told them If Christ were not risâ—n they were yet in their sins seeing they were discharged and acquitted from them so long before 3. His intercession is also vain for he lives to intercede for us to save us from wrath Rom. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 17. and 7. 25. We are secured from wrath before sayes Mr. Eyre 4. Our preaching is vain for we are to preach to every creature under Heaven That except they beleeve they shall be damned Mark 16. 15 16. and multitudes even all the Elect are secured from wrath before 5. It doth also imply a contradiction that a man should be acquitted from sin who was never a sinner or discharged from condemnation who was never condemned If it be said the Elect were sinners and condemned in Gods fore-knowledge Mr. Eyre is better read in Dr. Twisse then to be ignorant of what inextricable inconveniences that answer is liable to But let us heare Mr. Eyres proofes of his Assumption God saith he loved the Elect from everlasting and his love is velle dare bonum c. Answ Which as was observed before is one of the g Vid. Croll Cont. Grot. cap 5. par 6. 7. cap. 1 p. 1. Socinians weapons by which they attempt the ruine of Christs satisfaction against which our Divines have provided sufficient armour A love of benevolence or good will moving God to seek out a way of satisfaction to his own Justice and of Justification of a sinner we readily grant h Vid Joh. Cameron oper p. 361. f. But his love of friendship and well-pleasednesse with a sinner was not from everlasting but in time as being a consequent of the death of Christ in whom he hath made us accepted Eph. 1. 6. as Mr. Eyre doth not only yield but contend below from Mat. 3. 17. and so saith the Apostle Rom. 9. 25. I will call her beloved who was not beloved out of the Prophet Hos 2. 23. and as for the text which Mr. Eyre quotes Ezek. 16. 6. I cannot divine to what end it is unlesse it be to finde me work seeing the love there spoken of is manifestly temporal ver 8. and the life mentioned ver 6. in the latter is the flourishing and honourable condition unto which God had raised Israel both in respect of their Politick and Church-State who were originally the fewest and meanest of all people and in a spiritual sense is the life which he breaths into sinful soules But what Mr. Eyre would inferre from hence himselfe best knows In short I readily grant that Gods eternal love doth concurre ut causa universalis prima as the first universal cause not only to our Justification in time but to all other our spiritual blessings but an universal cause produceth nothing without particulars and the quality of the effect is not to be ascribed to the universal but to the particular cause 2. Mr. Eyre is proving that Gods velle non punire is that act by which we are discharged and acquitted from sin and secured from wrath I wish he had shewed me how this Conclusion issues from these premisses His Argument in forme must run thus Gods eternal love discharges the Elect from sin and secures them from wrath Gods velle non punire is his eternal love Ergo. The major is already disproved The minor if understood of the love of God in whole confounds Election and Justification which yet Mr. Eyre is careful to distinguish a little below for what is Gods Election but his Love or his velle dare bonum If of the Love of God in part the Argument will run thus That which is part of Gods eternal love is a sinners discharge from sin Gods velle non punire is part of his eternal love Ergo. If the major be true Gods purpose of giving Christ of calling sinners of sanctifying them yea of afflicting them and of administring any Providence towards them which in the issue proves for their good may as well be called their Justification as his velle non punire 3. Mr. Eyre hath already granted at least verbo tenus that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish the Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others If this be true then the eternal act of Gods Election in it selfe considered gives the Elect themselves no more security from wrath then if they had not been elected Surely that concession will never be reconciled with the doctrine here delivered But we come on to Mr. Eyres second proof and that is from §. 10. Scripture Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Proposition is either an universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or an universal affirmative All elect persons are free from the charge of sin Answ Mr. Eyre should have put in the Apostles answer to the Question and then he had prevented mine The words are these Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that justifieth Hence it follows either negatively that no elect person being justified can be effectually charged with sin or affirmatively that all the elect that are justified are free from such a charge free I say not because elect but because justified for the charging of sin is manifestly opposed not to their Election but to their Justification but that their Justification is their Election or any part of it or contemporary with it as I may so speak is an inference without any foundation in the text 2. Yea it cannot be inferred according to Mr. Eyres principles though we should grant the Election here spoken of to be that which is from eternity of which presently for the Justification here spoken of is that which is grounded in the death of Jesus Christ Who shall condemn it is Christ that died But the eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre is pleading for from the text is not grounded in the death of Christ for it is an Act in God from eternity Now observe Reader that Mr. Eyre denies Christ to have merited the Act of Justification but only the effects I would know then whether the Apostle speak of the Act or effects of Justification in those words Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect if of the Act then the Elect were from eternity unchargeable and whose charge then did Christ beare and why doth Mr. Eyre all along tell us that our discharge from the curse is the fruit of Christs merits yea and what more as to the tâ—rminus à quo of our salvation I say what more could Christ merit possibly then that we should not be chargeable with sin And if that were done before by an eternal act there will be no effects of Justification left for Christ to merit as to our deliverance from sin But if the Justification here spoken of be meant not of the act but of the effects Mr. Eyre will grant me without
just the effect which follows upon it is that we shall therefore be saved from wrath It seemes the distinction between the velle and the res volita in the matter of Justification was unknown to him 5. And his discourse supposeth that the love and grace of God is nothing so much commended by giving the effects as by putting forth the act of Justification for herein God commends his love towards us that while we were yet sinners he gave his Son to death for our Justification and then as a lesser matter he infers much more being now justified we shall be saved from wrath So also ver 10. Now if by Justification in Christs blood be meant the effects and not the act of Justification then the love and grace of God is nothing near so great in justifying us through the blood of Christ as in justifying us before without his blood But this is most notoriously false as is manifest not from this text only but from all the Scriptures which proclaim that temporal Justification which we have through the blood of Christ to be an act of greatest love and richest grace Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 20 21. Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 4 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 1. 14. Tit. 3. 4 5 6 7 6. The effects of Justification follow upon the act by moral necessity and without impediment Ergo the Justification here spoken of is not the effect precisely but the act The reason of the consequence is because the Justification mentioned in the text follows not upon any simple precedent act of Justification but is set forth as an act of such moral difficulty that it required no lesse then the precious blood of the Son of God to remove the obstructions and hindrances of its existence and to make it to exist The Antecedent is proved from his manner of arguing à majori ad minus being now justified much more shall we be saved implying that salvation follows as it were necessarily upon the position of the act of Justification Yea and I appeal to Mr. Eyre himselfe or any man else whether that act be not unworthy of the many glorious titles and epithets which are every where in Scripture put upon Justification and consequently unworthy of that name which being put in actu completo can yet produce no good effect to a sinner nor set him one degree farther from wrath then he was before unlesse some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects This mindes me of another Argument and that is this 7. Justification is not an act of grace simply but of powerful grace or of grace prevailing against the power of sin for this is that which creates the difficulty and so commends the excellency of the grace of Justification that it is the Justification of sinners Were it the Justification of such as had never sinned but had been perfectly righteous there were no such difficulty in that And therefore in the following part of the Chapter the Apostle expresly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us in that it abounds and is powerful to justifie above the ability of sin to condemn ver 15 17 20 Ergo the Justification here spoken of is the very act of Justification or there is no such thing at all for if we place it in a simple eternal volition there could be no moral difficulty in that no more then in the will of creating the world because from eternity there could be no opposition or hindrance for an act of grace to overcome 8. The Justification merited by Christ is not the effect but the act The reason we shall shew anon because it is absurd to make Christ the meritour of the effects when the act is in being before his merit But the Justification here spoken of is that which is merited by Christ Ergo I might also argue out of the following part of the Chapter from the opposition between Justification and the act of condemnation which passeth upon all men by vertue of the first transgression and therefore sure cannot consist in any eternal act of Gods will and from the method there used in comparing Adam and Christ and of our partaking first in the image of the first Adam in sin and the effects thereof before we be conformed to the image of the second Adam in Justification and the effects thereof but these Arguments out of the text it self shall suffice Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testifie that Justification §. 18. doth make a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum As Col. 2. 13. You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses To be dead in sins in this place is clearly to be dead in Law that is to be obliged by Law to the suffering of death for sin for it is opposed to that life which consists in remission of sin or Justification so 1 Cor. 6. 11. such were some of you but ye are justified of which place more hereafter See also Rom. 3. 19 20 21 22 23 24. and 5. 18 19 20 21. Eph. 2. 12 13 14 15 16. And indeed all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods justifying sinners If there be found out a new Justification which the Scriptures are not acquainted with may they have joy of it that have discovered it But I hasten to the second part of Mr. Eyres answer The change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the transgressour is unjust but being considered at the Tribunal of grace and cloathed with the righteousnesse of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the creature much lesse any inherent difference c. Answ These words are mysteries to me and I confesse have occasioned §. 19. me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts then all the book besides Before I can give any answer to them I must make some enquiry into the meaning of them And for avoiding of confusion in the words just and unjust their importance in this place is no more then to have or be without a right to salvation and life Now to be unjust by nature or in our selves may be understood in a threefold sense 1. Positively and then the meaning is that for the sin of nature or for mens sinfulnesse in themselves they stand obliged before God to the suffering of eternal punishment This is so far from being Mr. Eyres meaning that I suppose
5. with Rom. 8. 1 34. And to the same sense doth Mr. Eyre himself expound it in his maine answer which is this By nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God Yet this hindred not but that by grace they might be the children of his love for so all the elect are while they are in their blood and pollution Ezek. 16. 4 8. The Lord calls them his sonnes and children before conversion Isa 43. 6. and 53. 11. and 8. 18. Heb. 2. 9. For it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children Eph. 1. 5. Rom. 8. 29. Joh. 17. 6. Elect children have the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to them though they know it not and I know no reason saith he why it should not be imputed to the rest of the elect before conversion Rep. Two things I have here to do 1. To shew what the Apostles §. 9. sense is in these words 2. What is Mr. Eyres sense and how inconsistent with the Apostles 1. When the Apostle saies we were by nature children of wrath by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature I understand their whole naturall condition from their very first originall wherein they began to be the children of Adam unto the time of their conversion unto Christ And so his meaning is that during the whole time of their naturall unregenerate estate they were under an obligation to eternal punishment for the sinfulnesse of their nature and b per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc in loco intelligi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ait Suidas in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad finem lives That this is his meaning is manifest not only from this verse Amongst whom we all had our conversatiou in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath even as others and from the words following v. 4 5. But God when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ but also from that other place altogether parallel to this Colos 2. 13. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses c Vide Esthium Davenanâ— Bâ—zam Dâ—odat Hemming alios Expositors are agreed that by the uncircumcisâ—on of the flesh is meant the sinfulnesse and corruption of nature and therefore by comparing the places together it is manifest that for the sinfulnesse of their nature and conversation the two parts of the naturall man the Apostle pronounceth these Ephesians to have been in times past children of wrath and damnation no lesse then any other Now for Mr. Eyre we must a little enquire what is his meaning §. 10. when he says that beleevers were children of wrath namely by nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam and againe that considered in themselves and as they come from the loynes of Adam they are sinful and cursed creatures Which being to be understood in a diminutive sense only secundum quid for Mr. Eyre will not allow us to inferre that because they are under wrath by nature Ergo they are under wrath simply nor because they are cursed in themselves Ergo they are cursed simply must therefore be extended no farther then may consist with a state of blessednesse and freedom from wrath which the same persons are in at the same time And so the meaning is that there is in every man even the elect themselves naturally and as they are the children of Adam sufficient ground and matter of condemnation though they never stand actually condemned either in respect of their obligation to or the execution of punishment because of the grace of God preventing and hindring it Even as he said before that the Law condemned the elect whom yet he denies to be ever condemned simply by the word condemneth a verbe of active signification expressing not the effect which the Law produceth for it is impossible men should be condemned and not condemned both at once but the faculty power and virtue that is in the Law to condemne sinners if the Act of it were not hindred and bound up by grace Thus do we often speak in ordinary discourse as when we say Rhubarbe purgeth Choler not relating to the actual operation of it though the verb be of active signification but to the virtue of it for such an operation and light makes all things manifest relating still to the faculty and property of it not to the Act or exercise for the words may be spoken at midnight And as in these and the like expressions the verbe active signifieth not the Act or present influx of the cause but the power and virtue of it so when it is said that a man is accursed condemned in himself or by nature or the like the verbs passive do not note the effect wrought and existing but the morall capacity of a person to be the object of condemnation nothing on his part hindring it but rather preparing and disposing him for it This if any thing being Mr. Eyres sense we are next to shew §. 11. that it is altogether inconsistent with the Apostles meaning in this text And that appears 1. From that the Apostle doth not say we are the children of wrath by nature but we were the children of wrath by nature namely in times past as he doth twice expresse himselfe v. 2 3. plainly opposing the time present to the time past wherein they were children of wrath but now were ceased to be so Whereas according to the sense which Mr. Eyre puts upon the words it is impossible that a sinner should be delivered from being a child of wrath either in this world or in the world to come Even glorified Saints considered according to what they are by nature or in themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam are children of wrath and so they remaine to all eternity 2. The phrase here used as Beza well observes children of wrath is borrowed from the Hebrews who are wont to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sonne of death who is designed or adjudged to die or hath contracted upon himself an obligation unto death without any present actuall reversion as he that is found guilty of stripes and adjudged to be beaten is called a sonne of stripes Deut. 25. 2. see also 1 Sam. 20. 31. and 2 Sam. 12. 5. Psal 102. 20. Therefore the same phrase applied here to the elect in their unbelief notes that they were then under such an ordination to death as did exclude their present d C ram Deo damnati Calvin pardon and absolution They that were pardoned were children of life not of death 3. We were also children of wrath saith the Apostle even as others Will it
believer as much subject to condemnation of conscience as the unbeliever Upon the second branch of the Argument there is nothing I shall §. 20. need reply to saving only that passage of Mr. Eyres That Christs merits will not save those whom God doth condemne To which I say that though none other can justifie those whom God condemnes yet God himself may and doth justifie those whom he had before condemned or else no sonne of Adam ever was or shall be justified Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification of life A third Argument proving that the condemnation mentioned â— 21. John 3. 18. was not to be meant of condemnation in conscience only was because it is called the wrath which shall abide on unbelievers ver 36. Mr. Eyre answers Therefore we say no elect unbeliever is condemned of God because the wrath of God doth not abide upon him Rep. It is yielded then that the condemnation about which we dispute is not meerly condemnation in conscience which is as much as I ever sought from the place and that Mr. Eyre knows well enough 2. We have shewed before that the wrath of God is upon every one that is an unbeliever at present though it do not abide upon any but final unbelievers Lastly thus I argued The condemnation here spoken of is opposed §. 22. to salvation v. 17. Ergo it is more then condemnation in conscience Mr. Eyre answers That the condemnation opposed to salvation is damnation and then by Mr. Eyres Argument the Elect because they are sometimes unbelievers must all be damned Rep. Sure Mr. Eyre believes not our English Proverb As good never a whit as never the better Salvation is sometimes taken strictly for an executive deliverance from wrath Rom. 5. 9. And so none are saved in this life Sometimes more largely and so it containes both that compleat salvation and the beginnings of it in this life viz. that right which is given us to it in our Justification Luke 19. 9. Rom. 1. 16 17. and 10. 9 10. He that beleeveth not is under condemnation as it is opposed to salvation in the latter sense The second answer is replied to already CHAP. VIII A Reply to Mr. Eyres twelfth Chapter My third fourth and fifth Argument for the Antecedent of faith to Justification vindicated SECT I. A Third Argument by which I proved Justification to §. 1. be consequent to faith was taken from the several similitudes by which Justification by faith is illustrated I instanced particularly in two The first was that of the brazen Serpent John 3. 14 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse supply that whosoever looked on him might recover of the sting of the fiery Serpent See the story it selfe Numb 21. 8 9. so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have everlasting life And John 6. 40. It is the Will of God that whosoever seeth and believeth the Sonne should be justified Mr. Eyre doth utterly deny that it was the intent of the Holy Ghost to shew by these comparisons in what order or method we are justified in the sight of God Wherein he fights not only against me but against a Comparamus fidem cum intuitu serpentis aen i. Intuitus ille vim medicam in se non habuit sed ut instrumentum conditio est à Deo ad sanâ—tatem impetrâ—ndam ordinata Anton. Wallaeus oper Tom. 1. p. 423. all men that I can read upon the place and against common sense which upon the reading of the words cannot but apprehend the order and method of our spiritual healing represented by that bodily cure wrought upon those that looked up to the brazen Serpent But it may be he intends to deny Justification to be included in the Promise of not perishing but having eternal life Let us try it His second answer therefore is The stinging of the fiery Serpents did plainly shadow forth the effects of the Law in conscience Now as the Israelites when they were stung by those fiery Serpents found no ease till they looked up unto the brazen Serpent so the soule that is smitten and wounded by the Ministry of the Law will never finde rest till it look unto him in whose wounds and stripes is the healing of sinners Rep. The effects of the Law in conscience might very well be shadowed §. 2. forth by the stinging of the fiery Serpents as part of that punishment which is due to sinners but that it should represent no more is spoken gratis Sin stings because it kills the person as well as because it disquiets the conscience 1 Cor. 15. 55 56. and a fiery sting it is because it makes the sinner obnoxious to the displeasure of God who is a consuming fire and whose wrath burnes to the very bottome of hell not in the conscience only but upon the whole person unlesse it be prevented by faith and repentance 2. Observe also Reader how Mr. Eyre is constrained to mince the matter that he may make his Interpretation the more current The Israelites saith he being stung of the fiery Serpents could find no ease till they looked up to the brazen Serpent As if their wound had been only painful but not mortal And as if they had looked up to the brazen Serpent not for life but only for ease whereas they were all mortally stung many died actually all had received their deaths wound death was begun upon them all and would unavoidably have grown on to the last and utmost degree if it had not been prevented by the brazen Serpent To teach us though Mr. Eyre will not learn it that every unbeliever is in a state of death and condemnation nor can escape the last and sorest part of this death but by looking up to Jesus Christ 3. The reddition of the comparison is this in our Lords words So must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life which according to Mr. Eyres sense is this That whosoever beleeveth on him should not be disquieted in conscience but should have rest and ease in his Spirit This indeed for the most part doth in some measure follow upon our Justification as no doubt but the Israelites recovered life and ease together But to be delivered from perishing and to have everlasting life in right or possession is surely more then to have ease from present anguish of spirit Should I take this liberty of interpreting Scripture Mr. Eyre might justly have been angry with my forehead In the third place Mr. Eyre tells his Reader that this very comparison §. 3. makes against me I had need look to that But how doth it make against me As saith he the Israelites were alive when they looked upon the
pardon of sin is so far from being excluded as that indeed it is the principal blessing included in the life here promised is manifest from the Lords own words almost the very same with those used throughout this chapter in administration of his Supper This is my body which is broken for you as Paul hath it 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. Ergo remission of sins is that life which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the world 3. The life mentioned throughout the chapter containes all the blessings which Christ hath purchased for believers Ergo it containes Justification and pardon of sins or else Christ never purchased that for them If it be said that Christ purchased not the act of pardon but that consolation and refreshment which is the effect of it we have already shewed that neither is that act worthy the name of pardon which cannot of it self produce the effects of pardon nor was it needful that where pardon is so great a price should be paid for the effects of it What can hinder good things from us but sin and sin if it be pardoned can no more hinder then if it never had been committed that there would be no need for Christ to die to purchase any good things for us if he do not purchase the very act of pardon 4. The life which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the world is not life simply but salvation from perishing as appears by comparing ver 40. with John 3. 16 17. therefore surely containes more then a life of comfort and refreshment precisely as was before observed 5. And I leave it with Mr. Eyre to consider whether there be not some greater malignity against the grace of God and salvation by Christ in his opinion then in the doctrine of those whom he opposeth pretendedly as enemies to grace when for the maintaining of it he is forced to bear us in hand that God sent not Christ nor did Christ come to quicken a dead world but to give ease to a sick world or healing to a wounded world not to give life to them that were dead but comfort and refreshment to them that were alive or not to restore them unto life but to continue and perfect them in the life they had before Eph. 2. 5. You that were dead in sins hath he quickened namely by remission Col. 2. 13. If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5. 15. Ergo a lesser matter then the death of Christ woâ—ld have served turne for our Redemption if our death had been any thing lesse then a total privation of life and the flesh and blood of Christ which so often in the Chapter is said to give life to the world is Christ dying or Christ crucified SECT III. MY fourth general Argument proving faith to go before Justification §. 7. was this What place and order works had to Justification in the Covenant of works the same place and order faith hath to our Justification in the Covenant of grace But works were to go before Justification in the Covenant of works Ergo faith is to go before our Justification in the Covenant of grace Mr. Eyre declames most tragically against the Proposition as no lesse unsound then the worst point in Popery or Arminianisme Thus do wise mens passions sometimes out-run the Constable and so they may overtake their adversary care not how many innocent persons they over-run in the way This very Proposition which Mr. Eyre disclaims as a piece of Popery and Arminianism have I received from as worthy opposers of both as the world hath any Bellarmine arguing against Justification by faith only saith That it did not please God to give Justification upon the condition of faith alone b Bell enerv l. 5. c 4. p. 3â—3 in 12. Dr. Ames answers Vel maximè hoc placuit Deo It pleased him altogether and addes Apostolus eâ—iam Gal. 3. 11 12. clarè testatur sidem in Evangelio ita se habere ut fac hoc in lege which I cannot better English then in the words of my Proposition denied Thus c Com. iâ— Eph. p. 243. 244. Bayne Look as in the Covenant of the Law Do this and live no deed no life so in this Covenant of the Gospel wherein the Lord promiseth for Christ to pardon sin to justifie to accept to eternal life here it may be said No saith no portion in the Prâ—mises of God in the grace of God in Christ Jesus for look as plaisters unapplied so is Christ unbelieved Nay more hast thou not saith whiles thus thou art God will not justifie thee nor accept thee to life for to pronounce thee just that doest not beleeve on Christ were to pronounce the guilty innocent which is an abomination with God For hence it is that Gods mercy and justice kisse offering no violence to each other because God doth so of grace save us sinners in our selves that first he maketh through Christ applied righteous c. Thus d De recoâ—cil â—ar 1. l. 2 c. 1â— p 101. Wotton Fides igitur est conditio quidem talis conditio ad Justificationem per Christum in foedere gratâ—itâ— qualis â—rant opera ad Justificationem ex operibus legis The sense of which is altogether the same with Dr. Ames Thus Calvin e In Rom. 10. 8 there quoted Colligimus sicut lex opera exigit Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam Thus f Of the Covenâ—nt part â— ch 6. p. 360. Mr. Bulkley almost verbatim though I did not know so much till a Minister that had read the book told me of it and were it worth the while to transcribe testimonies in so known a case I could confirme the same from the testimonies of Dr. Twisse Pemble Downham Ball Beza and I think all the Protestant Authours I have most of whose names are mentioned chap. 1. and that according to the constant language of the g Vid Gasp Laurent Conseâ—s Orthoâ— vâ—t Art 5. â— â— per â—â—â— Ancients And because I foresaw that an adversary might be ready to misrepresent me as if I had compared faith and works in every respect as the same for use and effect in their respective Covenants I therefore said not that they had the same place meerly in the two Covenants but the same place and order putting in the latter word purposely as an Explication of the former for preventing that very mistake which Mr. Eyre is here run into of which latter word notwithstanding Mr. Eyre takes no notice in all he sayes against me My meaning therefore in the Proposition is this That as by the Covenant of works it was required that men should fulfil the Law that they might be justified so by the Gospel it is required that men beleeve that they
which will be hard to do Doth not our Glorification depend inseparably upon our Predestination yet not immediately And when afterwards Mr. Pemble is quoted with great ostentation to justifie that God is well pleased with the persons of the elect unregenerate but not with their unregeneracy it may be of some authority with men that cannot reade English Mr. Eyre sets down his words at large and what saith he why that God loves the persons of the elect but not their vices as Parents love their childrens persons even while they chastise them for their vices But is God therefore well pleased with the elect because he loves them that is hath purposes of doing them good or because Parents love their children and would do them all the good they can are they therefore well pleased with them even while they are correcting them for their vices let themselves judge We have shewed before that well-pleasednesse imports an approbation of a person and supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities And as for the inference which I made upon Mr. Eyres distinction between unregenerate men and their unregeneracy it was grounded upon presumption that the said distinction intended to shew the difference between Gods well-pleasednesse with the Elect before and after their Conversion otherwise I undertake not its defence In the next place Mr. Eyre addes something to clear up the difference §. 17 between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons As 1. That the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the elect yet are they not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Answ The best actions of unregenerate men are materially good as Prayer hearing of the Word Almesdeeds c. It is the want of a good principle and a good end which makes them unacceptable unto God 2 Chron. 25. 2. If the sinfulnesse of them be pardoned they must needs be acceptable as we observed before 2. Saith he The best works of good men are acceptable and pleasing unto God 1. Abstractly and in themselves thus faith hope love are pleasing to God 2. Concretely as they are acted by us and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ Answ 1. Abstracta dicunt essentias faith hope and love in their abstract nature are not considered as our actions but as vertues and in themselves good therefore that part of the answer is impertinent might we suppose that these vertues might be found in persons not elect their own goodnesse would commend them to God as much as when they are in persons elect 2. For a work to be washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ is to have the sinfulnesse thereof for his sake pardoned which because it is done to the elect as much in their unregeneracy as after the good works they do when regenerate can be no more acceptable then before SECT IV. OF all the places in Scripture which speak of our reconciliation unto God by the death of Christ I know none that seem to §. 18. make it an immediate effect of his death but that in Rom. 5. 10. and therefore I opposed that to my selfe and answered it in my Sermon And that the truth of my answer and the impertinency of all that Mr. Eyre sayes against it may the better appear I shall transcribe the text at large ver 8. But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us ver 9. much more then being nâ—w justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him ver 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life ver 11. And not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement The main objection is out of ver 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne The answer which I gave to it in short was this That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled which that it is the Apostles meaning we shall prove by and by in the mean time let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it His exceptions are six 1. Saith he It offers a manifest violence to the text To say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled Answ And it is a manifest violence to my words to say that I so interpret it I say we were reconciled quoad meritum immediately in the death of Christ that is his death purchased reconciliation for us and therefore through that death it is that we are reconciled actually and effectivè whensoever it be The second exception is the old irrational notion That if reconciliation depend upon conditions to be performed by us then we are the causes of our own reconciliation Where not only the consequence is false as we have largely shewed above but the antecedent also impertinent I am not now disputing whether reconciliation follow faith but whether it exist immediately upon the death of Christ The third This reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo before our believing Answ Yet will it not follow that it was made immediately in the death of Christ which is the thing Mr. Eyre should prove If we be not reconciled before we are born it is sufficient to prove that we were not reconciled in the death of Christ immediately whether faith be supposed to be necessary or no. 2. The word reconciled is used twice in ver 10. If they both relate to one and the same reconciliation of which I doubt as I shall shew farther by and by yet I readily grant that it was made in the death of Christ Were not my words plain enough before That we are said to be reconciled unto God in the death of his Sonne inasmuch as Christs death was the price of our reconciliation The cause was then in being though the effect do not follow till some time after The fourth If the meaning were no more but this That it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous Answ The emphasis of those words is plain God reconciles his enemies to himself whensoever it be that he reconciles them and Christ purchased reconciliation for enemies not for friends See Câ—l 1. 21. The fifth God was in Christ not imputing our sins to us 2 Cor. 5. 19. Answ That doth not prove but that I rightly interpret the Apostle here 2. In 2 Cor. 5. 19. reconciling and non-imputing are all one the latter interprets the former God did act towards the reconciliation of sinners and
that God through the death of Christ hath so far forth laid aside his enmity against sinners as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will beleeve and repent whereof also he hath given them such assurance in his Gospel that if now they be not reconciled it is because they wil not be reconciled if they die it is because they will die But if his meaning be that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Christ then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word but seeing reconciliation hath its degrees let him demonstrate that it must-be understood not of the first degree which I stand for but of the second which begins in application 2. I desire also to know by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Christs death Is it by some act of his minde surely that will be very dangerous to affirme that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Christ Is it a transient act shew us then its object it is past imagination how an effect can be wrought and exist in or upon an object which it selfe hath no existence Lastly iâ— the benefits purchased in the death of Christ be none of them applied or actually given us before Christs sitting down at the right hand of God then neither was reconciliation applied to us or given us immediately in or upon the death of Christ But the first is true Ergo so is the second Heb. 5. 9. Being made perfect that is exalted into glory see chap. 2. 10. he became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him without this we could have received l See Dr. Reynolâ—s in Pâ— 110. p. 427. 429. Dr. Goâ—win on Rom. 8 sect 5. p. 71 177. none of the benefits purchased in the death of Christ and therefore surely reconciliation was not begun to be applied immediately in or upon his death Heb. 8. 4. If he were on earth he should not be a priest Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not raised you are yet in your sins And a general rule it is amongst Divines that Christ in his intercession is the applying cause of all the benefits purchased in his death Seeing then it is certaine that our reconciliation though purchased in the death of Christ yet is not applied and actually given us till his entrance into heaven if now it be asked when Christ in heaven doth give us this reconciliation I answer in the words of the Apostle Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sin which is the reconciliation we speak of and 2 Cor. 5. 20. we are Ambassadours for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be you reconciled unto God And now I returne to Mr. Eyre SECT VI. I Had said in my Sermon that it is through the death of Christ that §. 29. the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled to God after we do beleeve This after Mr. Eyre hath represented and paraphrased as he pleased and charged it of course with the imputations of Arminianisme and Popery at last he advanceth foure Arguments against it as he saith but if the Reader will peruse them he will find there is not one I say againe not one but all of them levelled against a position which never came into my mind to owne viz. That Christ purchased only a conditional promise Si sat sit accusasse quis erit innocens I say therefore that Christ did indeed purchase the conditional Covenant but I say withal that if we look to the intention of Christ in purchasing he purchased the infallible application or donation of every blessing of the Covenant unto some namely the elect If this be Arminianisme I am an Arminian yea and so strong in the persuasion that I cannot hope of my self that I shall be altered by any mans writings which I have seen or am like to see while I live But what cannot a general pardon be purchased for all because it is intended that some shall infallibly be pardoned and saved by it or is not such a pardon the first Act and degree of our reconciliation because other things are purchased as well as it more then this I shall not need to say to any of Mr. Eyres Arguments nor do I intend to say more to the three last the first because it pretends some Scriptures for an immediate reconciliation in the death of Christ I shall answer to particularly The Argument then is this The Scripture no where saies that Christ died to obtaine a conditional grant but to make an end of sin Dan. 9. 24. By the blood of his crosse he hath made peace Colos 1. 20. Broken down the partition wall Eph. 2. 14. Delivered us from the curse Gal. 3. 13. And our Saviour doth not say Math. 26. 28. That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the elect Answ Of the first part of the answer more anon As to Dan. §. 30. 9. 24. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that learned men are of different ways in expounding what it is to make an end of sin m Vide Jâ—nium Willet Hexapl. in loc some interpreting it of that end of sin not which Christ made but which sinners themselves make by repentance n Vid. Rolloc comment in loc some of restraining and confirming the godly that they might not be guilty of a defection from God But understand it of the end made by the death of Christ what is the inference Ergo it is not through the death of Christ that the promise is made by and according to which we are reconciled to God when we believe Doth Mr. Eyre think this consequence needs no proofe If this text afford him any thing for his purpose it will exclude the intercession of Christ and the Covenant of pardon made in his blood from being at all necessary or useful to the making an end of sin To Colos 1. 20. It pleased the Father having made peace through the blood of his crosse by him to reconcile all things to himself c. The answer is ready That the making of peace in the death of Christ is here mentioned as the means to that reconciliation of all things to himself which the Father intended thereby for both the making of peace and reconciliation are here mentioned as the acts of God as the first and principal cause and the latter the effect and end of the former God hath made peace in Christs death that he might reconcile us to himself I appeal to any man that knows what a consequence is whether it will
metaphorically may be called the payments of debts to the Law the sameness of the person is essential to the sameness of the payment so that si alius sâ—lvat aliud sâ—laitur if another person pay 't is another thing that 's paid 4. If Christ paid the idem then no mans sins are pardoned The Law it self would admit of satisfaction from the sinner if he were able to make it if sinners by suffering of punishment could satisfie for their sins they should be discharged from farther punishment without pardon it would be no grace to free them t Grot. de satisfact Christi c. 6. p. 119. videsis Andr. Essen de satisfact l. 2 sect 3 â— 3. p. 519 520 521 c. Vbi idem solvitur out à debitore aut ab alio nomine debitoris nulla contingit remissio nihil enim circa debitum agit Creditor aut Rector 5. Our obligation was ex delicto Christs ex contractu voluntario It was not any breach of the Law that subjected him to death but his own voluntary act Joh. 10. 17 18. Wherefore though the things which Christ suffered were much of the same kind though not altogether with what sinners were by the Law obliged to suffer yet was not he obliged to suffer by the same Law that they were but by a Law peculiar to himself as a voluntary surety for them in which respect it is that we say his payment was not u Vide Cameron disp dc satisf p. 363 Respons ad obj 1. m. ejusdem but tantidem And these are the common Arguments which are wont to be made use of in this matter which Mr. Eyre might have spared me the paines of transcribing if he had pleased and instead thereof seeing they are so well known have given them some answer In the next place he advanceth foure Arguments to prove that the §. 33. death of Chrst was solutio ejusdem I confesse I wonder at his undertaking but let us see his Arguments 1. Saith he Christ was held in the same obligation which we were under he was made under the same Law Gal. 4. 3 4. Ans Why Is a surety held in the same obligation because he is bound to pay the same summe then is there no difference between the surety and the principal debtour The Apostle in Gal. 4. 3 4. saith that Christ was made of a woman made under the Law As the former expression implies that though he were of a woman quoad corpulentam substantiam yet he came not from her quoad rationem seminalem according to the common rule of nature by which children are wont to be borne into the world so doth the latter imply that though his obedience for substance were the same which the Law required of us yet was it not performed by virtue of that common obligation which lyes upon us but by special oeconomy and appointment x Sâ—e P. Ushers Immanuâ—â— pag. 10. f at the end of his Body of Divinity and Essen ubi sâ—pra lib. 1. sect 4. cap. 9. pag. 288. Joh Dried de capt Redempt tract 3. pag. 242 243 244 c. He that was Lord of the Law might have exempted himself from subjection to it if he had pleased See Philip. 2. 6 7 8. So that Christs obedience though in some respect the same with ours as having the same rule and object yet was it of another kind then ours in regard of the principle and manner of performance in that the Law which bound others did yet bind him no farther then himself pleased to be bound The same answer I give to the second text Gal. 3. 13. Christ was made a curse for us and dyed for us Heb. 2. 9 14. Isaâ— 53. 4 5. for none of these things prove that he was any of those who by the Law were obliged to die yea it is certaine he was not for the Law obligeth none to death but sinners yea and for the very matter of the curse and death which Christ suffered though that do not immediately concerne our question for though he had suffered the idem in regard of the matter of his punishment yet formally as his death was a satisfaction or payment that idem was no more then the tantundem which I plead for yet I say it is certaine that there is some kind of evil in the curse executed upon sinners which was never executed upon Christ as an exclusion from all interest in Gods favour the defacing of his image in his soul rage and despaire of conscience and the like The answer therefore is Christ was indeed made a curse for us not that the Law did curse him or had power so to do but because by special compact between his father and himself he endured that punishment for the maine which the Law threatned against sinners Heb. 10. 5 7. A body hast thou prepared me Loâ— come to do thy will even as it was by a special Law that beasts were slaine and sacrificed unto God of old and not by that general Law which curseth every one that sinneth Hence it follows thirdly that when our sins are said to be laid upon Christ Isa 53. 6. Which is Mr. Eyres third Argument it doth by no means follow that the death of Christ was that which the Law required but that Christ was made to beare that punishment which in weight and value was the same which we should else have borne though it be not arithmetically the same If any man can make more of those words let him His fourth and last Argument is this If God would have dispensed with the idem in the first obligation Christ need not have died Which is a very strange consequence for God did therefore dispence with the idem that there might be way made for the death of Christ That which was in the obligation was our punishment if God did not dispense with this it had been impossible for Christ to have died for us but the Law must be executed upon every sinner in his own person But behold the proofe If the justice of God would be satisfied with lesse then the penalty of the Law he might as well have dispensed with the whole Ans As if that which is not the same must needs be lesse I confesse I account it no better then losse of time to answer these things under the notion of Arguments Hitherto then the matter is safe That the death of Christ was not §. 34. the payment of the same which was in the obligation Ergo it doth not deliver ipso facto for explication of which I added that if the debtour himself do bring unto the creditour that which he ows him it presently dischargeth him but the payment of a surety doth not Why not saith Mr. Eyre Amongst men there is no difference so the debt be paid it matters not whether it be by the principal or his surety the obligation is void in respect of both Ans Which
be offered up And as to Mr. Eyres two evasions that to be justified by faith doth sometimes signifie By faith to know that we are justified He might as well say the world was made by faith For by faith we know that the world was made Heb. 11. 3. And that otherwhile faith signifies Christ believed on we have often and I trust satisfactorily discovered that they are inventions from beneath not doctrines from above Let us now see what Mr. Eyre brings to prove that it was the §. 42. Will of God and Christ that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part Foure principles he lays down which neither singly nor joyntly can bring forth the Conclusion they are in travel with 1. Christ by the Will of God gave himseâ—f a ransome and sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God Answ But the Question is Whether it were the Will of God that remission should follow immediately upon the offering up of this sacrifice before the sinner beleeves and repents 2. That this ransome was alone and by it selfe a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to divine Justice for all their sins Answ But the Question is whether satisfaction may not be made by a voluntary surety with this agreement that they for whom it is made shall not be freed by it till they performe such or such a condition If it may as Mr. Eyre granted but now then he should have told us not only that Christ made satisfaction but that he made it with this intent that the elect should be presently discharged by it Otherwise he begs the Question a second time 3. God accepted it and declared himself well-pleased therewith insomuch that he hath thereupon covenanted and sworne that he will never remember their sins nor be wroth with them any more Isa 43. 25. and 54. 9 10. Answ The Question is still begg'd No doubt but God was well-pleased with the death of Christ as with a sacrifice or satisfaction in it self so perfect that his justice could not require more But whether he accepted it and was well-pleased with it so as that it should presently without the intervention of faith produce the pardon of any is the question which is here resolved by a go-by It is certain that some effects of Christs satisfaction are not communicated to the elect before they believe much lesse immediately in the death of Christ and seeing we are to grow up in him in all things till we have attained to the fulnesse of the life of Christ I confesse it is beyond my comprehension how we come to be perfect in one part of his life that is in one fruit and effect of his death while we remain imperfect in all the rest As to the Covenant which Mr. Eyre speaks of that God will never remember the sins of the elect nor be wroth with them any more Isa 43. 25. and 54. 9 10. The former place proves no more then that God takes it as one of his royal prerogatives to be a God that pardoneth sin as he also doth elsewhere Exod. 34. 6 7. Mich. 7. 18. the latter that the pardon which he gives is eternal neither that the elect are pardoned immediately in the death of Christ or while they continue in unbelief But the contrary is plainly supposed Isa 54. 1 2 3. 4. That by this ransome of Christ they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 4. 4. and 3. 13. Answ Quoad meritum not quoad effâ—ctum till they believe as we have shewed before Christs death hath redeemed us from the power of sin as well as from the curse of the Law 1 Pet. 1. 18. were the elect therefore sanctified immediately in the death of Christ He hath redeemed our bodies as well as our soules yet are not our bodies redeemed quoad effâ—ctum till the Resurrection Râ—â— 8. 23. till then they lie in their graves by vertue of that common obligation unto death which the first Adam brought upon all men 1 Cor. 15. 22 49 56. And thus thou seest Reader with what successe Mr. Eyrâ— hath attempted to prove That it was the Will of God in giving his 〈◊〉 death and the Will of Christ in giving himself that his 〈◊〉 should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners without any condition performed on their part â—is next undertaking is to prove That there was no such compact and agreement between the Father and the Son that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners but only upon conditions performed by them In the issue of which whether he hath been any whit more happy then in the former we come now CHAP. X. An Answer to Mr. Eyres fourteenth Chapter and all the Arguments therein contained by which he endeavours to prove that there was not any Covenant passed between God and Christ to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods elect by his death and to suspend this effect thereof upon termes and conditions to be performed by them but contrariwise that it was the Will both of God and Christ that his death should be available to their immediatâ— and actual reconciliation and Justification without any Condition performed on their part SECT I. HIs first Argument is this There is no such Covenant doth appear in Scripture Ergâ— there is none §. 1. Answ That the Antecedent â—s false hath been already proved from John 6. 40. and 3. 15 16 19. and Gal. 5. 2 3 4 5 6. and 1 Joh. 5. 11. and Rom. 3. 25. and Isa 53. 11. and all those places which declare Justification to be consequent to faith or wherein men are perswaded and commanded to turne unto God that their sins may be forgiven them Many such places have been already produced and vindicated against Mr. Eyres exceptions and it were no hard matter to produce many more as Jâ—r 26. 2 3. Stand in the Court of the Lords house and speak unto all the Cities of Judah all the words that I command thee diminish not a word If so be they will hearken and turne evâ—ry man from his evil way that I may repent me of the evil which I pâ—rpose to do unto them And Jer. 36. 3. It may be that the house of Judah will heare all the evil which I purpose to do unto them that they may returne every man frâ—m his evil way that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin Plainly discovering our conversion unto God to be the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy Which doth also notably appear by the contrary steps which sinners tread in working out their owne damnation Mark 4. 12. That seeing they may see and not perceive and hearing they may heare and not understand lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them But of this we have spoken enough before His second
hindred the reconciliation §. 7. of the elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediately reconciled But nothing hindred their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law Ergo. Ans This Argument were something if the sinner himself had suffered according to the Law As if it might be supposed that Adam after his sin could by suffering have satisfied for his disobedience no doubt but he had been presently restored into the same state of favour which he was in before and might have gone to work againe for life upon the security of the very same Covenant with good successe And if Christ had paid the idem a thing impossible unlesse he were a sinner or we were Christ then indeed had his sufferings delivered us ipso facto and we had not needed a Covenant of grace to pardon or save us but are in as good a capacity of life without it as Adam was before he fell as we have observed before But that first Covenant being violated and no satisfaction made or possibly to be made but by a voluntary surety God is left at liberty as I may so speak to propose what tearms and time he pleaseth for the restoring of sinners into a state of life and peace Gal. 3. 21 22. Now when Mr. Eyre says that nothing hindred the reconciliation of sinners with God but the breach of the Law the speech is somewhat improper for though sin made the breach between God and them yet it is not that properly which hinders reconciliation but the sinners inability to make satisfaction could he have satisfied sin could have had no power to have kept him at a distance from God and so I perceive doth Mr. Eyre mean by his explication God saith he having made a Law that the soul which sins shall die the justice and truth of God required that satisfaction should be made for the sins of the elect no lesse then of other men To the Argument therefore the answer is ready If satisfaction were made so which it was not as that the Law had been answered in the very thing which it required viz. the sinners punishment then I would yeeld it wholly and more then Mr. Eyre will thank me for namely that life is given us by the very same Covenant which was made with Adam in his innocency But satisfaction being taken strictly for a payment refusable which one is admitted to make for another and then it produceth the effect of our reconciliation no otherwise then as he that admitteth and he that is admitted to make payment shall agree Wherefore I deny the proposition as being grounded in the former false supposal viz. That satisfaction cannot be made in any way but it must needs effect a present discharge which I have already disproved The explication of this Argument I â—nd no fault with more then that one expression That the onely cause of Christs death was to satisfie the Law whereas they that deny his death to have been satisfactory at all do yet assigne many causes of his death which our selves allow of but there is nothing in it which tends to prove the thing denied more then a comparison or two which need a little consideration As when the cloud is dissolved the Sun shines out when the partition §. 8. wall is broken down they that were separated are againe united so the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned Ans Now would I know what is that moral necessity of Gods communicating life to us upon Christs satisfaction which answers to the natural necessity of the Suns shining forth upon the dissolution of the cloud for to say that God may salvâ justitiâ communicate life to sinners Christ having satisfied is not to the purpose 't is a must and not a may which must make Mr. Eyres Argument consequent one of these three it must needs be either 1. A necessity of obligation by virtue of some Law or Covenant but the onely Covenant which God made with man before the fall was that made with Adam in innocency promising life upon perfect obedience If by virtue of that Covenant God stands still engaged to give life to men supposing satisfaction to be made for disobedience then doth that Covenant made with man in innocency stand still in force as the onely way of life and men at least the elect are legally and in strict justice as innocent as if they had never sinned both which are desperately false and overthrow the very foundations of faith or 2. The necessity of a decree God having decreed that the elect shall be reconciled immediately upon Christs satisfaction for their sins it must needs be that he having satisfied they must be immediately reconciled But the very supposing of such a decree is the begging of the question and being supposed it will not inferre that the elect must needs be reconciled by the death of Christ immediately quatenus it was a satisfaction but simply quatenus it was decreed to be immediately antecedent to their reconciliation or 3. A kind of natural necessity God being essentially good cannot but do good to an innocent sinlesse creature or to a sinful creature supposing satisfaction to be made for his sin which is all one as if himself had never sinned But this is wider of truth then either of the former for whatsoever may be said of it in reference to a creature perfectly righteous out of doubt there was no other necessity of Gods accepting Christs satisfaction then his own good pleasure He might justly have destroyed sinners and never provided a propitiation for them It is therefore as clear as the Sun when the clouds are dissolved that there is no necessity of an immediate reconciliation between God and sinners upon the death of Christ but only of a reconciliation to follow then and upon such tearms as God and Christ agree 2. Wherefore to the comparison I answer that Christ died not meerly to dissolve and scatter the clouds of sin but to create a Isa 51. 16. 65. 16. â— Cor. 5. 15. 17. new heaven and a new earth in which himself was to shine as the d Malac. 4. 2. Sun of righteousnesse and to dispel the clouds and darknesse of sin my meaning is Christ died not to repaire the old Covenant nor by removing of hindrances to make us capable of the influences of life and love in that way in which they should have been derived to us by the first Covenant but therefore died he that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions he might become that new and living way through which we might come unto God by faith and partake in life and remission of sins Heb. 9. 15. and 10. 17 20 22. compared 3. Observe one thing more Reader from M. Eyres application of his
of this we have spoken more largely before The sixth Argument follows If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately §. 11. available for the typicall cleansing under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately availeable to make a real atonement for all those sins for which he suffered The reason of the consequence is because the real sacrifice is not lesse efficacious then the typical But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part Lev. 16. 30. Ergo. Ans 1. I except against the proposition because there is no necessity of the consequence The atonement made by sacrifices might be available to an immediate cleansing though Christs be not because 1. God might will the former though not the latter 2. The people cleansed by sacrifice were all in being 3. And all actually guilty of those sins from which they were cleansed by sacrifice 4. And the punishments from which they were delivered were for the most part carnal and outward and as it were present being either actually upon them as their separations from the congregation for leprosie or other defilements suddaine plagues destroying multitudes of them c. or in sight as it were and neere at hand in which respect it was necessary that the atonement made by sacrifice should have the more immediate effect But they who are purged by the sacrifice of Christ many of them were not in being when his sacrifice was offered nor multitudes of them yet much lesse had they then committed those sins from which his sacrifice doth afterwards purge them nor is the punishment of their sins already upon them but put off in expectation of repentance If Mr. Eyre will give me that liberty which â—e takes himself I might as well argue thus If the sacrifices under the Law obtained no pardon but for sins committed then neither doth the sacrifice of Christ obtaine present pardon for sins to come not yet committed But the first is true Ergo so is the last I doubt he would not grant my proposition The reason which he addes for confirmation of his own hath no weight for the efficacy of the sacrifices typical and real is rather to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect wrought then by their quicknesse in working them That sacrifice is of greatest efficacy which produceth the greatest effect whether it produce it immediately or no for example The sacrifice of Christ is of greater efficacy then those under the Law because they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh but the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience Heb. 9. 13 14. But it did not purge our consciences immediately as soon as it was offered for we had then no consciences to purge Yet I hope Mr. Eyre will not say that Christs sacrifice is therefore of lesse efficacy then the other But the assumption is that which I do most except against viz. §. 12. That those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part How doth Mr. Eyre prove this Thus it is said Lev. 16. 30. the Priest shall make an atonement for you Ergo there was no condition required on the peoples part But neither was the atonement perfectly made by the offering of the sacrifice but it was moreover required on the Priests part that he entred into the holy of holies and made atonement there to v. 12 15. a type of our Lords entrance into heaven to make reconciliation there for our sins Heb. 9. 24. and 2. 17 18. and 4. 14 15. and on the peoples part that they did upon that day humble and afflict their soules otherwise they could not have any benefit by that atonement as we have observed before out of v. 29 30. and Lev. 23. 27 28 29. We have also already shewed that in some other cases some actions were required as conditions without which sinners received not the benefit of that typical atonement But for the general this may suffice that the people who received the benefit of those sacrifices were a people in Covenant with God and worshippers of him Heb. 10. 1 2. which was the grand condition of their partaking in the effects of that whole ceremonial service and were therein types of the spiritual worshippers of the new Testament who come by faith to the blood of sprinkling even to Christ crucified for a spiritual and eternal cleansing SECT III. WE come now to Mr. Eyres seventh Argument Some of §. 13. the Elect are reconciled to God immediately by the death of Christ without any condition performed by them viz. elect Infants Ergo all the elect are so reconciled Answ I deny the consequence because it infers an universal from a particular The Apostle sayes It is appointed unto all men once to die Heb. 9. 27. and through death to enter into Heaven shall I say this is false because Enoch and Elijah went to Heaven and never saw death If the general directions commands and promises in Scripture must all be arraigned of falshood if they be not applicable to Infants as well as unto persons that have understanding to know their Masters will we shall make sad work exceptions of particular persons make no breach upon a general rule The Apostle sayes He that will not work must not eat If we should give Infants no more food then they work for the world would be soon at an end 2. But I deny the antecedent also viz. That elect Infants are immediately reconciled to God by the death of Christ without any condition performed on their part A double answer therefore are our Divines wont to make to this objection 1. That Infants may have the seed or habit of faith though it be not wrought in them in the ordinary way of preaching 2. That their Parents faith is the condition of their salvation if they die before they are capable of putting forth the act of faith themselves Mr. Eyre will not hear of either of these answers but invades them both The former 1. Because Infants have no knowledge of good or evil §. 14. Deut. 1. 39. and there cannot be faith without knowledge 2. Faith cometh by hearing of the Word preach't Rom. 10. Now Infants heare not or if they do they understand not what they hear Answ 1. Wilt thou see then Reader what is the aime and upshot of all Mr. Eyres discourse this it is that there is no necessity of believing or repenting that men may be saved for Infants are saved without it as not being capable of so much as the habit of either and God doth not give salvation unto Infants in one manner and to men in another these are his own words therefore men also may be saved without it 2. Or if he shall say as he doth somewhere else that God hath purposed to give faith to all that are of yeares of discretion before he give them salvation yet still we retort upon him what he
common person is the act of them whom he represents But Christs satisfaction merits redemption and perfect obedience are not our act so as that we can be said to have satisfied merited redeemed our selves perfectly obeyed the Law and borne the curse thereof things for ever impossible for sinners to do Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6. Ergo they are not representable as doing of them Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth But the Scripture is expresse that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned so is it by the one righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ that all are justified Romanes 5. 17 18. The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another consideration §. 12. and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection then in his death Nevertheless neither in that do I approve the tearme unlesse it be understood in the second sense mentioned for the reason already given And to what Mr. Eyre addes of Parents being examples to their children he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example but the exemplary cause of our Justification Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners but they are not exemplary causes thereof This for the fallacie 2. Saith Mr. Eyre it is impertinent because Christs discharge §. 13. may be ours though we did not choose him but God did constitute and appoint him to be the Head Surety and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam and yet his sin was imputed to us Answ 1. Nor do I intend any thing more in changing the terme of a common person into that of an exemplary cause then to expresse that preheminence which Christ hath as in all things else so in his Justification which the terme of a common person is so farre from doing as that it supposeth the just contrary for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own as his whom he represents As what an Ambassadour doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings and what is done to him as such is more properly done to the King then to him In like manner if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us then are we properly the first risers from the dead and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours 2. That God appointed his Sonne to be the Head Surety and common Person of the Elect is a contradiction if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyres sense for one that represents others in what he doth and in what is done to him Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect so the Scriptures call him and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us But the common Person described as such is neither Head nor Surety because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly none other do the like and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them the case is the same in what he receives or in what is done to him as Head and Surety 3. Concerning Adam I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyres sense of that phrase and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him we have already largely opened His sin is indeed imputed unto us not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it for that is in it selfe an errour of falshood and besides is contrary to the Apostle who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many who never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression neither in individuo nor in specie Rom. 5. 14. but because by vertue of that sin we his children stand obliged to the suffering of death natural he being the common Parent who by Covenant received righteousnesse and life to be communicated to his children if himself continued obedient otherwise to lose it both to himself and us That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyres argument §. 14. is inferring our Justification before saith from our Justification in some sense in the Resurrection of Christ I said we may as justly inferre that our Resurrection is past already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justification is past before we beleeve because we are in some sense justified in Christ We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer Ergo we are sanctified before faith In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little purpose the summe of them is Our personal Resurrection necessarily supposeth our life and death But to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt c. Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand and Justification on the other is plain and obvious but the whole strength of Mr. Eyres Argument lieth in this one thing that we were justified in Christ as a common person Now if our rising in Christ as a common person will not infer that our Resurrection is before faith then neither is our Justification proved to be before faith because we were justified in Christ as a common person and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection â—t must be upon some other account then because we were justified in him as a common person 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny not publickly for feare of the people that we are risen in Christ as a common person Christ saith he fully merited our Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ a strange and unheard of interpretation that we should be said to be raised with Christ because he in his death merited our Resurrection which might have been true though himself had never been raised but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising a phrase not used in Scripture but admitted by me as agreeable or not contrary thereunto not for our Justification in him as a common person but for his merit or purchase of our Justification Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too though very privately and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words It is saith he no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Râ—surrection though we are not risen as to say he hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for to say a debt is discharged and yet justly chargeable is a contradiction Purchased why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection were really and formally the discharge of sinners and not whether he purchased
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose then nothing at all As to the reason added we have already shewed at large in what sense Christs death may be called the payment of our debt A debtour cannot discharge a debt and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid or upon some condition to be performed by him I shall beleeve when I see not words but power and argument which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre The Conclusion therefore and summe of my Answer was this Justification §. 15. is either causal and virtual or actual and formal we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things already confuted concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ and the payment and satisfaction in his death but upon the distinction it self he fixeth nothing By all which I perceive he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resurrection to prove ours I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection and he answers I know not what concerning Christs death Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration I grant saith Mr. Eyre that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us formally And therefore Christs dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase Rom. 58 9 10. Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before nor can I understand now viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ as it was his death not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth yet is the speech strangely improper As if a broken undone debtour seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him then his debt comes to should say his debt is virtually paid or himself virtually discharged by that mans money 2. To say that Christs satisfaction doth justifie us formally is to deny our Justification formal to be Gods act for it was not God but Christ that satisfied or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him or that he was justified before us yea rather we are first justified if his satisfaction justifie us formally because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified never till now that it justifies formally 2. The next observation that Christs dying for us or for our sins and our being justified are Syâ—â—nyma's in Scripture is most plainly refuted by Scripture Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered namely unto death for our sins and rose again for our Justification In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection §. 16. not made by me but by some others and it is here brought in by head and shoulders without the least occasion offered saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person to the Purchase of Justification in his blood Neverthelesse because the truth is on the objectours side and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself let us see what is said The objection is this 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the righteousnesse of God in him Ergo the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Thou seest Reader that the scope of the objection is to prove that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which Mr. Eyre after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it doth now plainly deny and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects What have we heard so often of Christs procuring meriting purchasing Pardon and Redemption when he is here denied to have done any thing tending to the procuring of our Justification But let us see Mr. Eyres answer it consists of three parts 1. Saith he That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause as when it is said That light is let in that darknesse may be expelled Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely if at all used in the New Testament and improperly wheresoever it is used and thrice in this chapter but a little before used in its most obvious sense verse 10. 12 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer that the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us do differ But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us Ergo the making of him to be sin for us and of us righteousnesse in him is not formally the same Mr Eyre 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act differing only in respect of the terminus à quo ad quem Rom. 4. 6 8. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin and the non-imputation of it is all one Rom. 4. 7 8. Ergo it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse but not the non-imputation of sin that is it procures positive blessings but not the destruction of or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse which
the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching Because to preach the Gospel is no more then 1. To publish that the Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle themselves upon him for all the purchases of his death and in so doing confidently to expect the fruition of them Rep. Here are words enough but whether they tend I can scarcely see I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man If there be nâ—t what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this that it is the promise of the inheritance Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe I cannot imagine if not I would ask 2ly Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve it knows not why nor wherefore Paul gives a better reason of his faith Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises and that after so long a dispute that it is an absolute promise I said in the minor that every man is pressed to fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—st we fall short of it viz. by unbelief v. 2 3. No says Mr. Eyre The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession by a similitude taken from foolish racers c. Râ—p As who should say it is not faith but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise The promise mentioned is of such constitution as that our obtaining or not obtaining it is suspended upon our beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall questions 1. Whether there be §. 5. an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace No saith Mr. Eyre yet the generall promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith because faith doth not receive it self But the covenant which is to be preached to every man is the promise of that good which faith receives for the covenant and the promise are all one in Scripture Gal. 3. 17 18 21. Ergo the absolute promise is not the Covenant I asked 2ly Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies yes For to lay hold of the Covenant is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve not to be beaten off c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely presumption but naturally impossible for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God without a promise and a command to lay hold of it But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant which it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne be admitted into that I asked farther whether if the Covenant be an absolute promise §. 6. men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute promise Mr. Eyre answers The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose himself acknowledgeth in his next words Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent and not the cause of their destruction We seek therefore an answer That 's this formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve If it doth it is not an absolute promise if it doth not their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant in which yet the Apostle placeth the heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not
by the Law or Constitution of grace the immediate effect whereof is to give the sinner a right to impunity and to the heavenly inheritance or by the sentence of the Judge at the last day by which he is adjudged unto the immediate full and perfect possession of all those immunities and blessings which were given him in right by that grand Promise of the Gospel John 3. 16. He that believeth on me shall not perish but shall have everlasting life Even as amongst men an Act of grace and pardon gives imprisoned rebels a right to deliverance from their present and legally future punishments though the effects of this right he do not possesse any otherwise then in hope till his cause be tried and himself absolved in Court by the sentence of the Judge In reference to the former a sinner is justified presently upon believing in reference to the latter he is not justified till the day of judgement Therefore Peter exhorts the Jewes to repentance that their sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of God And he shall send Jesus Christ Acts 3. 19 20. And Paul prays for Onesiphorus that God would grant him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. which questionlesse is meant of the day of judgement of which himselfe also speaks a little before ver 12. I am perswaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day And in the name of all Christians he tells us Gal. 5. 5. That we by the Spirit do wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith that is Justification through faith as it stands in opposition to Justification by works ver 4. and throughout the whole Epistle So doth the Lord Jesus promise to him that overcometh a white stone Rev. 2. 17. c Vid. Paraeum Aretium Brightman Dâ—od Eng. Annot in loc which having allusion to the custome of the Romanes in judgement condemning by a black stone and absolving by a white doth therefore signifie that eminent eternal and universal absolution from all guilt which shall be given to the Saints that overcome and continue faithful to the end So Rom. 2 13 16. Not the hearers of the Law but the doers of the Law shall be justified In the day when God shall judge the secrets of meâ— by Jesus Christ the 14. and 15. verses are to be read in a parenthesis This is my opinion in this matter which I have therefore set down the more distinctly that Mr. Eyre may understand how ignorant or impudent his Informer was that told him I maintained that we were not justified till the day of judgement page 19. Now to Mr. Eyre he gives us a threefold sense of the sight of §. â— God in the Question 1. As it signifies Gods knowledge 2. As it signifies his legal justice 3. As it signifies his making of us to see To which I shall need to give no other answer then his own words in the same paragraph of the last thus he speaks This phrase must have some other meaning in this debate for else that distinctiction of Justification in foro Dei in foro Conscientiae would be a meer tautology Of the first thus Although in articulo Providentiae in the doctrine of divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo Justificationis in the doctrine of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and never promiscuously used the one for the other Thus of three senses of the phrase himselfe rejects two as impertinent to the matter in hand and yet states his answer thus If we take Gods sight in the last construction viz. for his making us to see then we are not justified in Gods sight before we believe 2. If we referre it to the justice of God we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood 3. If we referre it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himselfe not to impute to us our sins c. As who should say If you take Gods sight in such a sense in which it is never taken in all the Scripture by Mr. Eyres own confession such is the first sense which is here the last then thus But if you take it in such a sense in which it may not be taken in the present question such is the last of the three which is here put first then so If some other senses of the sight of God as when it signifies his favour his assistance his approbation and witnessing c. had been set down that we might have known when we are justified in Gods sight in those senses it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question As first to tell us that Gods sight doth never signifie his knowledge in the matter of Justification and then to adde in the same breath that to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in his knowledge 2. Nor is it a lawful distinction because the members thereof do interferre for Justification in the death of Christ and in our own consciences is Justification in Gods knowledge for surely he knows both these no lesse then his Purpose and Determination within himselfe 3. We shall see by and by that Mr. Eyre maintaines that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to sinners by the eternal Act of Gods Will I ask then whether that imputation be Justification in Gods legal justice if it be then there is a farther implication in the members of the distinction if it be not I would know how God doth justifie us in his legal justice and yet not by imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to us 4. God knows us not to be justified till we be justified for it is impossible that the same thing should be and not be Indeed he may well know that he intends to justifie us but if he know that then he knows we are not yet justified for he knows that what he intends to do is not yet done But because Mr. Eyre refers us to his following discourse for the better understanding of these mysteries I attend his motion that I may spare tautologies as much as I can SECT II. He therefore delivers his judgement in three Propositions The first is this Justification is taken variously in Scripture §. 4. 1. For the Will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people 2. For the effect of Gods Will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law That Justification is put for this latter act he supposeth none will question The only scruple is concerning the former which he confesseth he hath been sparing to call by the name of Justification because some grosse mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression As 1. That absurd conceit that Christ
and not acquitted discharged and not discharged what can be more contradictorious or who can conceive what is that security discharge and acquittance from all sin wrath punishment condemnation which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law and without freedome from punishment till Christ buy it with the price of his blood 3. Our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment may be understood either de jure in taking off our obligation unto punishment and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God to the suffering of punishment as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3. or it may be understood de facto in the real and actual removal of all kindes and degrees of punishment but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ by it self or with the former The Purpose of Gods Will saith Mr. Eyre chap. 10. § 10. pag. 108. secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it So that what is left for the death of Christ to do I must professe I cannot imagine seeing the act of our Justification and our disobligation from wrath and our real impunity do all exist by vertue of another cause But for further confirmation of this Proposition Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him and say no more to it till we come thither His third Proposition is this Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and §. 27. forgivenesse and thus God is said to justifie men when he reveales and makes known to them his grace and kindnesse within himselfe Answ Understand Reader that when we say Justification is a declared sentence of absolution it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned but of that publike declared Law of faith namely the Gospel it self which is to be preached to every creature under heaven He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life By which Promise whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book so much as one text wherein Justification must signifie a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken If he mean it is so taken in Gods language let him shew where if in mans I will not dispute with him how men take it And as to that text Gen. 41. 13. me he restored but him he hanged which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in to prove that things in Scripture are said to be when they are only manifested if he had consulted Junius he would have told him that the word He relates not to Joseph but to Pharaoh Me Pharaoh restored but him that is the Baker he hanged The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning §. 28. the several times and wayes in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people In which there is nothing of distinct controversie but what hath its proper place in the following debate some where or other And most of what he sayes may be granted without any advantage to his cause or prejudice to thâ— truth there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time but declares something of his gracious purpose as every effect declares and argues its cause And so our Justiâ—â—cation it selfe declareth that there was a purpose in God to justifie because he acteth nothing but according to his purpose I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter though there be many things therein which I can by no meanes consent to but set down in the following Propositions how far I consent to each of his 1. I consent that God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to believers in his Word and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents The seed of the woman shall break the Sâ—rpents head 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins and his raising of him up for our Justification doth manifest yet more of the same purpose 3. That baptisme sealing to a believer in act or habit the remission of sins past and entring him into a state of remission for the future doth also further declare something of the same purpose 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himselfe or any immediately upon their first believing at least in these dayes I am in doubt 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement doth most fully perfectly and finally declare the same purpose as being the most perfect compleat and formal justification of all And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyres doctrine I come next to a vindicaiton of my own CHAP. III. My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered Rom. 5. 1. vindicated And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture SECT I. FOr proof of our Justification by faith the doctrine §. 1. insisted on in my Sermon I advanced several places of Scripture to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter which we shall here take a view of that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for But before he gives his answer to particular places he thinks fit to informe the Reader that I began my Sermon and concluded it with a great mistake The mistake in the beginning is that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romanes was to prove That we are justified by faith i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we beleeve and that faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification which is a mistake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God The Apostle tells us himself that his scope is to prove that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in Gods sight ver 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith ver 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith I know not what is And that faith here is to be taken properly we prove at large below If this be not the Apostles scope
Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour and Heb. 3. 6. whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence unto the end As to the former place it should have been proved and not said only that the particle If is not a note of a condition if to be a vessel of honour be to be glorified in heaven Or if to be a vessel of honour do signifie a man specially and eminently serviceable unto God sanctified and meet for the Masters use and prepared unto every good work as the Apostle in the same verse expounds it then the particle If is a note of more then a condition even of a true proper cause of an effect that follows naturally and not by Promise for the more a man purgeth himself from spiritual defilements and defilers the more prepared and disposed he must needs be to every spiritual employment The next place Heb. 3. 6. is nothing to the purpose if the particle If be there granted to be meerly a description of the person because the consequent part of the Proposition is not promissory but simply affirmative The text saith not whose house we shall be if we hold fast but whose we are if we hold fast Neverthelesse g Parall l. 3. in loc Junius upon ver 14. which in sense is much the same with this doubts not to affirme the holding fast of our confidence to be a condition A nobis verò conditionem unicam desiderat scil Christus nempe ut maneamus in ipso atque hanc conditionem nâ—tat Apostolus his verbis siquidem principium illius subsistentiae c. which testimony I quote the rather that Mr. Eyre may know that Junius was no enemy to faiths being a condition as he doth somewhere represent him yea and on this verse he is expresse that continuance in the faith is the condition of our continuing to be Gods house §. 4. And that the words Rom. 10. 9. If thou beleeve with thine heart c. cannot be a description of the person meerly I prove largely below in a particular debate of that place I have here only one word to speak against it Either it describes the person from his faith to signifie that as such that is as a believer he is the subject of Justification and then faith must needs be antecedent to Justification and if it be antecedent as an act required of us in point of-duty to a blessing consequent by vertue of a promise then is it antecedent as a condition Or it is a meer description of the person shewing that that is the man that shall be justified though his faith have no order nor tendency to his Justification but may as well follow after it as go before it But 1. This cannot be current sense if Justification be either from eternity or immediately in the death of Christ or at any time before this description be made for example Is it sense to say If thou be the man that dost or at any time shalt beleeve thou shalt be elected or Christ shall die for thee when both election and the death of Christ are long since past or if a man should say If thou shalt be glorified thou shalt be justified would not such a speech suppose that the person to whom those words are spoken was as yet not justified though the Scripture is not wont to speak after this manner in any place 2. Let us take some parallel place and see how it will accord with it As the words of Christ to the father of the childe that was possest Mark 9. 23. If thou canst beleeve all things are possible to him that believeth Or the same words to his disciples Matth. 17. 20. If you have faith as a grain of mustard-seed nothing shall be unpossible unto you If faith do here only describe the person and not propound the condition then whether the father had at present believed or no his childe must have been presently healed notwithstanding supposing him to be a person that at any time should believe and whether the disciples beleeve or no at present all things are possible to them presently they being the persons whose property it is to believe some time or other But more of this hereafter Another note of a condition is the particle if not or except which §. 5. we finde also used in Scripture in this matter for men are threatened that they shall not be justified except they beleeve John 8. 24. If you beleeve not or except you believe you shall die in your sins when men are threatened with damnation except they believe are they threatened absolutely or conditionally if the first then all the men of the world shall be damned for this is to be preached to all men that if they believe not they shall be damned If conditionally then faith is the condition of deliverance from damnation And is not God to be thus understood in all his speeches of like nature Gen. 44. 23. Except your youngest Brother come down with you you shall see my face no more Josh 7. 12. Neither will I be with you any more except you destroy the accursed from amongst you Can the Sun shine more bright in the firmament then it is clear from hence that their destroying the accursed from amongst them was a necessary condition of their enjoyment of Gods Presence Acts 27. 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved See also Luke 13. 3 5. Rev. 2. 5 22. and multitudes of other places In all which the same particle is a note of a condition unlesse we shall have the modesty to think that the Scriptures were penned on purpose to puzzle and confound our understandings All those texts of Scripture which promise remission of sins to §. 6. them that believe prove the same thing particularly Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life and 6. 40. This is the Will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life with many places of like nature To all which I guesse what Mr. Eyres answer will be by what he saith of the last of these chap. 13. § 14. pag. 135. This text saith he and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit They that beleeve Many such cathedral determinations we have from him without §. 7. so much as a pretence to proof especially in his answers to Scriptures alledged against him yet might he very well think that we would expect some solid reason for this his perpetual wresting and abuse of words from their obvious and common sense 1. It
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher
otherwise there were no use of them nor any possibility by appealing to bring controversies to an issue Therefore it is impossible that the same person at the same time and in reference to the same sins should stand condemned and justified before God 2. Neverthelesse I also think that a man may be condemned I mean ipso jure under an actual obligation to punishment and yet be in a state of Justification at the same time which because it is necessary I should explain for the better understanding of the opposition between Justification and Condemnation I shall here once for all set down my opinion A state of Justification I call it not simply because all sins are actually pardoned for multitudes may not be yet committed but because all past sins are pardoned and a Promise given to the sinner by which all future sins shall be pardoned mercy prevailing against justice Mount Sion against Mount Sinai Mount Gerizim against Mount Ebal even as a man is then in a state of grace and regeneration not because he hath no sin in him but because he hath a spirit of life within him prevailing more and more against the lusts and rebellions of his flesh till at last sin be perfectly destroyed out of the soule And so my opinion is 1. That as soon as a man beleeves all his sins past are forgiven him 2. As often as he falls into new sins he contracts upon himself a new guilt or obligation to punishment by vertue of the Law so as it were just with God to destroy him notwithstanding his former sins be pardoned 3. The Lord Jesus our Advocate with the father doth continually represent and plead the Promise of remission made in his blood on the behalf of sinners by vertue of which not only the present and speedy execution of punishment is suspended but the sinners right to salvation continued and renewed notwithstanding his new contracted guilt x Justificatio toties siâ— quoties homo veré Poenitentiam agit side ad Christum mediatorem confugit Solin Meth. theol de Justif supposing the renewed acts of faith and repentance on the sinners part of implicite repentance for sâ—ns lesse known and unobserved and of explicite repentance for grosser sins unlesse want of time may alter the case Even as when God complaines that Israel had broken his Covenant and were tâ—rned out of the way that he commanded them and he would therefore presently have consumed them Moses opposeth the Covenant of their fathers Remember Abraham Isaac and Israel thy servants to whom thou swarest by thine own self c. Exod. 32. 8 10 13. And thus far I grant that in these vicissitudes Justification and Condemnation may consist in the same person but by no meanes can I yield that a man can at the same time stand condemned for those very sins from which the Gospel justifies him or that he can be in a state of Justification and a state of Condemnation both at once What follows about the different estates of grace and nature we shall consider below in the debate of Ephes 2. 3. only the last words of this paragraph deserve farther consideration The Law sayes Mr. Eyre condemns all men living for that all have sinned The Law doth not consider men as Elâ—ct or Reprobates or as believers or unbelievers but as righteous or sinners The Law will not cease to threaten and condemn believers as long as they live Ans It seems then that the elect and believers are as much under the §. 2. condemnation of the Law as reprobates and unbelievers the Law if I understand these words condemning no man effectually that is holding no man guilty so that he shall need to fear condemnation by the Law unlesse there be some other more effectual cause of his condemnation though the Law condemne him for as much as in it lies or to the utmost of its power or in som respect only but not simply and universally This I think is the meaning of these words but because there may be some other mystery under them which I am not able to reach I shall set down my answer by way of question 1. Whether the elect and believers be not in as much danger of hell fire as the reprobate and unbelievers If it be said as I suppose it must that the danger of both is equal by the Law though some other act of God put a difference betwixt them I would ask 2. What is that curse of the Law which Christ hath redeemed us from for if the Law condemn only for its own part or forasmuch as in it lies but never had power to hold the sinner under an obligation to wrath neither was there any need that Christ should die to redeem us from the curse of that Law nor can we be redeemed because the Law hath the very same power over us after his death yea and after our faith as it had before even by Mr. Eyres concession for it condemnes all men equally without distinction 3. Whether the Law do condemn any man at all yes will it be said so far as its power reacheth which is thus far that he that transgresseth the Law can expect no benefit by the Law or he forseits his right to life and blessednesse by that Law which he hath transgressed Neverthelesse he may at the same time have right to life by some other act of God But 1. Is that saying true or false Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them I will not so much as suspect that any man that is called a Christian will say there was no truth in that threatening and if there be truth in it then he that transgresseth the Law is in a cursed estate till at last he be delivered from it through faith in the blood of Christ and if he be cursed then surely the Law hath more power over him then to deprive him of his right to life as to any help it self can afford him He is cursed who hath no right at all to life if he hath no right by the Law yet is he never a whit the more miserable for that as long as he hath right by any other act of God 2. And if he hath no right by any other act yet is he not condemned The Law indeed doth its part towards his condemnation but it seemes it condemnes him no farther then that as if there be no other act that condemnes him more effectually the sinner remaines uncondemned notwithstanding for to be condemned by the Law is not to be condemned simply in Mr. Eyres sense for believers themselves according to him are condemned by the Law who yet are not simply condemned something more of this notion we must speak by and by But the Assumption is that against which Mr. Eyre makes the most §. 3. professed opposition namely that all the world is under condemnation before faith This Mr. Eyre denies And
why Because it was the Will of God that none of the elect should perish or be condemned Answ True not executively But Mr. Eyre knows we put a difference between perishing and condemnation in this debate and that by condemnation we mean not the execution of punishment or wrath but a legal obligation to the suffering of it And though God did purpose that the elect should not perish or be condemned executively quoad eventum yet should Mr. Eyre prove that he purposed that the elect should not stand obliged equally with other sinners for some time to the suffering of wrath This if he prove I will yield the cause The purpose of God in it selfe makes no difference between men whose cause is the same before the just and impartial Judge Do we not know that a Prince may purpose to save the life of a Malefactour against whom notwithstanding the Law is in force and judgement proceeds and sentence passeth and the man thereby as much obnoxious to death as any other Melefactours till some other act of the Prince besides his meer purpose interpose and prevent his death But of this we have spoken largely already The Assumption namely that all the world is under condemnation §. 4. before faith I proved from the expresse testimony of the Lord Jesus John 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already That is saith Mr. Eyre He that never believeth as chap. 8. 24. If you beleeve not i. e. not at all you shall die in your sins Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that beleeve not by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them All the rest of the answer consents well enough with that Explication of the text which I gave in my Sermon Rep. First for that which is pretended to be our Lords intent in these words let me intreat thee Reader to peruse and ponder the text for I think thou shalt hardly meet with the like abuse of the Oracles of God in any Authour that acknowledgeth the Divinity of Scriptures ver 14. As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Son of man be lifted up ver 15. That whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 16. for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 17. for God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that beleeveth not is condemned already c. Thou seest Reader that the words contain a most serious and faithful testimony to a sinful world that though they had brought upon themselves eternal miseries yet God had sent his Sonne into the world not to condemn the world but to save them and if any man perish 't is not for want of a sufficient remedy provided in the death of Christ but for their own wilful refusal to embrace and make use of it as himselfe tells us ver 19. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Now what sayes Mr. Eyre why he will have us beleeve that the Lords intention is quite against his expression and that he is come to testifie to the world that their misery is certain and inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them It is time to burne our Bibles if such glosses as these must be received for truth 2. If the misery of those that beleeve not be inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law how is this to be understood either that the Law passed sentence upon them as unbelievers but this I suppose is too unreasonable to be affirmed or that the same men who afterwards prove unbelievers were before sentenced by the Law to certain and unavoidable misery But then their unbeliefe contributed nothing to make their misery unavoidable whereas our Lord chargeth the unavoidablenesse of misery upon wilful unbelief ver 19. This is the condemnation not that men are in darknesse but that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Were it not for this men might do well enough notwithstanding all that the Law had done against them Ergo misery is not made certain and inevitable to any by the Law before unbelief be added 3. Mr. Eyre told us but now that the Law condemned all men equally that 's the sense of his words if there be any sense in them The Law saith he doth not consider men as elect or reprobate I know not how it should for the Law is neither God nor man nor Angel as believers or unbelievers c. how comes it then to passe that misery should be made unavoidable to one and not to another by the same Law Next we shall enquire into Mr. Eyres Exposition of ver 18. §. 5. He that beleeveth not is condemned already that is saith he he that never beleeveth which is not only gratis dictum spoken without so much as a pretence of Reason but is manifestly inconsistent with the text Indeed condemnation is executed upon none but final unbelievers but unbelievers in the text are to be understood generally of all unbelievers whatsoever and not to be confined to final unbelievers 1. Such unbelievers are here meant who are part of that world into which Christ is sent for after the Lord had said ver 17. God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world by him might be saved He distributes this world into two parts Beleevers and Unbeleevers ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that believeth not is condemned already But final unbeleevers as such are no part of that world into which Christ is sent for a final unbeleever is he that dies in unbelief if he beleeve but one minute before his death he is not a final unbeleever And Christ is not sent to the dead but to the living 2. Such unbelievers are here meant whom Christ was sent to save ver 16 17. But Christ was not sent to save final unbelievers as such Ergo such unbelievers are not here meant 3. We have also mention of a double condemnation in the text one which Christ findes men under when he comes into the world and which he comes to deliver them from ver 17 18. The other which men are left under for final unbelief and rejecting of Christ the light of life ver 19. This is the condemnation c. for Christ could not finde men condemned for a final rejecting of him till he had been preached and tendered to them Ergo they that beleeve not ver 18. are unbeleevers in general 4. The condemnation here spoken of is
that which is avoidable and is actually avoided by beleeving Ergo it is not the condemnation of final unbeleevers The Antecedent I proved in my Sermon from ver 36. He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him implying that the wrath of God by the Law is upon every sinner for he is condemned already yet not so necessarily and remedilesly but that by beleeving he may escape it but if he beleeves not then it abides on him To this Mr. Eyre tells me That to say the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborne the Spirit to serve our turne A short way of answering Arguments y Contra Crell p. 452 453. This very interpretation doth Essenius vindicate at large against Mr. Eyres friends in the point of eternal reconciliation the Socinians and urgeth the significancy of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abideth according to its constant use in Scripture though I stand not so much upon the bare word The same interpretation doth z Tract 14. in Joan. Non dicit Ira dei venit ad eum sed manet super eum c. Augustine give of it and many others Protestants and Papists Chemnitius a Analys in loc Piscator Aretius Beza Dyke Jansenius Tolet Ferus c. Who being such professed enemies in religion cannot be rationally suspected of a confederacy against the Spirit I had thought a Minister might have said not only to each man distributively but to the whole world collectively if he were able to speak to their hearing believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved without being guilty of suborning the Spirit to serve his own turne And yet surely in so saying he doth more then hint that the wrath of God may be escaped by believing 5. And that I do not erre in the meaning of the holy Ghost I am yet farther convinced because the Lord came not into the world to §. 6. give life simply but to give salvation v. 17. that is to give life to them that were dead Ergo they whom he saves were dead de jure or de facto as the Apostle argues 2 Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all then were all dead And to be dead in Law is to be under condemnation Now whom doth Christ save not final unbeleevers but such as are unbeleevers for a time only Ergo they who are now beleevers were sometime under condemnation or else Christ never saved them If they are only condemned in themselves or by the Law in that diminutive respective sense in which Mr. Eyre useth that phrase they are never a whit the more in danger of perishing for that and therefore not capable of being saved properly 6. The comparison which our Lord proposeth v. 14 15. and upon which this whole discourse dependeth puts it yet farther out of doubt As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wildernesse even so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have eternal life Concerning which words we debaâ—e more particularly under the third generall Argument following and therefore here I shall only make some brief observations upon the coâ—parison and passe on 1. As then the people for whom the serpent was lifted up were all mortally stung of the fiery serpents see the story it self Numb 21. 6 7 8 9. So is all the world become subject to condemnation through sin for the people that were stung in the type are the world in the Antitype and their mortal wound there is condemnation here by our Lords own exposition v. 16 17 19. 2. That as the serpent was by Gods appointment lifted up in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed of the mortal bites of the fiery serpent and live so is the Sonne of man lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life by Gods appointment in like manner v. 15 16. 3. That as the serpent was not lifted up to destroy any of the people for they were mortally wounded before but to heale them so Christ was not sent into the world to condemn the world for they are condemned already but to save them v. 17. 4. Yet they that looked not on the serpent so lifted up did thereby procure unto themselves a certaine death because it was to be absolutely unavoydable by any other means whatsoever so they that beleeve not on the Sonne of God but love darknesse rather then light do thereby procure to themselves certaine and remedilesse condemnation v. 18 19. There remaining no more sacrifice for sin as the Apostle speaks Heb. 10. 29. Hence I deduce these four Corollaries 1. That condemnation lyes upon all men without difference for sin 2. Yet there is a remedy and way of escape from this condemnation revealed in the Gospel 3. That the way to escape condemnation is to beleeve on Jesus Christ 4. The contempt of Christ by positive unbelief makes condemnation unavoidable Ergo every man in the world whiles an unbeleever or so long as he continues in unbelief is under condemnation And as to the Text which Mr. Eyre brings in for illustration §. 7. Joh 8. 24. If you beleeve not you shall die in your sins I consent to Mr. Eyres interpretation that the meaning is if you beleeve not at all or if you never beleeve you shall die in your sins And it informes us in the truth of those two things which I have been hitherto contending for 1. That because of their sins they became lyable to eternall death 2. That yet their condemnation was not peremptory and irrevocable unlesse to all their other sins they added unbelief final for if at any time they did beleeve they should escape that wrath which was due to them for sinne As when Paul saies Act. 27. 31. Except these men abide in the ship you cannot be saved He shews them that they were in eminent danger of perishing in the waters and yet that they might be safe enough if the men aforesaid continued in the ship That place therefore makes against Mr. Eyre altogether SECT II. BEfore we speak any further of this place we must attend M. §. 8. Eyre who interposeth another Text which I mentioned not under this but under the former Argument to the same purpose and that is Eph. 2. 3. Where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to eternall life chap. 1. 4. that they were by nature children of wrath as well as others Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they wâ—re under condemnation before conversion Rep. This might have been spared if this text had been answered in the place where I produced it and so it may yet for wrath and condemnation often signifie one and the same thing in Scripture Joh. 3. 19 36. 1 Thes 1. 10. Rom. 1. 17 18. 2.
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
grounded in his displeasing quality viz. Of unbelief and on the contrary Enoch is here said by faith to please or to be pleasing unto God v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the word imports such a delight in or approbation of a person as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities and nothing in man is lovely in Gods eyes without faith for God delights not in his physical substance or natural perfections of any sort Psal 147. 10. it follows that when we are said by faith to please God or to be pleasing to him or that it is impossible to please him without faith it must be understood of the pleasingnesse of the person as well as of the action Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect even while they are most displeasing to him but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they beleeve They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. 2. Nor can I imagin how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do which yet he must be supposed to be if faith do only commend our actions not our persons unto God Amongst men it is unconceivable how a total displeasure with another mans actions can consist with well-pleasednesse with the person That which commends the work doth also commend the worker and if the work be unacceptable the worker also is so far unacceptable if all his works be unacceptable himself also is wholly unacceptable 3. I aske whether faith it self be pleasing unto God principally out of doubt Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience onely 4. And though it be most true that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith yet cannot Mr. Eyre owne it if he will be true to his doctrine that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being for that obedience wherein God seeth no sin is acceptable to him The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seeth no sin I speak of those works which they may performe before they beleeve as prayer hearing of the word c. Ergo it is acceptable to God The assumption is manifest for not to see sin and to pardon it are all one and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect as saith Mr. Eyre In the following part of this answer he gives us a reason why our §. 10. works without faith cannot please God for saith he bonum est ex causá integrá Now what is not done in faith is not done in love Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except onely 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of who when he had said without faith it is impossible to please God presently gives this reason for he that cometh unto God must beleeve that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it upon any other account then because that defect is sinful and the sinfulnesse being supposed to be pardoned and that from eternity it cannot make the work unacceptable pardoned sin and no sin are much of the same strength as to any harme it can do us 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good how comes it to passe that the person should be so hugely well-pleasing while there is nothing in him but evil mens persons are under Law as well as their actions Ars est in fabrica rei c See John Yates Mod. of Divin pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno Aâ—exand Richardsono Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of mans nature If an action materially good be yet displeasing because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner surely the person cannot be well-pleasing while he is every whit as much out of frame and fallen all in pieces as I may so speak and not so much as begun to be repaired againe by a spirit of renovation In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove §. 11. that Gods well-pleasednesse with the elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ If he mean immediate in respect of time and exclusively of every qualification in us without which God will not be well-pleased with us let us see his Arguments The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture First saith he That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect was the breach of the Law Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favour had as free a current as if they had not sinned Answ The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more and needed to be no more then a removens prohibens of our good which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter though most unjustly as a very heinous errour and exagitates it with aâ—rimony sufficient Therefore I shall not need to confute it yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration If the reason of Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners be this onely that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them then the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was and all mankind in him before the fall and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant but established the old But this is most notoriously false Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plaine for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance had all its causes in being before as if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of â—he shuts of the windows it supposeth the sun to be up Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life before the death of Christ was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him Ergo if Gods well-pleasednesse follow immediately upon the death of Christ as that which hath removed the hindrance it follows by virtue of that Covenant or by none at all 2. But if the well-pleasednesse of God do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null My answer therefore is That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition so as that it could not long stand but it did not totally demolish and throw it down presently because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking for our redemption which because I am purposely to prove by and by I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to
Gentiles through faith but how it should follow from hence that the Gentiles or any sinners else were reconciled to God immediately upon the deâ—th of Christ is beyond my comprehension And yet if I may speak my own judgement I see no reason why the words may not be understood metonymically and that be said to be done in the death of Christ whereof the death of Christ is the cause that it is done though it be not done presently but sometimes after for the death of Christ did indeed give the ceremonies their deaths wound but they did not totally and perfectly expire till sometime e Vide Scot in Sent. l 4. d 3. qu 4 n. 7. 8 9 12 c. See also D Godwin in Rom. 8. 34. sect 5. p 171 after the Gospel had been preached for surely some yeares after the death of Christ if the Jewes at least multitudes of them who lived farthest from the sound of the Gospel were not bound to observe the Laws of Moses yet they might observe them without sin which after the Gospel was fully preached they could not do But if Mr. Eyre himself or any man else shall think fit hereafter to engage in this Argument I shall desire him to forme his Reasons from these and the like texts into some Logical shape that we may be assured of what it is they ground upon otherwise men may accumulate texts of Scripture in insinitum and an Answerer be left uncertain what he opposeth The last text mentioned by Mr. Eyre is 2 Cor. 5. 19. God was §. 15. in Christ reconciling the world unto himself which words Mr. Eyre confesseth I thus glossed That God was in Christ acting towards the reconciliation of the world to himself but this glosse Mr. Eyre confuteth How Why he tells his Reader It is not so Is not this a gallant confutation But I am out of doubt that it is so and that the Apostles meaning is plainly not that sinners were reconciled immediately and presently by the death of Christ but that God appointed and accepted his death as a most sufficient meanes and cause by which they should be reconciled when they believed and not before the death of Christ effecting this immediatly That notwithstanding all their sins yet there lies not on them a remediles necessity of perishing but that if they shall beleeve on him that died for them they shall be justified and saved Even as if we should say of a Physician that hath found out a Catholicon that would cure all diseases Here 's a man that hath cured all diseases not that his remedy had actually cured them for there may be many thousands to whom it was never applied but that it cures all who will suffer it to be applied f Aquin. 3 â—â—q 49. art 1. ad 3 m. Christus in suâ passione nos liberavit causaliter id est instituens causam nostrae liberationis ex qua possent quaecunque pâ—ocata quandoque remitti vel praeterita vel praesentia vel futura Siout si medicus faciat medicinam ex quâ pâ—ssent quâ—â—unque morbi sanari etiam in futurum Of which more by and by That the place is thus to be interpreted is manifest from the context For after the Apostle had said God was in Christ or by Christ reconciling the world unto himself He addes And hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ aâ— though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled unto God If we were reconciled in the death of Christ quoad effectum to what purpose are Ambassadours sent abroad into the world most earnestly and importunately to beseech sinners that they would be reconciled unto God It will be said the meaning of that exhortation is that sinners would â—ay aside the enmity of their hearts against God and returne to him by faith in his Sonne Jesus Christ Answ Most truly if one word more be added namely that we exhort men to beleeve on Christ that they may partake in the reconciliation prepared and purchased in his blood for all that come unto him for surely the reconciliation which the Apostle exhorts to is not only active in our â—aying aside our enmity against God but also passive in Gods being reconciled to us 1. That is the proper importance of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the passive voice though we cannot so happily render it in English as to expresse its significancy It denotes properly not our act of reconciling our selves to God for the word being of the passive voice notes that we also are passive in the reconciliation spoken of but our doing of that upon which another namely God is reconciled with us As when the same word is used in the same sense 1 Cor. 7. 11. But if she depart let her remain â—â—married or be reconciled to her hâ—sband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant of her laying aside of enmity against her husband but of her â—sing meanes to obtain the favour and affection of her hâ—sband that he may be reconciled to her So Matth 5. 24. Be reconciled to thy Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not meant properly of a mans reconciling himself to his brother but of doing what he can to gain his brothers good affection to him In the like sense doth Peter use another word Acts 2. 40. Save your selves from this untoward generation In the Greek the verbe is passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be you saved from this untoward generation that is convert unto God that you may be saved from the destruction which is coming on this generation In like manner when the Apostle sayes here Be ye reconciled unto God he exhorts us indeed unto faith not as that by which we reconcile our selves to God but as that by which we partake in Gods reconciliation with us If then we be perfectly reconciled before what needs this exhortation 2. Or that other in the next verse but one namely chap. 6 1. We then as workers together with him beseech you also that you receive not the grace of God in vain This grace of God is that which before he called the Ministery of reconciliation even the Gospel inviting us through faith to a reconciliation with God And what is the receiving of this grace in vain but a not believing of Christ and his Gospel through which unbelief the reconciliation begun in the blood of Christ and preached in his Gospel becomes of none effect to us If we were perfectly reconciled immediately upon his death our unbelief could not hinder our reconciliation As to Mr. Perkins testimony which Mr. Eyre in the words following §. 16. opposeth against me namely that the actual blotting out of sin doth inseparably depend upon satisfaction for sin if Mr. Eyre will square it to his own rule he must shew us that to depend insâ—parably and to depend immediately are all one
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
hence follow that sinners were reconciled immediately in the death of Christ without the intervention of a Covenant that is without the ministry of reconciliation Yea rather the just contrary follows for making of peace in Christs death is here made the means and cause of a future reconciliation that follows when even when by the Gospel sinners are converted unto God As is evident in the example of these Colossians v. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled As also by that place altogether parallel to this Eph. 2. 15 16 17. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the Law of commandments so making peace And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse and came and preached peace unto you c. Here we see 1. What is meant by making of peace viz. A plucking up the bounds and throwing down the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews and by consequence from God or an obtaining of a Covenant of peace that might reach even unto the Gentiles who before wâ—re afar off and strangers from the Covenants of promise v. 12 13. that they also might be fellow heires and of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel chap. 3. 6. 2. Here is the end of this peace made by the crosse viz. That both Jews and Gentiles in one body might be reconciled to God that is through the same faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but all are one in him through the same saith Gal. 3. 28. and 5. 6. 3. The means by which they came to be of the same body namely by the preaching of peace v. 17. Can any thing be spoken more fully against the immediate reconciliation of sinners in the death of Christ or for proofe that Christ obtained that Covenant of peace through the preaching of which the Gentiles were converted and so reconciled unto God Gal. 3. 13. saith that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law that is paid the price of our redemption or obtained eternal redemption for us as Heb. 9. 12. but doth it say that we are delivered without a Covenant made in the same blood and death of Christ nay the Apostle supposeth the just contrary namely that blessednesse whereof sure our reconciliation with God is no small part is given to us by Covenant v. 11 14 15 16. Even that which he calls the promise by faith in Jesus Christ v. 22. The last text is that mentioned in my sermon Matth. 26. 28. Christ saith Mr. Eyre doth not say that he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many Ans But he sayes his blood was the blood of the New-Testament which was shed for the remission of sins Of which former words Mr. Eyre is content to take no notice But out of doubt they teach us this or they teach us nothing that by the blood of Christ was the Covenant of remission obtained and sealed or that Covenant by which sin is pardoned to them that beleeve for the blood of Christ pardons not sin immediately but unto them onely that drink it by faith Joh. 6. 53 54 55 56 57. Hence the Apostate from the faith is said to count the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified an unholy thing Heb. 10. 29. SECT VII HAving thus shewed from the Scriptures that sinners are not immediately §. 31. reconciled in the death of Christ I proceeded farther to shew the grounds of it and they are two partly because the death of Christ was noâ— â—olâ—â—â—ejujdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of the equivalent and therefore doth not deliver us ipso facto partly the agreement betwixt the Father and the Son of which more by and by Mr. Eyre answers to the former Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or â—antidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction Rep. Yea Then the Lawyers abuse both themselves and us for there is scarcely a determination more common in the Law then o L. mutuum §. 2. ff de reb cred l. cum â— de sol l. Debitor ff de sol ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem l. si â—c §. 3. ff de re juâ— that a debtor is not discharged ipso facto upon the payment of any other thing then of that same which is in the obligation Titius is bound to pay Sempronius a hundred pounds in current mony of England when the day of payment is come he brings the full value in corne or he is bound to pay silver and he brings gold is he hereby discharged No. But if he bring the very same thing which he was bound to he is discharged ipso facto Now if when he brings gold instead of silver or corne instead of mony some act of the creditour is requisite to admit the payment of one instead of the other that so the debtor may be freed then is it also in the creditors power especially the debtor also consenting to propose upon what tearms he will that the debtor shall be freed either presently or after some time either upon condition or without which is all I seek for at present the consequence of this we shall see by and by In the mean time Mr. Eyre will have me prove that the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem A service which I little expected to be put upon by an English Divine p Vide librum â—vi mei reverendissimi Robertâ—â— arkeri de descensu l. 3. §. 57 58. p g. 108 109 The Assemb larg Catech. oâ— justi q. 2. 1. All our Divines acknowledge that Christ made a true proper satisfaction unto God for our sins q L. â—â—tisfact ff de solut Ergo his death was not solutio ejusdem the payment of the very same which was in the obligation but of the equivalent onely 2. Mr. Eyre himself but just before did intimate some kind of acknowledgement that the death of Christ was a payment of it self refusable Ergo it was not solutio ejusdem r L. quod in di em ff de sol l. quod quis 49. ff â—â— Action l. Accept 19. c. de usur for no creature can refuse to admit of that 3. It was not Christs death but ours that was in the obligation for the Law requires that he that sins dye and no man else If he that sinneth not dye that death cannot be the same which was in the obligation s Ut in contractu ersenali de facto Ulpian in l. inter â— rtif 31. ff de sol In corporal punishments which
liberat intent that the debtor that is the sinner should be presently discharged as wel as himself That Christ had such an intent Mr. Eyre proves because his death was a payment or satisfaction The question then between him and me now is whether an agreement between a creditâ—r and a surety that the debtor shall not be discharged immediately upon the sureties payment be possible or consistent with the nature of that payment and satisfaction which a surety makes Mr. Eyre is for the negative and the Reader hath his word for it and nothing else instead of Argument I am for the affirmative upon the following grounds Peter owes James a 100. l. whereof he is not able to pay him one farthing John out of love and compassion to Peter and without his knowledge interposeth as a surety â—â—gageth to James that if he will accept of payment from him he will pay him the said 100. l. provided and agreed between them both that Peters bond shall remaine in full force and so himself not be discharged till a month after upon these terms John payes his mony and James receives it Here the summe is paid and yet the debtor remains for a time obliged Ergo he is not discharged immediately upon the sureties payment Nor is there any thing in this agreement inconsistent with the nature of payment or satisfaction 1. John the surety might have chosen whether he would have paid or engage to pay the said 100. l. 2. James the creditor also might have chosen whether he would have admitted John to be paymaster or no. 3. Forasmuch therefore as there is no Law to compel the one to pay or the other to receive but it is meerly the voluntary act of both which mutually engageth them it followes necessarily that it is in the power of them both to agree upon the tearms and time when Peter shall be discharged by virtue of this payment because it is in our power to put what Laws we please upon actions which depend meerly on our own will otherwise a man might be free and not free at the same time and in reference to the same action which is a contradiction Therefore payment is made for the creditor is possessed of as much as the debtor ought him yet the debtor is not presently discharged Ergo the payment of a debt or rather satisfaction for a debt doth not in all cases presently discharge the debtor Other cases the Reader may see in the civil Law which I desire him to looke in the places which I have directed him to in this and the former chapter to spare my self the paines of transcribing them Nor is there any thing in all this contrary to justice and equity as §. 5. Mr. Eyre pretends for against whom is this injustice Not against the creditor nor the surety for it is by the consent of them both that the debtor be not presently discharged and it is a known maxime volenti non sit injuria Not against the debtor for he hath not paid his debt nor did the surety pay it with this purpose and will that he the said debtor should be presently disobliged but in convenient time Yet that which follows That the same debt cannot be paid and unpaid is true but nothing to the purpose because our question is not whether payment or satisfaction be made but whether he that payes for another may not agree with the creditor that the person for whom he payeth shall not presently be discharged but at some distance of time after Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth That the effects of Christs death as it is the meritorious price of faith holinesse glory are not present but future But was not the death of Christ the meritorious price of our discharge from sin and the curse as well as of those blessings and if Christ did merit them to be given not presently but many years after his death why not this But let us see how Mr. Eyre illustrates this for proofe we have none §. 6. As when a man that is a trespasser or any one for him payes a summe of money which is sufficient both for discharge of his trespasse as also for the purchase of a piece of land from the trespasse his discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full though the enjoyment of the land may be in Diem Ans 1. But neither yet do we hit the mark for the question is not whether it be possible for a debtor to be discharged presently and immediately upon the payment which another makes for him which is the utmost this instance can reach to but whether it be not possible for him not to be discharged upon such a payment presently which universal negative one particular instance can never well prove especially when other instances without number may be invented which will infallibly prove the contrary 2. Still I long to know the reason of that peremptory necessity expressed in those words From the trespasse the discharge must be present if the satisfaction be full Cassius hath Maevius in suite for that his cattle have broke into his corne and done him dammage to the value of 5. l. Lucius gives the said 5. l. to Cassius that the next Term and not before he may discharge Maevius which accordingly he doth Is this contract impossible If it be shew us what contradiction there is in the tearms if it be not we are not bound to beleeve that the discharge must needs be immediate though Mr. Eyre say it 3. Nor yet am I able to conceive such is my dulnesse why the effects of satisfaction should be more immediate then those of merit Especially considering that the satisfaction of Christ is also the price of our peace and pardon and that the difference between them is rather respective then real the same obedience being called satisfaction as it is ordered to Gods honour and merit as it is ordered to our benefit and advantage The piece of land which one purchaseth for another might it not be enjoyed presently if the vendee and purchaser did so agree it might especially if the price be full as that is which Christ paid for us many years ago Is it not then the agreement between the vendee and purchaser which defers the possession till such a time it is so Why then should not the case be the same in satisfaction why saith Mr. Eyre a debt cannot be paid and unpaid No more can a price be paid and unpaid say I But neither doth the price nor satisfaction produce their effects necessarily or by way of natural causality but voluntarily according to the compact between the party paying and receiving which if it did not hinder the vendee were as much bound to give present possession of the goods bought having received the full price of them as the creditor to forbear the inflicting of evil upon the trespasser upon satisfaction made by a third person SECT II. THe fourth Argument is this If nothing
Gods freeing or taking off punishment from us is in nature before his laying it on Christ if the imputing it to Christ be formally the non-imputing it to us many other inconveniences attend this doctrine but it is needlesse to insist upon the mention of them Besides these Arguments there are several testimonies of Scripture §. 30. which M. Eyre mentions to prove our reconciliation to be the actual and immediate effect of Christs death let us view them Colos 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. Heb. 9. 12. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12 14. Colos 2. 10 13 14. Rom. 8. 33 34. Ans 1. We have already answered at large to Rom. 8. 33 34. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Eph. 1. 7. and by consequence to Colos 1. 14. for the words are the same in both those places We have therefore here to answer no more then the texts out of the Hebrews and one out of the Colossians let us take them in order Heb. 9. 12. Christ hath obtained eternal redemption for us I cannot assure my self how M. Eyre understands this text but if he see no more in it then all men I can meet with he can conclude no more from it then what was never denyed namely that Christ hath purchased eternal redemption for us But he hath also purchased eternal life and glory for us will it therefore follow that our glorification is the actual and immediate effect of his death he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity Tit. 2. 14. are we therefore freed from all sin immediately in his death The next is Heb. 1. 3. Christ by himself hath purged our sins and afterwards sate down as having finished that work Heb. 10. 12. Ans The former place according to the original saies no more then that Christ in his death made a purge of our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more then we have often yeelded that Christ hath made a plaister in his own blood for the curing of our wounds that is in dying he performed that righteousnesse which is the cause of our remission his blood being that which washeth us from all our sins But that this purge had its effect immediately upon its own existence is that which M. Eyre must give us another Text to prove whereas he addes that he afterwards sate down as having â—inished that work Heb. 10. 12. and good reason because that one offering of himself was so perfect and sufficient for all those ends unto which it was ordained that there is no need that himself or any thing else should be offered a second time for those ends But if M. Eyre mean that he hath so perfectly reconciled us in his death not only quoad constitutionem causae but quoad effectum as that there needs nothing more to be done towards our reconciliation he may do well to reconcile the Apostle to himself who tells us his work in heaven is to make reconciliation Heb. 2. 17 18. Wherefore in all things it beboved him to be made like unto his brâ—thron that he might be a mercifull and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people for in that he himself hath suffered being tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted compare Heb. 4. 15. and 7. 25. The like answer I give to Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected §. 31. for ever them that are sanctified namely that Christs death hath perfected us quoad meritum not quoad efficaciam The death of Christ saith the l Dr. Godwin in Rom. 8. â—4 sect 5. pag. 177. Author often commended was perfect for an oâ—lation to which as such nothing can be added there needed no more nor any other price to be paid for us But hence to inferre that therefore we were perfectly reconciled quoad effectum in the death of Christ is point blank against the Text which tells us in the very next foregoing words v. 13. that Christ doth yet expect till his enemies be made his foot-stoole amongst which the Apostle reckoneth sin and death 2 Cor. 15. 26 55 56. which though together with Devils they were destroyed in some sense in the death of Christ Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 14 15. Yet forasmuch as the holy Ghost witnesseth that Christ doth yet expect a farther destruction of them it lets us understand that these enemies and sin in particular was no farther destroyed in his death then as therein was laid the foundation and cause of a perfect and eternal remission which by virtue of that blood carried up and pleaded in heaven should be given unto them that by faith come for it unto the throne of grace as the Apostle explaines himself Heb. 4. 14 15 16. and in this very chapter v. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the truth there râ—mains no more sacrifice for sins implying that a wilful rejecting of Christ through unbelief which I conceive to be that special sin which the Apostle means deprives us of the benefit of remission of sins by his sacrifice which how it can be if sins were perfectly and absolutely pardoned immediately in his death I cannot conceive see also v. 38 39. The last place is least of all to purpose Christ saith M. Eyre §. 32. hath made us compleat as to the forgivenesse of our sins Colos 2. 10 13 14. Ans 1. The Apostle speaks to such who had already received the Lord Jesus v. 6. And of such no doubt it is true that all their sins are pardoned 2. But neither doth the Apostle limit our compleatnesse in Christ to the forgivenesse of our sins nor doth he say that we were made compleat in his death but rather in his exaltation And ye are compleat in him who is the Head of all principality and power His scope is to roote and establish the Colossians in the faith of Christ v. 7. in opposition to such innovators as would have introduced the worship of Gentile Daemons v. 8 18. or the observation of Jewish rites v. 20 21. as if without these Christ had not of himself been able to save them But ye are compleat in Christ saith the Apostle or be ye content with Christ as the words will beare to be rendred as who alone is most sufficiently able to give and increase you in all good and to deliver you from all evil and bestow on you the reward of eternal life v. 15 18 19. But what all this is to the purpose I know not It seems Mr. Eyre had a mind to bring it in for company CHAP. XI A reply to Mr. Eyres fifteenth Chapter of justification in Christ as a common person Justification not proved thereby to be before faith SECT I. WE are now come to the review of those two Arguments §. 1. mentioned in my Sermon which Mr. Eyre made use of to prove that the elect were justified before beleeving The former in short
Gal. 3. 7 9 26 29. If then the promise be made to them that are beleevers the thing promised cannot be that they shall be beleevers And therefore Mr. Eyre in the proofe of his antecedent doth palpably contradict that which he would prove The same Covenant saith he which God made with Abraham is made with all the faithfull to the end of the world and therefore they are called the children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7 29. A Covenant made with the faithfull is not that they shall have faith And so we come to the last argument which onely was mentioned §. 11. by Mr. Eyre and answered by me in my sermon If faith be given us by virtue of the Covenant made with the house of Israel then is it given us by virtue of the Covenant made with us for the house of Israel is the whole company of Gods elect who are therefore called Spiritual Israel Rom. 9. 6. But faith or the Spirit which works faith is promised in the Covenant made with the house of Israel Jer. 31. 31. Heb. 8. 8 9 c. Answ Though Rom. 9. 6. will by no means prove that the elect as such are Spiritual Israel for the words may and I think must be understood of beleevers as such yet I will have no quarrel here with Mr. Eyre about his interpretation Neverthelesse I do ingenuously confess to him I am very much puzled about one objection which it concernes him as much as me to see well answered Suppose then a man should say that by the house of Israel is not meant the elect as such but beleevers and that it is not faith which is here promised but some greater measures of grace which they that beleeve should receive above what were usually communicated before the times of Christ he mâ—ght thus argue from the words Whatsoever blessings are promised in the Covenant recorded Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. are such as are peculiar to the days of the New-Testament But the giving of faith is not peculiar to the dayes of the New-Testament for since sin entred into the world there was no other way of salvation then bâ— faith and therefore God gave faith in all ages to the elect The proposition may not be questioned For the time and season of giving the blessings mentioned Heb. 8. is expressely determined v. 8. Behold the dayes come when I will make a new Covenant c. and v. 10. This is the Covenant which I will make after those dayes and in reference to these blessings in this Covenant called a better Covenant and the promises thereof better v. 6. All which prove that the blessings here mentioned are such as were never given before But as the pardon promised v. 12. the knowledge of God v. 11. Gods being a God to his people v. 10. are all more perfect then ever before though the substance of these blessings were alwayes the same so it is not the substance and being of faith which is here promised but some more eminent degrees of grace then ever were dispensed before these times of the New-Testament Unlesse Mr. Eyre can answer this argument better then I the whole foundation of his discourse sinkes and he doth but labour in vaine to prove from these Texts that faith is given us as unto a people in Covenant with God before our receiving it Neverthelesse other reasons preponderate with me to cleave to my §. 12. former interpretation and therefore yeelding that faith it self is promised in this Covenant I deny Mr. Eyres assumption understood in the sense often mentioned viz That faith is given by the obligation of that Covenant in which Israel is supposed to be before they beleeve To the Texts mentioned for proofe Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. I gave a double answer 1. By retortion That if Mr. Eyre urge the words of these Texts rigorously they will prove more then he would have This he hopes is no hurt But as they say in Logick that those Syllogismes are fallacious which though they conclude true yet in the same forme will conclude false so is that interpretation of Scripture to be suspected which though it may serve a mans purpose will yet if received carry him beyond his purpose to that which he will not grant That which it proves more then I thought Mr. Eyre would have granted I delivered in these words It is manifest that this covenant containes a promise of sending Christ to dye for our sins Heb. 10. 14. 15 16. So that we may as well inferre from hence that we are in Covenant with God before the death of the mediatour as that we are in Covenant before we beleeve and then his death shall serve not to obtaine all or any of the blessings of the Covenant but onely as the Sâ—cinians to declare and confirme to us that we may beleeve that God of his own good will without expecting any satisfaction will do all this good for us c. Mr. Eyres first answer is but a repetition of his argument now under debate and is more particularly answered below Two things he sayes to it 1. That it is not manifest that these texts containe a promise of sending Christ to dye for us The Apostle Heb. 10. 15. mentions the Covenant not to prove that God would send his Son to dye but that being come he hath offered up a perfect sacrifice v 10 12 14. Rep. The words are these v. 14 15. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witnesse to us And then quotes or rather cites the words of Jeremy Now if the Holy Ghost in that place of Jeremy do witnesse that Christ by offering himself should for ever perfect them that are sanctified then doth he also testifie that Christ should come at the time there mentioned to be made a sacrifice and the coming of Christ though it be not expressed yet is included and understood as promised in that Covenant Yea and all the promises or predictions of the glory of the Church in the New-Testament above it self under the old do signally include the promise of Christ himself as the Author of that glory and perfection Secondly He ownes it as an undenyable truth that the new §. 13. Covenant was made with all the elect in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid it being the fixed and immutable will of God concerning all those good things which in time were bestowed upon them Therefore it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. As it shall have no end so it had no beginning Rep. It is very strange to me that the New Covenant should be now discovered to be older then the world and that at no lesse distance then there is between time and eternity And more strange that Mr. Eyre should tell us gratis that it is Gods immutable purpose without so much as pretending the least jot from Scripture where either the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we are wont to render Covenant or Testament may be taken in such a signification which appeare not either in the Old or New-Testament unlesse where they are used Metonymically or Metaphorically or other wayes tropically in any other sense then of a Law or a Testament or a Convention And most strange that he should also tell us gratis that it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. not onely a parte post but a parte ante not onely as hauing no end but also as not having beginning when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it and it is most certaine that that Covenant made with David had a beginning recorded 2 Sam. 7. 16 19. and all the places mentioned in the margine as Gen. 17. 7. c. Do also speak of such everlasting Covenants as we know were not without beginning And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge that notwithstanding this Covenant be eternall yet there are more especially three periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam 2. At the death of Christ 3. When God bestowes on men the benefits of the Covenant If we are properly in Covenant from eternity there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant nihil agit in simile therefore these three periods of time are but three degrees of manifestation that we are in Covenant Accordingly as I argued before in the matter of Justification so now in the matter of the Covenant If the Covenant of grace consist essentially in Gods eternal purpose of blessing the elect then is not the word Covenant that Covenant I mean by which the elect are saved taken properly in all the Scriptures forasmuch as it no where signifies the foresaid purpose A thing as incredible and abominable as the former But let us farther examine this undenyable truth If the foresaid §. 14. purpose of God be the Covenant of grace then Christ did not obtaine by his death that God should make a Covenant with the elect But the consequence is false and Socinianisme Ergo so is the Antecedent Mr. Eyre answers Though we do not say that Christ procured the Covenant he might have added and therein we agree with the Socinians yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the blood of Christ as deliverance from the curse inherent holinesse c. Rep. Such a salve for the honour of Christs merits I remember we had before in the matter of Justification viz. That Christ merited the effects of Justification not the act even as he merited the effects of election but not the act As if the reason were the same between a particular univocall cause such as Justification is determined to a particular kind of effect which causes do alwayes produce their effects immediately without the intervention of any other cause and an universal cause of severall heterogeneous effects such as election is and therefore produceth nothing but by the sub-serviency of those severall kinds of causes ordained to their severall kinds of works But the like distinction here between the Covenant and its effects is of worse consequence if I mistake not Therefore against Mr. Eyres answer I have these things to object 1. It makes void the death of Christ for if the elect before the death of Christ haue a foederall right to the blessings of the Covenant then they are righteous before his death for to be righteous by righteousnesse imputed and to have right to blessednesse are inse parable But Christ is dead in vain if righteousnesse comes by any other way or cause then his death Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediatour they must have the blessings of the Covenant whether he die or no for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulnesse at least upon the Covenanter to fulfill his Covenant If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Christ with the Elect what should hinder their receiving these blessings without his death Either God is unable to fulfill his covenant but he is Almighty or he is unfaithful but he is a God that keepeth covenant or our sin hinders but he hath covenanted before the death of Christ that sin shall not hinder for pardon of sin is a special branch of the covenant Or finally he hath covenanted to give us these blessings through the death of Christ and no otherwise But then we are not in covenant before the consideration of Christs death and besides which I most stick at then the whole reason why God should punish his deare and only Sonne so grievously is this it was his pleasure so to do But surely he that doth not afflict men meerly because he will Lam. 3. 33. would much lesse deal so with his Son 3. Either Christ and his merits are part of the blessings of this covenant or no. If they be then it is false that Christ merits all the effects and blessings of the covenant for he did not merit that himself might merit or be by his death the meritorious cause of our blessings If not then the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent then the Old The first covenant was faulty because it could not bring sinners to perfect happinesse Heb. 8. 7 8 9. and 7. 19. Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the blessednesse it promiseth unlesse Christ merit and bring forth the effects thereof then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old a faire advancement of the Covenant of Grace 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can consist with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been disputing for viz. That the New Covenant was made with Christ he performed the conditions and we receive the benefit Christs death was either the condition of the Covenant or of the effect of it Not the former if it consist in Gods purpose Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines disgust a conditional purpose in God And how it should be the condition of the effects when it is not the condition of the Covenant it self I cannot reach I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of Gods purpose and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purposed But then that purpose is not a covenanr properly so called Metaphorically it may be it may so be called but then it is such a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Christ but with God himself being no more then his own resolution within himself And yet the foresaid position viz. That there are no conditions of Gods purpose though there are causes of conditions of the things purposed had need of a distinction too for so farre forth as they are the effects of purpose they have no other cause or condition and
he determines as supream Governour of the world what shall be our duty to do or not to do and what shall be due to us according to our doing or not doing of this Will Hence the Word and Lawes of God are called in Scripture his Will in hundreds of places By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity which is their proper Justification whereof his not punishing them de facto is the effect This I shall prove God willing when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre In the meane time the thing which he undertakes to prove is That the very essence and quiddity of a sinners Justification is Gods Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him I deny it and shall subjoyne some reasons against it by and by besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book But first let us see what he hath to say for it Thus then he begins Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse to a person Psal 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person is his non-imputing sin to him Ergo. Answ I grant the major but I do very much long to see what §. 8. definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification that may include Justification in Gods knowledge and in his legal justice and in our consciences that I might know whether these three be three several sorts or only three degrees of one and the same Justification but let that passe I deny the minor For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeales to the Original words both Greek and Hebrew both which saith he doth signifie an act of the minde or will Mr. Eyre is to prove that they signifie the purpose or resolution of the will in which sense they appear not so much as once neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Interpreters nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense and therefore that observation might have been spared 2. An act of the understanding they signifie often but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation but thinking devising esteeming or the like for example Isa 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Neither doth his heart think so Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendred Neither doth his heart impute se In like manner Psal 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt where the words are the same both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint And cannot be rendered Against me do they impute my hurt So Isa 53. 3. He was despised and we esteemed him not where the words are still the same It would be worthy sense to render them He was despised and we imputed him not Multitudes of like instances might be given But when the words will beare to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation they then signifie not an immanent act of the understanding or will but a transient act containing an objectum Quod or something that is imputed and an objectum cui some person to whom it is imputed who also is thereby changed physically or morally And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another Numb 18. 27 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned or imputed to you as though it were the corne of the threshing sloâ—re and ver 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it then it shall be counted or imputed to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floore c. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corne of the threshing floore for that had been a fiction or an errour and imperfection of the understanding but because by the determination of the Law it was made equivalent thereunto or equally available to all effects and purposes This is a transient act 2. When a man is charged as the Authour of such or such a fact 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris Junius This also is a transient act 3. The giving of a reward to a man whether the reward be of debt or of grace is Imputation Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. because punishment is the wages of sin and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law is the non-imputing of sin Psal 32. 1 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action which otherwise he might have expected that action is said to be non-imputed to him Lev. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him This also is a transient act In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament Righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur Beza Mr. Eyres glosse upon that text we shall meet with in due place and Paul prayes for them that deserted him in his troubles that their sin may not be imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyres Argument upon himself If Justification be a non-imputation of sin then it is a transient act and not an immanent act of Gods Will. But the first is true ex concessis Ergo so is the last And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weaknesse of his proofe The original words note an immanent act when they signifie some other thing then imputation Ergo imputation is an immanent act So much for the first Argument The second is this that which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification But by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. Answ The Proposition I readily grant the Assumption I deny §. 9. â— and detest For 1. It makes void the death of Christ for what sayes the Apostle Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain The case is altogether the same as to any other way by which men may be said to be justified for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ then was it a vaine needlesse thing that he should die for our Justification 2. Nor was there any need as to our Justification that he should rise again from the dead whereas the Scripture saith Arose from the dead for our Justification Rom. 4. 25. And therefore saith Paul 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins he speaks to those that did confesse his death but he was out when he