Reprobatio neque damnationis neque peccati quod incretur damnationem est propriè causa sed antecedens tantum Ames Medul c. 25. s 40. 1 John 3.4 Rom. 5.13 of this act And they that were not could not have any sin imputed yea it chargeth God with untruth and with unjustice to impute sin before committed for the very formality of a sin consisteth in the privation of that rectitude the Law requireth or in the transgression of the Law Now where there is no Law there is no transgression therefore the Apostle proveth That before the Law was promulged there was some Law given and transgressed by which sin entered into the world and death by sin which was that * Not the Moral Law existing in the mind of God before it was declared as Master Eyre seemes to intimate in the same place positive Law forbidding Adam and in him us to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and had there been no Law there had been no trangression but now from eternity there was no Law given nor any person to whom it should be given and therefore from eternity there was no transgression and therefore to make God impute that which was not is to ascribe unto God a fallible judgement and to make God to esteem them sinners before they were men yea and in justice too will it charge upon God to make him impute sin to them which they â—â—ver committed and for this to hate them and passe them by and not Elect them Here is a complication of errours in this passage God doth not esteem any person a sinner till by 〈◊〉 act that he is guilty of his Law be violated nor adjudge any man to punishment nor execute or inflict any punishment untill sin be committed So that Gods imputation of sin followeth that act of sin and doth not precede it and is a transient not an immanent act And a little after he contradicteth himself A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or representative which necessarily supposeth a Law for sin is the transgression of the Law Why then it necessarily followes no man was a sinner from eternity and so God did not impute it but let it go for one of his Paradoxes the Law and sin had a coeternall existence in the minde of God together with his own eternall Essence Eighteenthly When we urge Mr. Eyre with those Scriptures He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him and that the Elect are children of wrath as well as others and tell him a man cannot be a child of wrath and a justified person at the same time then the argument will not hold and is invalid as you may see in his slight Answers to Mr. Woodbridges Arguments from these Scriptures Pag. 110 111 112. compared with pag. 138. pag. 110 111 112. and yet when he cometh to prove that we are justified immediately from the time of Christs death he can use the same Argument and then it is a divine Oracle his words are these p. 138. It was the will of God saith he that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be children of Christ and children of Wrath at the same time and because this deserves a more full examination and it was an Argument used by my against Mr. Eyre in our conference I will reserve what I have to say further to it to another place Ninteenthly He saith That the Elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after believing then they had before Unhappy man Mr. Eyre pag. 122. that he should be the father of so many foule errours what had the Elect Corinthians when they were Idolaters Fornicators Adulterers effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankinde had they then as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as after What will this man make the Kingdome of Heaven to be that admits of such Sodomites and Whoremongers to be the actuall heires of it If they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven they were a blessed people Oh blessed Sodomites Oh blessed Whoremongers if this Doctrine be true here was all the unhappinesse of these Sodomitical Saints they knew not their happinesse before they had as much right to salvation as before only they had more knowledge of it after believing but if they had as much right why doth the Apostle say as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived no such shall inherit the Kingdome of God why then what a wrong is this to them when they have a right to the Kingdome of God Do any persons more deserve the same stile of the Gnosticks of old to be called the dirty Sect then such panders for the flesh as these But I hope such as fear the Lord will take the Apostles caveat and not be seduced by such filthy dreamers to believe that when they lie in Dalilahs lap they are as dear to God and have at much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as when they lie in Abrahams bosome Twentith He saith in pag. 129. That the best actions of the unregenerate are impure and sinful which though they are all pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight But are their persons acceptable and justified so as to have as much right as ever they shall have to the Kingdome of God And are their best actions such as are their praying hearing for the matter good and duties commanded and are all the sins pardoned which make them only evil in Gods sight and yet are they abominable and loathsome in his sight who will believe you can the want of faith which is by you pardoned hinder the acceptance of their works and not the acceptance of their persons Nay what do you affirme of the actions of the Regenerate more then may be said of the actions of the Elect unregenerate if they be justified persons as you say they are for the best works of unregenerat justified Infidels as you will have it are as you say of the regenerate pleasing to God not only comparatively because better then the works of Reprobates or then the sins of unregenerate persons but absolutely 1. Abstractly as you affirme of the others and in themselves for they are such things as are lawful and commanded and if they faile in the manner of doing it in faith hope and love this is but a faile in the manner and Gradus non variat speciem and the Regenerate Elect faile in the measure of faith hope and love neither in them doth their faith hope or love merit the acceptance of their duties And 2. Concretely as they are acted by justified persons and so passe through the hands of pardoned persons and the sins are washed away in Christs blood this want of faith hope and love is pardoned I
called uncertain or contingent and this is no more then what is unanimously acknowledged by the Orthodox and that no way hinders the salvation of the Elect. And by this time I hope the Reader plainly seeth this truth of Christ that the very Elect are without Christ and without hope in the world as the Apostle affirmeth untill faith that they have no actuall right or interest in the death of Christ until faith and so as to their present estate there is no difference between them and Reprobates being children of wrath as well as others this is that which the tender eares of Mr. Eyre cannot bear but I believe it sounds not so harsh in the ears of a judicious Reader as being an undoubted truth of God but let it be compared with that filthy and dirty opinion of Mr. Eyre more beseeming the Gnosticks of old or the present Ranters of this age then a sober Christian which is this Master Eyre page 61. That the Elect while they are unregenerate while they lie like swine wallowing in the miâ—e of sinne antecedently to faith are justified and so though Infidels and wicked yet divine justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve but contrarily he beholdeth them as perfectly righteous and accordingly deales with them as such who have no sin at all in his sight And I doubt not but the naming of his will vindicate mine and render his justly abhorred to an utter nauseating saying Durus est hic sermo who can bear it And those monstrous absurdities which he chargeth our Doctrine with I doubt not but the intelligent Reader seeth that they are as unjustly fathered upon us as his deformed errour is by himself stiled with the same likenesse of truth to have the complexion of a saving truth CHAP. II. Containing a Vindication of my Argument drawn from the Parallel between the first and the second Adam shewing that as no man is lyable to condemnation by the first Adam but such as are in him by natural generation descending from him so no man is freed from condemnation till they be in Christ by supernatural and spiritual regeneration AGainst this Errour of the Antecedency of Justification to Faith I used in my Serm. at N. Sarum this Medium As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternal death but he that is a member of him by naturall generation so Christ freeth no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till he be a member of him by supernatural generation But this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as received him to them gave he power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty right power priviledge or prerogative to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Therefore no man stands reconciled before God though Elect persons till by faith they are incorporated into Christ and have this priviledge to be the children of God Now let us see what Mr. Eyre replieth to this he saith that this maketh much against me Mr. Eyre p. 6. for saith he If the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle sheweth it doth Rom. 5. then it must follow that the righteousnesse of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a being and then much more before they do believe in him for Adams sin it is evident that it came upon all men to condemnation before they had a being For by the first transgression sayes the Apostle ver 12. sin entred into the world and more plainly death passed upon all men The reason followes because in him or in his loyns all have sinned so Mr. Eyre For answer whereunto I shall premise this that I did not affirme that we are no way guilty of Adams sin before we have a being For I willingly grant that of Augustine * Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manif stùque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo fuerunt Aug. de peccat merit Remist l. 1. c. 10. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manifestúmque est alia esse propria c. Adam was as it were we all we were all that one Adam it is most certain and manifest that some sins are proper to every one in which they only sinned whose sins they were this one sin is another in which all have sinned seeing all were that one man and it is a general received truth among the Orthodox that there was an inexistence or being of all men in Adam And therefore I willingly grant that we did no lesse sin in Adam then Levi paid tithes in Abraham Heb. 7.6 because as he was in the loynes of Abraham when Melchisedech met him so were we all in the loynes of Adam and when I said that no man is guilty by the first Adam of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation I intended nothing but to shew that we are not guilty of Adams sin so as to be actually and formally sinners though virtually we are untill we be in him by naturall generation and so actually members and so I grant we are virtually justified from the death of Christ not formally And 2. I intended to shew that as Adams sin is not ours but as we are in him so Christs righteousnesse is not ours unlesse united to him this premised I shall now reply to Mr. Eyre's Objection That I apprehend in his answer a double Errour 1. He takes that for granted which will not be yielded that the Apostle saith We were formally constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam as we are by his opinion formally not only virtually justified at the death of Christ Vide Mr. Eyre page 68. so he expresseth his meaning p. 68. and herein he is contrary to all Orthodox Antiquity Learned Wotton doth deny it in expresse termes in his answer to Hemingius his Argument whose words are these Wotton de Recon pecc par 2. l. 1. c. 9. p. 148. Primam propositionem nego quia sumit pro concesso Apostolum dicere nos Adami inobedientiâ formaliter factos esse peccatores quod parùm liquet certè alia fuit antiquorum Theologorum sententia and reciteth for that end Chrysost Theophilact Pacianus Anselm Haymo Hugo Aeterianus OEcumenius Calvin Who so please to read them may finde them in the fore-cited place of Wotton We therefore affirme that although Adams sin was not altogether another mans but in some sense ours because we were seminally in
after that adde he p. 67. l 16. blot out for p. 71. l. 30. after being blot out that p. 74. l. 13. for affirming r. affirme p. 91. l 1. blot out but p. 99. l r. blot out the fiâ—st as p 108. l. 14. for malem r. mallem p. 134. l. 27. blot out for p. 145. l. 25. for there read theirs p. 146. l 16. foâ— noâ— not p. 150. l. 26. for the first is r. as p. 154. l. 11. for my r. mee p. 158. l. 5. after unto adde were elected p. 159. l. 33. for these r. thee p. 176. l. 26. after but adde we p. 180. l. 29. for at r. as p. 183. l. 2. after the first foresight add but and for nor r. not p. 195. l. 37. blot and p. 199. line 34. for soile r. soule October 13. 1654. Imprimatur EDM. CALAMY A Christless-estate A HOPELESSE-ESTATE EPHESIANS 2.12 That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world THe Scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is the same with that in the former to set the forth freeness of Gods grace in Christ proving sometimes in hypothesi that the converted Ephesians sometimes in thesi that all the faithful are saved by grace And he useth many Arguments Arg. 1 to this end the first is drawn from their natural estate O Ephesians if ye consider your selves in the common estate of nature you will finde that such was your condition that you could not be delivered from it but by grace which Argument he amplifies by a sixfold consideration of their natural condition First in the state of nature they were not onely defiled with sinne but were altogether dead in sinnes and trespasses and were no more able to help themselves then the dead is able to arise from the grave and therefore unlesse the same Almighty power that raised Christ from the dead had beene exerted to quicken them they could never have beene saved In the second place verse 2. He telleth them that their whole life was a life of sinne though they were dead to grace and spiritual life yet they were alive to sinne Yea thirdly that they lived after the custome of natural and unregenerate men who did minde and savour onely the things of this life And fourthly that they lived as those that had Satan the God of this world for their guide and were so farre from being led by the Spirit of God that the same uncleane spirit and enemy to mans salvation did rule them which now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience Fifthly in the third verse he sheweth that they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh doing what their vaine minde did dictate their corrupt appetite and sinful affections did desire Sixthly The Apostle amplifies this by comparison shewing that the estate of himself and the beleeving Jewes was no better then theirs both in respect of sinne and punishment being all by nature the children of wrath as well as others In the fourth verse the Apostle layeth down a second Argument Argument 2 to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in our salvation drawn from the Author of our salvation the inward impulsive moving cause prevailing with him to do this for us the rich Author is God the moving cause his free love but God who is in mercy for the great love wherwith he loved us did deliver us In the fifth verse he shewes the order of Gods dispensing grace to us and that is by the redemption of Christ amplified from the time that while we were yet dead in sinnes God quickened us with Christ and therefore by grace we are saved that is while we were dead in sinnes and trespasses a Covenant passed between God and Christ our Redeemer and God gave us unto Christ that by him we should be redeemed and when he raised Christ he gave us a pledge of our redemption and justification in him In the sixth verse he telleth us that we are not only quickened and raised to life begotten to a living hope of eternal life but we were in a manner raised with him and ascended with him as in our head and set down together with him in heavenly ace spl that is in respect of our right purchased we had it before faith but in respect of actual possession and application of these mercies this is not conferred upon our persons untill we do beleeve In the seventh verse the Apostle sheweth what end God had in all this that in the ages to come be might shew the exceeding riches of his grace and kindnesse towards us in Jesus Christ In the eighth ver he concludes from his former discourse that therefore we are saved by grace And goeth on to prove it by a third Argument taken from the meanes whereby this grace is received and applied we are saved by grace because we are saved by faith where faith is taken metonymically for Christ apprehended by faith yet not excluding faith as a meanes to apply Christ to us and that which is due to Christ is attributed to faith because it alone is the onely instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto justification Now the Apostle to prevent a mistake lest any should think because faith is our act that therefore we are saved by something in us he answers that though it be our Act it is Gods gift and therefore we cannot challenge any thing in the work of Salvation because we are passive in this work it is a grace wrought in us by God to apply Christ to us and therefore in 9. verse he removes all works whether performed by grace or nature from being the cause of our salvation knowing how deeply this error is rooted in all men by nature to seek righteousnesse in themselves and he gives a reason why God will not have salvation by works because as they cannot stand with grace as faith may so they are enemies to the glory of God and will lift up the heart of man to glory in himself therefore God will have it to be by grace received by faith that no man might boast In the tenth verse the Apostle having shewed that our salvation is only of grace and the meanes by which we are made capable of all saving good in Christ by faith excluding all causes in man lest he should boast he layeth down a new reason why we cannot be saved by works because in the work of regeneration we are wholly Gods workmanship in Christ created to good works and we are as meerly passive in this work as in the first work of creation for as no creature contributed any thing to its own being and as there was no disposition in man to make himself a man so there is naturally no ability in us to contribute any thing to our new creation therefore seeing all we have and are inabled to do is by grace we are not saved
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
person but if by a full propitiation he understand an immediate discharge of the sinner from condemnation before faith to apply the benefits of Christs death this I deny and will make manifest in its peculiar and proper place Where I shall shew it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect person that the benefit of Christs death is suspended till faith And in this sense I acknowledge that the Elect had no actual right or interest in Christ if you take it for jus in re and not for jus adrem because his death was intended for their benefit not for the reprobate though they have not actual benefit and possession of the good things purchased untill faith In respect of Gods and Christs intention in his death surely an Elect person hath more right to the benefits of Christs death then the reprobate it being intended effectually for Peter and not for Judas and by vertue of this faith shall be given to apply it to all for whom Christ died and so they have a right to the thing but in respect of any right in the thing it self or actual discharge of the sinner I acknowledge in this respect there is no present difference between the Elect and reprobate this is that which soundeth so harsh in Mr. Eyre's eare which I shall sufficiently cleare when I produce in its due place Scripture-authority and Arguments to confirme it I shall now onely vindicate it from those monstrous absurdities that he unjustly loades it with First he saith Nothing could be spoken more contradictory to plain Scriptures but produceth not one place to confirme it but referres us to such Scriptures as he forceth to speak in defence of his own opinion where we shall examine whether what we affirme or he maintaines be most agreeable to the truth only I shall instance in two Scriptures to relieve this truth The first is in Ephesians 2.1 2 3. where the Apostle telleth the Elect Ephesians whom God had ordained to life and for whom Christ died that they were dead in sins and trespasses Wherein they walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience into which number in the third ver he puts himself and all believers before their conversion and saith that they were children of wrath by nature as well as others where the Apostles scope is to shew the freenesse of Gods grace in saving them by faith in Christ by an argument drawn from the change of their estate he telleth them the time was they were children of wrath as unable to help themselves as the dead to raise themselves to life therefore their deliverance was by grace Where by children of wrath the Apostle must mean an estate and condition opposite to their present estate of salvation and justification into which they are now brought by the grace of God and merit of Christ by faith Else first the Apostles Argument from the change of their estate were invalid Now if they would know when they were children of wrath seeing God loved them as elect from eternity and they were redeemed by Christ He answers that it was when they were dead in sins and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience and then they were children of wrath but thus they did walk and live before faith and regeneration were wrought 2. Such an estate of condemnation is here meant as others are in that are the men of this world children of disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children of unbelief which notes a refractory contumacious disobedience of unbelief seated in the will which is more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is remissible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is irremissible being a note of finall imperswasibility 1 Tim. 1.13 Paul was sometime a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore when the Apostle saith their condition by nature was such as theirs that are children of disobedience a note of such that shall perish surely they were such as were in an unjustified estate 3. If it be such an estate wherein they were dead in sins and trespasses did walk according to the prince of this world and according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh surely this was inconsistent with salvation and the estate of justification God cannot justifie a man with imputed righteousnesse but at the same time he sanctifieth him by imparted Prov. 17.15 and inherent righteousnesse It is not agreeable to the purity and holinesse of Gods nature to justifie a wicked man for He that justifieth the wicked be that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord and what God condemnes in others he will not do himself therefore they were not then justified Nor doth the Apostle make a naked comparison between the two estates and conditions derived from the first and second Adam but compares the same persons not barely in relation to these but as being really in both these estates at a different time being under the first before conversion and passing from it upon believing where it is observeable that the Apostle doth not say ye are by nature children of wrath which is all Mr. Eyre will acknowledge as you may see pag. 111. but ye were children of wrath he speaks of a condition they were in and delivered from The second Scripture is in the 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicatours nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankinde nor thieves shall inherit the Kingdome of God such were some of you but you are washed but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Where you see the Elect Corinthians were while unsanctified such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God and therefore were in the same estate with other persons till they were washed and justified where he maketh an evident opposition between the time past and present they were then such as could not inherit eternal life and therefore were justified for if they were then justified what could hinder their salvation And he saith but you are justified he doth not say but you were justified restraining their justification to the time present upon their faith and sanctification being an evidence of the truth of that faith that makes him put their sanctification before their justification so that you see the Apostle affirmes while they were unsanctified they could not inherit the Kingdome of God that is they had no right to it by justification and were uncapable of it but upon the change
required as he sheweth for * Lex non requirebat ut Deus moreretur neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur neque requirebat mortâ—m talem tantae efficaciae quae esset ut non mortem abolereâ— solùm sed etiam vitam introduceret eà mque illâ quam Adamus terresti perdedirat multis nominibus praecellentiorem the Law did not require that God should die nor that any should die that had not sinned nor such a death of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life and that by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam had lost so then Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the Elect so as that God neither will nor can in justice require any thing more at the hand of the surety nor of the sinner for whom he died by way of satisfaction Sixthly It will not be denied that God may be said to be reconciled in some sense by the death of Christ as a meritorious cause by death removing the cause of enmity and meriting the favour of God for us for although God loved us from eternity yet this was amor ordinativus not collativus God did bear them good will in time to make them heires of grace and gloâ—y by Jesus Christ Bâ—ll on the Covenant of Grace p. 292. and this excludes not but includes the necessity of Christs satisfaction but such as God did Elect he did not love them as already made heires of Grace by the influence of his love For the full understanding of this you must know that although God dâ—d so love the Elect as to fore-ordaine them unto eternal salvation yet it was never the will of God that his Elect should for no space of time be children of wrath that is subject unto death and eternall damnation for their sins but he did decree to permit them to fall in Adam and to be equally guilty of and liable to eternal death with others for which cause the Apostle calls them children of wrath as well as others Man being created after Gods own Image free from sin before the fall was intimately conjoyned to God God loving and delighting in man and man loving and delighting in his God but man lapsed by voluntary Apostasie from God there is an avulsion of the creature from God and an aversion of God from the creature and by this sin the Covenant of friendship between God and man is dissolved so that God who loved man created by him as his childe and from eternity willing him good for I speak only of the Elect in justice cannot but hate him now as corrupted by sin as a rebell against him not by any change of affection but of his outward dispensation and having included him under guilt as a son of Adam he is equally involved in the wrath due to that sin which God hath threatened with eternal death and resolved by an immutable decree never to pardon it to any without a satisfaction to his offended justice for the breach of his Law that the truth of his threatning may be fulfilled and the authority of his Law preserved and the evil of sin discovered and Gods exceeding love and mercy in a way mixt with mercy and justice may be manifested in the salvation of his Elect So that although there be a new relation in the Elect upon their fall in Adam unto God yet the change is in the creature and not in God for as the Schoolmen well observe these relations which are attributed unto God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord put not any new thing in God but there is an extrinsecal denomination added to him so that when the world is created God who was not a Creatour before is now a Creatour thus when sin took hold of the Elect he that once was a childe of love is now a childe of wrath not by any new accident in God but by a new effect in the creature so that in this estate God cannot bestow upon him the good intended in election For the better understanding of this that of Aquinas is of great use God may velle mutationem where he cannot mutare voluntatem God may will a change though he doth not change his will Thus in Adam while he continued a man after Gods Image free from sin God willed him to be the object of his love and delight and when he was fallen to be the subject of his displeasure and anger in the effects of it being liable unto his wrath and eternall death yet is not here a change in God but in Adam Thus God with the same will decreed from eternity to make such a one a vessel of mercy and yet to permit him to sin and fall in Adam and so to remaine a childe of wrath deserving condemnation wherein God cannot actually save him considering his decree without a satisfaction by Christ applied by faith Here is a change and a very great one in man but not in God a new relation yet no new immanent act in God Thus we may understand that of venerable Beda in the 5. Beda in Rom. 5. ad Rom. Deus miro modo quando nos oderat diligebat odit in unoquoque nostrûm quod feceramus amavit quod fecerat When God did hate us he wonderfully loved us he hated that in all of us that we had done he loved what he had made that is as the Schoolmen say Dilexit humanum genus quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit odit quantum ad culpam quam homines contraxerunt He loved mankinde in respect to the nature he had made or as his creature and hated him as a sinner But now through the satisfaction of Christ God is so farre reconciled that the cause of enmity is removed although it was agreed upon between the Father and Christ as I shall shew without any wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit shall not be enjoyed till faith yet the cause of enmity is causally taken away by the death of Christ as Aquinas speaks well in this case Aquin. p. 3 qu. 49. Artic. 4. Non dicimur reconciliati quasi Deus de novo nos amare inciperet nam aeterno amore nos dilexit sed quia per hanc reconciliationem sublata est omnis odi causa tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris boni Aug. in Joh. Tract 110. And before him Augustine Quòd reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Christi non sic audiatur non sic accipiatur quasi ideò nos reconciliaverit illi Filius ut jam amare inceperit quos oderat sed jam nos Deo diligenti reconciliati sumus cum quo propter peccatum inimicitias habebamus Lombard l. 3. distin 19 pag. 596. Lombard also gives in his suffrage in the like manner Reconciliati sumus Deo ut dit Apostolus quod non sic intelligendum est quasi nos ei
agnoscat Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris munificentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debitor beneficium agnoverit And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish And in Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 John 6.40 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Sonne and believeth on him may have everlasting life And Mark 16.16 Whosoever believeth not shall be damned nay is condemned already John 3.18 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him Now that is a superficiall and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this Pag. 135. that such places as these are do shew only who have th◠fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe but the true scope of these places is to shew not only who shall be saved and have the benefit of Christs death to whom this priviledge belongs but to shew when and how Christs death became effectual namely upon and by believing so that Christs death it self is not available unto salvation without faith to apply it And out of his own Concessions I argue against him If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death then while they remain unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges But they are communicable both to such as believe and such as believe not Mr. Eyre ch 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true and the reason he addeth is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification for works of sanctification declare this Thus the Apostle makes it an evidence of a person in Christ to whom there is no condemnation that He walkes not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body Rom. 8.1 13. 1 John 3.14 ye shall live By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Mr. Eyre Vind. p. 135. And in the same place he objecteth that the Apostle doth not say Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing But I answer Though this is no where expressely spoken yet it is evidently implied and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost For when Christ saith That unlesse they believe that they shall die in their sins and he that believeth not shall be damned is not this equivalent to this Proposition That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing 2 Cor. 13.5 And doth he not bid the Corinthians Examine themselves whether they be in the faith Prove your own selves know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates where though I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not signifie reprobates as opposed to the Elect yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified And whereas he saith that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe he will yield the cause let him but stand to his word and the Controversie will soon be at an end For the making good of this over and above what is written I premise 1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Covenant passed between the Father and the Son about reconciling the Elect believers by the death of Christ for that is evident from many Scriptures Isa 42.6 Gal. 3.16 And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Mediatour are expressely mentioned Heb. 1.5 6. Acts 10.38 Eph. 1.22 Isa 11.12 Isa 49.18 Isa 53.10 11. Acts 2.27 and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it but the question is not whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son but whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe 2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words and I judge him so rational that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures he will acknowledge it as authentick as a literal expression 3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concerning the time and manner of our reconciliation with God so that what the Father willed the Son willed and vice versâ And so I joyne with him and argue 1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ or his Covenant with him about his death and the effects of it did mention faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied then there was such an agreement that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death made mention of faith for the application of it Ergo. The consequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion for what God would do upon Christs death he promised and more then he promised Christ could not nor did expect for in all this work of dying he was a servant of God subject to his good pleasure Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do and Christ could expect no more And the assumption I prove from Isa 53.10 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth a Covenant made with Christ pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father with whose words the Prophet began as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English
him that were virtually sinners in him and that act of his in eating the forbidden fruit was as truly ours though not so compleatly and perfectly as his for we are not formally constituted sinners till we are actually members of him by natural generation 2. A second Errour I conceive him guilty of is in that he saith That the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation and it 's so much the worse that he will father it upon the Apostle which he no way intended in that place that as Adams sin came upon men to condemnation before they had a being that so the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed to the Elect before they had a being To which I answer that it is a manifest untruth for the sin of Adam descends upon us not only by imputation but by propagation so doth not the righteousnesse of Christ that is ours only by imputation The sin of Adam becomes ours by vertue of a natural union in whom we are seminally antecedently to our birth but Christs righteousnesse becometh ours by spirituall and supernatural union to whom we are strangers and alienated from him by nature we are virtually united to Adam because we had existence in him as in our first Parent before we had a being but we were actually sinners whâ—n we had an actuall being because we had a compl aâ— being out of our cause but we are not actually united to Christ before faith Wotton de Râ—con pecc par 2. l. 2. c. 2â— p. 210 Hence learned Wotton in answer to this Objâ—ction saith Nos unum fuisse cum Adamo credentes unum esse cum Christo si utrumque verè dici possit tamen alio atque alio modo haec vera essâ— intelliguntur unum suimus cum Adamo originaliter liceat enim his verbis uti seminaliter ut arbor ejúsque omnes rami in glande aut alio quovis semine inesse dicuntur hác ratione fit ut non minùs verè in Adamo peccâsse quà m Levi apud Apostolum Heb. 7.9 decimatus esse in Abrahamo affirmatur jam verò longè alio modo in Christo esse censemur non naturâ aut proprie sed improprie per similitudinem quandam Praeterea semper ex quo creatus est Adamus unum cum illo in illo fuisse deprehendimur ut cum illo etiam quodam modo peccare potuerimus Quod de nostrâ cum Christo conjunctione sive unione affi mari non pâ—test uniri enim nos Christo cum illo conjungi oportet priusquam unum esse cum illo possimus existimari wh ch for the Readers sake I will English Although it may be truly said that we were one with Adam and believers are one with Christ yet this is to be understood in a different manner we were one with Adam and in him naturally originally and let it be lawful to use these words seminally as a tree and all his branches are said to be in the 〈◊〉 or in any other seed By this reason it comes to passe that we know that we sinned no lesse in Adam then Levi by the Apostle is said Heb. 7.9 to have paid tithes in Abraham But now we are reputed to be in Christ in a farre different manner not by nature or properly but improperly and by a certain similitude Moreover from the time that Adam was created we were alwayes one with him and in him that with him we may be said after a sort to have sinned which cannot be affirmed concerning our conjunction with or union to Christ for it behoveth us to be joyned and united to Christ before we can be esteemed to be one with him and he addes Quare tum primùm in Christo esse incipimus quum in illum credimus Wherefore we then first begin to be in Christ when we believe in him And let me adde that there are many different considerations and circumstances between the bringing in of salvation by the one and condemnation by the other and the Apostle giveth instance in Rom. 5.15 16. And besides these there are many other I shall think fit to adde but one Vide John Goodwin Treat Justifica part 2. pag. 17. taken nootice of by Master John Goodwin in his Treatise of Justification and in hâ—s words The sin of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posterity as his own in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but the obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence with truth be said to have been theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not been saved at all It is said indeed that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 but it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it self to God Let no man blame me for his authority fas est ab hoste doceri And the ground of Mr. Eyre's mistake if it be not wilfull is that he thinks the Apostle doth compare the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ as causes of the same kinde which produce their effects after the same manner which was not the intent of the Apostle but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious unto Justification to them that are his one with him then the sin of Adam was to condemnation to them that were in him but not to shew that we were in Christ as we are in * Câ—nfertur autem A la nus cum Christo tum in re simili cùm in contrariâ siwiles enim sunt in eo quòd uterque quod suum est cum suis communicat sed in eo planè dissimiles quòd ille pecatum in suos naturâ derivat ad mortem Christus verò suam justitiam cum suis communicat per gratiam ad vitam Beza large Ann. on Rom. 5.12 Wotton de recon peccat par 2. l. 1. c. 9 p. 149 Adam that as we were in Adam antecedently to our being that so the Elect are in Christ antecedently to their birth and faith for as in the next Argument that I shall vindicate I shall shew that we are not united to Christ until faith And the very same answer doth Wotton give to Hemingius whose words are these Quod ad assumptionem attinet sumet ille pro concesso Apostolum Adami inobedientiam tanquam ejusdem generis causas comparare quae eodem plane modo effecta sua producant At verò id potiùs agere videtur Apostolus ut Christi obedientiam non minùs ad justificationem valere quà m Adami in obedientiam ad condemnationem imò Christi justitiam majorem
habere vim ad justificandas homines quà m Adami peccatum ad nos condemnandos which because it is the same in effect with mine I shall spare to English The next words of Mr. Eyre relating to this businesse are these Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous Besides the former errours it is guilty of I finde a double violence offered to the sacred Text. First in that he limiteth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the all that sinned in Adam to them that shall perish as if the Reprobates only sinned in Adam and not the Elect and as if they were not in the same sin and condemnation which it may be he doth because he is of his brethrens minde the rest of the Antinomians who affirming that they are justified from eternity and so God seeth no sin in them and he himself saith pag. 61. That the Divine Justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least punishment which their sins deserve But contrarily he beholdeth them as persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them as uch who have no sin at all in his sight And yet this man is offended to be called an Antinomian though he is not ashamed to be one but against this grosse conceit because it is sufficiently confuted by others I will say no more but alledge two Scripture-testâ—monies 1 Joh. 1 last ver The first is in the 1 John 1. the last vers After the Apostle had said that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin ch 2.1 yet he saith If any man say we have not sinned he maketh God a liar and his Word is not in us And in the second Chap. ver 1. for the sins of the justified he is an Advocate to procure pardon 1 Cor. 11.30 My little children if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous The other is that of the believing Corinthians For this cause many are sick c. Nor will the Antithesis bear him out for the Apostle doth not compare the Elect with the Reprobates but all that sinned in Adam which is all mankinde with all that shall be saved by Christ A second violence offered to the Scripture such men are fit to make their own Creed is in that he saith that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous the Text saith no such matter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that shall be made righteous not were made righteou which if Mr. Eyre might have done the office of a Gamaliel to the Apostle he would have counselled him to say were made righteous if Mr. Eyre's opinion of an actual justification from the time of Christs death be true he ought to have said were made righteous but the Apostle saith they shall be made righteous No wonder if he misrepresent what I said when he makes so bold with the Apostle and sacred Text and here let me returne that most justly upon Mr. Eyre which he saith to Mr Woodbridge * Vide Mr Eyre p. 10. This is not to interpret Scripture but to deny it such a liberty to alter tenses and formes of speech at our pleasure will but justifie the seâ—uits blasphemy that the Scriptures are but a leaden rule and a nose of wax which may be turned into any forme Turpe est doctori cùm culpa redurguet ipsum But now it is observable in this diversity that the Apostle saith not many were made righteous Hosius lib 3. de Auth Scrip. c. As in Adam many were made sinners but many shall be made righteous by this it is observable that the Apostle doth contradict what Mr. Eyre hath affirmed that the righteousnesse of Christ came upon the Elect in the same manner antecedently to their birth as the sinne of Adam came upon all to condemnation antecedently to their being And the reason of this diversity is because the Apostle had respect to all those Elect who have not yet believed either because as yet they were not in being and those that were in being were not all as yet called And truly this is a very great difference between the manner of communicating Christs righteousnesse and Adams sin for we being seminâ—lly in Adam Vide Downh Cov. of Grace p. 296. and having a natural relation to him sinned in him as being in 〈◊〉 â—oynes and hence we were as truly sinners in him though not as compleatly and formally sinful as he And by generation the sin of Adam is actually communicated to all his posterity and to all alike because we were all alike in him When they actually exist and no sooner are they partakers of the human nature but they are formally constituted sinners and partake iâ—â—is sin But now it is a manifest errour to think that we are all thus seminally in Christ and have any such union with him â—nâ—ecedently to faith as shall be made hereafter more evident or that the community of his person is equivalent to such an unâ—on and therefore the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ is not communicated to all from the time of their participation in the humane nature as for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration and the fuller answer to that I referre till I shall speak to his Argument drawn from them We are not then in our generation much lesse before made partakers of Christs righteousnesse but in our regeneration when faith is ingenerated by the Holy Ghost in our souls Hence then that we should not dream of being borne just as we are borne sinners which indeed were a contradiction to imagine that we should be borne both just and sinfull under the guilt of sin at the same time and that we should not neglect the grace of justification as though we had it already and brought it into the world with us as we brought sin in The Apostle speaks of it in the future tense to signifie that we are not immediately constituted righteous but must expect this benefit in our effectuall vocation when we are brought to faith for Whom he predestinated them he calleth and whom he calleth them he justifieth and no other and properly never till then and to this purpose Dr. Downham Cov. of Grace p. 296. Reverend Dr. Downam expresseth himself in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace And hence we see there is not the same reason for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to all the Elect before their birth or faith that there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a being because as Mr. Burges hath observed the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity
in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
anothers sin but he imputeth that which is their own that is the sin of the whole nature Now I take this as an errour of great consequence that Master Eyre saith that we are not sinners by Adam or that the issues of Adams sin came not upon his posterity by propagation but by vertue of the Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of his posterity for many reasons 1. Because he maketh Adams sin only to be ours by imputation or an act of pure and absolute Sovereignty and Prerogative and no way an act of justice when as it is a mixt act not only an act of Prerogative and Sovereignty in ordaining Adam to be a common person and so his sin to be the sin of the whole nature for God could have ordered it so had it been his pleasure that this sin should only have been personal as his other sins after the fall are But it is an act of justice also for death is inflicted as a punishment upon all which is an act of justice The reason followes in the fifth of the Romans Because in him all have sinned so that death is the wages of that sin because it is our sin all sinned in him and it is not only Adams sin but their own sin by vertue of their relation to him being in his loynes And to make the bare and strict imputation of another mans sin which is no way ours but by imputation the sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment of condemning all mankinde to eternall death which is one of the most weighty acts of Gods judgement that was ever executed in the world is to represent God not so much as a just Judge as one that delighteth in the death of his creature in the blood and ruine of his creature when as he professeth that as he doth live he hath no delight in the death of a sinner much lesse of a creature that were not a sinner if it were not for his imputation And although I doubt not but God may as an act of Sovereignty adjudge an innocent creature unto pain and misery if it were his will and that it would less reflect upon God to say he dit it because it was his absolute pleasure then to pretend or conceive that the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin was the cause of it yet I have no warrant to say that ever God did or will do such an act to make the creature miserable meerly to shew his Sovereignty And what is there in the imputation of Adams sin if this imputation be grounded upon his will and not that naturall union and relation between Adam and his posterity to free it from such an act of pure Sovereignty therefore I look upon it as an act of justice as well as prerogative the equity of which act lieth much in the relation of Adam and his posterity to one another 2. I urge as before I hinted If death entred by sin then Gods imputation is not the onely cause of it But it entred by sin as the Apostle saith Death passed upon all inasmuch as all have sinned 3. Then Adam was only the occasion of our sin but God the Authour for if Adam had sinned if God had not imputed it we had not been sinners But this is an insufferable blasphemy to make God the Author of sinne Therefore Gods imputing it is an act of justice and not of Sovereignty only 4. This overthrowes the community of his person for if it be meerly an act of his will he might have done this though Adam had not been a publick person 5. This ascribeth to God a fallible judgement in esteeming him a sinner that is innocent and is not a sinner but by his imputation 6. This ascribeth injustice to God to impute sin to him that is no sinner but by his imputation which the sinner would be delivered from and consents not to it as the regenerate that bewaile it and earnestly desire to be delivered from it 7. The very necessity that there was for Christ to be borne of a Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost to prevent his being a sinner confutes this conceit for if Adams sinne be ours only by imputation let but God not impute Adams sin to Christ and he intended not so miraculously to be borne for it behoved him to be like us in all things and why not by the help of man to be borne if Adams sin be ours by imputation only and not by propagation also Thus you see how many errours Mr. Eyre is driven unto to hold and maintaine one Nor are his reasons of any weight that he produceth to prove that the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should not be imputed untill they are actually propagated if he meant of an actual and formall imputation of sin it is granted that sin is not so imputed till an actuall being For the understanding of this we must know what imputation of sin is it implieth either an estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner or an adjudication of punishment for that sin or the execution of that punishment now look in what manner we are sinners in that manner is the imputation for Gods judgement must be according to truth now as we are but seminally potentially and virtually sinners because we had but a virtual existence in Adam for it is a known rule and of approved verity Operatio rei consequitur esse rei The acts and operations of things still follow the being of things and are suitable and proportionable thereunto so we are reputed by God only virtually sinful in Adam and so not actual sinners nor so reputed by God nor formally obliged to punishment nor any punishment actually or formally to be inflicted till we have an actuall existence hence by vertue of that Covenant made with Adam we are not actually and formally constituted sinners till we are actuall members and so his argument will return upon himself For if the righteousness of Christ come upon us in the same manner to Justification as Adams sin to condemnation then as we are not actually sinners till we have an actual being so neither are we actually justified till we be actuall members of Christ by faith His second Reason halteth right down and is pittifully inconsequent for it doth no way follow that if the sinne of Adam be ours by propagation that therefore the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as from Adam but rather the consequence should be Therefore our next parents do as truly transmit and propagate that sin as Adam to their children and this is true and will advantage your cause nothing nor hinder ours but it followes not that their personall sins should be imputed as was Adams first sin For if no more of Adams
sins be imputed then that first transgression why should the sins of any other parents be imputed And the reason is not alike for none but Adam could be a publick person representing all mankinde and that sin was not only personal and proper to Adam but common to the whole nature and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person For it is a mixt act in God when he doth impute Adams sin partly arising from his Sovereignty and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are and may be imputed to the children And whereas he saith Unlesse they can shew any proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force I answer here needs no other proviso or restriction but only to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we are in Adam and therefore the benefits of his death cannot immediately follow our birth or be antecedent to it but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ and the parallel holds firme for as in Adam we all virtually sinned and so were virtually condemned so we grant Christ hath meritoriously redeemed us and we are virtually justified in him and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity till they have an actuall being and are actually members of Adam so are not we actually justified till we be actual members of Christ by faith As for the Logical Axiom Non entis nulla sunt accidentia it was used in my next Argument and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ shewing that where there is no union there can be no communion his unjust charge refuted and the nature of our union with Christ further declared MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence was drawn from our union to Christ Where there is no union there can be no communion for union is the ground of all communion which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union But we are not united unto Christ untill faith Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification And in the further prosecuting of the Argument I shewed that this union is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union it must require our existence for an accident cannot subsist without its subject because * Where I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio quâ— tenus opponit sub stantiae ne strictè pro omâ— quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio Accidentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it for Non entis nullae sunt affectiones and that this union was the formal effect of faith Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument First he saith that I called our union with Christ a personall union which seems to fav ur that absurd notion that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personaliâ—y also and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word and his shamelesse dealing in this respect is the more injuriously evident in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses that I neither said nor did own any such thing but did declaâ—e that I said and meant that it was such a union whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever yet is he a man of that face and fore-head to print and declare that to the world which he hath God Angels and men if not his own conscience to witnesse against him but this he hath done to render me odious to the world the Lord forgive him and let him see the evil of these and the like slanders against me and others of his brethren that differ from him And let him now know that I utterly abhor that Familistical notion that there should be an hypostaticall union between Christ and a Believer for Christ is one person and a Believer another Apage Theologiam hanc erco relegandam I forced my self publickly to oppose it as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Doctor doth condemne Dr. Chambers that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the person into the nature and person of the Son of God I desire no better Umpire to determine I affirme that the union made between us and Christ by faith is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ What is here that savours of such a notion yea Mr. Hooker Souls union pag 7 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise called the Soules Exaltation and in the Sermon called the Souls Vnion with Christ expressing what this union is and how it is made by faith hath this passage he saith It is a totall union the whole nature of a Saviour and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church not only according as he is God but as he is God and man and a Believer is a member not only according to his body but according to his body and soul whole Christ being the Head and the whole Believer being a Member therefore a whole Christ and a whole believer must be joyned together Perkins 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20 p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78 The whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins Of this conjunction saith he two things may be noted The first that it is a substantial union in that the person of him that believeth is united to the person of Christ but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith Because saith he they are given to Christ and Christ to them
Christ apprehended and applied by faith not by any new act of Gods will I dare not determine but pardoned he is and justified he is his state is truly changed and that coram Deo in the sight of God and a new relative relation there is in God to this person as a Father a great change wrought in the sinner but none at all in God and the Believer is the subject upon whom this act of God passeth Acts 13.39 Acts 16.31 Rom. 4.24 John 8.24 John 3.36 16. John 17.20 he is the adequate subject of it for all Believers are thus justified and none but Believers God did not will that our sins should be immediately forgiven but mediately by faith as in John 3.16 Gods end in giving Christ was that only Believers should have benefit by his death and John 17.20 Christ prayeth for them that believe on him and surely he had the same intentions in his death that he had in his intercession And I added that the sinnes of Believeres were laid upon Christ thus Christ was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 Isa 53.16 that knew no sin and the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all and by the merits and satisfaction of Christ imputed we are accounted just and so are acquitted before God as righteous Hence God is said to be in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their transgressions to them 2 Cor. 5. and we are said to be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Rom. 3.24 25. 1 Cor. 1.30 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And Christ is made to us righteousnesse wisdome sanctification and redemption I shall now come to enquire what is meant by an immanent act and whether Justification were from eternity and what is meant by a transient act First Then by an immanent act I understand such an act as is terminated in agente in the agent and not in any thing without it There are some actions which do remain in God and are terminated in himself being confined in his own breast within the compasse of his own understanding and will not but that they may have an external object but nothing in these immanent acts hath any thing without them for the subject or terme As for example a man may purpose and intend to do something in his minde and heart as to relieve a poor mans wants this thought and purpose of heart is an immanent action and so long as it remaines in his minde and breast and he reveal it not and do not yet act accordingly this is yet an immanent action and the poor man is not yet actually the better for it but if he declare his minde and doth practise what he intended here is a transient act for now he doth outwardly expresse and performe what he did inwardly purpose Now the poor man is comforted and his wants actually relieved Let us referre this to God there are some Cabinet secret thoughts and purposes in God from eternity about justifying a sinner through the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended and applied by faith which Christ God will prepare and give to procure a sufficient righteousnesse and will also give faith to the sinner to believe on Christ for salvation Such thoughts as these are were in the minde of God from eternity these thoughts were immanent acts in God and work no present change upon the sinner who had no being from eternity and untill God do actually declare and fulfill the thoughts of his heart the sinner is not justified but only God really intends it Secondly There are actions in God which passe from God upon the creature and do work a change and alteration upon the creature and these we call transient actions when therefore God doth not only declare by his Gospel what his thoughts were to his Elect in pardoning them through faith in Christ but doth in time give Christ for them and them to Christ by drawing their hearts unto Christs by faith now God actually performes the thoughts of his heart and as he intended upon believing to justifie them for Christs sake so now as soon as he hath brought them to faith he doth actually forgive them all their sins justifie their persons and accept them as righteous in Christ Now of this sort are all Gods actions that relate to man except Predestination which is an immanent act of God and all the rest Justification Sanctification Adoption are transient acts of God for all these imply a positive change in the creature and do put something either physically or morally into the justified adopted sanctified c. But concerning Predestination Tritum est in Scholis eam nihil ponere in Praedestinato It is generally received by the Schoolmen that Predestination puts nothing into the predestinate or makes no present change indeed virtually it is the cause of all those transient actions that are done in time And * Aquin. p. 1. q. 13. artic 2. c. Aquinas gives a reason of it Quia Praedestinatio est pars Providentiae Providentia verò non est in rebus provisis sed est quaedam ratio in intellectu provisoris Because Predestination is a part of Divine Providence Now Providence is not in the things foreseen or provided for but is a certain purpose or counsel in the understanding of the foreseer And hence all our Divines are wont cautelously to distinguish between the decree and the execution of the decree they grant the Decree hath no cause but the free will and wise prudence of God but the Execution of the Decree depends upon faith because Pardon Reconciliation is granted to none but Believers Let me adde in the third place that an immanent action is from eternity and is the same with Gods Essence for whatsoever is in God is God but a transient action is the same with the effect produced Hence Gods Decrees are as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burgesse Justifi p. 168. rightly observes the same with his nature for an act of Gods understanding or will is not any thing distinct from his understanding or will but the very same with it * Scheib Met l. 2. ca. 3. De Deo p. 137. Actus vitales Dei ut est ejus intellectio volitio habent ibi realem identitatem ad essentiam divinam All vital actions in God as his understanding and will are have a reall identity or samenesse with his Divine Essence for otherwise the simplicity of Gods nature would be overthrown therefore though we may conceive distinctly of them yet they are not really distinguished in God But now in transient actions it is otherwise for they are the same with the effect produced Mr. Eyre will have it to be an immanent action done from eternity not a transient act done in timo Gods transient act in creating is Creation and in justifying is Justification By this that hath been said it appeareth
sins was not given till received Mr. Eyre meanes by our receiving remission nothing but the comfort and knowledge of it but that interpretation will not agree with the Apostles minde for he doth not say Whosoever believe shall have the knowledge or comfort of the remission of sinnes but shall have remission of sins and that place Acts 26.18 most expressely makes it manifest for before their receiving this forgivenesse they were under the power of Satan surely they that are under Satans power are not yet pardoned what hath Sathan to do with a pardoned sinner This were a wrong to Christs satisfaction if it were accepted for a present discharge and yet they left under Sathans power but Christ himself saith those that he sent Paul unto namely the Gentiles were under the power of Sathan because they were yet under spiritual blindnesse and he is sent to turne them from darknesse to light from the power of Sathan unto God that they might receive remission of sins not that they might receive the knowledge of a deliverance from the power of Sathan they had already or the knowledge of the remission of sins but remission it self now Justification standeth in remission of sins therefore if they received it not before they were not justified Tenthly He giveth a worse answer to that place Ephes 2.12 where it is said that the Elect before Faith or spiritual Regeneration in their natural estate were without Christ without God and without hope in the world that is saith he pag. 73. before faith they had no knowledge or comfort either of Gods gracious volitions towards them or of Christs undertakings in their behalf it is such a chaffy illiterate exposition that it more befits a Green-apron-Preacher then such a Gamaliel it needs not a graine of salt but all the salt in the world will not make a savoury interpretation of it to keep it from the dunghill What were these Ephesians when dead in sins and trespasses dead in conceit only and truly alive to God and dead in their apprehensions only were they children of wrath in their apprehensions why then they were more afraid then hurt what needed they then the work of Creation the Almighty power of God that was put forth to raise Christ from the dead to raise them from this estate could no body cure this conceit with another that if they did but think all was well that thought would be to them as the Resurrection from the dead What were they without Christ in the world because they knew not Christ was there Why then let some frenzy take them and bereave them of their reason as Mr. Eyre was in this interpretation and they are un-Christed again or let them fall asleep and they are again without Christ without God without hope in the world And so they and their Christ will bid good-morrow and good-night so often as they rise or go to bed But the true scope and sense of the place is this the Apostle setteth himself to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in Christ to the Ephesians which he doth by calling upon them to remember what their former deplorable estate was in Ethnicisme when they were Gentiles in the flesh by comparing it with their happy estate since their conversion to the faith and therefore that wonderful change sheweth that their salvation is wholly of grace in their former condition they were then in the flesh that is in their natural and sinful estate as they descended from their parents in a state of sin living after the flesh in which estate they could not please God 2. They were without inward and outward circumcision they had none of the signe and seal of the Covenant of Grace of that righteousnesse that is by faith but were despised by the Jewes who gloried in their circumcision but they had not so much as this outward circumcision in the flesh much lesse the circumcision of the heart Now uncircumcision was a signe of a people that were wholly strangers to God and the Covenant of Grace 3. They were without Christ without any knowledge of Christ Christ was not so much as preached to them and they had no faith in him and so 〈◊〉 as Diodat upon the place saith they neither had union nor communion with Christ nor no knowledge of their union or communion with Christ as if they were mystically united as Mr. Eyre ignorantly or wilfully affirmeth but without union or communion they were not yet members of Christ and so they lived as it were without Christ in the world strangers to Christ at a distance from Christ Such as were sometimes afarre off from Christ and God as ver 13. declareth Calvin in Locum and as Calvine upon the place procul à Deo saluie even as farre as heaven and hell asunder and were strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel that is they were without the Pale of the Church out of which ordinarily there is no salvation and were strangers from the Covenant of Promise that is as Piscator saith Piscator in Locum the Promise of the Covenant of Grace wherein God promised remission of sins through the merit of Christ and the renewing of their hearts by the efficacy of Christ did not belong to them Dickson in Locum and as Dickson upon the words saith alieni à jure ad applicandum sibi pacta promissiones Dei they were destitute of all right to apply the Covenants or Promises of God to themselves And they were without hope in the world that is they had no hope of eternal life so Piscator haec enim nascitur ex fide for this is begotten by saith they could have no good well grounded hope for heaven Spem merit ò conjungit promissionibus de Christo nam absque his quic quid sperant homines frustrà speraent He deservedly joyned hope to the promises concerning Christ for without these whatsoever men hope for they hope in vaine Truly as he saith there can nothing be hoped for that is not promised and without the Covenant there is no Promise And without God in the world they acknowledged many gods nay knew the true God as Creator of heaven and earth but knew him not in Christ and did not worship him according to the light of Scripture and so were without all true knowledge and spiritual worship of God And from all this it followeth that they were unjustified in this estate and it destroyeth the scope of the Apostles argument to take it as Mr. Eyre taketh it only for the want of knowledge of their happy estate whereas the Apostles scope is to shew how miserable they were when in this estate how happy in the change or deliverance from it but here is no change signified by Mr. Eyre's interpretation but only their condition was the same and as good then as now only they did not know it Is it possible a man of reason should be so farre blinded or hardened to shut
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
grace of God to wit Faith whose scope and object is God the Father by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ A second Scripture is Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture is that the phrase that we may be is as much as that we may be manifested and declared and know that we are justified To this I answer that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification but of a Justification real before God therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law he meaneth not a declarative Justification and therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith he means not a declarative Justification for then the opposition is not ad idem for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first therefore neither in the latter For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries nor could the Apostle say with truth that works do not evidence Justification As for Justification in foro conscientiae it is not Justification properly but the knowledge and assurance of it Justification is to be considered as an action of God for it is God that justifieth The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law Now there is no way but by the Law or by faith in Christ therefore they did beleeve in Christ where Justification by the faith of Christ is made the finall cause of their believing Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified how can that that was the end of their beleeving evidence that they were justâ—fied already before they did believe and here let the Reader observe that both the act and object is expressed and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily understands the object by the act why are both expressed Therefore the grace of Faith relatively considered as apprehending Christs righteousnesse is that by which we are justified The third Scripture being Rom. 8.30 I have already vindicated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justification A fourth place which he hath abused is Rom. 4 22. where it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve that is faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse as it was to Abraham for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified Mr. Eyre's answer is That this particle if is not conditional but declarative and so he taketh the meaning to be this Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle which is to encourage us to beleeve as did Abraham from the good effect of it for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have that it was done already where he changeth the time past for the time present and so overthroweth the Apostles scope and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional This is not to interpret Scripture but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne And hence I argue against him If the imputation of righteousnesse be a thing that is not already but shall be imputed if they beleeve then the particle if is not declarative but conditional But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done but was to be done Therefore And for this the words are plaine it shall be imputed if we believe A fifth Scripture is Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his Name whosoever believe shall receive the remission of sins He saith it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins and a little after we obtain remission by Christ but we receive it by faith I answer There is an ambiguity in the word obtain if by it he understand we do not merit purchase forgivenesse we grant it for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins but if by it he understand a receiving the remission of our sins through Christ which then and never till then was received we say thus forgivenesse is obtained by faith as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission as a thing before done and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith for it is said that by faith we receive remission not the knowledge of remission all the Prophets testifie this we receive remission not the sense of the remission of sinnes Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse Besides were we justified from eternity as Mr. Eyre wil have it when by Gods eternal act this remission was given it had been an injury to God Besides an improper speech to say All that beleeve shall receive remission They should have said ye were remitted before if ye beleeve ye shall know it The sixâ—h Scripture is Acts 13.39 By him all that believe shall be justified from all things from which they could not c. He saith that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification though he affirme that he that believeth is justified yet it followeth not the Elect are not justified before faith much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act or habit of faith I answer let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law yet he saith that by obtaining the Law they could not be justified and what they could not have by the Law or any sacrifice therein offeted that may be obtained by Christ through faith where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification he might have said only by him we are justified from all this from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely and if Believers only are justified then unbelievers are not and faith is necessary Therefore though we be not justified by it as the matter of our righteousnesse yet as the instrument to apply it and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine if unbelievers also were the subjects of it A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence is 2 Cor. 5.21 where Christ is said to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him where this is made the finall cause why
had in Christ but only the way and means by which we obtain the things purposed in Election to wit in Christ or for Christs sake And therefore as it is not said that we were sanctified from eternity though he chose us in Christ that we should be holy so neither are we justified from eternity for there is no difference because a man cannot be the subject of a moral change to passe from a state of death and life till he do exist though he may be predestinated to be the subject of such a change in time any more then he can be the subject of a physical or natural change Nor doth that passage in the 6th Verse confirme it where it is said He hath made us accepted in the Beloved for that is to be understood of the Elect Ephesians as they were now regenerate and not to be referred to Gods eternall purpose And all this is made more manifest in that those that were Elect and chosen in Christ are said to be children of wrath without God without Christ and without hope in the world which as we have shewed is inconsistent with the state of Justification The second place in Timothy where it is said 2 Tim. 1.9 10. That grace was given us in Christ before the world began but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ holds forth no such thing as eternal Justification but grace is said to be given in respect of the firmnesse and immutability of Gods purpose Therefore in this place Gods giving is not an actual collation but an eternal preparation of grace to be given infallibly to the Elect. And thus Augustinus Apostolus datam dixit gratiam August de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 34. quando nec erant adhuc quibus daretur quoniam in dispositione ac praedestinatione Dei jam sactum erat quod suo tempore futurum erat The Apostle saith Grace was given when they were not as yet to whom it should be given because in the appointment and predestination of God that was done which in its time should be done Vide Junius Calvin and to this Junius and Calvin give in their suffrage with him The other Scriptures alledged by hâ—m are in pag. 128. which relate to the death of Christ from whence he would prove because it is said that we were then reconciled and had redemption in his blood therefore we were justified before faith from the time of Christs death But observe how the places brought for our Justification from Christs death do utterly overthrow the eternity of Justification For if we were then enemies and then reconciled then was he not reconciled from eternity That in Ephes 1.7 In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins signifieth nothing but that the price of redemption was paid by him and we have forgivenesse of sins because it is purchased for us but it is not actually given For although Christs death be the meritorious cause of Justification yet is it not the only cause and therefore we are not actually justified till all those causes be actually which have an influence into it Col. 1.20 21. and that in Col. 1.20 21. signifies no more but that peace is thus farre made by the blood of his Crosse that now the cause of enmity is removed by a satisfaction made by the death of Christ and God is now willing to forgive such as believe whence he addeth these mercies named shall be enjoyed if they continue in the faith grounded Ver. 23. and setled and be not moved from the hope of the Gospel Eph. 2.13 14. And the like I affirme of that place Ephes 2.13 14. and of that in 2 Cor. 5.19 2 Cor. 5.19 20. we are causally and meritoriously reconciled Thâ—s was Gods designe in Christ in giving him to die but God and they were not actually reconciled that believe not Hence the Apostle exhorteth in the same place the Corinthians to be reconciled to God and when God justifies and is actually reconciled the reconciliation is mutual there is a change in Gods dispâ—nsation though not a change in his affection and when it is saâ—d that we are said to sit with him in heavenly places this is spoken in regard of a right purchased Eph. 2.6 and the certainty of the thing to be obtained though we do not yet personally sit with him and all such places as speak of our being enemies to God and that while we were enemies we were reconciled signifie nothing but this that we were translated out of a state of enmity into a state of actual reconciliation by Christ as soon as we believe Rom. 5.10 as that Rom. 5.10 for in the first verse he speaketh of them that were already justified by faith and in the 11th We have now received the atonement so that there he speaketh of actual believers not that they received this while they remained unbelievers and enemies to God and if you understand it of what was done for us before we had faith and were regenerated it signifieth nothing but the reconciliation meritoriously made by removing the guilt of sin by a sufficient price paid even while we were actually in the state of enmity but the paying of the price is not the whole nor the formalis ratio justificationis For this price paid is part of the matter of our righteousnesse but the formal nature of Justification stands in the imputation of this righteousnesse which is an actual bestowing of it and in our receiving of it by faith then Mr. Eyre pag. 132. and not till then are we formally justified Here Mr. Eyre objecteth two things First That Christ did not only pay the price of our reconciliation Object 1 but that God did so farre accept it for us that upon the payment he did not impute our sins to us for the Apostle define Justification to be a non-imputation of sin 1. This is petitio principii a begging the question to say God did accept it so as he did not impute sin to us that is at the same time when our sins were imputed to Christ 2. I adde that Gods imputing sin to Christ is virtually a non-imputing it to us but not formally and therefore not a formall Justification 3. I adde that the non-imputation of sin containeth not the whole nature of Justification unlesse under it be comprized the imputation of righteousnesse Secondly He objecteth that the paiment of the full price for our Object 2 deliverance from the curse of the Law is a yielding the question that we are actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid To this objection I have already given sufficient answer but because it is the maine Argument to which he and all of his judgement trust I will here also give a solution to it I
answer then by denying the consequence For in the first place payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation but now if there were nothing else to say but this this were enough to prove it not the same dum alius solâ—it necessariò aliud solvitur while another payeth the debt another thing is paid But secondly if a surety of our own appointment pay the debt then it may also be available but the surety is provided by God and not by us And thirdly he paid not the same but the value Fourthly besides Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another not only by the intrinsecal value but by the constitution of God for if God had ordained it it might have been efficaciously sufficient even for the Reprobate Therefore as Scotus * Scotus lib. 3. distin 19. qu. vin p 74. saith well Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it and how farre he will accept it it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge for though he did accept it for them yet not for an immediate discharge and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number if God had so accepted it Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all intents and purposes and as certainly applied as if presently the benefit were obtained for faith also is merited and shall be given And God did suspend it till faith as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient Because 1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin it unites us to Christ 2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remaining which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature 3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remaining so under the reigning power of sin 4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse 5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Redeemer the soul to see his need of Christ and to prize his love and he will have him to acknowledge and take him for his Lord that will have benefit by him and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son that the benefit of this satisfaction shall not be injoyed untill faith And Volenti non fit injuria If the Reader desire further satisfaction let him peruse the Vindication of my Sermon upon this subject CHAP. XI Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification FIrst he saith that the Essence and Quiddity of Justification consisteth in the will of God not to punish and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification is most properly applied to this act and saith he it is a certain rule Cui convenit definitio convenit definitum that is Justification to which the definition of Justification doth agree Now saith he the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods not imputing sin and his imputing of righteousnesse To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument but I deny that the non-imputing of sin and the imputation of righteousnesse is the whole definition of Justification but it is a non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse according to the tenour of the Gospel by vertue of that signal promise He that believes shall be saved And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle if it be a full definition for Justification is a forensical judicial act now according to the tenour of the first Covenant which requireth personal and perfect obedience we cannot be saved Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel wherein he hath promised whosoever believe shall be saved Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant doth not impute sin and impute righteousnesse to a person this is truly Justification but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith Secondly I answer Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin but a purpose of not imputing it Therefore till this purpose be brought into act we are not pardoned and justified for although his will be actuall yet his non-imputation is not actual but to be done in time for neither is the sin in actual being which how it can be remitted before it be committed let him shew for it is not actually but potentially a sin And therefore in what sense it is a sin in that sense it is remitted onely and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actuall being but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified passing him from death to life and that for Christs sake but how can the state of the sinner be changed who is yet unborne and never was yet actually a childe of wrath and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and purpose and consequently if that be Justification we are justified without the merits of Christ and then Socinian doctrine takes place but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification for which God justifieth us In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins and God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians Thirdly Whereas you say the words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will an immanent act I answer that sometimes when they are related to men they so signifie Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.17 Psal 32.1 Psal 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. yet that they are so taken when attributed to God I absolutely deny but do alwayes hold forth a transient act and not an immanent act as Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.27 Psal 32.1 Ps 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. 3 Cor. 5.19 nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act where it is so taken for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person that is to say he judgeth and esteemeth them not to have sinned for Gods judgement is according to truth and therefore such as have sinned he looketh upon them as such as have sinned and he cannot esteem them such as never did sin though he may if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned and in this