common person is the act of them whom he represents But Christs satisfaction merits redemption and perfect obedience are not our act so as that we can be said to have satisfied merited redeemed our selves perfectly obeyed the Law and borne the curse thereof things for ever impossible for sinners to do Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6. Ergo they are not representable as doing of them Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth But the Scripture is expresse that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned so is it by the one righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ that all are justified Romanes 5. 17 18. The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another consideration §. 12. and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection then in his death Nevertheless neither in that do I approve the tearme unlesse it be understood in the second sense mentioned for the reason already given And to what Mr. Eyre addes of Parents being examples to their children he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example but the exemplary cause of our Justification Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners but they are not exemplary causes thereof This for the fallacie 2. Saith Mr. Eyre it is impertinent because Christs discharge §. 13. may be ours though we did not choose him but God did constitute and appoint him to be the Head Surety and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam and yet his sin was imputed to us Answ 1. Nor do I intend any thing more in changing the terme of a common person into that of an exemplary cause then to expresse that preheminence which Christ hath as in all things else so in his Justification which the terme of a common person is so farre from doing as that it supposeth the just contrary for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own as his whom he represents As what an Ambassadour doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings and what is done to him as such is more properly done to the King then to him In like manner if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us then are we properly the first risers from the dead and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours 2. That God appointed his Sonne to be the Head Surety and common Person of the Elect is a contradiction if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyres sense for one that represents others in what he doth and in what is done to him Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect so the Scriptures call him and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us But the common Person described as such is neither Head nor Surety because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly none other do the like and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them the case is the same in what he receives or in what is done to him as Head and Surety 3. Concerning Adam I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyres sense of that phrase and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him we have already largely opened His sin is indeed imputed unto us not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it for that is in it selfe an errour of falshood and besides is contrary to the Apostle who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many who never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression neither in individuo nor in specie Rom. 5. 14. but because by vertue of that sin we his children stand obliged to the suffering of death natural he being the common Parent who by Covenant received righteousnesse and life to be communicated to his children if himself continued obedient otherwise to lose it both to himself and us That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyres argument §. 14. is inferring our Justification before saith from our Justification in some sense in the Resurrection of Christ I said we may as justly inferre that our Resurrection is past already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justification is past before we beleeve because we are in some sense justified in Christ We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer Ergo we are sanctified before faith In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little purpose the summe of them is Our personal Resurrection necessarily supposeth our life and death But to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt c. Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand and Justification on the other is plain and obvious but the whole strength of Mr. Eyres Argument lieth in this one thing that we were justified in Christ as a common person Now if our rising in Christ as a common person will not infer that our Resurrection is before faith then neither is our Justification proved to be before faith because we were justified in Christ as a common person and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection â—t must be upon some other account then because we were justified in him as a common person 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny not publickly for feare of the people that we are risen in Christ as a common person Christ saith he fully merited our Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ a strange and unheard of interpretation that we should be said to be raised with Christ because he in his death merited our Resurrection which might have been true though himself had never been raised but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising a phrase not used in Scripture but admitted by me as agreeable or not contrary thereunto not for our Justification in him as a common person but for his merit or purchase of our Justification Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too though very privately and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words It is saith he no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Râ—surrection though we are not risen as to say he hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for to say a debt is discharged and yet justly chargeable is a contradiction Purchased why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection were really and formally the discharge of sinners and not whether he purchased
hath been transacted between God and Christ And doth not Mr. Eyre see that if he yield it to have the nature and operation of a Law in discharging sinners he contradicts himself in his next answer wherein he denies that Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared act that is by a Law Indeed such a Gospel as he here speaks of may declare the sinner to be discharged by some former act but it selfe cannot be his discharge and therefore the answer is nothing to the purpose 2. The atonement made by Christ may be said to be perfect two wayes 1. In respect of it self and so it was most perfect as wanting nothing that was requisite to constitute or make it a compleat cause of our peace 2. In reference to its effects and so it is yet imperfect and shall continue so till the Saints be glorified because till then they shall not have the full effect or perfection of peace purchased in the death of Christ If Mr Eyre mean this latter sense when he sayes the Gospel declares a full and perfect atonement made by Christ he begs the question In the former I grant it 3. And so that the Elect were cleansed from their sins in the death of Christ quoad impetrationem because he obtained eternal redemption and cleansing for them but not quoad applicationem till they do beleeve because the remission purchased in the death of Christ is not applied or given to us till we believe 4. Though the Priest made an atonement for all the sins of Israel upon the day of expiation Lev. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themselves and humbling their soules on that day ver 23. otherwise they should have no benefit by that atonement Lev. 23. 29. Whatsoever soule shall not be afflicted on that same day he shall be cut off from among his people Is not this to teach us that without faith and repentance we shall not have remission by the death of Christ Secondly Mr. Eyre denies the Proposition which stands upon §. 2. this ground That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act Where note Reader that by a declared act I mean not an act of God declaring and manifesting to a sinner that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth willingly mistake me and thereupon patcheth a non-sequitur upon me which I intend not to unstitch but such a declaration of his will as is essential to make it a Law for the very essence of a Law consisteth in this that it is the declared will of the Law-giver Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11 12 13 14 15 16 c. which is the only rule that determines both de debito officii of what shall be our duty to do and de debito poenae praemii of what rewards or penalties shall become due to us Accordingly the thing I maintain is that our discharge from punishment due by Law must be by the revealed will that is by some contrary Law or Constitution of God And I very well remember that in private conference with Mr. Eyre about nine or ten yeares since I told him my judgement was so then and that our Divines were generally dark in opening the nature of Justification for want of taking notice of it to which he then consented But Tempora mutantur c. the thing it self I thus proved Sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. Ergo neither is righteousnesse imputed without Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it yet God may for his hating of a person is his imputing of sin The scope of Rom. 5. 13. is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently that there was a Law before the Law of Moses Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre indeed think that when it is said Sin is not imputed where there is no Law the meaning should be men will not impute sin to themselves where there is no Law To impute sin hath but two senses in Scripture 1. To punish it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and then the meaning is that men will not punish themselves where there is no Law and because the punishment which the Apostle doth here instance in is death therefore the full sense will be this that men will not kill themselves where there is no Law a very probable glosse Or 2. To accuse or charge the guilt of sin upon a person But the use of the Word will not allow us to understand it of a mans imputing or charging sin upon himself a Vid Guil. Esthi in loc For it is never used in all the Scriptures to signifie the act of a man upon himself but perpetually the act of another as Paul to Philemon ver 18. If he owe thee any thing impute it to me especially when it is put passively as here it is sin is not imputed See Rom. 4. throughout 3. And I do heartily wish Mr. Eyre would have given us a short paraphrase upon the thirteenth and fourteenth verses that we might have seen what tolerable sense could have been made of them according to his Exposition and whether the Apostle do affirme or deny that men did impute sin to themselves before the Law especially if the Apostles scope be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely to shew that sin in being supposeth a Law how can it be conducible to that scope to speak of mens not imputing sin to themselves without a Law 4. The grand designe of the Apostle is plainly to illustrate our salvation by Christ by comparison of contraries and the similitude in its full explication stands thus As by the disobedience of Adam sin and death entred upon all his children so by the obedience of Christ life and righteousnesse betides all his The Proposition is set down ver 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned This is proved ver 13 14. and the summe of the proof as I take it is this Sin was imputed and that unto death from the beginning of the world Ergo there must be some Law in being according to which sin was imputed for it cannot be imputed where there is no Law ver 13. This Law must be either the Law of Moses or the Law given to Adam The former it cannot be for sin and death were in the world long before that Law was given even as long as from Adam to Moses ver 14. Ergo it must be the Law given to Adam And so hath the Apostle his purpose That it was by the disobedience of one namely Adam that sin entred into the world and death by sin From whence it is manifest that God doth never impute sin without a Law that is doth
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
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
righteousnesse as our natural being in the first Adam to our partaking in his condemnation Yea. 3. It is a great deal more necessary and therefore I deny §. 6 Mr. Eyres consequence for though it were yielded that condemnation comes on men only by the Law of Adam yet will it by no means follow that Justification descends to us from Christ as the immediate effect of that Law or Covenant by which himselfe was justified The reason is plain because Adam represented all mankind as virtually in the same obligation with himself b Vide Paul Ferrium scholast Orthod spe c. 20 §. 3. and his offence was the act of the whole humane nature though it be not imputed to particular persons till they begin to exist and his condemnation was so far forth the condemnation of all mankinde it being the very same sentence that condemneth both him and us But Christ Jesus represented no man as in the same obligation with himselfe either in his obedience or Justification otherwise we are justified by works or he by grace for we must be acknowledged to have satisfied Gods justice in him and to have merited eternal life in him in the very same propriety of speech as we are said to have sinned and dyed in Adam which I will never beleeve while I live because it excludes grace altogether from having any hand in the justification of a sinner The grace of our justification is usually placed in these c See the Assemb confes cap. 11. §. 3. two things 1. In that Christ was given freely of the Father for us 2. And his obedience and â—â—tisfaction accepted in our stead But in neither of these is there any grace at all if we have merited and satisfied in him as we are said to sin and die or be condemned in Adam For the Law it self will allow us to make satisfaction if we are able for it inflicts the penalty but in ordâ—r to satisfaction and the punishment of sinners is not eternall but because they cannot satisfie by bearing it But if we have satisfied in Christ it seems we were able to do it â—b esse ad posse valet consequentia And justice it self will accept of satisfaction being performed And as God deals not more rigorously with us in condemning us then he did with Adam in condemning him so neither doth he deale any whit more mercifully with us in justifying us then he did with Christ in justifying him if his satisfaction and justification be ours in the same sense in which Adams sinne and condemnation is ours How much safer is it to say with the Scripture He is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9. 12. then to talke of our being in him a propitiation for our owne sinnes or of purchasing in him redemption for our selves The conclusion is the Law that justified Christ cannot justifie us though the law that condemned Adam were yeelded to be the only law that condemneth us which yet I have already denyed Ergâ— there must be some other Law according to which sinners are justified and that is that Law of grace preached in the Gospel whosoever beleeveth shall be saved called the law of faith Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. 4. No saith Mr. Eyre those places are to be understood of the §. 7. new covenant made with Christ not of the conditionall promise as I would have it Rep. Which is spoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyres disputing that is dictating I acknowledge my selfe unworthy to be compared with him in any respect yet the truth if he think himself in the truth is worthy of a more laborious defense then a frigid so 't is or 't is not so though I may not be worthy of a better answer I am perswaded himself will acknowledge that the propriety of the phrases favours me and he doth not so much as pretend to any Argument hat may compell me to understand them improperly 1. For the law of faith it is expresly opposed to the law of works Where is boasting then it is excluded By what law of works nay but by the law of faith The law of works is the law that requires us to performe works that we may be justified Ergo the law of faith is the law which requires faith unto justification even that doctrine which manifesteth the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ without the works of the law as he had before described it v. 21 22. Thus Beza Evangelium vocat legem fidei id est doctrinum quae salutem propâ—nit sub conditione si credideris opposâ—tam doctrinae quae justitiam salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris To the same purpose Paraeus Aretius Hemmingius c. And therefore the Apostle having said that the law of faith excludes boasting he addes immediatly v. 28. we conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law To put faith for Christ is such a piece of boldnesse as I dare not adventure upon as much as Mr. Eyre challength me for my forehead The reasons are mentioned before 2. And as for the law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. it is called the righteousnesse which is of faith in the very next foregoing verse v. 30. And I would Mr. Eyre would tell us how we may otherwise make sense of the Apostle when he sayes the Gentiles attained it by faith v. 30. and the Jews fell short of it by stumbling at Christ through unbelief v. 31. And a few verses below chap. 10. 6. the Apostle calls it the righteousnesse which is of faith and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach the voyce and tenour of which he describes v. 9. If thâ—u shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved and all this in opposition to the righteousnesse of the law which the Jews sought after the summe of which is comprehended in these words The man that doth them shall live by them v. 5. Hence it is manifest that the law of righteousnesse is that by which only righteousness is attainable and that is the Gospel-promise of justifying them that beleeve in Jesus though they be not able to fulfill the Law of Moses SECT II. IN the next place Mr. Eyre offers us some Arguments to prove §. 8. that justification is not the discharge of a sinner by that signall conditionall promise of the Gospel he that believes shall be saved Let us try then for whereas he censures that saying of mine every man is then condemned when the Law condemnes him I stay not to answer him he might have seen if he would that I intended no more then that whosoever is condemned is condemned by a Law What then are the Arguments The first is crambe bis shall I say or
adde Dâ—ut 30 from v. 11. to the end of the chapter §. 17. 4. And whereas Mr. Eyre tells us again that the Purpose of Gods Will doth sufficiently secure the sinner and make the Law of condemnation to be of no force as to the real execution of it we have before shewed at large the mischievous consequences of this doctrine If this be so to what purpose imaginable did Christ die at least there was no need he should die to redeem us from the curse of an abrogated Law which by an eternal Act was made of no force at all to condemne Before when the satisfaction and merits of Christ lay at stake for the credit of an eternal Justification Mr. Eyre was content to yield them this honour that they purchased the effects though not the act of Justification which effect he told us was our non-punition But here he tells us that the purpose of Gods Will doth sufficiently secure us from punishment which though I confesse it be more rationally spoken because that act is most unworthy to be called the cause of our non-punition or non-condemnation which is not able to effect it without the help of another more sufficient cause yet is it most perniciously spoken as not leaving so much as the effects of our Justification and by consequence excluding both act and effects from any dependance upon the merits of Christ for their existence 2. Were Adam and Eve either or both obliged by the Law to punishment upon their disobedience or no If not their sin did them no harme nor was there any truth in that severe commination In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die and it is past dispute they died by force of that Law and all their posterity to this day Rom. 5. 12 13 14. 1 Cor. 15. 22 56. And if so then was not that Law made of no force by the eternal purpose of God for if that Purpose of God do not hinder but that men are legally obliged to condemnation upon breach of the Law neither will Gods Justice and Faithfulnesse permit that they go unpunished unlesse his Law be satisfied some other way Numb 23. 19. God is not a man that he should lie neither the Son of man that he should repent hath he said and shall he not do it or hath he speken and shall he not make it good Therefore it is that we have before denied that there is in God any purpose precisely of not punishing 3. The Supreme Magistrate may neglect the execution of Laws with impunity to himselfe because if he be Supreme he is not accountable to any other humane authority but not without such a Prostitution of the authority of his Lawes and the honour of his own Government to contempt and obloqâ—y as God will never endure to be cast upon Himselfe or his Law by men or devils His Honour and his Lawes are dearer to him then a thousand worlds M. Eyre answers thirdly the publishing of an act of grace is for the § 17. comfort of an offendor rather then for any need the Magistrate hath thereof as the act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it passed the House So the publication of the New Covenant was for the comfort of Gods Elect and not for their security in foro Dei Rep. Our question is not precisely what is the end of promulgation but what is the effect of the Law promulged which say I is to give offendors a right to impunity which Mr. Eyre cannot deny though it be very true that such a Law be also for the comfort of an offendor namely secondarily and consequenter for it comforts him in that it gives him a right to deliverance from deserved punishment His right and his comfort are not opposites but both the effects of the same Law and the latter subordinate to the former so that hitherto there is nothing that contradicts me 2. It is also true that it is not the Magistrate who needs an act of grace but offendors need it for if the same authority which bound them under punishment do not also discharge them from it they cannot legally escape it 3. When it is said the Act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it passed the House it hath reference to what I said in my Sermon That a Vote in the House or a Declaration that an Act of Pardon shall come out is no legal security to a Delinquent by which I intended to declare that neither the Purpose of God within himself but the Law of grace which in time he established according to his eternal purpose was that act which pardoned the sinner which if Mr. Eyre would have contradicted he should have affirmed that the meer purpose or resolution of the House to make such an Act is that very pardon which dischargeth Delinquents The Act it self being once passed may be yielded to be a Law as being the declared will of the Lawgivers constituting a right to impunity though by printing writing or proclamation it be afterwards made more publick Neverthelesse I expected some proof that it is a compleat Law before publishing if after the pâ—sâ—ng it had been i Nic. vig. de Drâ—is Iust Jur. c. 1. p. 8. c. 2 p. 1â— ordered not to be published till some moneths or a yeare after I much question whether in that interim it had been Law or no though I am not so well acquainted with the customes of our own Nation as to determine peremptorily The Senatus-Consulta amongst the Romanes had not the force of a Law before publishing But it is quite besides our question to debate what promulgation is necessary to the compleating of a Law It cannot be denied but that when subjects are involved in common guilt as all the world is before God their pardon must be by Law which is as much as I needed or intended for illustration of the way and manner of Gods forgiving us by the Gospel or Law of grace He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life which because Mr. Eyre denies not disproves for that 's impossible it being a truth of God we shall yet farther evince by the following Arguments SECT III. ANd first from Mat. 28. 18 19. compared with Mark 16. §. 18. 15 16. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned from hence I inferre 1. That God hath given unto Christ the Kingdome and Government over all men 2. That this Government containes a power of remitting sins 3. That this power is exercised in enacting that gracious Law He that believes shall be saved for so doth the Lord speak Go ye therefore into all the world c. which particle therefore I have borrowed from Matthew ver 19. and put it into
ruv. var. Resol l. 1. c. 14. in continenti presently If he say this right is given them sub termino or in diem as if I give Titius ten pounds when he comes to the age of twenty one so God gives ungodly men a right to heaven but they cannot enjoy it till they beleeve yet even thus it must be acknowledged that they have more right when they beleeve then they had before as Titius hath more right to what I gave him at the age of twenty one then he had before for he had before but a remote right jus ad rem and at that age he hath an immediate right But neither will this which Mr. Eyre must stick to or to nothing salve the sore partly because the day when a wicked man shall repent and beleeve is in it self contingent and uncertain in its self I say because it is known to God but Gods knowledge alters not the nature of things he knows what events shall come to passe contingently and what necessarily Now dies incerta aequiparatur conditioni what is given upon an uncertain day is all one as if it were given upon condition according to the determination of the z I. Stipulatio ista §. inter certam ff de verb. oblig Civil Law as if I promise ten pounds to Titius upon the day of his marriage it is all one as if I promised it upon condition he marry and if God promise ungodly men to give them heaven when they beleeve it is all one as if he promise it on condition they beleeve which Mr. Eyre cannot away with Partly and principally which also is my second Argument for proof of the consequence because the right which is given a man to the Kingdome by Justification according to Scriptures is independent upon time so that if he die the very next moment that he is justified he shall and must be saved yea such an immediate and necessary dependance there is of the Kingdome upon Justification that nothing more is required to make a man morally and immediately capable of inheriting the Kingdome but that he be justified Rom. 8. 30. Whom he justified them he glorified See also Rom. 5. 9 10 17 18 21. Tit. 3. 7. and other texts before mentioned all importing such an immediate connexion between Justification and the inheritance that though no other change be made in a mans state yet being justified he shall be saved Ergo if the elect have right to heaven while they are ungodly they must be saved whether ever they be converted to the faith of Christ or no. No saith Mr. Eyre it will not follow because Christ hath §. 24. purchased faith and God hath purposed to give it as well as glory Rep. Both which I grant in thesi but if Mr. Eyre will take in the hypothesis too and tell us that God did purpose and Christ did purchase faith for a people that had right to heaven before I shall desire him to prove it for I am not like to beleeve it Yet I am out of doubt that God never purposed faith to any such person but to such as are aliens strangers and forreigners that they through faith might partake in the rights and liberties and immunities of his Kingdom Eph. 3. 5 6 9 11. For 2. Give me leave to ask To what end should God purpose to give faith if men have right to the Kingdom without it It must be purposed either as a means to the obtaining of righteousnesse and life and then I have what I would for then no man hath a right to heaven but by faith and if any man hath right without it the gift of faith as to them in order to that end is utterly needlesse and superfluous or it is purposed as part of the natural essential perfection of mans nature unto which he is restored by Christ and this I deny at least I am very doubtful of it and desire it may be proved a Vide 〈◊〉 in Sent l. 4 dist 14 ◠19. ad 3. There are some things which in themselves are perfections of mans nature as love to God and our neighbour and all the vertues pertaining to the first or second table that faith which Adam had in his innocency and the frame of righteousnesse in which he was created Other things are no vertues at all but upon supposition of sin and do alwayes imply imperfection as shame for sin brokennesse of heart repentance and faith in a Mediatour as it signifies an abnegation of our own righteousnesse and a dependance upon another for righteousnesse These of the latte◠sort are no part of the essential perfection of man yea they do essentially suppose imperfection for faith in a Mediatour is at an b Vide Aquin. 1. ◠ae q. 9◠art 3◠o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠end when we shall be perfected in glory 1 Pet. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 7. there being no farther use of it nor object for it for even Christ himself as it seem◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cease to be a Mediatour after he hath brought all his redeemed ones unto God 1 Cor. 15. 24 27 28. though the vertue and effects of his Mediatourship abide for ever Faith it selfe therefore being no part of our inheritance nor meanes of obtaining it upon Mr. Eyres supposal that it is no meanes of obtaining right to it it remaines that it is not necessary to any mans salvation and then what should hinder but that men may be saved without it 3. If this be the true reason why the elect in their ungodlinesse cannot inherit heaven though then they have right to it namely because they have not that as yet which God is purposed to give them before they go to heaven then their incapacity of heaven even while they live in all manner of wickednesse is not at all privative or positive but purely negative that is they are therefore uncapable of heaven not because the Law or sin or any thing they do deprives them of the possession of heaven but because God hath not done what his purpose is to do in all whom he intends to glorifie Wilt thou see Reader what are the issues of this Gospel 1. Hereby sin is made of a like necessity to the enjoyment of Heaven as faith for he that purposed to bring the elect to heaven purposed also that they should be sinners ipso permittente by his permission And so for example Adam and Eve while they were innocent had a right to heaven but they could not enjoy it till they had sinned because he that purposed to give them heaven purposed also to permit them first to sin 2. Yea so far was sin from being their hindrance that it was their furtherance rather for having sinned the more was over and past of those things which God had appointed should go before their salvation and so by their sin they became nearer heaven then they were before 3. And on the contrary the purpose of giving
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
of the same kinde with our condemnation in Adam it is manifest it must be understood of reconciliation in the cause not in the effect Nor let it trouble the Reader that the Apostle speaks as if the effect §. 21. were wrought we were reconciled for nothing more common in Scripture then to speak of the effect as wrought when provision is made of a sufficient cause by which it shall or may be wrought Ezek. 24. 13. I have purged thee and thou wast not purged that is there was nothing wanting on Gods part that might conduce to her purging though the effect did not follow Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven not that every person and Nation had then heard the Gospel for they have not yet heard it but that by Gods permission and commandment they might hear it Christ hath abolished death 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely he is the authour and cause of its abolition or he hath abolished it quoad meritum for death is not destroyed de facto quoad effectum till the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 26 54. so in verbs of active signification Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God is powerful piercing to the dividing asunder c. Psal 19. 7 8. converting making wise rejoycing the heart enlightening the eyes all which do not so much signifie the act as the vertue and sufficiency of the cause In like manner when Christ is said to be the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2. 2. it is to be understood of the vertue and sufficiency of his blood to take away sin not of a propitiation then presently wrought and effected for there is none such before faith if the Apostle may be beleeved Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Multitudes of like instances are obvious A third Argument is that mentioned in my Sermon out of v. 11. §. 22. By whom we have now also received the atonement which in plainer termes is this That now that is since we are believers we are actually reconciled unto God Mr. Eyre answers 1. That I might as well argue that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15. 20. Now is Christ risen Ergo he was not risen before he wrote that Epistle Or from Eph. 2. 2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo he did not work in them before Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre then think that the particle now in this place is to be taken in the same sense as in those if he doth his next answer is a nullity if he doth not he might have spared this The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now hath several uses sometimes it is a meer supplement or redundancy Psal 39. 7. sometimes a note of transition as when it is said Now it came to passe sometimes of a continued act as Eph. 2. 2. Heb. 9. 24. sometimes of a supposition Rom. 8. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. sometimes of opposition or of assumption 1 Cor. 15. 20. Heb. 11. 16. but most commonly and naturally of time and particularly of the time of mens being converted Rom. 6. 19 21 22. and 1â— 30. Gal. 2. 20. and 4. 9. and elsewhere often so is it taken here as being distinguished from the time of the death of Christ ver 10. and superadding some other benefit then what was effected immediately in his death namely the receiving of reconciliation neither of which are to be found in either of the places mentioned by Mr. Eyre nor will any of the other sense of the word comport with this place His second answer therefore is We cannot receive or apply reconciliation to our selves but by faith yet it follows not that God did not account it to us before Rep. The accounting of reconciliation to us is an expression I never heard before 2. Justification and reconciliation are here used to signifie the same thing Ergo to receive the atonement is all one with the receiving of Justification or pardon of sin as Acts 26. 18. and 10. 43. which we have shewed before cannot be meant of our knowing our sins to be pardoned SECT V. FOr farther Explication of the difference between our reconciliation §. 23. in the death of Christ and after our believing I observed out of Grotius a distinction of three periods of the Will of God 1. As it may be conceived immediately after sin committed before the consideration of the death of Christ And now is the Lord at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and meanes by which he may returne to friendship with him again 2. As it may be conceived after the death of Christ and now is the Lord not only appeasable but doth also promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such â—â—â—mes as himself shall propose 3. As. the same Will of God may be considered after an intercession on Christs part and faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner Against any of these particulars Mr. Eyre excepts nothing but exclaims against the whole as extreamly grosse and why forsooth because it makes God changeable But as grosse as it is not our Protestants only but the Scriptures also own every syllable of it nor will the satisfaction of Christ stand without it God was in friendship with Adam while he continued righteous and without sin I conceive it is next to an impossibility that the righteous Lord should be at enmity with a righteous man who neither is a sinner nor in the room of a sinner After Adam had sinned was not God at enmity with him Yes surely unlesse Christ be dead in vaine by his death we were reconciled while we were enemies After the death of Christ God is reconciled unto sinners Lo here God is a friend an enemy and reconciled again and is this such monstrous Divinity with Mr. Eyre But for the Readers farther information I shall endeavour to shew how God may be first a friend then an enemy then reconciled without any variablenesse or shadow of changing in himselfe and then shall adde a word or two more concerning our reconciliation in the death of Christ and so return to Mr. Eyre Reconciliation is the redintegration or renewing of friendship §. 24. g Vide Arist ad Nichom 8. 2 7. and friendship is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those who may be equally serviceable one unto another in any office of love and friendly communication of good in a way of arithmetical proportion or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those that are of unequal condition the one excelling the other in dignity or age or power between whom there cannot therefore be any reciprocal communication of good but in a way of geometrical proportion he that is of low degree and meaner rank imparting love and honour and observance to him that is of high
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
requires of us Let him clear it up from Scripture lâ—t him shew us the text that saith that God hath purposed to have Infants in one way and men in another 3. And yet I know not whether he hath so much charity to Infants as to allow them any room in the Kingdome of Heaven he cannot if his Argument be good for the text is expresse Mark 16. He that believeth not shall be damned and Infants are uncapable of believing for they cannot hear the Word nor have they any knowledge of good or evil nor doth God save them in one way and men in another 4. But to what he speaks here of the incapacity of Infants having the seed or habit of grace the answer is easie It is true they know neither good nor evil but it will not follow I trow that they are neither good nor evil They have the habits of sin in them even whiles they are uncapable of the act Ergo they are capable of the habits of grace too otherwise sin and grace were not contraries for contraria tribuuntur eidem And it is certain that as all are now borne in sinne so all should have been borne righteous if Adam the father of us all had not transgressed And to the second exception viz. That faith cometh by hearing §. 15. of the Word preached Rom. 10. 17. the same answer will suffice faith may be considered either in its compleat act and so no doubt it comes by hearing the reason is rendred by the Apostle in the same chapter ver 14. How shall they beleeve on him of whom they have not heard Or 2. In its seed root or habit and so I deny that it is alwayes and in all persons wrought by hearing of the Word preached The Christian and godly instructions of Parents as they are ordained of God to be a meanes of instilling his feare into the hearts of their children Eph. 6. 4. Isa 28. 9 10 11. so are they not unfrequently blessed with successe according to the capacity of children as in Timothy 2 Tim. 3. 14 15. And sometimes God by his own immediate working may inspire that grace into the heart of an Infant which it is not possible any means should be used by men to effect David seems to have been gracious from a childe Psal 22. 9 10. and 71. 5 6. and Isaac Gâ—l 4. 29. and Christ blessed Infants Mark 10. 16. and he blesseth by doing or working that in them which godly Parents can do no more then desire may be done when they are said to blesse their children But we have a famous instance which puts all out of doubt of John §. 16. the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mothers womb Luke 1. 15. What sayes Mr. Eyre to this He cites these words and gives answer to others a great way off ver 41. whereupon Mary's salutation of Elizabeth the babe is said to leap in her wombe and tells us That this exultation Divinitús facta est in Infante non Humanitùs ab Infante and therefore is not to be drawn into an example or urged as a rule to us what to think of others Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus We cite the words of v. 15. and so doth Mr. Eyre too to prove Infants capable of the habit of grace and he answers to v. 41. which is no part of the objection he had proposed against himself But whereas he sayes it is not to be urged as a rule to us what to think of other Infants he should have given us the reason too for it proves invincibly that Infants are capable of the habits of grace which is all intended to be proved by it and by consequence that Mr. Eyres two Arguments to the contrary from Infants want of knowledge and inability to hear are nothing worth d Viâ—â— Bâ—coâ—m de side â—ustif Q â—1 per tot Ergo the Scriptures contradict not them that say Infants may have the seed of faith Nor yet do they say any thing contrary to Scripture who assert §. 17. that Infants performe the conditions of reconciliation and salvation by their Parents forasmuch as it is manifest throughout the Scriptures that Infants follow the condition of their Parents whether they be the Infants of Gentiles or of the people of God And as the former are strangers from the Câ—venant together with their Parents and thereby liable to all the evils that accompany such a condition Ezra 10. 3. Deut. 7. 2 3 6. Isa 56. 3. so doth the Lord claim a special right and propriety in the children of his people Ezek. 16. 20 21. in regard of which they are called holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. the greater is their sacriledge who refuse to giâ—e unto God the things that are Gods but will needs have their children kept at liberty to choose whether they will serve God or the devil when they come up to ripenesse of understanding which relation of theirs to God as some of his people and of him to them as their God by vertue of their Parents faith Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Nehem. 9. 8. for never since the world was made did God make a Covenant with a faithful man the blessings and beneâ—it of which should reach no farther then his own person witnesse his Covenant with Adam Noah Abraham Jacob Phineas David c. doth signally include the Promise of pardon of sin Jer. 31. 33 34. and 32. 38 39 42. And if Noahs faith was available to the saving not of himself only but his family also Heb. 11. 7. and the faith of godly Parents for the life of their children Matth. 15. 28. John 4. 50 51. I see no reason why it should be denied to be of as great acceptance with God for the salvation of such of them as die in their infancy Yet a double Argument Mr. Eyre hath against it 1. Hence §. 18. it will follow that all the children of believing Parents are justified which he supposeth no man will say Answ But he might have known that the Lutherans say so and that without any great inconvenience which I am able to foresee That which I apprehend will be readiest objected against it though Mr. Eyre object not it nor any thing else is that many children of godly Parents live and die in sin Ergo They were never justified But this inference will not passe for it will be answered That the Parents faith remains no longer the condition of his childes pardon and salvation then during the state of infancy when he is growen up to the use of his own understanding and will a personal faith of his own is required upon the same termes of necessity as of others who from their birth were without God and strangers from his Covenant Israel in Egypt is likened to a child Ezek. 16. 5 6 c. Hos 11. 1. and in Gods dealing with them there when they were in their Infant-age we have a type and embleme of
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
exemplary cause rather then of a common person I give the Reader a little below 2. And that our Divines do usually call Christ a common person is a thing so well known that M. Eyre should not need to have quoted my Grandfather Parker to convince me of it He should have shewed that they call him so in such a sense as cannot be expressed by the tearm of an exemplary cause So doth not my Grandfather at least in the point of Christs resurrection of which he there speaks not a word but m Do descens lib. 4 sect 75. elsewhere saies with Athanasius Anima Christi descensum suum ad inferos peregit ab inferis resurrectionem produxit ut nostrae resurrectionis imaginem concinnaret which in sense is the very same that I say concerning Christs becoming an exemplary cause in his resurrection 3. Nor are our Divines such strangers to the use of that expression as M. Eyre represents them n Sound Beleev pag 79. 80. edit 1653. M. Shepheard useth it verbatim There is saith he a merited justification by Christs death and a virtual or exemplary justification in Christs resurrection as our head and surety So o Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. th 16 17. Dr. Amese finis resurrectionis fuit ut se justificatum alios justificantem ostenderet 5. ut resurrectionis nostrae tam spiritualis quà m corporalis hypostasin exemplar initiatio fieret Christus enim exemplaris causa est nostrae resurrectionis ut à morte resurgens p Lud. Croc. s Theol. l. 2. cap. 12. p. 353. So others His last Argument is that this expression savours rankly of Pelagianisme §. 9. and Socinianisme For they make the second Adam a meer paterne and example of our reconciliation Rep. I have read indeed concerning the Pelagians that they deny the propagation of Adams sin any otherwise then by imitation and that the Socinians say Christ shews us the way of salvation by the example of his own life I know But if I who thankfully acknowledge our Lords merits and satisfaction and live by the faith thereof am yet guilty of Pelagianisme and Socinianisme for affirming that as in all things else so in his justification he had this preeminence above others as not only to be justified himself but to become the justifying cause of others after his own paterne and similitude I am content to beare the reproach of both SECT II. IN the next place I gave the Reader an account why I used the §. 10. tearme of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person in these words I use the tearme of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Common-wealth but Christ is such a common person as that he is the cause of those whom he represents in every thing in which he represents them This excuse saith M. Eyre is both fallacious and impertinent Fallacious because it seems to intimate that an exemplary cause doth expresse as much as a common person which is clearly false for the act of the exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents Parents are examples to their children not common persons Rep. Know Reader first that we are not now speaking of our active voluntary imitation of Christ in duties of obedience but of our being passively conformed and fashioned like him in the participation of his spiritual blessings according to our condition and capacity Thus in our justification do we bear his image and partake in his likenesse who as he was the first borne from the dead so is he the first borne of them that are justified forasmuch as his resurrection was his justification And as our resurrection from death whensoever it shall be exists by virtue of his Joh 14. 19. He being risen as the first fruits of them that slept 1 Cor. 15. 20. So also doth our justification 2. This being premised I adde that to say that Christ in his resurrection was the exemplary cause of our justification is far more pertinent and significant then to say we were then justified in him as a common person especially according to M. Eyres use of that tearme of which more presently the reason is ready because the former phrase expresseth the influence which his justification hath upon ours and the dependance which ours hath upon his which the latter doth not for to be justified in another as a common person doth neither declare his justification to be the cause of ours nor ours the effect of his could we have delegated a person to have received from God that sentence of absolution in our names as Israel sent up Moses into the mount we had all of us been justified as immediately as himself nor had our justification had any dependance upon his though we had then been justified in him as a common person 3. Wherefore as to the tearme of a common person concerning which I have made a more toylesome search into the civil law and those few Civilians which I have then the moment of the matter requires it may be understood in a double sense either 1. fictione suppositi when a person by a kinde of civil metempseuchosis doth so represent another in what he doth or is done to him as that the same things are said to be done by or to the person whom he represents As Ambassadours represent the person of the Princes that employ them what they do as such is reputed the act of the Prince that sends them forth and what is done to them as such is reputed as done to him We do or receive that which our Attorney doth or receives in our name Or 2. Ex re gestâ when a person doth that in the effects of which be they good or evil others partake as well as himself Thus the punishment of high treason is common with the Traitour to his children though he do not represent them neither in offending nor in being punished Thus a Surety payes his money as a common person because the Debtour as well as himself if no compact hinder hath the benefit of a discharge though he do not represent the debtour in making payment In this latter sense I readily acknowledge that Christ was a common Person in his Death and Resurrection because we receive the benefit of both in our measure and kinde as well as himself And in this sense an exemplary cause expresseth as much and somewhat more then a common person But Mr. Eyre will have Christ to be a common person in the former §. 11. sense and that as well in his Death as his Resurrection That he was so in his death I deny roundly The reason is that for which Mr. Eyre chooseth to call him a common person rather then an exemplary cause because saith he the act of a