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
God this great change I say is a huge nothing for saith he a little below to be just and unjust is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person The Elect themselves then even when believers are children of wrath by nature yea of the Saints in glory considered according to what they are by nature it may be said that they are children of wrath And is not that a great change from wrath to reconciliation which leaves a man every whit as much a childe of wrath as he was before 5. I beleeve with Mr. Eyre that the Will or Purpose of God makes no change in a persons state but I wonder what he meanes by the reason added As if saith he God had first a Will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them As if God could not will a mutation in the creature without a mutation in his own Will He made the world by his Will and he also wills the dissolution of it after such a period of time this is a mutation in the world but none in God In like manner he may will that the elect for a time shall stand obliged by Law to the suffering of condemnation and yet also will that after a time this obligation shall cease and all this without any change in his will But we shall prove hereafter that is not the Will of Gods purpose but his declared Lawes by which a sinner is constituted just or unjust But let us come to a more close encounter Justification saith the §. 16. objection imports a change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum And if Scriptures be intelligible by the sons of men it cannot be denied Rom. 5. 8 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified in his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him Whether we are justified by the blood of Christ without faith or through faith we reserve to be debated in its proper place for the present it sufficeth us to observe from hence that Justification makes a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum in sensu forensi And what can mans reason require more for proof of it then these words afford Had the Apostle said You were sometimes cold but now you are hot you were sometimes servants but now you are free you were sometimes enemies but now you are friends he would scarcely be accounted a reasonable creature that should deny such expressions to import a mutation from one terme to another And must not then the like change be signified when he saith You were sometime sinners but now you are justified especially if we consider which I perceivâ— all men do not observe that the word sinners by which the Apostle expresseth their state before Justification doth not signifie precisely transgressours of the Law for even they that are justified are in that regard sinners 1 John 1. 8 10. Nor yet only and precisely such as are under the reigning power of sin though it be true that all the unjustified are so because their sinful condition is here opposed not to Sanctification formally but unto Justification And they of all men that maintain Justification to be perfect in the death of Christ may not so understand the word sinners in this place For these Romanes for example were not sinners after their Justification in that sense in which the Apostle tells them they were sinners befâ—re their Justification for the time of their being sinners is directly opposed to the time of their Justification But if they were justified immediately in the death of Christ it is beyond dispute that sin might and did reigne in them after this Justification even until the time of their Conversion unto the faith By sinners therefore in this place are meant such sinners as were by Law bound over to condemnation and had not at present any right to deliverance from wrath for that right was given them in their Justification as appears by the Apostles arguing à majori ad minus being now justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much more shall we be saved from wrath Nor is it unfrequent in Scripture by the word sinner to signifie a maâ— obliged to punishment see 1 Kings 1. 21. Gen. 43. 9. Rom. 5. 15 Gal. 3. 22. especially as m Inâ—iâ— l. 3. c. 11. â— 3. Calvin well observes according tâ— the Hebrew Dialect Vbi etiam scelesti vocantur non modò qui sibi conscii sunt sceleris sed qui judicium damnationis subeunt Neque enim Bersabe 1 Reg. 1 21. dum se Solâ—monem dicit fore scelestos crimen agnoscit sed probro se filium expositum iri conqueritur ut numerentur inter reprobos damnatos Hence the Hebrew n Vid. Joâ— Merâ—er Hâ—u Aâ—n w. iâ— Gâ—r 43 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin doth sometimes signifie precisely an obligation yea when it results from a fact which is not sinful As the Nazarite that was defiled against his will by the touch of a dead body is yet commanded to offer a sin-offering the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the reason is added because he sinned by the dead Numb 6. 11. that is Reus est tacti cadaveris And what was offered for the cleansing of leapers and of men and women for natural and unavoidable defilements is called an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 14. 19. and 15. 15 30. If now Mr. Eyre shall say that when the Apostle sayes much more §. 17. being now justified c. he speaks not of the act but of the effects of Justification I reply 1. It is not lawful for man to teach the Holy Ghost to speak The Apostle tells us that God commendeth his love towards us in giving Christ to die for us while we were sinners that we might be justified in his blood ver 8 9. therefore that which in God is the cause of our Justification in the blood of Christ is his love and so to be called 2. If yet it shall be said that that love of God is our Justification then whereas it is said God so loved us as to justifie us in the blood of his Sonne it must be said henceforward God so justified us as to justifie us in the blood of his Sonne which is ridiculous 3. If temporal Justification in the blood of Christ be but the effect of a former Justification which was from eternity what an empty noise hath the Apostle made in amplifying the love of God in giving Christ to die for the Justification of sinners and enemies whosoever is justified is not a sinner in the Apostles sense of that word but righteous not an enemie but reconciled 4. The Apostle if his judgement may be taken doth thus distinguish the act and the effects of Justification that the act is that by which of sinners we are made
revelation or enthusiastical inspiration the expression were much more tolerable 4. To the instance of a Malefactour that may be pardoned though he do not know it till a great while after I answer in the words of k Christ set forth p. 26 â—7 Reverend Dr. Godwin Gods Promises of forgivenesse are not as the pardons of a Prince which meerly contain an expression of his royal word for pardoning But as if a Prince should offer to pardon a Traitour upon marriage with his childe whom in and with that pardon he offers in such a relation So as all that would have pardon must first seek out for his childe and thus it is in the matter of believing The Promises hang all upon Christ and without him there is no interest to be had in them He that hath the Sonne hath life 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor To Acts 13. 39. Mr. Eyre answers That the Apostle shews §. 14. the excellency of the Gospel above the Law in that 1. The Law did not cleanse from all sin 2. And but in an external typical manner 3. And that by sacrifice after sacrifice c. Rep. All which things I readily grant Yet 1. Some kinde of pardon there was under the Law which did necessarily suppose a coming unto those sacrifices Heb. 10. 1. The people were not first pardoned and then came to the offering of sacrifice or to the Priest So doth also the more perfect pardon under the Gospel necessarily presuppose a coming by faith to the true High-Priest the Lord Jesus that sinners may partake therein 2. When the Scriptures do so constantly require faith unto Justification and faith only for proof of which Mr. Eyre confesseth my Concordance would furnish me with many more places then I have taken notice of I will never be brought to beleeve that it is required as a consequent of Justification for all Christian graces and duties are required as consequents as well as faith even by Mr. Eyres grant Nor yet that by Justification is meant our knowledge and assurance that we are justified because unto that also many other things may be required and not faith only As for example self-examination and proving of our selves 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence in adding one grace to another 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 10. a good conscience towards God and man and a keeping of the Commandments of Christ 1 John 3. 20 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren 1 John 3. 18 19 14. and the like And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts proving Faith's antecedency to Justification By all which the Reader may see that when I said the only answer made to these Texts was That Justification is to be understood of that which is evidenced in conscience this account is true and perfect though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect there being not one of all the places mentioned but what he answers to by such a temperament of the word Justification It was therefore necessary that I should prove that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God and not of that which is in the Court of Conscience To which end I advanced foure Arguments in my Sermon the asserting of which against Mr. Eyres exceptions is my next undertaking CHAP. IV. An Answer to Mr. Eyres eighth Chapter and part of the Ninth His saying and unsaying Many Arguments proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is to be taken proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is be taken properly for the faith in us and not for Christ Faith and works how opposed in the matter of Justification That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification virtually or axiomatically or syllogistically Sinners according to Mr. Eyre the causes of their own Justification Nor is Justification taken properly in all the Scriptures as he expounds it SECT I. THe first Argument proving that when the Apostle §. 1. pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God or in the sight of God and not in the Court of Conscience is this The Question between him and the Jewes was not whether we were declared to be justified by faith or works but whether we were justified by faith or works in the sight of God And he concludes that it is by faith and not by works Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants but will have the Apostle by the word faith to understand not the act or habit of faith but the object scil Christs righteousnesse or righteousnesse imputed His reason is because else there were no opposition between faith and works seeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no lesse then love Yet when the Apostle disputes for Justification by faith Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct opposition to works and for the imputation of faith unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. still as opposed to works ver 4 5. we were told that justifying and imputing were the manifestation of Justification and Imputation But now we have another answer which overthrows the former namely that faith is to be taken for Christ and his righteousnesse What aileth thee O Jordan that thou art turned backward Yea he will not allow that the Apostle hath any question with them about the time when or the conâ—tion upon which we are justified Yet I think all men besides himself will grant that his designe is to shew the way and meanes by which a sinner may come to be justified Though I confesse I see not how Mr. Eyre can grant this For if the Justification of all that are justified be absolute and perfect in the death of Christ as he supposeth then from that time there can no way be prescribed to a sinner no counsel given him what course to take that he may be justified Only he may be told that if he be justified the way to know it is to beleeve And when the Jewes say We must be justified by works and the Apostle By faith they are both out for we are justified by neither And the Gentiles were in an errour in seeking to be justified by faith as well as the Jewes in seeking it by works if they seek any thing more then to know that they are justified But because Mr. Eyre doth so often take Sanctuary at this notion §. 2. that saith is put for its object Christ and his righteousnesse though he give us not one text that may convince us of it we must of necessity examine the truth of it And yet when I consider how presumptuous and irrational the conceit is in it selfe and how solidly already confuted by Mr. a De reâ— onâ— pâ—c par 2. l 1. c. 15. Wotton who also hath set down the testimonies of no lesse then fourty Authours Fathers and Protestants besides Papists all
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
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
told them If Christ were not risâ—n they were yet in their sins seeing they were discharged and acquitted from them so long before 3. His intercession is also vain for he lives to intercede for us to save us from wrath Rom. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 17. and 7. 25. We are secured from wrath before sayes Mr. Eyre 4. Our preaching is vain for we are to preach to every creature under Heaven That except they beleeve they shall be damned Mark 16. 15 16. and multitudes even all the Elect are secured from wrath before 5. It doth also imply a contradiction that a man should be acquitted from sin who was never a sinner or discharged from condemnation who was never condemned If it be said the Elect were sinners and condemned in Gods fore-knowledge Mr. Eyre is better read in Dr. Twisse then to be ignorant of what inextricable inconveniences that answer is liable to But let us heare Mr. Eyres proofes of his Assumption God saith he loved the Elect from everlasting and his love is velle dare bonum c. Answ Which as was observed before is one of the g Vid. Croll Cont. Grot. cap 5. par 6. 7. cap. 1 p. 1. Socinians weapons by which they attempt the ruine of Christs satisfaction against which our Divines have provided sufficient armour A love of benevolence or good will moving God to seek out a way of satisfaction to his own Justice and of Justification of a sinner we readily grant h Vid Joh. Cameron oper p. 361. f. But his love of friendship and well-pleasednesse with a sinner was not from everlasting but in time as being a consequent of the death of Christ in whom he hath made us accepted Eph. 1. 6. as Mr. Eyre doth not only yield but contend below from Mat. 3. 17. and so saith the Apostle Rom. 9. 25. I will call her beloved who was not beloved out of the Prophet Hos 2. 23. and as for the text which Mr. Eyre quotes Ezek. 16. 6. I cannot divine to what end it is unlesse it be to finde me work seeing the love there spoken of is manifestly temporal ver 8. and the life mentioned ver 6. in the latter is the flourishing and honourable condition unto which God had raised Israel both in respect of their Politick and Church-State who were originally the fewest and meanest of all people and in a spiritual sense is the life which he breaths into sinful soules But what Mr. Eyre would inferre from hence himselfe best knows In short I readily grant that Gods eternal love doth concurre ut causa universalis prima as the first universal cause not only to our Justification in time but to all other our spiritual blessings but an universal cause produceth nothing without particulars and the quality of the effect is not to be ascribed to the universal but to the particular cause 2. Mr. Eyre is proving that Gods velle non punire is that act by which we are discharged and acquitted from sin and secured from wrath I wish he had shewed me how this Conclusion issues from these premisses His Argument in forme must run thus Gods eternal love discharges the Elect from sin and secures them from wrath Gods velle non punire is his eternal love Ergo. The major is already disproved The minor if understood of the love of God in whole confounds Election and Justification which yet Mr. Eyre is careful to distinguish a little below for what is Gods Election but his Love or his velle dare bonum If of the Love of God in part the Argument will run thus That which is part of Gods eternal love is a sinners discharge from sin Gods velle non punire is part of his eternal love Ergo. If the major be true Gods purpose of giving Christ of calling sinners of sanctifying them yea of afflicting them and of administring any Providence towards them which in the issue proves for their good may as well be called their Justification as his velle non punire 3. Mr. Eyre hath already granted at least verbo tenus that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish the Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others If this be true then the eternal act of Gods Election in it selfe considered gives the Elect themselves no more security from wrath then if they had not been elected Surely that concession will never be reconciled with the doctrine here delivered But we come on to Mr. Eyres second proof and that is from §. 10. Scripture Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Proposition is either an universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or an universal affirmative All elect persons are free from the charge of sin Answ Mr. Eyre should have put in the Apostles answer to the Question and then he had prevented mine The words are these Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that justifieth Hence it follows either negatively that no elect person being justified can be effectually charged with sin or affirmatively that all the elect that are justified are free from such a charge free I say not because elect but because justified for the charging of sin is manifestly opposed not to their Election but to their Justification but that their Justification is their Election or any part of it or contemporary with it as I may so speak is an inference without any foundation in the text 2. Yea it cannot be inferred according to Mr. Eyres principles though we should grant the Election here spoken of to be that which is from eternity of which presently for the Justification here spoken of is that which is grounded in the death of Jesus Christ Who shall condemn it is Christ that died But the eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre is pleading for from the text is not grounded in the death of Christ for it is an Act in God from eternity Now observe Reader that Mr. Eyre denies Christ to have merited the Act of Justification but only the effects I would know then whether the Apostle speak of the Act or effects of Justification in those words Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect if of the Act then the Elect were from eternity unchargeable and whose charge then did Christ beare and why doth Mr. Eyre all along tell us that our discharge from the curse is the fruit of Christs merits yea and what more as to the tâ—rminus à quo of our salvation I say what more could Christ merit possibly then that we should not be chargeable with sin And if that were done before by an eternal act there will be no effects of Justification left for Christ to merit as to our deliverance from sin But if the Justification here spoken of be meant not of the act but of the effects Mr. Eyre will grant me without
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
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
article But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise for he believes as much as the Scripture reports If it be said that a man cannot assent to the one but he must assent to the other I think so too But the ground of it is because it is against reason not because it is against faith and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason not purely of faith which was that I was to demonstrate The Conclusion is there can be no way imagined in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification but one of those three mentioned Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth but we have shewed that it must be reduced to one of these three and so differs in name only not in thing But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these wayes Therefore faith must be said to justifie in some other respect then that it doth evidence Justification or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all SECT VIII MY third Argument comes next in place That Interpretation §. 32. of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification is not true The Reason is because our Justification by faith in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith meerly for a Justification in our own consciences is to make us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification Ergo it is not to be admitted Mr. Eyre before he answers the Argument reformes my expressions and sayes That he doth not say that Justification by faith is meerly a Justification in conscience faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ c. Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly is an impertinent quarrel he doth it too frequently and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ he answers meerly so And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ we have already shewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God But I must tell him it is most intolerable dealing to build so large a discourse as is the greatest part of his book upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on The one is when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof The other when he pleaseth to put faith for its object Christ When such a weight is laid upon these foundations had it not been necessary to shew us the places to clear and vindicate them where these words must have this sense and no other But to the answer for this is nothing but a delay This it is The pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of our Justification but the imputing of righteousnesse which is the Act of God alone Ministers may pronounce us just without robbery done to God So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution c. Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded and the sinner thereby §. 33. made his own Justifier 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will it matters not much in the present case The Justification which in Scripture is said to be by faith is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22 24 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty to justifie us through faith therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences that is of our justifying our selves without setting up our selves in the Throne of God Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world as a friend to Papists for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification because he thinks it will follow thence that men may be said to justifie themselves But I see one may better steal a horse then another look over the hedge 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just I acknowledge to be a little too narrow as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement but I do therein also include Justificationem juris the act of God by the Law of grace that is the Promise of the Gospel giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ And this is formalissimè the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God saith r Medul theol l. 1. c. 27 thes 12. Dr. Ames Now that Justification which is in Scriptures said to be by faith is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin Rom. 4. 2 5. compared with ver 6. 11 24. Ergo by Mr. Eyres concession it is only Gods act and no creature can be joyned with him therein without robbery done to him But we do joyne with him by faith in imputing righteousnesse to our selves if imputing righteousnesse to believers be their knowing by faith that righteousnesse is imputed to them as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before in answer to Rom. 4. 24. 3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justifie §. 34. sinners yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justifie them that beleeve for that is an act proper to himself I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins John 20. 23. namely s Vid. Calv. in loc Altham concil loc pugn cap. 194. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis 3. pag. 65. because it comes to passe upon every one according to the Word which they preached He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdomes to root out and to pull down to build and to plant Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they but the Word which they preached which did justifie or condemn and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles but as moral instruments Such as they also were in raising the dead healing the sick converting of sinners and the like All which works were wrought immediately by God himself immediatione virtutis without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man But when we are said to be justified by faith if the meaning be that by faith we know our selves to be justified in this case faith hath a true proper immediate and real efficiency in our Justification And it
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
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
that which is avoidable and is actually avoided by beleeving Ergo it is not the condemnation of final unbeleevers The Antecedent I proved in my Sermon from ver 36. He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him implying that the wrath of God by the Law is upon every sinner for he is condemned already yet not so necessarily and remedilesly but that by beleeving he may escape it but if he beleeves not then it abides on him To this Mr. Eyre tells me That to say the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborne the Spirit to serve our turne A short way of answering Arguments y Contra Crell p. 452 453. This very interpretation doth Essenius vindicate at large against Mr. Eyres friends in the point of eternal reconciliation the Socinians and urgeth the significancy of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abideth according to its constant use in Scripture though I stand not so much upon the bare word The same interpretation doth z Tract 14. in Joan. Non dicit Ira dei venit ad eum sed manet super eum c. Augustine give of it and many others Protestants and Papists Chemnitius a Analys in loc Piscator Aretius Beza Dyke Jansenius Tolet Ferus c. Who being such professed enemies in religion cannot be rationally suspected of a confederacy against the Spirit I had thought a Minister might have said not only to each man distributively but to the whole world collectively if he were able to speak to their hearing believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved without being guilty of suborning the Spirit to serve his own turne And yet surely in so saying he doth more then hint that the wrath of God may be escaped by believing 5. And that I do not erre in the meaning of the holy Ghost I am yet farther convinced because the Lord came not into the world to §. 6. give life simply but to give salvation v. 17. that is to give life to them that were dead Ergo they whom he saves were dead de jure or de facto as the Apostle argues 2 Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all then were all dead And to be dead in Law is to be under condemnation Now whom doth Christ save not final unbeleevers but such as are unbeleevers for a time only Ergo they who are now beleevers were sometime under condemnation or else Christ never saved them If they are only condemned in themselves or by the Law in that diminutive respective sense in which Mr. Eyre useth that phrase they are never a whit the more in danger of perishing for that and therefore not capable of being saved properly 6. The comparison which our Lord proposeth v. 14 15. and upon which this whole discourse dependeth puts it yet farther out of doubt As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wildernesse even so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have eternal life Concerning which words we debaâ—e more particularly under the third generall Argument following and therefore here I shall only make some brief observations upon the coâ—parison and passe on 1. As then the people for whom the serpent was lifted up were all mortally stung of the fiery serpents see the story it self Numb 21. 6 7 8 9. So is all the world become subject to condemnation through sin for the people that were stung in the type are the world in the Antitype and their mortal wound there is condemnation here by our Lords own exposition v. 16 17 19. 2. That as the serpent was by Gods appointment lifted up in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed of the mortal bites of the fiery serpent and live so is the Sonne of man lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life by Gods appointment in like manner v. 15 16. 3. That as the serpent was not lifted up to destroy any of the people for they were mortally wounded before but to heale them so Christ was not sent into the world to condemn the world for they are condemned already but to save them v. 17. 4. Yet they that looked not on the serpent so lifted up did thereby procure unto themselves a certaine death because it was to be absolutely unavoydable by any other means whatsoever so they that beleeve not on the Sonne of God but love darknesse rather then light do thereby procure to themselves certaine and remedilesse condemnation v. 18 19. There remaining no more sacrifice for sin as the Apostle speaks Heb. 10. 29. Hence I deduce these four Corollaries 1. That condemnation lyes upon all men without difference for sin 2. Yet there is a remedy and way of escape from this condemnation revealed in the Gospel 3. That the way to escape condemnation is to beleeve on Jesus Christ 4. The contempt of Christ by positive unbelief makes condemnation unavoidable Ergo every man in the world whiles an unbeleever or so long as he continues in unbelief is under condemnation And as to the Text which Mr. Eyre brings in for illustration §. 7. Joh 8. 24. If you beleeve not you shall die in your sins I consent to Mr. Eyres interpretation that the meaning is if you beleeve not at all or if you never beleeve you shall die in your sins And it informes us in the truth of those two things which I have been hitherto contending for 1. That because of their sins they became lyable to eternall death 2. That yet their condemnation was not peremptory and irrevocable unlesse to all their other sins they added unbelief final for if at any time they did beleeve they should escape that wrath which was due to them for sinne As when Paul saies Act. 27. 31. Except these men abide in the ship you cannot be saved He shews them that they were in eminent danger of perishing in the waters and yet that they might be safe enough if the men aforesaid continued in the ship That place therefore makes against Mr. Eyre altogether SECT II. BEfore we speak any further of this place we must attend M. §. 8. Eyre who interposeth another Text which I mentioned not under this but under the former Argument to the same purpose and that is Eph. 2. 3. Where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to eternall life chap. 1. 4. that they were by nature children of wrath as well as others Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they wâ—re under condemnation before conversion Rep. This might have been spared if this text had been answered in the place where I produced it and so it may yet for wrath and condemnation often signifie one and the same thing in Scripture Joh. 3. 19 36. 1 Thes 1. 10. Rom. 1. 17 18. 2.
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
it 3. In the mean time I must confesse to Mr. Eyre I do not understand what he means to tell us of a wall of partition raised between God and the elect What are they justified and all their sins pardoned and that from eternity and yet is there a wall of partition between God and them Is pardoned sinne able to separate between the soul and God Woe to poore sinners if this be true But let us see his Scriptures for one Text of Scripture is of more §. 12. consequence to me then a hundred such Arguments they are these Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 13 14. Colâ—ss 1. 20 21. and 2. 13 14. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rep. To Ephes 1. 6 7. we have answered before and have shewed from the very letter of the Text that it doth not only not exclude faith from being necessary to Gods acceptance of us but also doth necessarily include it Eph. 2. 13 14. speaks not of a partition wall between God and sinners but between Jews and Gentiles The words are these But now in Christ Jesus yea who sometimes were afarre of are made nigh by the blood of Christ for he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us Indeed in ver 16. there is mention made of reconciliation unto God but such as throws down the wall and bulwarks which Mr. Eyre would build upon it And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Crosse having slain the enmity thereby Can any thing be more plain then that Jewes and Gentiles are first made one body by faith before they are actually reconciled to God by the vertue of the Crosse of Christ Therefore holy Bayne observes well upon the place That we must get fellowship with Christ we must be incorporated with him and with believers before we can be reconciled with him And surely this incorporation is by faith ver 13. 17 20. chap. 3. 6 12. and 4. 4. John 10. 16. The same I say to Col. 1. 20 21. And having made peace or making §. 13. peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the blood of his Crosse by him to reconcile all things to himselfe by him I say whether they be things in earth or things in heaven And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your minde by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death c. Doth not the Apostle speak as plainly as it is possible for mans tongue to utter it that by the body and death of Christ these Colossians were reconciled now which particle now is expressely opposed to the time wherein they were alienated and enemies in their mindes by wicked works I shall here transcribe something of a reverend and renowned d â—p Davenant on the place Doctour of our own because his words are so cleer and full Ex hoc loco colligimus c. Out of this place we gather that there is a double reconciliation considered in Scripture the one general finished in the sacrifice on the Crosse of which the Apostle spake in the verse foregoing It pleased the Father by the blood of the Crosse to reconcile all things to himselfe and John chap. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world This I call general because it is considered according to the value of the sacrifice which is not only general but infinite and according to the manner of proposing it in the preaching of the Gospel which is also indefinite and general But besides this reconciliation in the Crosse and generally Applicable unto all the Scripture shews us also a particular and applied reconciliation in the hearts and consciences of particular men namely when that sacrifice of Christ which hath in it an universal power of reconciling all men is actually applied to the reconciliation of this or that man Of this speaks the Apostle when he says Now hath he reconciled you 2ly we are taught when and how men are made partakers of this particular reconciliation namely by the faith of the Gospel As Rom. 3. 22. Thus farre Davenant If then Mr. Eyre will urge this place aright it overthrows the thing which he would prove by What consequence is this The Scriptures â—ear witnesse that they that believed were reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne Ergo They were reconciled while they were in unbelief The next place is Col. 2. 13 14. And you being dead in your sinnes §. 14. and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses If Mr. Eyre will argue from this verse his inference must be this Ergâ— all their trespasses were forgiven them immediately upon the death of Christ But the Adverbs of time though they be not here expressed yet are they necessarily implied as appears plainly from the parallel place Eph. 2. 1 2 3. where their death in sin is expresly limited to the time past namely the time of their unbelief in opposition to the time present namely the time of their Conversion which words if we borrow from thence and put them here the Apostles sense is plainly this you were in times past dead in sins but now since you have believed are quickened that is to say have your sins pardoned which to be his meaning is undeniable from ver 12. the verse next foregoing where he tells them that they were risen with Christ in Baptisme through the faith of the operation of God And then presently addes as another excellency and priviledge of the same faith if at least the priviledge be not the same in other words that they were quickened together with Christ through the pardon of their sins where as their being raised with Christ in Bapptisme doth by no means note simultatem temporis that they were baptized at the same time as Christ was raised but similitudinem qualitatis that by faith and baptisme they were conformed spiritually unto the image of Christ in his Resurrection See Rom. 6. 4 5 6. so neither doth their being quickened with Christ in the forgivenesse of their trespasses signifie that their sins were then forgiven when he was quickened much lesse immediately upon his death which Mr. Eyre should and would prove but our conformity to him in our deliverance from death moral as he was raised from death natural But it may be 't is the next verse which Mr. Eyre thinks more for his purpose ver 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us which was contrary to us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Crosse The words as I conceive with our Expositors are to be understood of the abrogation of the ceremonial Law by which the Jewes were separated from the Gentiles and the Gentiles from that accesse unto God which the Jewes had And this indeed was a necessary and faire preparation to the reconciling of 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
degree according to that authority dignity or eminency in any kinde wherein he is exalted above him And this for example is the friendship between h Aristot ibid c. 8 11. a Prince and §. 25. his subjects consisting on his part in his providing for their liberty and welfare by and according to Law and on their part in their subjection and obedience to him according to the same Law As on the contrary the enmity between them consists on their part in their breaking of the Laws established and maintained by his authority and on his part in the egresse and exercise of his authority in inflicting punishment upon them for their offence according to the same Lawes so that a supream Governour as such is at peace with all those against whom his Lawes have no quarrel and an enemie to all with whom his Laws are at enmity Thus stood the case originally between God and man God being engaged by his Covenant to reward obedient man with life and to punish him if he should be disobedient in the least the former of which was his friendship and the latter when the Law was broken his enmity Rom. 5. v. 10. 13. 15 16 17. compared As on the other side mans love and friendship to God consisted in his obedience to the Law Matth. 22. 37 39. and his enmity in rebellion against it Rom. 8. 7. From which grounds it will be easie to understand how God may §. 26. be a friend an enemy reconcilable and reconciled with the same persons successively for while the Will of God I mean his revealed royal Will or Law is to do good and nothing but good to man God is so long his friend when upon mans disobedience the same rectoral Will of God was to inflict evil upon him he was an enemy When the New Law of grace is enacted detracting so far from the rigour and poremptorinesse of the former as to make it possible for the sinner to obtain life upon other termes God is said to be reconcilable when upon the intreaty of those Ambassadours whom the King and Lawgiver sends into the world sinners are prevailed with to accept of and performe the termes of peace then is God said to be reconciled Reconciliatio saith judicious i Antisynod de morte Christi c. 1. p. â—5 12â— Davâ—n dissert de mort Christi p. 65. 68. Ames non infert aliquam intrinsecam mutationem in Deo sed talem mutationem in dispensatione extrinseca quâ fit ut influentia propensae ejus volunt atis in peccatores ordinatè possit derivâ—ri ad eorum salutem perficiendam Sicut post Augustinum Lombardum Thomam Commentatores omnes Calvinus instit lib. 2. cap. 16. c. Yea so farre is all this from making any change in God that he must of necessity be changed unlesse this be true Should he be an enemy to man perfectly righteous or not an enemy to him while a sinner or not reconciled to him when penitent and a believer he must deny himself so little cause hath Mr. Eyre to charge us with Vorstian Divinity Then for the second thing I wish Mr. Eyre had told us more §. 27. plainly what he would have when he contends for the reconciliation of the elect immediately in the death of Christ Doth he mean that they were then perfectly reconciled This I am so farre from believing that though I thankfully acknowledge that Christ merited a perfect reconciliation as he did also a perfect sanctification yet I cannot beleeve that the elect are perfectly reconciled during this life no nor till the Resurrection For 1. If the elect be already perfectly reconciled then Christ is no longer a Mediatour between God and them But Christ is most certainly a Mediatour between God and them not an arbiter only or internuntiâ—s but a Mediatour The Assumption all Christians yield The reason of the Proposition is because it is the very nature and work of a Mediatour to k Vide Hug. Grot. de satisfact p. 172. ex Suidâ make peace and common sense informes us that there is no need of a Mediatour where there is no disagreement and the Scripture is expresse Gal. 3 20. A Mediatour is not of one that is of them that are at perfect friendship and agreement one with another And therefore when all enmity between God and man shall be destroyed perfectly Christ shall cease to be any longer a Mediatour For he must reigne till all enemies be put under his feâ—t and then shall Christ deliver back his mediatory Kingdome into his fathers hands 1 Cor. 15. 24 25 26 27 28. To say he a Mediatour still not to perfect but to manifest reconciliation is to say nothing For the want of the manifestation of reconciliation is some part of enmity or not If it be then God and believers are not yet perfectly reconciled if not then shall not Christ need to be a Mediatour between God and them for that end 2. If it be the work of Christ in heaven to make reconciliation for sinners on earth then those sinners are not perfectly reconciled to God at present But the first is true Ergo. The text is plain Heb. 2. 17. It behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining unto God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people The Apostles scope is to shew the necessity of Christs sufferings on earth before he went to heaven ver 9 10. namely that from the experience of his own sufferings and temptations here he might be the more merciful and faithful to make reconciliation for our sins Compare Heb. 4. 15. Nor can this be meant of making known or manifesting reconciliation For 1. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes such an act as is conversant first about God that he might be faithful in things pertaining to God sayes the text even as the object of the service of every High Priest ordained for men is things pertaining to God primarily and in the first place Heb. 5. 1. But to manifest reconciliation is an act primarily and totally conversant about us not an act to God-ward for us 2. The manifestation of reconciliation being wrought by the Spirit of Christ is most properly an act of Christ as King but the reconciliation here spoken of is precisely and formally the act of Christ as Priest 3. And as the Greek word is not so much as pretended to signifie a manifestation in any other place so in this especially it cannot have that sense because the construction will not bear it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile sins is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a reconciliation or propitiation with God for their sins But if Mr. Eyre mean no more then that the death of Christ did immediately effect an imperfect and initial reconciliation he knows that I yield it in part viz.
that God through the death of Christ hath so far forth laid aside his enmity against sinners as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will beleeve and repent whereof also he hath given them such assurance in his Gospel that if now they be not reconciled it is because they wil not be reconciled if they die it is because they will die But if his meaning be that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Christ then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word but seeing reconciliation hath its degrees let him demonstrate that it must-be understood not of the first degree which I stand for but of the second which begins in application 2. I desire also to know by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Christs death Is it by some act of his minde surely that will be very dangerous to affirme that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Christ Is it a transient act shew us then its object it is past imagination how an effect can be wrought and exist in or upon an object which it selfe hath no existence Lastly iâ— the benefits purchased in the death of Christ be none of them applied or actually given us before Christs sitting down at the right hand of God then neither was reconciliation applied to us or given us immediately in or upon the death of Christ But the first is true Ergo so is the second Heb. 5. 9. Being made perfect that is exalted into glory see chap. 2. 10. he became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him without this we could have received l See Dr. Reynolâ—s in Pâ— 110. p. 427. 429. Dr. Goâ—win on Rom. 8 sect 5. p. 71 177. none of the benefits purchased in the death of Christ and therefore surely reconciliation was not begun to be applied immediately in or upon his death Heb. 8. 4. If he were on earth he should not be a priest Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not raised you are yet in your sins And a general rule it is amongst Divines that Christ in his intercession is the applying cause of all the benefits purchased in his death Seeing then it is certaine that our reconciliation though purchased in the death of Christ yet is not applied and actually given us till his entrance into heaven if now it be asked when Christ in heaven doth give us this reconciliation I answer in the words of the Apostle Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sin which is the reconciliation we speak of and 2 Cor. 5. 20. we are Ambassadours for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be you reconciled unto God And now I returne to Mr. Eyre SECT VI. I Had said in my Sermon that it is through the death of Christ that §. 29. the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled to God after we do beleeve This after Mr. Eyre hath represented and paraphrased as he pleased and charged it of course with the imputations of Arminianisme and Popery at last he advanceth foure Arguments against it as he saith but if the Reader will peruse them he will find there is not one I say againe not one but all of them levelled against a position which never came into my mind to owne viz. That Christ purchased only a conditional promise Si sat sit accusasse quis erit innocens I say therefore that Christ did indeed purchase the conditional Covenant but I say withal that if we look to the intention of Christ in purchasing he purchased the infallible application or donation of every blessing of the Covenant unto some namely the elect If this be Arminianisme I am an Arminian yea and so strong in the persuasion that I cannot hope of my self that I shall be altered by any mans writings which I have seen or am like to see while I live But what cannot a general pardon be purchased for all because it is intended that some shall infallibly be pardoned and saved by it or is not such a pardon the first Act and degree of our reconciliation because other things are purchased as well as it more then this I shall not need to say to any of Mr. Eyres Arguments nor do I intend to say more to the three last the first because it pretends some Scriptures for an immediate reconciliation in the death of Christ I shall answer to particularly The Argument then is this The Scripture no where saies that Christ died to obtaine a conditional grant but to make an end of sin Dan. 9. 24. By the blood of his crosse he hath made peace Colos 1. 20. Broken down the partition wall Eph. 2. 14. Delivered us from the curse Gal. 3. 13. And our Saviour doth not say Math. 26. 28. That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the elect Answ Of the first part of the answer more anon As to Dan. §. 30. 9. 24. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that learned men are of different ways in expounding what it is to make an end of sin m Vide Jâ—nium Willet Hexapl. in loc some interpreting it of that end of sin not which Christ made but which sinners themselves make by repentance n Vid. Rolloc comment in loc some of restraining and confirming the godly that they might not be guilty of a defection from God But understand it of the end made by the death of Christ what is the inference Ergo it is not through the death of Christ that the promise is made by and according to which we are reconciled to God when we believe Doth Mr. Eyre think this consequence needs no proofe If this text afford him any thing for his purpose it will exclude the intercession of Christ and the Covenant of pardon made in his blood from being at all necessary or useful to the making an end of sin To Colos 1. 20. It pleased the Father having made peace through the blood of his crosse by him to reconcile all things to himself c. The answer is ready That the making of peace in the death of Christ is here mentioned as the means to that reconciliation of all things to himself which the Father intended thereby for both the making of peace and reconciliation are here mentioned as the acts of God as the first and principal cause and the latter the effect and end of the former God hath made peace in Christs death that he might reconcile us to himself I appeal to any man that knows what a consequence is whether it will
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
Indeed it were ridiculous to suppose that God should make any action which is wholly and immediately from himselfe the condition of any blessing he gives as that he should promise to glorifie us upon condition he raise us from the dead to raise us upon condition he justifie us to justifie us upon condition he give us faith But the same faith which God worketh in us is also our act for it is we that beleeve and not God though he make us to beleeve and as it is our act so is it performed voluntarily and a fit object of a command or promise I mean capable of being commanded or rewarded or of being made the condition of a reward And thus for example obedience was the condition of that life which was promised to Adam this Mr. Eyre grants Neverthelesse to the exercise of that obedience the concurrence of God was necessary as of the first cause for creatures essentially depend on God not only for their being but for their motion and operation Acts 17. 28. Ergo a voluntary act of ours may be the condition of our salvation though God work that act in us How many orders doth God give to Joshua Gideon David and others concerning the times and places when and whither they should remove their host that they might put their enemies to the rout or escape an overthrow by them These motions were the conditions of those special victories or deliverances which God would give them yet by the efficiency of Gods power and providence did they move from place to place Hundreds of like instances are obvious One thing more Mr. Eyre addes If saith he any shall say that §. 28. God did will that by Christ we should have faith and after that reconciliation yet 1. It will follow notwithstanding that our reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ as Owen proves against Baxter page 34. And 2. Then all the controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs death Answ That reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ may be understood in a double sense either 1. By comparing the effects with the cause and then the meaning is that the death of Christ contributes an immediate efficiency to our reconciliation whensoever it is that we are reconciled and this is all that Mr. Owen sayes in the place mentioned Meritorious causes saith he do actually ipso facto produce all those effects which immediâ—tâ—ly slow from them not in an immediation of time but of causality I doubt not but the death of Christ hath in its kinde an actual and immediate influence upon our eternal glorification which yet is the last effect or benefit we receive by him Or 2. By comparing the effects with the cause and one with another and so that is the immediate effect of the death of Christ which exists immediately upon the death of Christ without the interposition of any other cause to produce it Of this only is the Question as also Mr. Eyre himself hath hitherto understood it otherwise I am perswaded himself will grant that all the Arguments he hath hitherto used one or two at most only excepted come not within sight of the Conclusion they aime at As to the second thing that then all the controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs death though if there were nothing else but this in question it will be of very dangerous consequence to pervert and trouble that order which God useth in bringing sinners to life yet is there much more in question viz. whether upon supposition of Christs Purchase and Gods special purpose of giving faith to some the same faith as it is a voluntary act of ours may not by Gods Will of Precept be made the condition of our partaking in righteousnesse and reconciliation by the death of Christ This is the thiâ—g which Mr. Eyre should have disproved if he had intended his Argument should have concluded any thing We have already shewed at large the monstrous inconveniences that attend the denial of it and so much hath been spoken by those that are for the middle way of universal redemption especially the French Divines that I cannot think it worth my labour to adde any thing more The Lord Jesus hath put the matter out of Question to me John 6. 39 40. And this is the Fathers Will which hath sent me that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day And this is the Will of him that sent me that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I wil raise him up at the last day The former verse declares his own and his fathers special Will to save the elect The latter that yet the condition of beleeving is imposed on all men the elect as well as others that they through the performance thereof may be saved And so we are come to the last Argument which in brief is this §. 29. The imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them unto us But our sins were accounted or imputed to Christ without any condition on our part Ergo they are discounted or non-imputed to us without any condition performed by us Answ I deny the Proposition namely that the imputing of our sins to Christ is formally the non-imputing of them unto us because 1. If this be true then doth not God for Christs sake forgive any mans sin as the Apostle saith he doth Eph. 4. 32. the reason is plain because it was not for Christs sake that himself was punished Our pardon is not the effect of Christs punishment but on the contrary his punishment is the effect of our pardon if the imputation of our sins to him be formally the non-imputation of them to us 2. What then is the meaning of Pauls prayer for them that deserted him 2 Tim. 4. 16. The Lord grant that it may not be imputed to them that is the Lord grant that Christ may be punished for them or what is the meaning The Lord grant they may be some of those for whom Christ hath been punished that were all one as to pray that they may be elected from all eternity Whatsoever sense M. Eyre will put upon the words it will either not agree with sense or not with himself or not with the text 3. Upon the same principle it will follow that the death of Christ as it was a satisfaction and his resurrection from the dead contributes nothing to our justification neither by way of influence nor by way of evidence for might it be supposed that the Lord Jesus had lyen for ever under the power of death that had been the best evidence to us that we should never be punished if his punishment were formally our nonpâ—nition and by way of influence it can do nothing because
Gods freeing or taking off punishment from us is in nature before his laying it on Christ if the imputing it to Christ be formally the non-imputing it to us many other inconveniences attend this doctrine but it is needlesse to insist upon the mention of them Besides these Arguments there are several testimonies of Scripture §. 30. which M. Eyre mentions to prove our reconciliation to be the actual and immediate effect of Christs death let us view them Colos 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. Heb. 9. 12. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12 14. Colos 2. 10 13 14. Rom. 8. 33 34. Ans 1. We have already answered at large to Rom. 8. 33 34. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Eph. 1. 7. and by consequence to Colos 1. 14. for the words are the same in both those places We have therefore here to answer no more then the texts out of the Hebrews and one out of the Colossians let us take them in order Heb. 9. 12. Christ hath obtained eternal redemption for us I cannot assure my self how M. Eyre understands this text but if he see no more in it then all men I can meet with he can conclude no more from it then what was never denyed namely that Christ hath purchased eternal redemption for us But he hath also purchased eternal life and glory for us will it therefore follow that our glorification is the actual and immediate effect of his death he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity Tit. 2. 14. are we therefore freed from all sin immediately in his death The next is Heb. 1. 3. Christ by himself hath purged our sins and afterwards sate down as having finished that work Heb. 10. 12. Ans The former place according to the original saies no more then that Christ in his death made a purge of our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more then we have often yeelded that Christ hath made a plaister in his own blood for the curing of our wounds that is in dying he performed that righteousnesse which is the cause of our remission his blood being that which washeth us from all our sins But that this purge had its effect immediately upon its own existence is that which M. Eyre must give us another Text to prove whereas he addes that he afterwards sate down as having â—inished that work Heb. 10. 12. and good reason because that one offering of himself was so perfect and sufficient for all those ends unto which it was ordained that there is no need that himself or any thing else should be offered a second time for those ends But if M. Eyre mean that he hath so perfectly reconciled us in his death not only quoad constitutionem causae but quoad effectum as that there needs nothing more to be done towards our reconciliation he may do well to reconcile the Apostle to himself who tells us his work in heaven is to make reconciliation Heb. 2. 17 18. Wherefore in all things it beboved him to be made like unto his brâ—thron that he might be a mercifull and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people for in that he himself hath suffered being tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted compare Heb. 4. 15. and 7. 25. The like answer I give to Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected §. 31. for ever them that are sanctified namely that Christs death hath perfected us quoad meritum not quoad efficaciam The death of Christ saith the l Dr. Godwin in Rom. 8. â—4 sect 5. pag. 177. Author often commended was perfect for an oâ—lation to which as such nothing can be added there needed no more nor any other price to be paid for us But hence to inferre that therefore we were perfectly reconciled quoad effectum in the death of Christ is point blank against the Text which tells us in the very next foregoing words v. 13. that Christ doth yet expect till his enemies be made his foot-stoole amongst which the Apostle reckoneth sin and death 2 Cor. 15. 26 55 56. which though together with Devils they were destroyed in some sense in the death of Christ Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 14 15. Yet forasmuch as the holy Ghost witnesseth that Christ doth yet expect a farther destruction of them it lets us understand that these enemies and sin in particular was no farther destroyed in his death then as therein was laid the foundation and cause of a perfect and eternal remission which by virtue of that blood carried up and pleaded in heaven should be given unto them that by faith come for it unto the throne of grace as the Apostle explaines himself Heb. 4. 14 15 16. and in this very chapter v. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the truth there râ—mains no more sacrifice for sins implying that a wilful rejecting of Christ through unbelief which I conceive to be that special sin which the Apostle means deprives us of the benefit of remission of sins by his sacrifice which how it can be if sins were perfectly and absolutely pardoned immediately in his death I cannot conceive see also v. 38 39. The last place is least of all to purpose Christ saith M. Eyre §. 32. hath made us compleat as to the forgivenesse of our sins Colos 2. 10 13 14. Ans 1. The Apostle speaks to such who had already received the Lord Jesus v. 6. And of such no doubt it is true that all their sins are pardoned 2. But neither doth the Apostle limit our compleatnesse in Christ to the forgivenesse of our sins nor doth he say that we were made compleat in his death but rather in his exaltation And ye are compleat in him who is the Head of all principality and power His scope is to roote and establish the Colossians in the faith of Christ v. 7. in opposition to such innovators as would have introduced the worship of Gentile Daemons v. 8 18. or the observation of Jewish rites v. 20 21. as if without these Christ had not of himself been able to save them But ye are compleat in Christ saith the Apostle or be ye content with Christ as the words will beare to be rendred as who alone is most sufficiently able to give and increase you in all good and to deliver you from all evil and bestow on you the reward of eternal life v. 15 18 19. But what all this is to the purpose I know not It seems Mr. Eyre had a mind to bring it in for company CHAP. XI A reply to Mr. Eyres fifteenth Chapter of justification in Christ as a common person Justification not proved thereby to be before faith SECT I. WE are now come to the review of those two Arguments §. 1. mentioned in my Sermon which Mr. Eyre made use of to prove that the elect were justified before beleeving The former in short
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose then nothing at all As to the reason added we have already shewed at large in what sense Christs death may be called the payment of our debt A debtour cannot discharge a debt and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid or upon some condition to be performed by him I shall beleeve when I see not words but power and argument which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre The Conclusion therefore and summe of my Answer was this Justification §. 15. is either causal and virtual or actual and formal we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things already confuted concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ and the payment and satisfaction in his death but upon the distinction it self he fixeth nothing By all which I perceive he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resurrection to prove ours I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection and he answers I know not what concerning Christs death Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration I grant saith Mr. Eyre that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us formally And therefore Christs dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase Rom. 58 9 10. Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before nor can I understand now viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ as it was his death not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth yet is the speech strangely improper As if a broken undone debtour seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him then his debt comes to should say his debt is virtually paid or himself virtually discharged by that mans money 2. To say that Christs satisfaction doth justifie us formally is to deny our Justification formal to be Gods act for it was not God but Christ that satisfied or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him or that he was justified before us yea rather we are first justified if his satisfaction justifie us formally because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified never till now that it justifies formally 2. The next observation that Christs dying for us or for our sins and our being justified are Syâ—â—nyma's in Scripture is most plainly refuted by Scripture Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered namely unto death for our sins and rose again for our Justification In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection §. 16. not made by me but by some others and it is here brought in by head and shoulders without the least occasion offered saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person to the Purchase of Justification in his blood Neverthelesse because the truth is on the objectours side and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself let us see what is said The objection is this 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the righteousnesse of God in him Ergo the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Thou seest Reader that the scope of the objection is to prove that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which Mr. Eyre after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it doth now plainly deny and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects What have we heard so often of Christs procuring meriting purchasing Pardon and Redemption when he is here denied to have done any thing tending to the procuring of our Justification But let us see Mr. Eyres answer it consists of three parts 1. Saith he That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause as when it is said That light is let in that darknesse may be expelled Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely if at all used in the New Testament and improperly wheresoever it is used and thrice in this chapter but a little before used in its most obvious sense verse 10. 12 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer that the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us do differ But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us Ergo the making of him to be sin for us and of us righteousnesse in him is not formally the same Mr Eyre 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act differing only in respect of the terminus à quo ad quem Rom. 4. 6 8. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin and the non-imputation of it is all one Rom. 4. 7 8. Ergo it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse but not the non-imputation of sin that is it procures positive blessings but not the destruction of or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse which
grace made both with Christ and us which is Mr. Eyres Assumption And 1. I desire Mr. Eyre to reflect a little upon his own principles §. 4. and tell me whether pardon of sin be a blessing which God promiseth in his Covenant to give or the condition which Christ was to perform The former out of question if Scripture may be Judge Heb. 10. 16 17. But whether Mr. Eyre will allow it or how he can allow it I cannot tell We have seen him before very peremptory in these two assertions 1. That the imputation of our sins to Christ is formally the non-imputation of them unto us 2. That Christs satisfaction was formally the payment of our debt and so must needs discharge us ipso facto because the discharge of the debt is formally the discharge of the debtour How these principles clash one with another we have shewed already for Gods act in punishing of Christ is in nature before his bearing it or satisfying by bearing it as action is in nature before passion If then Gods act in imputing our sins to Christ that is punishing them in him be formally the non-imputing that is the pardoning them to us then the death of Christ as it was the payment of our debt is not the thing that dischargeth us and if this then not that But my business now is to infer if Christs death be the payment of our debt and so our formal discharge then our discharge from sin is the condition of the Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath modelled it not a promise upon the performance of the condition The reason is plain because Christs satisfaction which is the payment of our debt and formally the discharge of the debtour is the condition of the Covenant of grace according to Mr. Eyre But that cannot be the forme or tenour of the Covenant of grace which excludes the pardon of sin from being promised therein Ergo that is not the forme which Mr. Eyre presents us with 2. If the words aforesaid contain the substance and tenour of the Covenant of grace then the said Covenant doth not only not require and command faith and repentance as necessary meanes which we are bound to for obtaining the promise of life and salvation But whosoever shall preach such a necessity of faith and repentance doth in so doing contradict the tenour of the Covenant of grace The reason of the consequence is plain because to the obtaining of a Promise made upon condition nothing more is required then the performance of the condition If then Christ hath fulfilled the condition of the Covenant of grace nothing more can be enjoyned and required of us to the obtaining of any blessing of the Covenant and whosoever shall yet preach a necessity of faith and repentance as acts which we are bound to put forth that we may be saved destroys the Covenant of grace But both these are desperate consequences which we shew thus The Gospel and the Covenant of grace are both one Gal. 3. 8. compared with v. 15 16. 2 Cor. 3. 6. with chap. 4. 3 4. and Eph. 3. 6 7. and Col. 1. 23 But the Gospel obligeth all men to believe and repent the elect as well as others that they may be saved and thus did the Apostles the special Ministers of the New Covenant preach wheresoever they came Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 47. Mark 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19. and 20. 21. and 26. 20. Rom. 10. 6 8 9. Col. 1. 23 28. c. Ergo the Covenant of grace requires faith and repentance as necessary in point of duty that we may be saved or else the Apostle's Ministry had destroyed the Covenant Hence thirdly it will be impossible for any man to sin against the §. 5. Gospel or Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath framed it for none can sin against the Covenant but he that is a Covenanter either de jure or de facto I mean either such a one as actually is in Covenant or else is bound to enter into Covenant Now upon supposition that none are Covenanters but God and Christ there can be no breach of the Covenant but on one of their parts And consequently neither will it be any grace in God to preserve the Elect from a final breaking of Covenant such being the constitution thereof that it is impossible ex natura rei that it should be broken but by God or Christ nor can any by unbelief or Apostasie violate the covenant seeing it hath no preceptive part which is surely contrary to Scripture Heb. 10. 29. He hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing Hence 4ly No man becomes worthy of punishment for breaking the covenant of grace through unbelief or Apostasy as the Apostle in the same place saith they do and that most justly and I shall farther shew when I come to it Nor 5ly Is salvation and eternal life given as a reward to them that keep the covenant of their God which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures the reason is because the covenant promiseth a reward to none but unto them that fulfill the conditions of it If Christ onely fulfill the condition then our grace and glory may be his reward but glory is not the reward of our faith or obedience Mr. Eyre will say yes because glory follows our faith and obedience But though I readily acknowledge that glory is called our reward onely metaphorically and one reason of the similitude is that which Mr. Eyre mentions because glory follows our faith and obedience as wages follows the work yet is not that the onely or of it self a sufficient reason as we have shewed before nor are the Scriptures or our Divines wont to rest in it The Scriptures tell us that God will reward every man according to his works See Rom. 2. 6 7 8. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Gal. 6. 7. Rev. 22. 12. c. I acknowledge the sense in which our Divines understand the words viz. that the phrase according to his works doth not signifie the proportion of desert but the suitablenesse and agreeablenesse between works and the reward which God gives if the works be good the reward shall be good if evill the reward shall be evill also But this is as much as I need to shew that eternall life is not called a reward meerely because it follows faith and obedience For if so then a beleever quatenus a beleever or a godly man quatenus a godly man is no nearer the reward then if he had neither faith nor godlinesse upon any other score but this that these by Gods appointment are to go before the reward And if God had appointed that all that shall be saved should live to 20 or 30 years of age their arrivall at such an age had been every whit as conducible to their reward as now their faith and godlinesse is supposed to be Againe Our Divines account it no ascribing to the desert of
the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching Because to preach the Gospel is no more then 1. To publish that the Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle themselves upon him for all the purchases of his death and in so doing confidently to expect the fruition of them Rep. Here are words enough but whether they tend I can scarcely see I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man If there be nâ—t what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this that it is the promise of the inheritance Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe I cannot imagine if not I would ask 2ly Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve it knows not why nor wherefore Paul gives a better reason of his faith Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises and that after so long a dispute that it is an absolute promise I said in the minor that every man is pressed to fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—st we fall short of it viz. by unbelief v. 2 3. No says Mr. Eyre The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession by a similitude taken from foolish racers c. Râ—p As who should say it is not faith but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise The promise mentioned is of such constitution as that our obtaining or not obtaining it is suspended upon our beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall questions 1. Whether there be §. 5. an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace No saith Mr. Eyre yet the generall promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith because faith doth not receive it self But the covenant which is to be preached to every man is the promise of that good which faith receives for the covenant and the promise are all one in Scripture Gal. 3. 17 18 21. Ergo the absolute promise is not the Covenant I asked 2ly Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies yes For to lay hold of the Covenant is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve not to be beaten off c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely presumption but naturally impossible for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God without a promise and a command to lay hold of it But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant which it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne be admitted into that I asked farther whether if the Covenant be an absolute promise §. 6. men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute promise Mr. Eyre answers The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose himself acknowledgeth in his next words Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent and not the cause of their destruction We seek therefore an answer That 's this formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve If it doth it is not an absolute promise if it doth not their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant in which yet the Apostle placeth the heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not
which will be hard to do Doth not our Glorification depend inseparably upon our Predestination yet not immediately And when afterwards Mr. Pemble is quoted with great ostentation to justifie that God is well pleased with the persons of the elect unregenerate but not with their unregeneracy it may be of some authority with men that cannot reade English Mr. Eyre sets down his words at large and what saith he why that God loves the persons of the elect but not their vices as Parents love their childrens persons even while they chastise them for their vices But is God therefore well pleased with the elect because he loves them that is hath purposes of doing them good or because Parents love their children and would do them all the good they can are they therefore well pleased with them even while they are correcting them for their vices let themselves judge We have shewed before that well-pleasednesse imports an approbation of a person and supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities And as for the inference which I made upon Mr. Eyres distinction between unregenerate men and their unregeneracy it was grounded upon presumption that the said distinction intended to shew the difference between Gods well-pleasednesse with the Elect before and after their Conversion otherwise I undertake not its defence In the next place Mr. Eyre addes something to clear up the difference §. 17 between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons As 1. That the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the elect yet are they not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Answ The best actions of unregenerate men are materially good as Prayer hearing of the Word Almesdeeds c. It is the want of a good principle and a good end which makes them unacceptable unto God 2 Chron. 25. 2. If the sinfulnesse of them be pardoned they must needs be acceptable as we observed before 2. Saith he The best works of good men are acceptable and pleasing unto God 1. Abstractly and in themselves thus faith hope love are pleasing to God 2. Concretely as they are acted by us and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ Answ 1. Abstracta dicunt essentias faith hope and love in their abstract nature are not considered as our actions but as vertues and in themselves good therefore that part of the answer is impertinent might we suppose that these vertues might be found in persons not elect their own goodnesse would commend them to God as much as when they are in persons elect 2. For a work to be washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ is to have the sinfulnesse thereof for his sake pardoned which because it is done to the elect as much in their unregeneracy as after the good works they do when regenerate can be no more acceptable then before SECT IV. OF all the places in Scripture which speak of our reconciliation unto God by the death of Christ I know none that seem to §. 18. make it an immediate effect of his death but that in Rom. 5. 10. and therefore I opposed that to my selfe and answered it in my Sermon And that the truth of my answer and the impertinency of all that Mr. Eyre sayes against it may the better appear I shall transcribe the text at large ver 8. But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us ver 9. much more then being nâ—w justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him ver 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life ver 11. And not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement The main objection is out of ver 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne The answer which I gave to it in short was this That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled which that it is the Apostles meaning we shall prove by and by in the mean time let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it His exceptions are six 1. Saith he It offers a manifest violence to the text To say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled Answ And it is a manifest violence to my words to say that I so interpret it I say we were reconciled quoad meritum immediately in the death of Christ that is his death purchased reconciliation for us and therefore through that death it is that we are reconciled actually and effectivè whensoever it be The second exception is the old irrational notion That if reconciliation depend upon conditions to be performed by us then we are the causes of our own reconciliation Where not only the consequence is false as we have largely shewed above but the antecedent also impertinent I am not now disputing whether reconciliation follow faith but whether it exist immediately upon the death of Christ The third This reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo before our believing Answ Yet will it not follow that it was made immediately in the death of Christ which is the thing Mr. Eyre should prove If we be not reconciled before we are born it is sufficient to prove that we were not reconciled in the death of Christ immediately whether faith be supposed to be necessary or no. 2. The word reconciled is used twice in ver 10. If they both relate to one and the same reconciliation of which I doubt as I shall shew farther by and by yet I readily grant that it was made in the death of Christ Were not my words plain enough before That we are said to be reconciled unto God in the death of his Sonne inasmuch as Christs death was the price of our reconciliation The cause was then in being though the effect do not follow till some time after The fourth If the meaning were no more but this That it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous Answ The emphasis of those words is plain God reconciles his enemies to himself whensoever it be that he reconciles them and Christ purchased reconciliation for enemies not for friends See Câ—l 1. 21. The fifth God was in Christ not imputing our sins to us 2 Cor. 5. 19. Answ That doth not prove but that I rightly interpret the Apostle here 2. In 2 Cor. 5. 19. reconciling and non-imputing are all one the latter interprets the former God did act towards the reconciliation of sinners and