their portion and that it is never the neerer for them that the Son of God hath shed his Blood for sinners they sin against the Law in regard the end of the Law is to cause them to flee unto Christ so that by making the sentence of the Law absolute they quite cross the design and intention of God in giving the Law 2 They deny the very tenor and substance of the Gospel which is That in Christ there is life eternal for sinners and for ought that they can know to the contrary for them as well as for others § 9. Though we say That the sentence of condemnation which men pass upon themselves in this life is false and erroneous yet are we innocent of those ugly consequences which Mr. W. would thrust upon us Of blinding mens eyes and hardening their hearts and searing up their consciences c. Which are more likely to follow upon an indiscreet application of the Law and mens making the voice thereof the definitive sentence of God upon all Transgressors which is the ready way to make men quite desperate and to harden their hearts in unbelief We hold it necessary That the Law should be preached to unbelievers in it● strictness rigor and inexorable severity that they may see there is no hope for them at all by the works of the Law yet we would have it preached as an Appendant to the Gospel not to drive men to despair but to believe and to flee to that Sanctuary which is opened in the Gospel whereas if it be published alone and as an absolute sentence it is a bar to Faith For if God doth condemn men who shall justifie them Christs merits will not save them whom God doth condemn witness Reprobate Men and Angels Unto whom there remaineth no sacrifice at all for sin § 10. His third Exception is That the condemnation with exception 3 which the unbeliever is condemned is expressed John 3.36 by the abiding of Gods wrath upon him Therefore we say no Elect unbeliever is condemned of God because the wrath of God doth not abide upon him The condemnation wherewith the unbeliever i. e. The final unbeliever is condemned is indeed the abiding of Gods wrath that is he shall die everlastingly for it is opposed to everlasting life but what is this to the Elect who are not final unbelievers § 11. His fourth and last is That the condemnation of unbelievers exception 4 is opposed to Salvation John 3.17 And surely the condemnation that is opposed to Salvation is more then the condemnation of a mans own conscience c. I answer 1. That the condemnation opposed to Salvation is damnation and then by Mr. Woodbridges Argument the Elect because they are sometimes unbelievers must all be damned But 2. this rather shews as I said before that by him that believeth not is meant he that believeth not at all CHAP. XII Wherein Mr. Woodbridges third fourth and fifth Arguments are answered HIs third Argument is drawn from the several comparisons by which Justification by Faith is illustrated Sometimes it is compared to the Israelites looking up to the Brazen Serpent for healing Joh. 3.14 Numb 21 8. As then they were not first healed and then looked up to see what healed them but they did first look upon the Serpent and then they were healed Even so it is the Will of God that whosoever seeth and believeth the Son shall be justified John 6.40 Sometimes Faith is compared to eating and Justification to the nourishment which we receive by our meat c. To which I answer 1. That comparisons prove nothing unless they are framed by the Holy Ghost for the thing in question Now I utterly deny that it was the intent of the Holy Ghost in either of these comparisons to shew in what order or method we are justified in the sight of God 2. The stinging of the fiery Serpents did plainly shadow forth the effects of the Law in Conscience The Law by revealing the wrath of God against all unrighteousness stings and wounds mens consciences for which cause it is called a fiery Law Deut. 33.2 To wit from its effects because it doth as it were kindle a fire in mens bones they have no rest in their souls until these wounds are healed Now as the Israelites when they were stung by those fiery Serpents found no ease till they looked up unto the Brazen Serpent So the soul that is smitten and wounded by the Ministery of the Law will never finde rest

promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such terms as he himself shall propose 3. After Intercession on Christs part and Faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner This Grotian and Vorstian Divinity is monstrous gross which renders God as changable as a fickle Creature and palpably denies his God-like nature scil His Simplicity Eternity Omnisciency Immutability c. Arminius himself was more modest then to affirm a change in the Will of God nay Plato was a more Orthodox Divine in this point who said That the first mover can be moved of none but by himself The Will of God is not inclined or moved by any thing without him unto any of his acts whether Immanent or Transient for that which is the cause of his Will is the cause of himself seeing that his Will is his Essence The death of Christ doth not cause any alteration in the Will of God his Merits are not the cause why God doth love us or will to us the blessings of his Covenant they did not change God ex nolente in volentem ex odio h●bente in diligentem as Greevenchovius dreamed And the Reasons are 1 Because God is unchangable he neither ceaseth to will what at any time he intended nor doth he begin to will what he did not always purpose 2 Because no reason can be given of the Will of God Aquinas says well Nullum temporale c. Nothing that hath its being in time can be the cause of that which is eternal for then the effect should be before the cause Now that I may not actum agere I shall desire the Reader to consult what Mr. Owen hath said in answer to this notion of Gr●tius whereof if Mr. W. had vouchsafed to take any notice he might have seen cause enough to decline from the steps of his admired Grotius § 10. Thirdly he infers That because the Apostle saith Vers. 11. We have now received the atonement or reconciliation Ergo Not before we believed To which I answer 1 He might as well reason that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15.20 Now is Christ risen Ergo He was not risen before he writ that Epistle and from Eph. 2.2 The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo He did not work in them before 2 If it be referred to our receiving or apprehension by Faith it doth not prove that the reconciliation or atonement was not made before There is a wide difference between the making or obtaining of reconciliation and our receiving of it though we cannot receive or apply it to our selves any otherwise then by Faith yet it follows not That God did not account it unto us before The Typical Sacrifices made a present atonement much more the real see Heb. 9.14 § 11. Fourthly He gives us his opinion concerning the immediate effect of the death of Christ Which saith Mr. Baxter is one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity he that can rightly answer this is a Divine indeed And no doubt but Mr. W. deserves the Bell in his account Let us therefore see what a glorious atcheivement he ascribes unto it It is saith he through the death of Christ that the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled unto God after we do believe to wit at the day of judgement when we have performed that and all other conditions required of us which in sum is as if he had said That the death of Christ procured no certain or immediate effect at all For notwithstanding his death it is possible that none may be saved for things obtained under condition are as to their accomplishment altogether uncertain for the condition may be fulfilled or it may not be fulfilled The utmost which hereby is ascribed to the death of Christ is That he hath obta●ned a salvability for sinners or a way whereby they may become their own saviours which in the old Popish English is That Christ hath merited that we might merit Eternal life or as the Remonstrants have refined the phrase His death hath made God placabilem but not placatum A shift says Pemble devised meerly to uphold the liberty of mans will and universal Redemption Whereunto the abettors of this notion do hie them apace § 12. But against it I shall oppose these considerations 1 The Scripture no where ascribes this effect to the death of Christ That he died to obtain a conditional grant that we by performing the condition might be reconciled to God but to obtain peace and reconciliation it self Daniel doth not say that Messiah shall be cut off to obtain a promise but to make an end of sin c. Chap. 9.24 Nor the Apostle that Christ by the blood of the cross hath obtained a conditional promise of reconciliation but that he hath made peace Col. 1.20 broken down the partition wall Ephes. 2.14 delivered us from the curse Gal. 3.13 And our Saviour in that of Matth. 26.28 which Mr. W. cites doth not say That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise whereby all men may obtain remission but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the Elect. 2 If Christ by his death obtained onely a conditional promise then was his death no more available to the Elect then unto Reprobates no more to Peter then it was to Judas whereas the Scripture shews us That the effects of Christs death are peculiar onely to the Elect. See John 10.15 16 26. 17.9 20. 3 If Christ by his death obtained but a conditional promise then do men more for their Salvation then Christ hath done for he that performs the condition doth more to his Salvation then he that obtained the conditional promise notwithstanding which he might have perished 4 It makes Christ to have died in vain at least without any determinate end in reference unto them for whom he died seeing that notwithstanding his death it was possible that none at all might be saved And thus as Mr. Owen hath noted he is made a Surety of an uncertain Covenant a Purchaser of an Inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed a Priest sanctifying none by his Sacrifice a thing we would not ascribe to a wiseman in a far more easie undertaking If Mr. W. shall say that Christ is certain that the Elect will perform the condition required we shall demand whether this certainty doth arise from their wills or his will If he say from their wills and his fore-sight of their well using of their natural abilities to fulfil the condition required he shakes hands with Papists and Arminians who make our Election and Redemption to be ex praevisa fide A conceit that hath been confuted over and over if from his own will because he hath purchased Faith for them then he obtained more by his death then a conditional promise § 13. Fifthly