hath been transacted between God and Christ And doth not Mr. Eyre see that if he yield it to have the nature and operation of a Law in discharging sinners he contradicts himself in his next answer wherein he denies that Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared act that is by a Law Indeed such a Gospel as he here speaks of may declare the sinner to be discharged by some former act but it selfe cannot be his discharge and therefore the answer is nothing to the purpose 2. The atonement made by Christ may be said to be perfect two wayes 1. In respect of it self and so it was most perfect as wanting nothing that was requisite to constitute or make it a compleat cause of our peace 2. In reference to its effects and so it is yet imperfect and shall continue so till the Saints be glorified because till then they shall not have the full effect or perfection of peace purchased in the death of Christ If Mr Eyre mean this latter sense when he sayes the Gospel declares a full and perfect atonement made by Christ he begs the question In the former I grant it 3. And so that the Elect were cleansed from their sins in the death of Christ quoad impetrationem because he obtained eternal redemption and cleansing for them but not quoad applicationem till they do beleeve because the remission purchased in the death of Christ is not applied or given to us till we believe 4. Though the Priest made an atonement for all the sins of Israel upon the day of expiation Lev. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themselves and humbling their soules on that day ver 23. otherwise they should have no benefit by that atonement Lev. 23. 29. Whatsoever soule shall not be afflicted on that same day he shall be cut off from among his people Is not this to teach us that without faith and repentance we shall not have remission by the death of Christ Secondly Mr. Eyre denies the Proposition which stands upon §. 2. this ground That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act Where note Reader that by a declared act I mean not an act of God declaring and manifesting to a sinner that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth willingly mistake me and thereupon patcheth a non-sequitur upon me which I intend not to unstitch but such a declaration of his will as is essential to make it a Law for the very essence of a Law consisteth in this that it is the declared will of the Law-giver Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11 12 13 14 15 16 c. which is the only rule that determines both de debito officii of what shall be our duty to do and de debito poenae praemii of what rewards or penalties shall become due to us Accordingly the thing I maintain is that our discharge from punishment due by Law must be by the revealed will that is by some contrary Law or Constitution of God And I very well remember that in private conference with Mr. Eyre about nine or ten yeares since I told him my judgement was so then and that our Divines were generally dark in opening the nature of Justification for want of taking notice of it to which he then consented But Tempora mutantur c. the thing it self I thus proved Sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. Ergo neither is righteousnesse imputed without Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it yet God may for his hating of a person is his imputing of sin The scope of Rom. 5. 13. is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently that there was a Law before the Law of Moses Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre indeed think that when it is said Sin is not imputed where there is no Law the meaning should be men will not impute sin to themselves where there is no Law To impute sin hath but two senses in Scripture 1. To punish it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and then the meaning is that men will not punish themselves where there is no Law and because the punishment which the Apostle doth here instance in is death therefore the full sense will be this that men will not kill themselves where there is no Law a very probable glosse Or 2. To accuse or charge the guilt of sin upon a person But the use of the Word will not allow us to understand it of a mans imputing or charging sin upon himself a Vid Guil. Esthi in loc For it is never used in all the Scriptures to signifie the act of a man upon himself but perpetually the act of another as Paul to Philemon ver 18. If he owe thee any thing impute it to me especially when it is put passively as here it is sin is not imputed See Rom. 4. throughout 3. And I do heartily wish Mr. Eyre would have given us a short paraphrase upon the thirteenth and fourteenth verses that we might have seen what tolerable sense could have been made of them according to his Exposition and whether the Apostle do affirme or deny that men did impute sin to themselves before the Law especially if the Apostles scope be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely to shew that sin in being supposeth a Law how can it be conducible to that scope to speak of mens not imputing sin to themselves without a Law 4. The grand designe of the Apostle is plainly to illustrate our salvation by Christ by comparison of contraries and the similitude in its full explication stands thus As by the disobedience of Adam sin and death entred upon all his children so by the obedience of Christ life and righteousnesse betides all his The Proposition is set down ver 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned This is proved ver 13 14. and the summe of the proof as I take it is this Sin was imputed and that unto death from the beginning of the world Ergo there must be some Law in being according to which sin was imputed for it cannot be imputed where there is no Law ver 13. This Law must be either the Law of Moses or the Law given to Adam The former it cannot be for sin and death were in the world long before that Law was given even as long as from Adam to Moses ver 14. Ergo it must be the Law given to Adam And so hath the Apostle his purpose That it was by the disobedience of one namely Adam that sin entred into the world and death by sin From whence it is manifest that God doth never impute sin without a Law that is doth
hence follow that sinners were reconciled immediately in the death of Christ without the intervention of a Covenant that is without the ministry of reconciliation Yea rather the just contrary follows for making of peace in Christs death is here made the means and cause of a future reconciliation that follows when even when by the Gospel sinners are converted unto God As is evident in the example of these Colossians v. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled As also by that place altogether parallel to this Eph. 2. 15 16 17. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the Law of commandments so making peace And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse and came and preached peace unto you c. Here we see 1. What is meant by making of peace viz. A plucking up the bounds and throwing down the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews and by consequence from God or an obtaining of a Covenant of peace that might reach even unto the Gentiles who before wâ—re afar off and strangers from the Covenants of promise v. 12 13. that they also might be fellow heires and of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel chap. 3. 6. 2. Here is the end of this peace made by the crosse viz. That both Jews and Gentiles in one body might be reconciled to God that is through the same faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but all are one in him through the same saith Gal. 3. 28. and 5. 6. 3. The means by which they came to be of the same body namely by the preaching of peace v. 17. Can any thing be spoken more fully against the immediate reconciliation of sinners in the death of Christ or for proofe that Christ obtained that Covenant of peace through the preaching of which the Gentiles were converted and so reconciled unto God Gal. 3. 13. saith that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law that is paid the price of our redemption or obtained eternal redemption for us as Heb. 9. 12. but doth it say that we are delivered without a Covenant made in the same blood and death of Christ nay the Apostle supposeth the just contrary namely that blessednesse whereof sure our reconciliation with God is no small part is given to us by Covenant v. 11 14 15 16. Even that which he calls the promise by faith in Jesus Christ v. 22. The last text is that mentioned in my sermon Matth. 26. 28. Christ saith Mr. Eyre doth not say that he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many Ans But he sayes his blood was the blood of the New-Testament which was shed for the remission of sins Of which former words Mr. Eyre is content to take no notice But out of doubt they teach us this or they teach us nothing that by the blood of Christ was the Covenant of remission obtained and sealed or that Covenant by which sin is pardoned to them that beleeve for the blood of Christ pardons not sin immediately but unto them onely that drink it by faith Joh. 6. 53 54 55 56 57. Hence the Apostate from the faith is said to count the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified an unholy thing Heb. 10. 29. SECT VII HAving thus shewed from the Scriptures that sinners are not immediately §. 31. reconciled in the death of Christ I proceeded farther to shew the grounds of it and they are two partly because the death of Christ was noâ— â—olâ—â—â—ejujdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of the equivalent and therefore doth not deliver us ipso facto partly the agreement betwixt the Father and the Son of which more by and by Mr. Eyre answers to the former Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or â—antidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction Rep. Yea Then the Lawyers abuse both themselves and us for there is scarcely a determination more common in the Law then o L. mutuum §. 2. ff de reb cred l. cum â— de sol l. Debitor ff de sol ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem l. si â—c §. 3. ff de re juâ— that a debtor is not discharged ipso facto upon the payment of any other thing then of that same which is in the obligation Titius is bound to pay Sempronius a hundred pounds in current mony of England when the day of payment is come he brings the full value in corne or he is bound to pay silver and he brings gold is he hereby discharged No. But if he bring the very same thing which he was bound to he is discharged ipso facto Now if when he brings gold instead of silver or corne instead of mony some act of the creditour is requisite to admit the payment of one instead of the other that so the debtor may be freed then is it also in the creditors power especially the debtor also consenting to propose upon what tearms he will that the debtor shall be freed either presently or after some time either upon condition or without which is all I seek for at present the consequence of this we shall see by and by In the mean time Mr. Eyre will have me prove that the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem A service which I little expected to be put upon by an English Divine p Vide librum â—vi mei reverendissimi Robertâ—â— arkeri de descensu l. 3. §. 57 58. p g. 108 109 The Assemb larg Catech. oâ— justi q. 2. 1. All our Divines acknowledge that Christ made a true proper satisfaction unto God for our sins q L. â—â—tisfact ff de solut Ergo his death was not solutio ejusdem the payment of the very same which was in the obligation but of the equivalent onely 2. Mr. Eyre himself but just before did intimate some kind of acknowledgement that the death of Christ was a payment of it self refusable Ergo it was not solutio ejusdem r L. quod in di em ff de sol l. quod quis 49. ff â—â— Action l. Accept 19. c. de usur for no creature can refuse to admit of that 3. It was not Christs death but ours that was in the obligation for the Law requires that he that sins dye and no man else If he that sinneth not dye that death cannot be the same which was in the obligation s Ut in contractu ersenali de facto Ulpian in l. inter â— rtif 31. ff de sol In corporal punishments which
metaphorically may be called the payments of debts to the Law the sameness of the person is essential to the sameness of the payment so that si alius sâ—lvat aliud sâ—laitur if another person pay 't is another thing that 's paid 4. If Christ paid the idem then no mans sins are pardoned The Law it self would admit of satisfaction from the sinner if he were able to make it if sinners by suffering of punishment could satisfie for their sins they should be discharged from farther punishment without pardon it would be no grace to free them t Grot. de satisfact Christi c. 6. p. 119. videsis Andr. Essen de satisfact l. 2 sect 3 â— 3. p. 519 520 521 c. Vbi idem solvitur out à debitore aut ab alio nomine debitoris nulla contingit remissio nihil enim circa debitum agit Creditor aut Rector 5. Our obligation was ex delicto Christs ex contractu voluntario It was not any breach of the Law that subjected him to death but his own voluntary act Joh. 10. 17 18. Wherefore though the things which Christ suffered were much of the same kind though not altogether with what sinners were by the Law obliged to suffer yet was not he obliged to suffer by the same Law that they were but by a Law peculiar to himself as a voluntary surety for them in which respect it is that we say his payment was not u Vide Cameron disp dc satisf p. 363 Respons ad obj 1. m. ejusdem but tantidem And these are the common Arguments which are wont to be made use of in this matter which Mr. Eyre might have spared me the paines of transcribing if he had pleased and instead thereof seeing they are so well known have given them some answer In the next place he advanceth foure Arguments to prove that the §. 33. death of Chrst was solutio ejusdem I confesse I wonder at his undertaking but let us see his Arguments 1. Saith he Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under he was made under the same Law Gal. 4. 3 4. Ans Why Is a surety held in the same obligation because he is bound to pay the same summe then is there no difference between the surety and the principal debtour The Apostle in Gal. 4. 3 4. saith that Christ was made of a woman made under the Law As the former expression implies that though he were of a woman quoad corpulentam substantiam yet he came not from her quoad rationem seminalem according to the common rule of nature by which children are wont to be borne into the world so doth the latter imply that though his obedience for substance were the same which the Law required of us yet was it not performed by virtue of that common obligation which lyes upon us but by special oeconomy and appointment x Sâ—e P. Ushers Immanuâ—â— pag. 10. f at the end of his Body of Divinity and Essen ubi sâ—pra lib. 1. sect 4. cap. 9. pag. 288. Joh Dried de capt Redempt tract 3. pag. 242 243 244 c. He that was Lord of the Law might have exempted himself from subjection to it if he had pleased See Philip. 2. 6 7 8. So that Christs obedience though in some respect the same with ours as having the same rule and object yet was it of another kind then ours in regard of the principle and manner of performance in that the Law which bound others did yet bind him no farther then himself pleased to be bound The same answer I give to the second text Gal. 3. 13. Christ was made a curse for us and dyed for us Heb. 2. 9 14. Isaâ— 53. 4 5. for none of these things prove that he was any of those who by the Law were obliged to die yea it is certaine he was not for the Law obligeth none to death but sinners yea and for the very matter of the curse and death which Christ suffered though that do not immediately concerne our question for though he had suffered the idem in regard of the matter of his punishment yet formally as his death was a satisfaction or payment that idem was no more then the tantundem which I plead for yet I say it is certaine that there is some kind of evil in the curse executed upon sinners which was never executed upon Christ as an exclusion from all interest in Gods favour the defacing of his image in his soul rage and despaire of conscience and the like The answer therefore is Christ was indeed made a curse for us not that the Law did curse him or had power so to do but because by special compact between his father and himself he endured that punishment for the maine which the Law threatned against sinners Heb. 10. 5 7. A body hast thou prepared me Loâ— come to do thy will even as it was by a special Law that beasts were slaine and sacrificed unto God of old and not by that general Law which curseth every one that sinneth Hence it follows thirdly that when our sins are said to be laid upon Christ Isa 53. 6. Which is Mr. Eyres third Argument it doth by no means follow that the death of Christ was that which the Law required but that Christ was made to beare that punishment which in weight and value was the same which we should else have borne though it be not arithmetically the same If any man can make more of those words let him His fourth and last Argument is this If God would have dispensed with the idem in the first obligation Christ need not have died Which is a very strange consequence for God did therefore dispence with the idem that there might be way made for the death of Christ That which was in the obligation was our punishment if God did not dispense with this it had been impossible for Christ to have died for us but the Law must be executed upon every sinner in his own person But behold the proofe If the justice of God would be satisfied with lesse then the penalty of the Law he might as well have dispensed with the whole Ans As if that which is not the same must needs be lesse I confesse I account it no better then losse of time to answer these things under the notion of Arguments Hitherto then the matter is safe That the death of Christ was not §. 34. the payment of the same which was in the obligation Ergo it doth not deliver ipso facto for explication of which I added that if the debtour himself do bring unto the creditour that which he ows him it presently dischargeth him but the payment of a surety doth not Why not saith Mr. Eyre 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 void in respect of both Ans Which
hindred the reconciliation §. 7. of the elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediately reconciled But nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. Ans This Argument were something if the sinner himself had suffered according to the Law As if it might be supposed that Adam after his sin could by suffering have satisfied for his disobedience no doubt but he had been presently restored into the same state of favour which he was in before and might have gone to work againe for life upon the security of the very same Covenant with good successe And if Christ had paid the idem a thing impossible unlesse he were a sinner or we were Christ then indeed had his sufferings delivered us ipso facto and we had not needed a Covenant of grace to pardon or save us but are in as good a capacity of life without it as Adam was before he fell as we have observed before But that first Covenant being violated and no satisfaction made or possibly to be made but by a voluntary surety God is left at liberty as I may so speak to propose what tearms and time he pleaseth for the restoring of sinners into a state of life and peace Gal. 3. 21 22. Now when Mr. Eyre says that nothing hindred the reconciliation of sinners with God but the breach of the Law the speech is somewhat improper for though sin made the breach between God and them yet it is not that properly which hinders reconciliation but the sinners inability to make satisfaction could he have satisfied sin could have had no power to have kept him at a distance from God and so I perceive doth Mr. Eyre mean by his explication God saith he having made a Law that the soul which sins shall die the justice and truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the elect no lesse then of other men To the Argument therefore the answer is ready If satisfaction were made so which it was not as that the Law had been answered in the very thing which it required viz. the sinners punishment then I would yeeld it wholly and more then Mr. Eyre will thank me for namely that life is given us by the very same Covenant which was made with Adam in his innocency But satisfaction being taken strictly for a payment refusable which one is admitted to make for another and then it produceth the effect of our reconciliation no otherwise then as he that admitteth and he that is admitted to make payment shall agree Wherefore I deny the proposition as being grounded in the former false supposal viz. That satisfaction cannot be made in any way but it must needs effect a present discharge which I have already disproved The explication of this Argument I â—nd no fault with more then that one expression That the onely cause of Christs death was to satisfie the Law whereas they that deny his death to have been satisfactory at all do yet assigne many causes of his death which our selves allow of but there is nothing in it which tends to prove the thing denied more then a comparison or two which need a little consideration As when the cloud is dissolved the Sun shines out when the partition §. 8. wall is broken down they that were separated are againe united so the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned Ans Now would I know what is that moral necessity of Gods communicating life to us upon Christs satisfaction which answers to the natural necessity of the Suns shining forth upon the dissolution of the cloud for to say that God may salvâ justitiâ communicate life to sinners Christ having satisfied is not to the purpose 't is a must and not a may which must make Mr. Eyres Argument consequent one of these three it must needs be either 1. A necessity of obligation by virtue of some Law or Covenant but the onely Covenant which God made with man before the fall was that made with Adam in innocency promising life upon perfect obedience If by virtue of that Covenant God stands still engaged to give life to men supposing satisfaction to be made for disobedience then doth that Covenant made with man in innocency stand still in force as the onely way of life and men at least the elect are legally and in strict justice as innocent as if they had never sinned both which are desperately false and overthrow the very foundations of faith or 2. The necessity of a decree God having decreed that the elect shall be reconciled immediately upon Christs satisfaction for their sins it must needs be that he having satisfied they must be immediately reconciled But the very supposing of such a decree is the begging of the question and being supposed it will not inferre that the elect must needs be reconciled by the death of Christ immediately quatenus it was a satisfaction but simply quatenus it was decreed to be immediately antecedent to their reconciliation or 3. A kind of natural necessity God being essentially good cannot but do good to an innocent sinlesse creature or to a sinful creature supposing satisfaction to be made for his sin which is all one as if himself had never sinned But this is wider of truth then either of the former for whatsoever may be said of it in reference to a creature perfectly righteous out of doubt there was no other necessity of Gods accepting Christs satisfaction then his own good pleasure He might justly have destroyed sinners and never provided a propitiation for them It is therefore as clear as the Sun when the clouds are dissolved that there is no necessity of an immediate reconciliation between God and sinners upon the death of Christ but only of a reconciliation to follow then and upon such tearms as God and Christ agree 2. Wherefore to the comparison I answer that Christ died not meerly to dissolve and scatter the clouds of sin but to create a Isa 51. 16. 65. 16. â— Cor. 5. 15. 17. new heaven and a new earth in which himself was to shine as the d Malac. 4. 2. Sun of righteousnesse and to dispel the clouds and darknesse of sin my meaning is Christ died not to repaire the old Covenant nor by removing of hindrances to make us capable of the influences of life and love in that way in which they should have been derived to us by the first Covenant but therefore died he that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions he might become that new and living way through which we might come unto God by faith and partake in life and remission of sins Heb. 9. 15. and 10. 17 20 22. compared 3. Observe one thing more Reader from M. Eyres application of his
similitude So saith he the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned What are these beams of love Is pardon of sin any of them if it be then behold the sense of the comparison viz. Christ having satisfied God can now pardon sin as freely as if men had no sin and so had never needed pardon This is a rare notion but there is yet something worse then non-sense included in it namely that sinners are discharged without pardon as having in Christ paid to the full the debt which they owed as swearers and drunkards are discharged upon payment of the mulct enjoyned by Law without the Magistrates pardon and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law as if they had never broken it If immediately upon Christs satisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the blessings of the promise as if they had never sinned there is then no need that they should beleeve and repent in order to the obtaining of life and salvation The fifth Argument succeeds If it were the will of God that the §. 9. sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for both of them were heads and roots of mankind But the sin of Adam did immediately over spread his posterity All men sinned in him Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual sin Ergo. Ans I deny both proposition and assumption First for the assumption I deny that any man is guilty of Adams sin till he exist and be a child of Adam He that is not is not under Law to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men sinned in Adam before they had any being of their own neither doth the text say so but only that death passed upon all men fâ—r that all have sinned which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have sinned as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipsis thus Death passed upon all men by him in whom all have sinned yet will it be short of his purpose Doth not the Apostle say in the same verse Death hath passed upon all men and v. 15. through the offence of one many be dead which many himself interprets of all v. 18. for as Beza notes well v. 15. many in this comparison is not opposed to all but to one Is it therefore lawfull to inferre that men are actually dead before they are borne Nothing lesse The meaning then of this speech All men are dead in Adam is no more but this That sentence of death passed upon Adam by virtue of which all that are borne of him eo ipso that they derive their being from him become subject unto the same death In like manner all are said to have sinned in him not that his posterity then unborne and unbegotten that is no body were immediately guilty of his fact but because by the just dispensation of God it was to be imputed to them as soone as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam His offence tainted the blood and according to Gods Covenant and way of dealing with him was interpreted as the act of the humane nature then existing in himself for tota natura generis est in qualibet specie but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular persons partaking in that nature before their own personal existence In short we sinned in Adam no otherwise then we did exist in him for operatio sequitur esse but to exist in Adam is not to exist simply but rather the contrary for when men are men and have a personal existence of their own they exist no longer in Adam but out of him as every effect wrought exists out of its causes but onely notes a virtue or power in him productive of us positis omnibus ad agâ—ndum requisitis So to sin or be guilty in him is not to sin or be guilty simply but onely notes the cause of the propagation of guilt together with our substance to be then in being If we apply this it will follow that as no man partakes in Adams guilt till he be borne a child of Adam so none partake in the righteousnesse of Christ nor the benefit of his satisfaction till they be borne unto him by faith And that doth the Apostle put out of question in this very dispute Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous which words were written many years after Christs death and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christs obedience Ergo they were not made righteous immediately in his death That for the minor The proposition comes next to be canvased where I deny that §. 10. there is the same reason for the transmission of Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse to their respective subjects for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind as the Apostle shews Rom. 5. 14. and so farre forth they agree both communicating their effects to their children Adam sin and death to his natural children Christ righteousnesse and life to his spiritual children yet the same Apostle in the same place shews that there is a divers dissimilitude or disagreement betwixt them and that in several respects v. 15 16 17 18. particularly in that he calls our justification by the obedience of Christ the gift and free gift in opposition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation v. 15 16. implying the obedience of Christ to be so performed as that there is yet required an act of grace on Gods part to give us the effect of it as well as an act of faith on our part that it may be given to us or that we may receive it of which the Apostle speaks in the next verse v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace shall raigne in life for we receive the grace of God by faith 2 Cor. 6. 1. suitable to what this Apostle had said before chap. 3. 25 26. that Christ was set forth to declare the righteousnesse of God that he might be thâ— justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus But the effects of Adams disobedience came upon his posterity by the necessity of the same judgement which passed upon himself as the natural father of all men so as there needs no other act either on Gods part or on our part but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment But
in its formal notion includes not the non-imputation of sin or that non-imputation of sin which includes not essentially the imputation of righteousnesse He hath told us long since that both these are immanent and eternal acts of God and as such the death of Christ procures neither the effects of both are one and the same and it is therefore impossible to distinguish them in reference to their effects It is to me a mystery beyond comprehension how that imputation which constitutes a sinner righteous should yet include nothing of the non-imputation of sin or how sin can be non-imputed to a sinner and yet he abide unrighteous unlesse some other act concur to make him righteous His third answer is The non-imputation of sin to us antecedes §. 17. the imputation of righteousnesse to us in order of nature only not of time Rep. That is the righteousnesse of Christ avails nothing to the non-imputing of sin to us The very naming of these hideous doctrines is a sufficient confutation of them Should I have delivered such things the names of all the most loathsome hereticks that ever were would have been accounted too soft to have been thrown at my head Yet Mr. Eyre hath not done objectâ—ng against himself but in the §. 18. end of this third answer brings in some body objecting thus We were not then I suppose he means when Christ died Ergo righteousnesse could not then be imputed to us His answer is They might as well object our sins were not then Erge they could not be imputed unto Christ in the businesse of Justification God calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4. 17. Rep. 1. I deny the parity of reason between the one and the other Sin can neither be punished nor pardoned before it be committed in â—r to the person that sinâ—eth Neverthelesse he that hath the absolute dominion of his own life as Christ had may as a Surety suffer all that punishment which by the Law can at any time grow due to sin for even amongst men p L. Sâ—ipulaâ—â—s sum L. potest ss de fide juss §. side â—â—ss instit de fide-juss 〈◊〉 accipi potest in â—uturam obligationem Sureties are admitted upon future obligations If as soon as death by the Law was made the punishment of sin before men had broken the Law the Lord Jesus had given up himself to death that in case we should sin his death should have had the same effect as now it hath in this case our sin though then but possible had been imputed unto him for he had borne the penalty due to it and threatened against it but his righteousnesse had not been imputed to us upon the same supposition that we had not sinned In like manner though the sins of the elect were not in being I mean of all the Elect borne since his death when Christ died yet the full penalty which could at any time grow due to them was then in being and determined by the Law which punishment also in summe and substance he might and did undergo that when we should sin we might yet be washed in his blood from all our sins The future sins of the Elect Christ might make so farre present in himself as to endure all the penalty which they could at any time deserve it being not our desert of punishment which obligeth him to suffer it but his own voluntary submission to it which makes punishment due to him as our Surety before it become due to us as actual sinners But pardon of sin being essentially the destruction of that very obligation which the sinner hath contracted upon himselfe doth therefore essentially suppose the sinner and his sin in being though another may suffer for him yet another cannot be pardoned for him pardon of sin being a personal priviledge that is such as rests in the person of the sinner or nowhere 2. And that God in the matter of Justification calleth things that are not as though they were is no part of the Apostles meaning Rom. 4. 17. but to shew the ground of Abrahams stedfast believing on God for the obtaining of a blessing to sense and reason impossible namely that he should become the father of many nations his own body and Sarahs wombe being dead v. 19. The reason hereof was because God is he that raiseth the dead and is able to give being to things out of nothing for he calleth things that are not as if they were therefore Abraham against hope believed in hope v. 18. This is that faith through which he and all his children in the same faith obtain righteousnesse Having thus at large demonstrated the weaknesse of the argument §. 19. from our Justification in Christ as a common person to prove our Justification before faith I left this censure upon it they are credulous soules that will be drawn by such decayes as these into schisme and faction to the hardening and discomforting of more hearts in one houre then the opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands which censure is of such ill resentment with Mr. Eyre that he hath used no lesse then two leaves of paper to wipe off the dirt untruth slander and what he pleaseth cast upon himself and his Church thereby As to the Argument his own deserting it in plain ground is evidence enough that it is too weak to bear the weight which is laid upon it and if men will embrace opinions which have no stronger foundations is not their own credulity in fault The charge of schisme and faction was not intended against him or any of his charge in particular I little know whether all under his charge be of his opinion or whether all of his opinion in the place he lives in be under his charge but in general against all who without better ground then the foresaid Argument will afford them shall by jealousies separations envyings backbitings rash censurings c. violate the rules of Christian love and peace whereof if neither Mr. Eyre nor any of his charge are guilty yet some others of his judgement in this point are and that so foully that he would loath to undertake their defence if he will be true to the Profession which here he makes of himself CHAP. XII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Sixteenth Chapter concerning our being in Covenant with God before believing SECT I. THe third and last Argument for proving our Justification §. 1. to be before faith I thus proposed and as I thought according to Mr. Eyres minde If we are in Covenant before we believe then we are justified before we believe But we are in Covenant before we beleeve Ergo This Argument Mr. Eyre disclaims as being none of his at least as not being proposed in that forme in which he dressed it and hereupon expatiates in two leaves of paper upon the discourse which passed between himself and me shewing the orderly progresse in which his
just the effect which follows upon it is that we shall therefore be saved from wrath It seemes the distinction between the velle and the res volita in the matter of Justification was unknown to him 5. And his discourse supposeth that the love and grace of God is nothing so much commended by giving the effects as by putting forth the act of Justification for herein God commends his love towards us that while we were yet sinners he gave his Son to death for our Justification and then as a lesser matter he infers much more being now justified we shall be saved from wrath So also ver 10. Now if by Justification in Christs blood be meant the effects and not the act of Justification then the love and grace of God is nothing near so great in justifying us through the blood of Christ as in justifying us before without his blood But this is most notoriously false as is manifest not from this text only but from all the Scriptures which proclaim that temporal Justification which we have through the blood of Christ to be an act of greatest love and richest grace Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 20 21. Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 4 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 1. 14. Tit. 3. 4 5 6 7 6. The effects of Justification follow upon the act by moral necessity and without impediment Ergo the Justification here spoken of is not the effect precisely but the act The reason of the consequence is because the Justification mentioned in the text follows not upon any simple precedent act of Justification but is set forth as an act of such moral difficulty that it required no lesse then the precious blood of the Son of God to remove the obstructions and hindrances of its existence and to make it to exist The Antecedent is proved from his manner of arguing à majori ad minus being now justified much more shall we be saved implying that salvation follows as it were necessarily upon the position of the act of Justification Yea and I appeal to Mr. Eyre himselfe or any man else whether that act be not unworthy of the many glorious titles and epithets which are every where in Scripture put upon Justification and consequently unworthy of that name which being put in actu completo can yet produce no good effect to a sinner nor set him one degree farther from wrath then he was before unlesse some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects This mindes me of another Argument and that is this 7. Justification is not an act of grace simply but of powerful grace or of grace prevailing against the power of sin for this is that which creates the difficulty and so commends the excellency of the grace of Justification that it is the Justification of sinners Were it the Justification of such as had never sinned but had been perfectly righteous there were no such difficulty in that And therefore in the following part of the Chapter the Apostle expresly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us in that it abounds and is powerful to justifie above the ability of sin to condemn ver 15 17 20 Ergo the Justification here spoken of is the very act of Justification or there is no such thing at all for if we place it in a simple eternal volition there could be no moral difficulty in that no more then in the will of creating the world because from eternity there could be no opposition or hindrance for an act of grace to overcome 8. The Justification merited by Christ is not the effect but the act The reason we shall shew anon because it is absurd to make Christ the meritour of the effects when the act is in being before his merit But the Justification here spoken of is that which is merited by Christ Ergo I might also argue out of the following part of the Chapter from the opposition between Justification and the act of condemnation which passeth upon all men by vertue of the first transgression and therefore sure cannot consist in any eternal act of Gods will and from the method there used in comparing Adam and Christ and of our partaking first in the image of the first Adam in sin and the effects thereof before we be conformed to the image of the second Adam in Justification and the effects thereof but these Arguments out of the text it self shall suffice Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testifie that Justification §. 18. doth make a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum As Col. 2. 13. You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses To be dead in sins in this place is clearly to be dead in Law that is to be obliged by Law to the suffering of death for sin for it is opposed to that life which consists in remission of sin or Justification so 1 Cor. 6. 11. such were some of you but ye are justified of which place more hereafter See also Rom. 3. 19 20 21 22 23 24. and 5. 18 19 20 21. Eph. 2. 12 13 14 15 16. And indeed all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods justifying sinners If there be found out a new Justification which the Scriptures are not acquainted with may they have joy of it that have discovered it But I hasten to the second part of Mr. Eyres answer The change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the transgressour is unjust but being considered at the Tribunal of grace and cloathed with the righteousnesse of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the creature much lesse any inherent difference c. Answ These words are mysteries to me and I confesse have occasioned §. 19. me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts then all the book besides Before I can give any answer to them I must make some enquiry into the meaning of them And for avoiding of confusion in the words just and unjust their importance in this place is no more then to have or be without a right to salvation and life Now to be unjust by nature or in our selves may be understood in a threefold sense 1. Positively and then the meaning is that for the sin of nature or for mens sinfulnesse in themselves they stand obliged before God to the suffering of eternal punishment This is so far from being Mr. Eyres meaning that I suppose
not have saved him without his reading and much lesse would his reading have saved him without that favourable Law yet his life is a thousand fold more worth then his reading of two or three lines and therefore he owes a thousand times more thanks to his Prince for giving him his life upon such a condition then to himself for reading supposing his reading to have been the purchase of his life If a man sell a farme to his friend for five hundred for which another would have given him a thousand what more common then to say He hath given his friend five hundred in the buying 3. But in sober sadnesse doth Mr. Eyre think the welch man speaks §. 25. properly in his God blesse her father c That were a jest indeed How comes it then to be a ridiculous object if there be not some h pleasing deformity in it that flatters the fancie and surprizeth k See Sie râ—de la Câ—ambre Charact. of the Passions ch 4. of laughter p. 210. the soule so moving laughter And what can that deformity be except the welch idiome but the fallacy of non causa pro causa putting that for the cause which is not the cause as we are wont out of Cicero when we see a little man girt with a great sword to transplace the Subject and the Adjunct and say who tied that man to that sword Had the welch man cried as he was bid God blesse the King and the Judge the propriety of the speech had spoiled the jest and deprived it of that facetiousnesse and lepidity which now causeth us to make merry with it A certain discovery that the speech is not proper nor the condition of reading the cause of his pardon the speech becoming ridiculous upon no other account but because it would insinuate that to be the cause which was no more then a condition But the serious judgement of all offendors who escape death by this means and the wisdome of our statâ— determining it to be an act of royal grace and favour to pardon a man on this condition might one would think be of as much authority as one welch mans word It is true indeed the Law nor the Judge could save him unlesse he read nor will God save us unleâ—â—â— we believe Heb. 3. 19. They could not enter in because of unâ—eliâ—f Not through defect of power or mercy in God which are both inâ—inâ—te but because he hath confined himself in the dispensation of pardon and salvation that he will bestow it upon none but them that believe Is it therefore not of grace because not without faith Whereas the Apostle sayes It is of faith that it might be of grace Rom. 4. 16. In that which followes I finde nothing which is not answered already §. 26. or must not be answered in due place for whereas Mr. Eyre sayes that the performance of the condition makes the conditional grant to become absolute the words are ambiguous If he mean it makes it absolute as that without which it had never been absolute I grant it if he mean it makes it absolute by contributing any direct causality I deny it for upon performance of the condition the conditional grant doth indeed become absolute not by the worth or efficacy of the condition but by the will of the Promiser that upon the existence of such a thing or action will be obliged and not without it We have already given several instances of conditions which have nothing of worth in them to engage the Donour and therefore cannot be the cause of the gift for nothing can produce an effect more noble and excellent then it selfe Nor doth it receive any addition of intrinsecal worth by being made the condition otherwise we might work as rare feats by the influence of our wills as l Magnet cure of wounds Van Helmont thinks may be wrought by the magick of the fancie 'T is but willing a pin to be worth a pound and it shall be done And when he addes in the next place that if faith be the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense as perfect obedience was the condition of the old man must needs be his own Justifier if he mean such in the matter and particular nature of the condition It is true if he mean such in the common nature of a condition it is false for we have shewed before both from Reason and Scripture Divines and Lawyers that some kinde of conditions are so far from being inconsistent with grace as that they advance it rather As suppose some benefit of very great value be bestowed on a worthlesse person upon condition that he acknowledge the rich superlative grace and love of the Donour to be the only cause of it Finally thus he speaks As in the old Covenant it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world just so in the New if it be a conditional Promise it is not the Promise that justifies a beleever but the beleever himself The answer is ready Death came into the world by sin as the culpable meritorious cause but sin could not have slain us but by the Law 1 Cor. 15. 56. Rom. 5. 13 14. Ergo. It is not warily said that Gods threat did not bring death upon the world 2. And when Mr. Eyre hath proved that our performance of the Gospel-conditions hath the same proportion to our salvation as sin hath to our destruction the Papists shall thank him Rom. 6. last The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Mens not-accepting of the grace of God may make that grace without effect as to themselves 2 Cor. 6. 1. Rom. 3. 3. But that therefore their acceptance is the cause of Gods being gracious to them is wilde reasoning And as to worthy Dr. Kendal out of whom Mr. Eyre quotes these passages he hath publickly enough and in Mr. Eyres hearing for one declared himself to be no enemy against conditions of Justification or salvation That he that is pardoned upon his reading doth not pardon himself §. 27. I proved thus because then he must concurre either to the making of the Law which gives pardon upon such a condition or to the pronouncing of the sentence of absolution upon himself according to that Law This Mr. Eyre saith is an impertinent answer because the question is not whether a man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification but whether he had any causal influxe in producing the effect thereof Rep. My answer if he will call it so was very pertinent as to the case of an offendor saved by his Clergy whose pardon is perfected by a Law which gives the remote right and sentence passed according to that Law which produceth his immunity it selfe If then the said offendor cause his own pardon it must be by concurring some way or other to the production of one of these The case is altogether
neither charge persons as guilty of sin nor punish them for it other sense the phrase of imputing sin hath none in all the Scripture for from the imputation of sin unto death the Apostle infers the necessity of a Law according to which sin was imputed in the long tract of time between Adam and Moses 2. Gods hatred of reprobation is not his imputing of sin as being §. 3. antecedent to any act of the creature whether good or evil Rom. 9. 13. If Mr. Eyre think otherwise why have we not one syllable of proof neither from Scripture nor reason to warrant us to call the acts of God by such new names as they were never known by before since the world was made The Apostle prayes that the sin of those that deserted him be not laid to their charge or imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 16. and the same sense hath the prayer of Stephen for his murderers Acts 7. 60. Lord lay not this sin to their charge both which suppose the imputation or non-imputation of sin to be a consequent to it not antecedent And against the constant language of Scripture and of all men must we be forced upon no other Authority then Mr. Eyres bare word to beleeve the imputation of sin to be from eternity and when the Apostle says sin is not imputed where there is no Law we must beleeve for Mr. Eyre sayes it that the meaning is There is no sin where there is no Law Briefely if sin be imputed from eternity men are miserable from eternity which is impossible for he that is not is not miserable Mat. 26. 24. Therefore Mr. Eyre hath a second answer and that is That §. 4. there is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but righteousnesse is the gift of God Rep. What then yet there may be and is the same reason of imputing sin and imputing righteousnesse which are both Gods acts It is but changing the terme and the matter will be clear To impute righteousnesse and not to impute sin are termes much of the same signification with the Apostle Rom. 4. 6 8. Now to impute sin and to non-impute sin are contraries though the latter be expressed by a negative terme Ergo they are both of them actions of the same kinde and common nature Contraria sunt opposita sub eodem genere proximo Ergo there is the same reason for the one and the other that if sin cannot be imputed without Law then neither non-imputed More particularly thus I argued that as condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth so on the contrary our Justification must be some declared sentence or act of God which may discharge the sinner from condemnation Mr. Eyre answers That as condemnation comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam so our Justification descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the second Adam which New Covenant and not the Conditional Promise as Mr. W. would have it is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. Rep. The reason then is acknowledged to be the same on both § 5. sides Ergo as condemnation is by a Law so must Justification be which was before denied To what is here said for explication I reply 1. That the former part of it supposeth that which I will never grant nor Mr. Eyre ever prove and that is That there is no condemnation which comes upon sinners for moral transgressions but by the Law given to Adam Indeed that Law condemned him as the head of mankinde for his first disobedience and so condemneth all his posterity for original sin But his posterity are not concerned in those personal sins which he committed after his first transgression nor in the condemnation which became due to him for them no more then they are subject to condemnation for one anothers sins But that Law which was given to him at first as the common head of mankinde and had effect upon him as such became afterwards of meer personal obligation both upon him and all men else for personal actual sins So that no man now is or ever was since the first transgression subject to condemnation by that Law quatenus it was given to Adam as a publick person for any personal sins of their own but as it was obliging immediately upon each man in his own person And therfore the Law of Mâ—ses speaks more personally Cursed is every man that continueth not in every thing which is written in the Law to do it Gal. 3. 9 10. And by this Law is every transgressour condemned not with a derivative condemnation such I mean as is derived and as it were propagated from another but such whereof every sinner in his own person is the first and immediate subject And unto this condemnation is our Justification most frequently opposed in Scripture The Argument therefore hath yet no answer nor nothing like it The condemnation of a sinner for his own personal sins is an act of God condemning by a Law Ergo the Justification which is opposed thereto is an act of God by a Law in like manner 2. I deny that condemnation comes upon any man by vertue of the Law given to Adam till himself be borne a childe of Adam Ergo from the acknowledged pnrity of reason it must follow that no man is justified by the Covenant made with Christ till himself be borne of Christ that is by faith Gal. 3. 26. John 1. 12. 13. and 3. 5. so that in this respect the Argument is yielded For clearing of the antecedent note That when it is wont to be said we were condemned in Adam it is not to be understood properly but with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an As I may so say to use the Apostles expression in a case not much unlike Heb. 7. 9 10. As I may so say Levi also paid tithes in Abraham for he was yet in the loines of his father Not as if we were then actually condemned who then had no existence for he that is not can be no more under Law then he that is dead and free from Law Rom. 6. 7. and 7. 3. and condemnation by Law being a transient act requires an object existent upon which it may passe But because the very same sentence which condemned him then takes hold without any renovation of all his posterity successively unto the same condemnation Even as when it is said in Adam all diâ— 1 Cor. 15. 22. Not as if men could die before they are borne but because it was appointed and determined by the foresaid Law that all borne of Adam should die Heb. 9 27. And in this respect our spiritual being in the second Adam is as necessary to our partaking in his
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher
be offered up And as to Mr. Eyres two evasions that to be justified by faith doth sometimes signifie By faith to know that we are justified He might as well say the world was made by faith For by faith we know that the world was made Heb. 11. 3. And that otherwhile faith signifies Christ believed on we have often and I trust satisfactorily discovered that they are inventions from beneath not doctrines from above Let us now see what Mr. Eyre brings to prove that it was the §. 42. Will of God and Christ that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part Foure principles he lays down which neither singly nor joyntly can bring forth the Conclusion they are in travel with 1. Christ by the Will of God gave himseâ—f a ransome and sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God Answ But the Question is Whether it were the Will of God that remission should follow immediately upon the offering up of this sacrifice before the sinner beleeves and repents 2. That this ransome was alone and by it selfe a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to divine Justice for all their sins Answ But the Question is whether satisfaction may not be made by a voluntary surety with this agreement that they for whom it is made shall not be freed by it till they performe such or such a condition If it may as Mr. Eyre granted but now then he should have told us not only that Christ made satisfaction but that he made it with this intent that the elect should be presently discharged by it Otherwise he begs the Question a second time 3. God accepted it and declared himself well-pleased therewith insomuch that he hath thereupon covenanted and sworne that he will never remember their sins nor be wroth with them any more Isa 43. 25. and 54. 9 10. Answ The Question is still begg'd No doubt but God was well-pleased with the death of Christ as with a sacrifice or satisfaction in it self so perfect that his justice could not require more But whether he accepted it and was well-pleased with it so as that it should presently without the intervention of faith produce the pardon of any is the question which is here resolved by a go-by It is certain that some effects of Christs satisfaction are not communicated to the elect before they believe much lesse immediately in the death of Christ and seeing we are to grow up in him in all things till we have attained to the fulnesse of the life of Christ I confesse it is beyond my comprehension how we come to be perfect in one part of his life that is in one fruit and effect of his death while we remain imperfect in all the rest As to the Covenant which Mr. Eyre speaks of that God will never remember the sins of the elect nor be wroth with them any more Isa 43. 25. and 54. 9 10. The former place proves no more then that God takes it as one of his royal prerogatives to be a God that pardoneth sin as he also doth elsewhere Exod. 34. 6 7. Mich. 7. 18. the latter that the pardon which he gives is eternal neither that the elect are pardoned immediately in the death of Christ or while they continue in unbelief But the contrary is plainly supposed Isa 54. 1 2 3. 4. That by this ransome of Christ they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4. 4. and 3. 13. Answ Quoad meritum not quoad effâ—ctum till they believe as we have shewed before Christs death hath redeemed us from the power of sin as well as from the curse of the Law 1 Pet. 1. 18. were the elect therefore sanctified immediately in the death of Christ He hath redeemed our bodies as well as our soules yet are not our bodies redeemed quoad effâ—ctum till the Resurrection Râ—â— 8. 23. till then they lie in their graves by vertue of that common obligation unto death which the first Adam brought upon all men 1 Cor. 15. 22 49 56. And thus thou seest Reader with what successe Mr. Eyrâ— hath attempted to prove That it was the Will of God in giving his 〈◊〉 death and the Will of Christ in giving himself that his 〈◊〉 should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part â—is next undertaking is to prove That there was no such compact and agreement between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but only upon conditions performed by them In the issue of which whether he hath been any whit more happy then in the former we come now CHAP. X. An Answer to Mr. Eyres fourteenth Chapter and all the Arguments therein contained by which he endeavours to prove that there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods elect by his death and to suspend this effect thereof upon termes and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the Will both of God and Christ that his death should be available to their immediatâ— and actual reconciliation and Justification without any Condition performed on their part SECT I. HIs first Argument is this There is no such Covenant doth appear in Scripture Ergâ— there is none §. 1. Answ That the Antecedent â—s false hath been already proved from John 6. 40. and 3. 15 16 19. and Gal. 5. 2 3 4 5 6. and 1 Joh. 5. 11. and Rom. 3. 25. and Isa 53. 11. and all those places which declare Justification to be consequent to faith or wherein men are perswaded and commanded to turne unto God that their sins may be forgiven them Many such places have been already produced and vindicated against Mr. Eyres exceptions and it were no hard matter to produce many more as Jâ—r 26. 2 3. Stand in the Court of the Lords house and speak unto all the Cities of Judah all the words that I command thee diminish not a word If so be they will hearken and turne evâ—ry man from his evil way that I may repent me of the evil which I pâ—rpose to do unto them And Jer. 36. 3. It may be that the house of Judah will heare all the evil which I purpose to do unto them that they may returne every man frâ—m his evil way that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin Plainly discovering our conversion unto God to be the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy Which doth also notably appear by the contrary steps which sinners tread in working out their owne damnation Mark 4. 12. That seeing they may see and not perceive and hearing they may heare and not understand lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them But of this we have spoken enough before His second
e Epist â—â— the Reader page 1 2. â—â—bi pâ—ssion staturâ— not excepted All which things trouble me the lesse because I have such companions in these reproaches as I do not dare to compare my self with the meanest of them As not only Mr. Cranford Mr. Baxter my brother but all that stand in his way that is the maine body of Protestants who have wrote upon this subject ever since the name of Protestant was known upon the earth But it is somewhat strange to me to observe what measure Mr. Eyre meteth to all that cannot vaile to his judgement If Mr Baxter lay down principles inconsistent with his he must be represented as an Arminian a Papist a Socinian and what not If a faithful Christian and that in Mr. Eyres own judgement though none of the meanest rank of Christians neither do but ask him a question and that with all due respect he must be bid to f Page 9 10. I will not english the words for very shame The Profession there following will never be believed after such premises nor will they be any salve for such a publick putting to shame and spitting in the face of a member of Christ If my brother declare himself against his notions he must be g Page 84. printed as a desertor of his Church in New-England for the love of a better Parsonage in old Durus Sermo I could name many Ministers that since these times have returned from thence hither and have gained ten times more by their return then my brother hath or is ever like to do were they all desertors of their Churches for fatter morsels If a man should print of Mr. Eyre that he is of late grown an enemy to h Epist dedic the Councel of War before his Sermon Tithes that if they be sold he might adde some of them to his former Purchases or if they be put into a publick treasury he might take of them more liberally in the more reformed way of a State maintenance or because he envies bread to every Minister that cannot hold pace with him in the way he goes and would have them all at his mercy If I say a man should print these things of Mr. Eyre I should verily account him a slanderer unlesse he were able to prove it better then I am sure Mr. Eyre can prove his charge against my brother He findes fault with my brothers argument because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia and yet is his own practice faultlesse in judging of that which the Church may not judge of I mean the intentions of a mans heart It concernes not me to praise my brother his own innocency in many yeares Profession of Christ is a sufficient defence to him against a thousand such calumniations nor is he mindful to take so much notice of Mr. Eyres language as to give him an answer but content without envying Mr. Eyre his great yearly revenews to serve God with chearfulnesse in his poverty only for his arguments Mr. Eyre hath taken them up upon trust which was not faire dealing and his informer hath misrepresented them I had them and a Vindication of them under my brothers hand and was intended to have printed them as not fearing what Mr. Eyre or any man else could rationally have excepted against them but finding my book to be of it selfe growen beyond that proportion which I intended I have omitted it In his answer to me to leave these personal matters which can be neither grateful nor profitable to the Reader how often be dasheth himself against himself and in the whole scope of his Discourse opposeth himself against the body of Protestant Divines the Reader may in some measure see in this Reply So little cause hath he to charge the doctrine which my self or others maintain against him with a compliance with Popery If I delighted in recriminations I could tell him that his doctrine of eternal reconciliation is Socinianisme that his denial of the elect to be at any time punished for their sin is i Calv. instr advers Lib â—tiâ— cap â—4 pag. mihi 181. Libertinisme as also that God is well pleased with some men in the midst of all their ungodlinesse That his denying of the k Chap 1 § 1. p. â—10 compared with §. 7. Law any power to hold the transgressors of it under an obligation to the punishment which it threateneth is Antinomianisme l Page 152. §. 6. That the death of Christ tends not to the procuring of our Justification m Page 62. That sins are pardoned in nature and time before Christs satisfaction n Page 122. That sinners have no more right to salvation after their beleeving then before with many other Paradoxes of like complexion are Anti-Gospelism and may for ought I know out-vie the most pernicious doctrines amongst the Romanists As for his other charge of Arminianisme the Lord knowes and my own soul knows to my daily shame and sorrow I have as little reason as any man to expect Justification in a Popish or Arminian way Neverthelesse I am altogether proselyted to renowned Bp. Davenants judgement concerning the extent and effects of the death of Christ if that be Arminianisme especially since I read Daylee's late Vindication of Amyrald against Spanhemius And the chief reason that enclines me to it besides the evidence of truth is the advantage I have thereby to give a clear and smooth answer to all the Scriptures which the Arminians are wont to use in defence of their cause It is true Mr. Eyre alledgeth the testimonies of some Divines as speaking seemingly for him But that the same Divines do elsewhere more plainly speak against him hath been so fully evidenced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Warren and blessed Mr. Graile that I cannot account it worth while to take a particular view of his testimonies Only I intended to take some special notice of two of his Authors viz. Robert Parker my Reverend Grandfather and renowned Dr. Twisse As to that passage which Mr. Eyre hath picked out of my Grandfathers book De descensu Christi ad inferos it hath been already so cleared both by Mr. Warren and Mr. Baxter that I am perswaded if Mr. Eyre were to write his book again he would quit the hold he takes on those words Much lesse would he have declared so tragically against me as if I had no lesse then justified my Grandfathers persecutors in all their injurious and unworthy dealings against him in writing for that truth which he never denied But if I do anything unworthy of the name and memory of that Reverend man who yet was never persecuted for his book De descensu much lesse for being supposed to be an abettor of the Justification of impenitent and unbelieving sinners Mr. Eyre might have thought it no greater fault in me then in his own and only sonne my Reverend and much honoured Uncle Mr. Thomas Parker vir omni exceptione major who hath taught me long
he determines as supream Governour of the world what shall be our duty to do or not to do and what shall be due to us according to our doing or not doing of this Will Hence the Word and Lawes of God are called in Scripture his Will in hundreds of places By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity which is their proper Justification whereof his not punishing them de facto is the effect This I shall prove God willing when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre In the meane time the thing which he undertakes to prove is That the very essence and quiddity of a sinners Justification is Gods Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him I deny it and shall subjoyne some reasons against it by and by besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book But first let us see what he hath to say for it Thus then he begins Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse to a person Psal 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person is his non-imputing sin to him Ergo. Answ I grant the major but I do very much long to see what §. 8. definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification that may include Justification in Gods knowledge and in his legal justice and in our consciences that I might know whether these three be three several sorts or only three degrees of one and the same Justification but let that passe I deny the minor For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeales to the Original words both Greek and Hebrew both which saith he doth signifie an act of the minde or will Mr. Eyre is to prove that they signifie the purpose or resolution of the will in which sense they appear not so much as once neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Interpreters nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense and therefore that observation might have been spared 2. An act of the understanding they signifie often but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation but thinking devising esteeming or the like for example Isa 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Neither doth his heart think so Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendred Neither doth his heart impute se In like manner Psal 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt where the words are the same both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint And cannot be rendered Against me do they impute my hurt So Isa 53. 3. He was despised and we esteemed him not where the words are still the same It would be worthy sense to render them He was despised and we imputed him not Multitudes of like instances might be given But when the words will beare to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation they then signifie not an immanent act of the understanding or will but a transient act containing an objectum Quod or something that is imputed and an objectum cui some person to whom it is imputed who also is thereby changed physically or morally And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another Numb 18. 27 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned or imputed to you as though it were the corne of the threshing sloâ—re and ver 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it then it shall be counted or imputed to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floore c. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corne of the threshing floore for that had been a fiction or an errour and imperfection of the understanding but because by the determination of the Law it was made equivalent thereunto or equally available to all effects and purposes This is a transient act 2. When a man is charged as the Authour of such or such a fact 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris Junius This also is a transient act 3. The giving of a reward to a man whether the reward be of debt or of grace is Imputation Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. because punishment is the wages of sin and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law is the non-imputing of sin Psal 32. 1 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action which otherwise he might have expected that action is said to be non-imputed to him Lev. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him This also is a transient act In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament Righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur Beza Mr. Eyres glosse upon that text we shall meet with in due place and Paul prayes for them that deserted him in his troubles that their sin may not be imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyres Argument upon himself If Justification be a non-imputation of sin then it is a transient act and not an immanent act of Gods Will. But the first is true ex concessis Ergo so is the last And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weaknesse of his proofe The original words note an immanent act when they signifie some other thing then imputation Ergo imputation is an immanent act So much for the first Argument The second is this that which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification But by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. Answ The Proposition I readily grant the Assumption I deny §. 9. â— and detest For 1. It makes void the death of Christ for what sayes the Apostle Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain The case is altogether the same as to any other way by which men may be said to be justified for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ then was it a vaine needlesse thing that he should die for our Justification 2. Nor was there any need as to our Justification that he should rise again from the dead whereas the Scripture saith Arose from the dead for our Justification Rom. 4. 25. And therefore saith Paul 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins he speaks to those that did confesse his death but he was out when he
farther disputing that this place is insufficient to prove that Gods eternal purpose of not punishing is our Justification 3. But I am out of doubt that the Elect here are not so called in reference to Election from eternity but rather in reference to election temporal as our l Dr Twisse in â—orv defens Arm. Cont. Til. pag. 202. Divines distinguish namely in respect of their effectual separation unto God and forsaking the conversation of the world and their admittance through faith into a state of favour and precious esteem with God as election doth sometimes signifie in Scripture See 1 Cor. 1. 26 27 28. James 2. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 4 6. The reason is plain because such Elect are here meant who were the present objects of the worlds reproaches injurious sentences false accusations and slanders c. for whose comfort in this their suffering condition the Apostle speaks these words to assure them that all the malice and abuses of the world should do them no harme so long as God justified them and approved of them Compare ver 21 35 37. And this also is the intent of the words in the Prophet who speaks them as in the Person of Christ when he was delivered up into the hands of wicked men Isa 50. 8 9. Now the Elect themselves before Conversion have their conversation according to the course of the world and are not the objects of persecution from the world Eph. 2. 23. SECT IV. WE have heard what Mr. Eyre can say for himself Before I §. 11. go any farther I shall set down a few Arguments to prove that the essence of Justification doth not consist in Gods eternal Will or Purpose of not punishing And first from the efficient cause Justification is such an act whereof Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King is the efficient cause with God the Father He is also the meriting cause as Priest by the offering or sacrifice of himself But of this we speak not now Acts 5. 31. John 5. 19 22 26 27. Luke 24. 47. and other places before quoted But Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King doth not will or purpose with God from eternity not to punish sinners The reason is plain because himself from all eternity was purposed of God to be Lord and King Ergo Justification doth not consist essentially in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish 2. Justification is an act of God purposed Ergo it cannot consist in his purpose The reason is because else God must purpose to purpose which is inconvenient The Antecedent is almost the words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham We have scarce more evidence of any truth upon which we lay the weight of our salvation then this text affords us of the point in hand saying that God would justifie in the future tense making Justification the object of divine foresight affirming the Gospel to have been preached to Abraham many yeares before it 3. If there be no such act in God at least that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely and formally then our Justification cannot consist in that act the reason is plaine because then our Justification were precisely nothing But there is no such act in God that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely Ergo. For proof of the Assumption Reader thou must remember that the foregoing Argument proves that there was in God from eternity a will to justifie believers in time that is 1. To discharge them from the obligation of the Law by which that punishment becomes legally undue which before was legally due and hence it follows 2. That they are not punished de facto so that impunity simply is no part nor effect of Justification but as following upon a legal disobligation otherwise every sinner in the world that were not presently punished were justified The impunity of a sinner therfore that it may be an effect or part of Justification must be considered with its modus as the impunity of a person discharged from the obligation of the Law for God doth so free us from punishment as may be without the least prejudice to the truth or justice or authority of his Law Accordingly I affirme that God never purposed not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo as impunity is severed from the manner in which it is given but he purposed not to punish modo congruo in a congruous way by disobliging first from the threatning of the Law and thereby giving them a legal right not to be punished and not to let them go unpunished while the Law stands in full force against them 1. That which was never executed was never purposed But never sinner went unpunished while the Law stood in full force against him Ergo. The Proposition is unquestionable In the Assumption Mr. Eyre will agree with me for he contends that all the Elect were discharged from the Law and had a right given them to impunity in the death of Christ and no elect person ever had or shall have impunity in any other way Ergo it was never purposed that they should have it in any other way that is that it was never purposed precisely that they should not be punished 2. Gods Purpose and his Laws will else be at enmity one with another for if he purpose not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo and yet do punish then he crosseth his purpose and if he do not punish the Law being supposed to remain in full force he is unfaithful if not also unjust as some k Dr. Oâ—en â—â—atr de Just vind learned men think 3. If non-punition l Vid. Tâ—oiss â—ind dâ— prâ—dest lib. 1. par 1. digr 9. c. 1 2 3. 4. precisely tend not to the glory of Gods grace then did he not will precisely not to punish for such a will were neither of the end nor of the meanes but non-punition precisely is no congruous meanes to glorifie Gods grace Ergo. For if a man had continued obedient and had never broken Gods Laws in the least tittle his impunity had not been of grace but of debt Rom. 4. 4. as it is with the holy Angels at this day Therefore we cannot conceive of any act in God purposing precisely not to punish in which yet Mr. Eyre placeth the very formality of our Justification 4. If Justification be velle nâ—n punire then condemnatiâ—n is vâ—ll◠§. â—â— punire for oppositorum eadem â—st ratio But condemnation is not velle punire Shall I need to prove this who ever said that Gods eeternal purpose of punishing men for sin was condemnation 'T is an expression that neither God nor man will owne so farre as I can finde Dr. Twisse is known to reject it often not without some passion and detestation Condemnation is every where in Scripture made an act of justice Rom.
imputation be ab aeterno non-futura then is it ab aeterno undeprivable of its futurity for nothing but that which is future can be deprived of its futurity and if it be future ab aeterno then it cannot be made ab aeterno non-future for to be future and non-future ab aeterno is a contradiction 3. But if Mr. Eyre by his privative non-imputation mean no more then a positive act by which that punishment is kept off which is or will become due to a sinner I answer farther That the very essence of the pardon of sin consists in making that punishment undue which before was due and consequently in freeing the sinner from all actual suffering for sin for the remission of sin is opposed to the retaining of it John 20. 23. or else in preventing that that punishment shall never become due which otherwise would be due If in the former sense sin be pardoned from eternity for non-imputation and pardon are all one both in Mr. Eyres sense and of the Scriptures Rom. 4. 7 8. then cannot punishment become due in time but it is from eternity non futurum debitum even as the pardon of sin present and actually committed makes that punishment remaines no longer due to a person which till then was due And if it be from eternity a non-futurum debitum then neither can it be pardoned from eternity pardon being essentially a discharge from punishment due actually or in futurition nor if it could can that pardon be an act of grace because it is no grace to pardon him who neither is nor never will or can be punishable Yet here Reader distinguish of the duenesse of punishment which may arise either from the nature of sin in it self and in this sense it is impossible that sin should be pardoned either from eternity or in time because it is impossible but that sin should be in it selfe punishable or worthy of punishment even as on the contrary vertue is in it self essentially laudable or rewardable Or it may be the act of God by his Law making punishment due to the sinner or obliging the sinner unto punishment for his sin and in this sense only is it pardonable and if it be actually pardoned from eternity then is punishment made from eternity non debita which as I said before destroys both the substance and grace of pardon let us see if we can clear it by Mr. Eyres comparison This Will of God saith he is like the will of a man not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted Come on then Titius knows that Caius will be indebted to him and his purpose is before-hand not to require this debt I ask Is this purpose the pardon of the debt or no if not the cause is yielded if it be we will suppose that Titius makes this purpose within himself in the moment A the debt will be contracted in the moment C. All the space of time that is between A and C the debt is not actually a debt but only future If then this future debt be forgiven in the moment A then from thenceforth it ceaseth to be future and so cannot exist in the moment C because for a debt to be forgiven is to be made no debt if it be forgiven at present it is none at present if it be forgiven for the future it is not in futurition to be a debt 4. I will only adde this That according to Mr. Eyres own principles punishment doth never become due to the Elect so as that they stand obliged before God to suffer for any of their sins for that which in the protasâ—s of the similitude is a debt between man and man is a sinners obligation to punishment in the reddition Now Mr. Eyre denies that an elect sinner is at any time unjust simply and absolutely but only in a diminutive sense that is unjust by nature or of himself but positively just by grace at the same time which is but the carcasse of unrighteousnesse making the sinner unrighteous no otherwise then as it were materially he doing that which on his part is sufficient to oblige him to condemnation but he is never formally unjust because the grace of his Judge prevents his actual obligation Ergâ— he doth never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment nor is ever actually and formally indebted And whose debt then it was that Christ paid or what debts they are which we are to pray for forgivenesse of Matth. 6. 12. I must confesse I cannot tell which is all I shall need to speak of that second sense in which some may take the pardon of sin Nor will I adde any more animadversions upon these passages though I had once intended it because some have been mentioned already before and others we must make use of in that which follows SECT IX SO much for Mr. Eyres first Proposition upon which I have been §. 26. necessitated to dwell the longer because his discourse is so perplexed and intricate In that which follows I shall be more brief His next Proposition is this If Justification be taken not for the Will of God but for the thing willed to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from Punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ Answ The substance of this Proposition I could gladly close with but something is first necessary to be animadverted 1. Whereas Mr. Eyre here makes the satisfaction of Christ the adequate and as in his Explication he tells us often the immediate cause of our Justification if by adequate and immediate he mean only in genere causae meritoriae I consent because there is no other meritorious cause that comes between the death of Christ and our Justification But if he mean that the death of Christ is simply the adequate and immediate cause then I deny it because the act of God as Justifier comes between the death of Christ and our Justification Rom. 3. 25. 26 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood that he might be just and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus And the Lord Jesus himselfe also as Lord of soules and having all judgement committed to him by the Father joynes in putting forth the same act of Justification which was merited in his blood as we before observed 2. Mr. Eyre hath been disputing hitherto that Gods Will not to punish is our Justification That by which we are secured from wrath discharged and acquitted from all sin and wrath yea that it was a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin But now he tells us that the death of Christ is the adequate and immediate cause of our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment I think for my part it is beyond mans ability to invent or utter more palpable contradictions To be secured from wrath and not secured acquitted
and not acquitted discharged and not discharged what can be more contradictorious or who can conceive what is that security discharge and acquittance from all sin wrath punishment condemnation which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law and without freedome from punishment till Christ buy it with the price of his blood 3. Our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment may be understood either de jure in taking off our obligation unto punishment and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God to the suffering of punishment as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3. or it may be understood de facto in the real and actual removal of all kindes and degrees of punishment but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ by it self or with the former The Purpose of Gods Will saith Mr. Eyre chap. 10. § 10. pag. 108. secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it So that what is left for the death of Christ to do I must professe I cannot imagine seeing the act of our Justification and our disobligation from wrath and our real impunity do all exist by vertue of another cause But for further confirmation of this Proposition Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him and say no more to it till we come thither His third Proposition is this Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and §. 27. forgivenesse and thus God is said to justifie men when he reveales and makes known to them his grace and kindnesse within himselfe Answ Understand Reader that when we say Justification is a declared sentence of absolution it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned but of that publike declared Law of faith namely the Gospel it self which is to be preached to every creature under heaven He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life By which Promise whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book so much as one text wherein Justification must signifie a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken If he mean it is so taken in Gods language let him shew where if in mans I will not dispute with him how men take it And as to that text Gen. 41. 13. me he restored but him he hanged which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in to prove that things in Scripture are said to be when they are only manifested if he had consulted Junius he would have told him that the word He relates not to Joseph but to Pharaoh Me Pharaoh restored but him that is the Baker he hanged The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning §. 28. the several times and wayes in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people In which there is nothing of distinct controversie but what hath its proper place in the following debate some where or other And most of what he sayes may be granted without any advantage to his cause or prejudice to thâ— truth there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time but declares something of his gracious purpose as every effect declares and argues its cause And so our Justiâ—â—cation it selfe declareth that there was a purpose in God to justifie because he acteth nothing but according to his purpose I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter though there be many things therein which I can by no meanes consent to but set down in the following Propositions how far I consent to each of his 1. I consent that God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to believers in his Word and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents The seed of the woman shall break the Sâ—rpents head 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins and his raising of him up for our Justification doth manifest yet more of the same purpose 3. That baptisme sealing to a believer in act or habit the remission of sins past and entring him into a state of remission for the future doth also further declare something of the same purpose 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himselfe or any immediately upon their first believing at least in these dayes I am in doubt 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement doth most fully perfectly and finally declare the same purpose as being the most perfect compleat and formal justification of all And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyres doctrine I come next to a vindicaiton of my own CHAP. III. My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered Rom. 5. 1. vindicated And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture SECT I. FOr proof of our Justification by faith the doctrine §. 1. insisted on in my Sermon I advanced several places of Scripture to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter which we shall here take a view of that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for But before he gives his answer to particular places he thinks fit to informe the Reader that I began my Sermon and concluded it with a great mistake The mistake in the beginning is that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romanes was to prove That we are justified by faith i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we beleeve and that faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification which is a mistake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God The Apostle tells us himself that his scope is to prove that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in Gods sight ver 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith ver 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith I know not what is And that faith here is to be taken properly we prove at large below If this be not the Apostles scope
the words of Mark arguing manifestly from the right and authority which he had received to the lawful exercise of it in making and ordering to be published that Law or Act of Pardon whereof he doth then and there appoint his disciples to be Ambassadours I confesse I cannot imagine what can here be said unlesse it be one of these two things Either 1. That remission of sin is not contained in that salvation which is here promised to them that believe But this me thinks should be too harsh for any Christians eares to endure seeing it must contain all that good which is opposed to condemnation and therefore primarily remission of sins which is also expresly mentioned by the other Evangelists Luke 24. 47. John 20. 23. and by the Apostles in the execution of this their commission as a prime part of that salvation which they preached in the Name of Christ Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19 c. Or 2. That those words He that believes shall be saved are a meer description of the persons that shall be saved which I think is the sense that Mr. Eyre somewhere doth put upon them but this to me is more intolerable then the former partly for the reasons mentioned before chap. 5. and to be mentioned hereafter partly because according to such an interpretation the words will be no more then a simple affirmation or relation of what shall come to passe whereas by their dependance upon the foregoing All power is given to me in heaven and in earth it is manifest that they are an authoritative Sanction of the Lord Christ's an act of that jurisdiction and legislative power which he hath received from the Father and so the standing rule of remission of sins 2. If it be by the Promise of the Gospel He that believes shall not perish §. 19. but shall have everlasting life If I say it be by this Promise that God gives sinners a right to impunity and eternal life then by this Promise he justifies them But by the foresaid promise doth God give sinners a right to impunity and eternal life Ergo. The Proposition I passe as manifest by its own light The Assumption is delivered in several Scriptures Thus Paul Gal. 3. 18. God gave the inheritance to Abraham by Promise Ergo it is by Promise also that a right to life is given to all that have it This Promise is either particular or general The former it is not for God doth not now make any particular Promises to particular men such as was his Promise to believing Abraham Ergo it must be the general Promise wherein the same blessings as were given to Abraham are proposed to all men to be obtained by the same faith that Abraham had and by the same Promise given them when they believe which Promise is that before mentioned of life and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ the Apostle himself being Interpreter ver 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe The same doth he assert at large Rom. 4. 13 14 16 23 24. 3. The Lord Jesus sayes expressely John 12. 48. That the §. 20. Word which he spake shall judge unbelievers at the last day If a judgment of condemnation be ascribed to the Word in reference to unbelievers how can it be denied a judgement of Justification in reference to believers Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quà m dum illi judiciâ— potestas defertur Conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit saith Calvin upon the place Yea the Lord ascribes to the same Word a judgement of Justification ver 50. And I know that his Commandment is life everlasting that is the cause of it as Moses also speaks Deut. 32. 47. i See also Deuâ— â—â— v 15 â—â— It is your life though God be the principal cause and the Word but the k Vid. Synops pâ—r theol disp â—3 §. 10 Down of Jâ—stif c. â— â— 5. â—libi passim instrumental and therefore the power which it hath of judgement it hath from hence that it is the Word of God ver 49. For I have not spoken of my selfe but the Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say as the instrumental cause works not but in the vertue of the principal To this plain testimony let me adde an Argument as plainly deduced from it If judgement shall passe at the last day according to the Word then the Word is that Law which is the rule of judgement and by consequence to one is given by the Word a right to life and another is obliged to condemnation by the same Word But the antecedent is most true Ergo so is the consequent It is the work of judgement to give unto eâ—ery one according to what is due to him by Law if then a judgement of Justification passe upon any some Law of grace must be supposed according to which it becomes due for such a gracious sentence to passe upon him 4. And this is that which the Apostle James saith chap. 4. 12. §. 21. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy Beza observes that in foure ancient Greek Copies l As also in the Kings MS. See Dâ— Hammond Annot. in loc as also in the Syriack and the Latine Interpreter the word Judge is extant There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to save and destroy that is to whom pertaines the soveraign right and power of saving and destroying But whether the word be expressed or no it is surely implied for the Apostles scope is to disswade us from judging one another ver 11. because there is one Lawgiver to whom the power of judgment and so of absolving and condemning of saving and destroying doth appertain Now he that saves as a Lawgiver saves by absolution and he that absolves as a Lawgiver absolves by Law Ergo God absolves men that is pardons and justifies them by Law And when he shall judge all men at the last day his judgement whether of salvation or destruction shall proceed according to Law 5. Adde to this that the Apostle commends the excellency and glory §. 22. of the Gospel that God doth thereby justifie 2 Cor 3. 9. For if the ministration of condemnation he glory much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glory The ministration of condemnation is that which ver 7. he calls the ministration of death written and engraven in stones His scope is to shew the excellency of that Gospel which himself and other Apostles did preach and publish to the world above the ministration of the Law committed to Moses As then the ministration of death and condemnation was the ministration of that Law which did condemn unto death the effect being put for the cause so the
otherwise there were no use of them nor any possibility by appealing to bring controversies to an issue Therefore it is impossible that the same person at the same time and in reference to the same sins should stand condemned and justified before God 2. Neverthelesse I also think that a man may be condemned I mean ipso jure under an actual obligation to punishment and yet be in a state of Justification at the same time which because it is necessary I should explain for the better understanding of the opposition between Justification and Condemnation I shall here once for all set down my opinion A state of Justification I call it not simply because all sins are actually pardoned for multitudes may not be yet committed but because all past sins are pardoned and a Promise given to the sinner by which all future sins shall be pardoned mercy prevailing against justice Mount Sion against Mount Sinai Mount Gerizim against Mount Ebal even as a man is then in a state of grace and regeneration not because he hath no sin in him but because he hath a spirit of life within him prevailing more and more against the lusts and rebellions of his flesh till at last sin be perfectly destroyed out of the soule And so my opinion is 1. That as soon as a man beleeves all his sins past are forgiven him 2. As often as he falls into new sins he contracts upon himself a new guilt or obligation to punishment by vertue of the Law so as it were just with God to destroy him notwithstanding his former sins be pardoned 3. The Lord Jesus our Advocate with the father doth continually represent and plead the Promise of remission made in his blood on the behalf of sinners by vertue of which not only the present and speedy execution of punishment is suspended but the sinners right to salvation continued and renewed notwithstanding his new contracted guilt x Justificatio toties siâ— quoties homo veré Poenitentiam agit side ad Christum mediatorem confugit Solin Meth. theol de Justif supposing the renewed acts of faith and repentance on the sinners part of implicite repentance for sâ—ns lesse known and unobserved and of explicite repentance for grosser sins unlesse want of time may alter the case Even as when God complaines that Israel had broken his Covenant and were tâ—rned out of the way that he commanded them and he would therefore presently have consumed them Moses opposeth the Covenant of their fathers Remember Abraham Isaac and Israel thy servants to whom thou swarest by thine own self c. Exod. 32. 8 10 13. And thus far I grant that in these vicissitudes Justification and Condemnation may consist in the same person but by no meanes can I yield that a man can at the same time stand condemned for those very sins from which the Gospel justifies him or that he can be in a state of Justification and a state of Condemnation both at once What follows about the different estates of grace and nature we shall consider below in the debate of Ephes 2. 3. only the last words of this paragraph deserve farther consideration The Law sayes Mr. Eyre condemns all men living for that all have sinned The Law doth not consider men as Elâ—ct or Reprobates or as believers or unbelievers but as righteous or sinners The Law will not cease to threaten and condemn believers as long as they live Ans It seems then that the elect and believers are as much under the §. 2. condemnation of the Law as reprobates and unbelievers the Law if I understand these words condemning no man effectually that is holding no man guilty so that he shall need to fear condemnation by the Law unlesse there be some other more effectual cause of his condemnation though the Law condemne him for as much as in it lies or to the utmost of its power or in som respect only but not simply and universally This I think is the meaning of these words but because there may be some other mystery under them which I am not able to reach I shall set down my answer by way of question 1. Whether the elect and believers be not in as much danger of hell fire as the reprobate and unbelievers If it be said as I suppose it must that the danger of both is equal by the Law though some other act of God put a difference betwixt them I would ask 2. What is that curse of the Law which Christ hath redeemed us from for if the Law condemn only for its own part or forasmuch as in it lies but never had power to hold the sinner under an obligation to wrath neither was there any need that Christ should die to redeem us from the curse of that Law nor can we be redeemed because the Law hath the very same power over us after his death yea and after our faith as it had before even by Mr. Eyres concession for it condemnes all men equally without distinction 3. Whether the Law do condemn any man at all yes will it be said so far as its power reacheth which is thus far that he that transgresseth the Law can expect no benefit by the Law or he forseits his right to life and blessednesse by that Law which he hath transgressed Neverthelesse he may at the same time have right to life by some other act of God But 1. Is that saying true or false Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them I will not so much as suspect that any man that is called a Christian will say there was no truth in that threatening and if there be truth in it then he that transgresseth the Law is in a cursed estate till at last he be delivered from it through faith in the blood of Christ and if he be cursed then surely the Law hath more power over him then to deprive him of his right to life as to any help it self can afford him He is cursed who hath no right at all to life if he hath no right by the Law yet is he never a whit the more miserable for that as long as he hath right by any other act of God 2. And if he hath no right by any other act yet is he not condemned The Law indeed doth its part towards his condemnation but it seemes it condemnes him no farther then that as if there be no other act that condemnes him more effectually the sinner remaines uncondemned notwithstanding for to be condemned by the Law is not to be condemned simply in Mr. Eyres sense for believers themselves according to him are condemned by the Law who yet are not simply condemned something more of this notion we must speak by and by But the Assumption is that against which Mr. Eyre makes the most §. 3. professed opposition namely that all the world is under condemnation before faith This Mr. Eyre denies And
why Because it was the Will of God that none of the elect should perish or be condemned Answ True not executively But Mr. Eyre knows we put a difference between perishing and condemnation in this debate and that by condemnation we mean not the execution of punishment or wrath but a legal obligation to the suffering of it And though God did purpose that the elect should not perish or be condemned executively quoad eventum yet should Mr. Eyre prove that he purposed that the elect should not stand obliged equally with other sinners for some time to the suffering of wrath This if he prove I will yield the cause The purpose of God in it selfe makes no difference between men whose cause is the same before the just and impartial Judge Do we not know that a Prince may purpose to save the life of a Malefactour against whom notwithstanding the Law is in force and judgement proceeds and sentence passeth and the man thereby as much obnoxious to death as any other Melefactours till some other act of the Prince besides his meer purpose interpose and prevent his death But of this we have spoken largely already The Assumption namely that all the world is under condemnation §. 4. before faith I proved from the expresse testimony of the Lord Jesus John 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already That is saith Mr. Eyre He that never believeth as chap. 8. 24. If you beleeve not i. e. not at all you shall die in your sins Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that beleeve not by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them All the rest of the answer consents well enough with that Explication of the text which I gave in my Sermon Rep. First for that which is pretended to be our Lords intent in these words let me intreat thee Reader to peruse and ponder the text for I think thou shalt hardly meet with the like abuse of the Oracles of God in any Authour that acknowledgeth the Divinity of Scriptures ver 14. As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Son of man be lifted up ver 15. That whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 16. for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 17. for God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that beleeveth not is condemned already c. Thou seest Reader that the words contain a most serious and faithful testimony to a sinful world that though they had brought upon themselves eternal miseries yet God had sent his Sonne into the world not to condemn the world but to save them and if any man perish 't is not for want of a sufficient remedy provided in the death of Christ but for their own wilful refusal to embrace and make use of it as himselfe tells us ver 19. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Now what sayes Mr. Eyre why he will have us beleeve that the Lords intention is quite against his expression and that he is come to testifie to the world that their misery is certain and inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them It is time to burne our Bibles if such glosses as these must be received for truth 2. If the misery of those that beleeve not be inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law how is this to be understood either that the Law passed sentence upon them as unbelievers but this I suppose is too unreasonable to be affirmed or that the same men who afterwards prove unbelievers were before sentenced by the Law to certain and unavoidable misery But then their unbeliefe contributed nothing to make their misery unavoidable whereas our Lord chargeth the unavoidablenesse of misery upon wilful unbelief ver 19. This is the condemnation not that men are in darknesse but that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Were it not for this men might do well enough notwithstanding all that the Law had done against them Ergo misery is not made certain and inevitable to any by the Law before unbelief be added 3. Mr. Eyre told us but now that the Law condemned all men equally that 's the sense of his words if there be any sense in them The Law saith he doth not consider men as elect or reprobate I know not how it should for the Law is neither God nor man nor Angel as believers or unbelievers c. how comes it then to passe that misery should be made unavoidable to one and not to another by the same Law Next we shall enquire into Mr. Eyres Exposition of ver 18. §. 5. He that beleeveth not is condemned already that is saith he he that never beleeveth which is not only gratis dictum spoken without so much as a pretence of Reason but is manifestly inconsistent with the text Indeed condemnation is executed upon none but final unbelievers but unbelievers in the text are to be understood generally of all unbelievers whatsoever and not to be confined to final unbelievers 1. Such unbelievers are here meant who are part of that world into which Christ is sent for after the Lord had said ver 17. God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world by him might be saved He distributes this world into two parts Beleevers and Unbeleevers ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that believeth not is condemned already But final unbeleevers as such are no part of that world into which Christ is sent for a final unbeleever is he that dies in unbelief if he beleeve but one minute before his death he is not a final unbeleever And Christ is not sent to the dead but to the living 2. Such unbelievers are here meant whom Christ was sent to save ver 16 17. But Christ was not sent to save final unbelievers as such Ergo such unbelievers are not here meant 3. We have also mention of a double condemnation in the text one which Christ findes men under when he comes into the world and which he comes to deliver them from ver 17 18. The other which men are left under for final unbelief and rejecting of Christ the light of life ver 19. This is the condemnation c. for Christ could not finde men condemned for a final rejecting of him till he had been preached and tendered to them Ergo they that beleeve not ver 18. are unbeleevers in general 4. The condemnation here spoken of is
be said that all the world are children of wrath by nature but by grace justified and children of life at the same time If not it must be yeelded that the elect and reprobate are both equally under the same condemnation both equally obnoxious to eternall punishment so long as they continue equally in a natural unregenerate condition 4. The parallel place before-mentioned Colâ—s 2. 13. confirmes all I have said And you being dead in your sinnes and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven you all your trespasses Beleevers then themselves were sometimes dead that is under condemnation and so under it as that they were then without remission of sins for their quickning is by remission and nothing is quickned except it be dead That the elect though children of wrath by nature may yet at the §. 12. same time be the objects of love is nothing to the purpose till that love be proved to be their justification which we have before disproved 2. That the elect are called the children of God before conversion I cannot conceive how it is proved from any or all the texts mentioned if Mr. Eyre had formed any Argument from them it should have had an answer Neverthelesse I acknowledge that elsewhere in Scripture they are so called but metonymically not because they are children properly for the relation of father and children supposeth the existence of the terms on both sides related take away one and the other also is taken away but because they were designed and predestinated to be children according to that of the Apostle Eph. 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself Even as the Lord tells Paul Act. 18. 10. That he had much people in Corinth that is many who were to be made his people by Pauls ministery though before they were not his people 1 Pet. 2. 10. And as God calls Cyrus his shepherd Isa 44. 28. Two hundred years before he was borne because he was designed to such an employment and so he is called not from what he was but from what he was to be as on the contrary others sometimes are named not from what they are but from what they had been in times past Matth. 21. 31. Publicans and harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before you that is such as had been so 3. That it is the good pleasure of God and not any inherent qualiâ—â—cation in us which makes us his children if it be meant of children by Adoption and of that good pleasure of God which is a temporal transient Act is true But it should have been proved that the said good pleasure of God makes us his children without any inherent qualifications in us The Scriptures tell us that we are the children of God by faith Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. and 4. 5. c. 4. I also yeeld that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to infants though they know it not and that so it is also to multitudes of grown Christians But it should be proved that such infants are uncapable of the habit of faith or that their parents faith doth not supply their incapacity as to their justification of which more hereafter SECT III. IN the next place Mr. Eyre gives us an account in what sense the elect though freed from wrath and condemnation may yet §. 13. be said to be under it namely in regard the Law doth terrifie and affright their consciences Rom. 4. 15. In which respect it is called a ministration of wrath and death 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. Answ Whether Mr. Eyres intent in this undertaking be to give another exposition of the elects being children of wrath I cannot tell If it be he must quit the former for this will not consist with that There he told us the elect were children of wrath that is by nature or in themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam abstracting or rather prescinding from any effect of wrath that ever was or was to be upon them But here they are children of wrath in reference to the effects of wrath in their consciences 2. When he sayes the Law is called a ministration of death and condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 9. because it did terrifie and affright the conscience if he mean that this is the only reason why it is so called as if it did not condemn persons as well as their consciences I deny it altogether Death and condemnation when they expound one another as there they do signifie that of the person and not of the conscience only Rom. 5. 16 17. 3. In like manner when the Law is said to work wrath Rom. 4. 15. I deny it to be meant meerly of horrour of conscience but principally of that wrath which excludes them from a right to the heavenly inheritance which right is given by the promise v. 14. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the wâ—rkes of the Law are under the curse Mr. Eyre proceeds The wrath of God haâ—h a threesold acception §. 14. in Scripture 1. It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to inflict upon men the punishment which their sins shall deserve 2. It notes the threatnings of the Law Rom. 1. 18. Psal 6. 1. Hos 11. 9. Jon. 3. 9. 3. The execution of those threatnings Eph. 5. 6. Luk. 21. 23. Matth. 3. 7. The elect are under wrath in the second sense only Answ If the first sense be a Scripture-sense why have we not one word of Scripture to justifie it The reason 's ready because that will of God which we are wont to call Reprobation is neither wrath nor an Act of wrath in Scripture language 2. When Mr. Eyre grants that the elect are subject to the threatnings and comminations of the Law he explaines himself thus The threatnings of the Law do seize upon and arrest their consciences as well as others the Law as a rigid Schoole-master doth never leave to whip and lash them untill they fly unto Christ I asked then 1. Whether that paine and anguish of Spirit which the elect whiles unbeleevers feele be any part of the evil threatned in the Law If it be as most undoubtedly it is then Mr. Eyre contradicts himself in saying the elect are under the threatnings of the Law but not under the execution of them If it be not he contradicts himself againe in saying the Law doth whip and lash them It is not the Law that torments them but somewhat else what it is I cannot tell if their torment be none of that evil which the Law threatneth 2. I would ask also what power there is in these arrests of the Law to make them fly to Christ If by representing to them that they are under condemnation till they lay hold on Christ by faith then they are under condemnation till they believe which Mr. Eyre will not heare of If only that they are damnable in themselves as he
doth afterwards expresse himself they are as lyable to such an arrest of the Law after they believe as before even by Mr. Eyres concession And that word is not like to move a sinner very hastily to seek a change of his condition which will pursue him as much after his condition is changed as before When it is said that the elect are never under the execution of the §. 15. threatnings of the Law that is that the punishments threatned in the Law are never executed upon them if it be meant of the punishments reserved to the world to come it is true but if it be meant of those which are proper to this life it is utterly false Isa 57. 17. and 47. 6. and 54. 7 8. Job 36. 7 11 12. Rom. 5. 12. and 8. 10 20 21 23. 1 Cor. 11. 30 31 32. and 15. 22 26. Jam. 5. 15 16. 1 Joh. 5. 16. and hundreds of other places And this section I have written to follow Mr. Eyre what is his intent in all this himself best knows His conclusion is that the consciences of the elect before faith are under wrath not their persons though it be a rule in Logick that e omnis actio passio est proprie totius compositi and therefore to say the conscience is under wrath e Vid. Ames Thes Log. thâ— 76 in distinction from the person is none of the neatest expressions and then tells his reader that against this I have several exceptions Whereas I never excepted against it at all in the generall but onely as not being sutable to that particular text in John 3. 18. Which I had urged to prove that all unbelievers are in a state of condemnation Nor doth Mr. Eyre answer this text by this distinction though I think I was informed that he was wont so to do which was the reason that I laid in the following Arguments against it and therefore Mr. Eyre might have spared his paines of attempting to answer the said Arguments as not prejudicing that interpretation which he gives of the text Neverthelesse it may be usefull to examine his answers SECT IV. THe first Argument then proving that the condemnation mentioned §. 16. Joh. 3. 18. cannot be meant of condemnation in conscience meerly was this The condemnation which the unbelievers there spoken of are under is the condemnation of the Law which pronounceth all men guilty not only in their own conscience but before God Rom. 3. 19. Mr. Eyre answers that the voyce or sentence of the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law But the elect are discharged from this rigorous Court their cause is judged at another Bar. Rep. The words of the text are these Whatsoever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God The thing which I inferre from this Text compared with Joh. 3. 18. for illustration of which I mentioned it is this That every unbeliever elect or not elect stands guilty that is obliged to punishment in the sight or judgement of God and not only of his own conscience Which to be the true sense of the place is manifest from the importance of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render guilty not only as being the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a debt or f Vid. Eli. Thisb in verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. Sâ—lden do Jure Naâ— Gent l. 1. cap. â— p. 46. obligation but also as being constantly used in the same sense in Greek Authors Therefore g Comment Graec. Ling p. 166. Budaeus expounds it as of the same significancy with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui est obnoxius è re judicatá 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A man condemned or adjudged to punishment though he have not yet suffered it Accordingly Beza upon the place notes well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non tantum declarat judicium quo vel â—bsolvi vel damnari possit aliquis hac enim significatione ipsi etiam filii Dei sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quibus tamen nulla est condemnatio sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. condemnationem declarat sicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now to what Mr. Eyre sayes that the Law doth only declare who §. 17. are damnable in themselves not who are condemned of God it is contrary 1. To himself 2. To sense 3. To reason 1. To himself for remember Reader that I brought in this place as an explication of that in Joh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already Which condemnation Mr. Eyre hath already acknowledged to be by the Law and makes it the condemnation of finall unbelievers onely I did rightly infer if the condemnation there spoken of be that which is by the Law then is it condemnation before God Rom. 3. 19. and not in conscience only which was the thing I was there proving To this Mr. Eyre tells me the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are damnable in themselves How hath it already condemned and that remedilesly the greatest part of the world and yet doth it no more then shew who are damnable in themselves not who are condemned of God me thinks he should at last suspect the truth of that cause which doth so often dash him upon contradictions 2. To sense for I appeale to the experience of all Christians who have felt the work of the Law driving them out of themselves to fly unto Christ whether it have not convinced them not only that they are damnable in themselves for that it will do after they are in Christ as well as before but that they are while out of Christ condemned that is under an obligation and tendency to the suffering of wrath and out of a state of salvation That it doth so is manifest from the first question which a soul upon whom the Law comes with power will aske What shall I do to be saved Act. 2 37. and 16. 30. A question which supposeth him to be convinced by the Law that he is a condemned creature needing not only comfort but salvation that is deliverance from condemnation in which only he can be comforted Now if this be the worke of the Law when brought home by the power of God then must it needs be most true that such a soul is indeed in the state of condemnation till by faith he be passed from death to life and accordingly the Law must be acknowledged to declare not only who are damnable in themselves but who are condemned of God It is also against reason for demonstration of which we must enquire §. 18. what it is for a man to be damnable in himself It implies that there is on his part
sufficient cause of condemnation though he be not actually condemned for want of the concurrence of some other cause but what that actuall condemnation is which is hereby intended to be excluded we must farther enquire Condemnation which we are forced often to observe signifies either the sinners obligation to punishment or the execution of punishment in the former sense he is condemned who by the Law is guilty of death in the latter sense he who is actually damned and suffers the punishment threatned In distinction from one or both of these it is that a man is said to be damnable in himself If from the former the meaning is this That all the world the elect and all have wrought that evill which were most sufficient to work the forfeiture of their right to life and make them lyable to eternal death if there were any Law in force against them If this be the sense Mr. Eyre will have the Apostle speak in when he sayes all the world is become guilty before God marke what follows 1. Then the Law neither doth nor ever did condemn any man living for men are supposed to be damnable and but damnable not actually condemned for want of a Law in sorce to condemn them that is to hold them under an obligation to punishment The Law doth but shew its teeth pardon the expression reader but it neither doth nor ever did bite any man no not the most presumptuous transgressours of it though transgressours be as fit objects as can be for the Law to take hold of if it had power so to do Hence secondly I would ask whether ever God did condemn any man If he did by what Act not by the Law that shews indeed who are damnable in themselves not who are condemned of God I suppose it will be said that some are condemned by the eternall Act of Reprobation â—ut I leave it to Mr. Eyre to prove that the name or nature of condemnation can agree to that Act according to Scripture which if he cannot prove as sure enough he cannot nor all the men on earth it must needs follow that there is no such thing as the condemnation of any man according to Scripture Against this sense of the text I could adde much more if I could perswade my self to think that it were needful for the help of any man But it may be this damnability is opposed to damnation executed §. 19. and then the meaning is That the Law doth not shew whom God damneth that is punisheth with damnation but who are damnable or punishable in themselves if God should try and judge them according to the Law But 1. This is nothing to the purpose It is no part of my undertaking to prove that every one who at present is an unbeliever is damned as that word notes the execution of damnation or wrath actually inflicted but that he is condemned that is under a legal obligation to punishment till some gracious act of God discharge him When therefore Mr. Eyre opposeth that men are not condemned by the Law but damnable he fights with a shadow for he that is damnable executively is condemned legally which is that I am proving for it is the work of judgement to execute Laws and to give to every man according to what is due to him by Law if then upon supposition that men were to be tried and judged by the Law of works they would be found damnable it must be also supposed that they were before obliged by Law to the suffering of damnation 2. Otherwise the Law is but the carcasse of a Law and called a Law equivocally as we call a dead man a man for example There was a Law in Israel that whosoever should not humble himself upon the day of expiation should be cut off Lev. 16. which Law is now abrogated Neverthelesse it may be truly said that if a Jew who now keeps not that day were to be tried and judged by that Law he would be found punishable If it be said that Law is now abrogated and so no man incurres the penalty upon the non-observance of it It is most true yet may he be said to be punishable by it in sensu diviso in the very same sense in which Mr. Eyre allows sinners to be damnable by the Law of works namely upon supposition it were in force to make the penalty due and sinners were to be tried and judged by it 3. And was it not worth the while for the Lord Jesus to come down from heaven to redeem sinners from the curse of the Law and that at no easier a rate then by being made a curse for them when the Law never cursed or condemned any man but only shews who are damnable in themselves if they should be judged by the Law From which way of judgement the Elect are supposed to be secured by an antecedent act of God SECT V. MY second Argument to prove that the condemnation mentioned §. 19. John 3. 18. cannot be meant meerly of condemnation in conscience was this The condemnation of an unbelievers conscience is either true or false If true then it is according to the judgement of God and speaks as the thing is and so God condemns as well as the conscience If false c. Mr. Eyre answers There is a threefold act of conscience about sin 1. When it witnesseth to us about the desart of sin 2. When it witnesseth to us concerning the act of sin 3. When it witnesseth to us concerning our final state and condition before God Now if conscience bear witnesse to a man concerning what he hath done and what is his desart in so doing it doth but its duty But if it tell a man that for the sins which he hath done he is a damned creature and must perish everlastingly such a conscience is both penally and sinfully evil Rep. The Argument is wholly untouched For the question is not whether an unbelievers conscience condemn him truly in reference to his final estate but whether it condemn him truly in reference to his present state If it tell him that at present he is in a state of condemnation doth it speak true or false Herein Mr. Eyre will not answer me but saith only that if it tell him his case is desperate and without hope it speaks false I need not tell Mr. Eyre that his answer is impertinent I am perswaded he knows it well enough conscience may tell an unbeliever that he is condemned and herein it speaketh true though it do not tell him that there is no way of coming out of this state of condemnation which were false 2. The two former answers also are not much to purpose for to witnesse concerning the act and desart of sin is as proper to the conscience of a believer as of an unbeliever whereas our question is only concerning the unbelievers conscience And if this be the whole of what conscience can justly charge upon an unbeliever then is the
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
if they be both in the very same bond and obligation hath some thing of truth in it though then also the surety hath the same action against the debtour which the creditor had before otherwise it is most notoriously false and the contrary determined frequently in the y I. in summa l. Si poenae D. de condict in deb l Si quid possessor ff de Pet. Haered l. Papin ff Maâ—d civil Law If the payment of the surety do presently discharge the debtour it is because he agrees with the creditour that the payment which he makes shall be accepted for the present and immediate discharge of the debtour which is the second thing I beganne to mention before and shall now farther explaine The death of Christ being not the very same which was in the obligation therefore that it may be effectual for our deliverance there is a double act required on Gods part to whom this payment is made the one is to admit or give way that satisfaction be made the other factam ratam habere to accept it when made and consequently to discharge and free the debtour for Christs satisfaction was admitted that our obligation might he destroyed by the intervening act of God the supream Governour of mankind Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation that he may be the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Moreover Christ being not a sinner but a surety and his payment not the payment of the principal debtour but of a surety therefore it is in his power to agree whether his payment shall be accepted and be effectual for the discharge of the sinner presently or for some time to come absolutely or upon condition Whence by the way appears what little strength there is in Mr. Eyres second exception viz. That Christs payment is lesse efficacious then if we had paid our selves if we be not thereby discharged presently because Christs satisfaction produceth its effects according to the agreement between his Father and himself and no otherwise and the virtue of it is to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect which could not be wrought by any meer created cause whether it produce it sooner or later upon condition or without Wherefore if we prove that the Father and Son agreed that none §. 35. should have actual discharge by the death of Christ till they do beleeve we carry the cause by Mr Eyres owne judgement Yet in yielding thus much he hath not a little prejudiced the authority of his own determinations so I call them because he lays them downe so peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proofe How often doth he tell us before and after this concession that our discharge in the death of Christ must needs be present and immediate as pag. 68. § 7. Our discharge from the Law was â— not to be sub termino or in diem but present and immediate And in this chapter § 13. The death of Christ as it is a satisfaction or payment so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate As if it were a contradiction in the nature of the thing that we should not presently be discharged if Christ hath made satisfaction And yet here yeelds that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Sonne the discharge obtained in Christs satisfaction may be suspended It is therefore a thing possible that Christ may have satisfied and yet we the elect I mean not be presently discharged And what then means the must needs were it a thing denyed it were easie to give innumerable instances of satisfaction made when yet the person for whom it is made is not presently freed but because it is not denied I hasten to the service which Mr. Eyre challengeth me to performe with a promise that if it be performed he will yeeld the cause and that is to shew that it was the will of the Father and of the Sonne that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do beleeve For proofe of this I quoted the words of the Lord Jesus wherein §. 36. he gives us an account both of his own and his Fathers will in this matter Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life To which Mr. Eyre answers This Text and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit thâ—y that beleeve Rep. An answer which lets me see something of what the wit of man can do in darkening plaine testimonies whose sense is obvious at first view even to vulgar capacities This is not the first time we have met with this answer in Mr. Eyre and it hath been already convicted and cast by more then a jury of Arguments in â—hap 5. 8. two places and therefore here I shall speak but briefly to it 1. Iâ— this and the like Texts do only shew â—â—o are the persons that have the enjoyment of Christs benefits namely beleevers then either they shew that beleevers as such in seâ—s◠〈◊〉 are the subjects of that life which is here promised and then I have what I would have for if men as beleevers are the subjects of this life then the prooâ—â—s full that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are beleevers much lesse before they are borne and least of all at the time of the death of Christ nor was it the will of the Father or of the Sonne that they should so do Or the meaning is that the persons who enjoy this life are such whose property and priviledge it is to be beleevers some time or other sooner or later though they may not be beleevers when they first begin to partake therein and so they are described à câ—nsâ—quenti from their faith as a consequent of their first partaking in this life And if so I shall return Mr. Eyre his offer namely that if he will shew me but one place of Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation wherein persons that shall enjoy a benefit are described from the consequent of that benefit with a distributive particle preposed such as is the particle whosoever in the present Text and I will yeeld him the cause at lest so farre forth as it is concerned in these Texts But if Mr. Eyre cannot give one instance of the like phrase of speech in all the Bible as I know he cannot then let him take heed least he become guilty of that which he doth elsewhere groundlesly charge upon me I meane of attempting to suborne the spirit to serve his own turne And what I speak of the description of a person in order to his receiving of a benefit is true also in respect of any evil threatned How many hundreds of times are such sentences in Scripture As for example Matth. 5. 22. Whosoever is
of our first Justification but the first simple act of faith and perseverance in the faith to the end the condition of final Justification as Paul also doth 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith From HENCEFORTH there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousnesse c. So Rev. 2. 17. To him that overcometh will I give a white stone c. of which we have spoken before Wherefore I deny that which should be Mr. Eyres Assumption viz. That it was the Will of God that the elect should be perfectly and compleatly reconciled or justified whilest they live in thâ—â— world The reasons of which denial I have already given at large and shall not now repeat them And whereas Mr. Eyre thinks much â—â—at the elect should be denied perfect reconciliation not only till they beleeve but not till death He may be pleased to understand that I deny them to be perfectly justified or reconciled till the resurrection For as long as any enmity remaines undestroyed they are not perfectly reconciled But all enmity is not destroyed till the resurrection 1 Corinth 15. 25 26. And what hath Mr. Eyre against it words and nothing else §. 23. 1 Saith he innumerable Scriptures declare that the Saints are perfectly justified Aâ—sw But doth not quote us so much as one and a good reason why 2. That nothing shall be able to separate from Gods love Answ Not for ever but for a time it may tilâ— all enemies be subdued the last of which is Death The happinesse which the soule enjoyes in the mean time is its own not the happinesse of the person as our Lords Argument supposeth Mâ—t. 22. 31 32. 3. Justification is as full and perfect as ever it shall be it doth not grow and increase but is perfect at first â—nsw Prove it it grows in the renewed acts of pardon Hâ—l 12. 17 1 Johâ— 2. 1. 2. â—or God doth multiply â—orgivenesses Isâ— 55. 7. It grows in the perfection of its parts whereof the most absolute and compleat is our Justification in the day of judgement It grows in the perfection of its effects which are begun in the soule first and so take place upon the body and the whole man Râ—m 8. 10 11 23. Paul expected a farther participation in the righteousnesse of Christ then he attained to in this life Gal. 5. 5. Phil. 3. 8 9 11. 4. Baptisme saith Mr. Eyre which seales to us the forgivenesse of all our sins is administred but once in all our life-time to shew that our Justification is done all at once Answ Baptisme seals that Promise by which all sins past are forgiven f Luke 3. 3. Mâ—rk 1. 4. and all sins future shall be forgiven when committed the sinner continuing in the faith of Jesus Christ from which if he fall away it is impossible that he should be renewed again to repentance Hebr. 6. 6. or be capable of having another Covenant made or sealed to him by which his sins may be remitted Heb. 10. 29. Mr. Eyre here addes some texts of Scripture Ezek. 16. 8 9. Acts 13. 39. 1 John 1. 7. Col. 2. 13 14. to what purpose I cannot imagine unlesse it be to prove that all sins are forgiven at once for neither of these texts speak a word of Baptisme If he mean all sins past are forgiven upon the first act of faith I have granted it but if he mean all sins to come also it lies upon him to prove it that is that sins not committed are sins SECT IV. THe eleventh Argument proceeds thus If it were the Will of §. 24. God that the death of Christ should certainly and infallibly procure the reconciliation of his Elect then surely it was not the Will of God that it should depend on termes and conditions on their part because that which depends upon future conditions is as to the event altogether uncertain Answ 1. Neither doth this Argument prove that we are justified immediately in the death of Christ or before we beleeve 2. I deny the consequence with the proof of it for although that which depends upon future conditions as to the event be uncertain as the word uncertain signifies the same with contingent for it is a true rule in the Civil Law f L. Si pupillus ff de N vat Conditio necessaria non suspendit dispositionem yet is this uncertainty or contingency to be understood in reference to man and the second and immediate causes of a things existence not in reference to God to whom even contingent events g Vidâ— doctisfimum D. Ramum Schol. Dialect l. 5 c 6. are as certain as if they were necessary we shall make strange work in Divinity if events shall be denied to be contingent in their own nature because in reference to Gods Will or knowledge they are certain and infallible and so far forth necessary for example God did will the certain and infallible saâ—ety of all those that were in the ship with Paul Acts 27. 24. yet neverthelesse it came not to passe but upon condition of their abiding in the ship without the performance of which condition they had perished ver 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved And Mr. Eyre might easily have foreseen that this Argument wounds himself as much as us He acknowledgeth the Covenant made with Adam to have been conditional and in that very thing placeth the main difference between it and the Covenant of grace obedience then was the condition of Adams continuance in life and sin of his death But did not God know that Adam would sin and will to permit it or will Mr. Eyre deny this because his death was suspended upon a future condition and therefore was altogether uncertain as to the event Physician heal thy selfe It is by the Will of God that contingent things come to passe contingently Nor is the twelfth argument more happy If God willed this §. 25. blessing to the elect but conditionally then he willed their reconciliation and Justification no more then their non-reconciliation and condemnation for if he willed their Justification only in case they should beleeve and repent then he willed their damnation in case they do not beleeve and repent Ergo he willed their Justification no more then their damnation contrary to John 6. 38 39. and 17. 21 22 24. Answ h Vide Amyrâ—ldâ—m Spâ—â—im Animâ—d Speciâ—l coâ—tra Spâ—â—hâ—m à p. 146. ad siuâ—m libri Out of doubt God willeth the damnation even of the elect themselves in case they do not beleeve and repent though that case supposeth what is not to be supposed without more dâ—stinctions then my present matter will permit me to digresse into but Mr. Eyres inference that therefore he wills their damnation as much as their Justification is meerly drawn in without any disposition in it selfe to follow for the Promâ—se of remission upon condition of faith