The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 9

The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners · Chapter 9

p. 202CHAP. IX.

A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter; Containing a vindication of my anſwers given to thoſe Scriptures, which ſeeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of ſinners unto God, upon the death of Chriſt, without the intervention of faith.

SECT. I.

AGainſt what we have hitherto been proving, I know§. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures, more then a Text or two, that ſeeme to hold forth an immediate, actual reconciliation of ſinners unto God upon the death of Chriſt: which if it be ſo, then their juſtification is not ſuſpended upon believing: and ſome other way muſt be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themſelves. But the Arguments drawne from thoſe places which ſeeme to favour it moſt, are ſo inconſequent, and contrary teſtimonies, ſo many and irrefragable, that I am very little ſolicitous about the iſſue. Both theſe things we ſhall p. 203ſhew in order: and firſt we examine thoſe places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative.

Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front. This is my beloved ſonne §. 2.in whom I am well pleaſed, that is (ſaith Mr. Eyre) with ſinners. The inference ſhould be, Ergo, God was well pleaſed with ſinners (that is, reconciled to them) immediately in the death of Chriſt.

To this, in my ſermon I gave a double anſwer. 1. That the wellpleaſedneſſe of God need not be extended beyond the perſon of Chriſt, who gave himſelf unto the death, an offering and a ſacrifice unto God of a ſweet ſmelling ſavour, Eph. 5. 2.

Mr. Eyre in his reply to this, produceth many teſtimonies, of Muſculus, Calvin, Beza, Paraeus, Ward, Ferus; and ſome reaſons, to prove that which never came into my minde to deny, namely, that God is in Chriſt well pleaſed with ſinners. To all which I ſhall need return no other anſwer, then an explication of that which is given already. The words therefore may be underſtood either, 1. As a teſtimony of God concerning his acceptance of, and well-pleaſedneſſe in Chriſt, as a ſacrifice moſt perfect and ſufficient for obtaining of thoſe ends, and producing thoſe effects for which it was offered, Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleaſed with Chriſt only, and above all other, men or Angels: or, 2. As they do alſo note the effect as then exiſting, namely, Gods well-pleaſedneſſe with ſinners for Chriſts ſake. Now was it ſuch a prodigious crime in me to ſay, the words may be taken only in the former ſenſe, and ſo confined to the perſon of Chriſt, that I muſt be printed as a man that thinks my ſelf worth a thouſand ſuch as Colvin, Beza, Paraeus, &c? Whoſe judgements I had not then conſulted, nor do now finde any thing which I conſent not to, except one paſſage in Beza. When 1. Mr. Eyres expoſition cannot conſiſt, without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is, This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleaſed: he muſt adde, in whom I am well pleaſed with ſinners. 2. And that ſuch an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters, nor of the New Teſtament is acquainted with, namely that the verbe foreign ſhould governe two dative caſes, one of the cauſe, and the other of the object. Adde the word ſinners, and the Greek runs thus, foreign. Let Mr. Eyre match this conſtruction, if he can. 3. And if he give the right ſenſe of the words, then foreign in whom, is not the dative caſe of the object with whom God is well pleaſed; but of the means or cauſe through which God is well pleaſed with others, namely with ſinners: p. 204Whereas the ſame particles conſtrued with the ſame verbe, are elſewhere perpetually a note of the object. 1 Cor. 10. 5. 2 Cor. 12. 10. 2 Theſ. 2. 12. Heb. 10. 38. ſuitable to the Hebrew foreign to which they anſwer.

The Authors whom Mr. Eyre muſters up to face me, have no quarrel with me at all. They do amplifie Gods well-pleaſedneſſe with§. 3. Chriſt from the effect which follows upon it, namely, his well-pleaſedneſſe with ſinners. But do any of them deny, that the words may be underſtood preciſely of Gods acceptance and approbation of what Chriſt hath done in order to the ſalvation of ſinners? Let us ſee the reaſons which Mr. Eyre hath againſt it. 1. Saith he, the words are a ſolemne declaration of Chriſts inveſtiture in the office of a mediatour. Anſw. What then? do they therefore prove, that the effects of his mediatourſhip, and particularly this of Gods being well-pleaſed with ſinners, were then preſently communicated and applyed to ſinners? may it not ſuffice that they teſtifie Gods ſingular approbation of Chriſt to be a Mediatour, and of all his mediatory performances, though they do not produce their effects upon many ſinners till many ages after? But (ſaith he) the words were ſpoken …r their ſakes whom Chriſt repreſented! as Joh. 12. 30. Anſw. But the conſequence is ſtill abortive. Becauſe the words were ſpoken for their ſakes, muſt they therefore needs ſignifie that God was actually well-pleaſed with them, even while they continue ſtrangers and enemies againſt God? might they not be ſpoken for their ſakes, though they intend no more then to deſcribe that perſon in whom God is well pleaſed, and to direct ſinners to him, that through faith in him God may alſo be well pleaſed with them? as thoſe words, J…h. 12. 30. were ſpoken for the ſake of ſinners, that upon that teſtimony which was there given unto Chriſt they might believe. 2. The ſecond reaſon is a plaine negat…r, that the Text quoted by me, Eph. 5. 2. makes for my purpoſe. When it is framed into ſome ſimilitude of an Argument, it ſhall have an anſwer. 3. The third is, Becauſe no reaſ…n can be given, why thoſe words ſhould be terminated to the perſon of Chriſt; ſeeing God was never diſpleaſed with him. Anſw. 1. We have given three reaſons already from the Text. There is no other perſon mentioned in the Text, as the object of Gods well-pleaſedneſſe: and if there were no more, that is enough. 2. God was never diſpleaſed with Chriſt q…oad affectum: but he was diſpleaſed with him Oeconomically & quoad effectum: for Chriſt bare his Fathers diſpleaſure. 3. But if God had never been diſpleaſed with him, what p. 205conſequence is this? God was never diſpleaſed with Chriſt, nor had Chriſt any ſuſpicion of it. Erg…, it was needleſſe that God ſhould declare himſelfe to be well pleaſed with him? There was ground enough of ſuch a declaration, if it were for no other end, but only to manifeſt how infinitely acceptable the ſacrifice of Chriſt was unto God, above all the ſacrifices under the Law: and that he was diſpleaſed with them in compariſon of this. In burnt offerings and ſacrifices for ſin thou hadſt no pleaſure; then ſaid I, lo I come, &c. Heb. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9. The fourth and laſt reaſon is this. The wellpleaſedneſſe of God is to be extended to them for whom Chriſt offered up his ſacrifice. Ergo, to ſinners, Anſw. The Antecedent, if it be meant of the extent of the words which we are debating, begs the queſtion.

SECT. II.

MY ſecond anſwer was, that if Gods well-pleaſedneſſe ſpoken of in the Text, be extended alſo unto men, yet will the words§. 4. prove no more, then that it is through Chriſt, that God is well pleaſed with men, whenſoever it be that he is well pleaſed.

This plaine anſwer Mr. Eyre will have to be thus gloſſed, namely that my ſenſe of the words, … well …, is as much as, I will be well pleaſed, when they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part; and then very ſe…ouſly deſires his Reader, to obſerve how bold I make with the holy Ghoſt, in that when God ſaies, He is well pleaſed, I ſay no, he is not now, but he will be hereafter.

But 1. Mr. Eyre makes more bold with me then he ought: for neither did I ſay nor mean, that the words I …m well pl…aſed, ſhould be thus ſenſed, I will …e well pleaſed; but interp et the words as ſpoken inde…initly in reſpect of time, that it i… through Chriſt that God is well pleaſed whenſoever it be that he is well pleaſed. As if I ſhould ſay God is well pleaſed with obedience or with praiſe, do not neceſſarily ſ…ppoſe that there are then any, putting forth the act of obedience or praiſe, with which God is then actually well pleaſed (for what if all the men in the world were a ſleep at once? as 'tis like they were ſome times in No…h… Ark) but that theſe acts are pleaſing to God whenſoever they are put forth. 2. And if I had given this ſenſe of the words, putting the preſent tenſe for the future▪ yet, doth not Mr. Eyre make a bold with the holy Ghoſt as I, when towards the latter end of his very p. 206next paragraph, he acknowledges ſuch an Heteroſis of Tenſes to be very frequent in Scripture? Yea, hath he not already made bolder? not only here in adding the words, with ſinners, to the Text; but in rendring the Greek word foreign of the pretertenſe in Joh. 3. 18. as ſignifying not only one that now beleeves not, but one that ſhall never beleeve, pag. 110. §. 3. Nor did I mention faith or any other condition upon which God is well pleaſed with ſinners: not that I diſowne it; but becauſe it is impertinent to my preſent buſineſſe, for we are not now diſputing, when, or upon what tearms God is well pleaſed with ſinners; but whether he be well pleaſed with them immediately upon the death of Chriſt?

For juſtifying of my interpretation, I ſhewed from Scripture, that§. 5. verbes of the preſent tenſe have ſometimes the ſignification of the future: ſometimes are barely notes of affirmation, without reference to any determinate time, of which we ſhall ſet downe examples preſently. But by the way, Mr. Eyre, to humble me, tells me, that every ſchoole-boy knows, that Aoriſts have the ſignification of the preterperfect tenſe, not of the future.

Anſ. Which if it be true, the boyes know more then their Maſters, for it is a rule in aaVide Dom. Busb. Gram. Graec. pag. 35. Pfocen. de ling. grae. N. T. pur. pag. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Dr. Hammond Annot. in Mat. 23. 35. g. & Auth r. Excerpt. ad ſinem clement. Alexand ex pantaeno ubi etiam ſtatuit verbum. foreign in Pſal. 19 4. Poni foreign.Matt 23:35Ps 19:4Grammar, Indefinita ſunt tempora incertae ſignificationis: ſumuntur enim pro praeteritis: & interdum pro praeſ. & Futur. The ſame doth Euſtathius obſerve on that of bbIliad. a. ci…ca princip.Homer foreign, not foreign, as ſome latter copies read it. Examples are frequent in Scripture, Joh. 15. 6. foreign. Matth. 23. 35. foreign Matth. 6. 5, 16. foreign and many other places Examples of the preſent tenſe, put in the ſignification of the future, I alledged theſe, Joh. 4 25. The Meſſiah cometh, that is, will ſhortly come. Mr. Eyre will have this ſenſe of it. The promiſe of the Meſſiah draws nigh to be fulfilled.

Rep. But we are not now enquiring into the theological truth, but grammatical conſtruction of the words. If Schoole-boyes ſhould conſtrue the words, as Mr. Eyre doth engliſh them: I beleeve their Maſter would con them thanks. Another place was, Joh. 5. 25. The houre is coming, and now is M. Eyre, anſwers. The dead then did heare the voice of the Sonne of God. Anſw. Whatſoever be the meaning of the words, the ſame houre could not be (that is, now exiſt) and yet be coming too. Another place was, Joh. 14. 3. If I go, I come againe. This I think, Mr. Eyre grants to be for my turne, for he excepts nothing againſt it, and one place is as good as a hundred, and if it were worth while, I would alſo vindicate the next place, which p. 207is, 2 Cor. 3. 16. In the mean time, the judgement of our tranſlatours is ſufficient to oppoſe to Mr. Eyres: Who if they had not thought verbes of the preſent tenſe, might have the ſignification of the future, would not ſo have rendred them.

Examples of verbes of the preſent tenſe as notes of affirmation,§. 7. without reference to any determinate time, were theſe, Rom. 8. 24. By hope we are ſaved; that is, it is in the way of hope and patient expectation that men are ſaved, whenſoever it be that they are ſaved. Mr. Eyre anſwers? They are ſaved by hope, that is, they have now the joy and comfort of their ſalvation through faith and hope. They are now ſaved by hope, or they ſhall never be ſaved by hope: in the world to come they are ſaved by ſight, not by faith or hope.

Rep. 1. But the Apoſtle ſuppoſeth the ſalvation he ſpeaks of to be abſent, not preſent, becauſe we hope for it. 2. We have obſerved before, that joy and comfort are ſometimes expreſſed by the name of life; never by the name of ſalvation in the New-Teſtament. 3. To be ſaved by ſight … little better then non-ſenſe: what Divine can be found that ever penned ſuch uncouth language? ſight is it ſelf our poſitive ſalvation. And we are ſaved in the world to come, by that hope which we exerciſe in this preſent life: foraſmuch as ſalvation is the end of our hope and faith, 1 Pet. 1. 9. I muſt confeſſe, I am ſo well acquainted with the abilities of the Author whom I oppoſe, that I know not almoſt what interpretation to put upon theſe his ſtrange kinde of diſputings. Another Text is, 1 Cor. 15. 57. Thankes be unto God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. The meaning is, it is through God that we have the victory over death, be it when it will be that we have it. Mr. Eyre will have it read, th…nks be unto God who giveth us, or hath given us the victory; for (ſaith he) the Saints have already obtained victory over death and the grave in Chriſt their head. Rep. But the Apoſtle ſpeaketh manifeſtly of the victory which God giveth them in their own Perſons: the time of which he doth alſo deſcribe in general a little before, v. 54. So when this corruptible ſhall have put on incorruption, and this mortal ſhall have put on immortality; then ſhall be brought to paſſe the ſaying that is written: death is ſwallowed up in victory. This therefore is the victory which God giveth. So Heb. 10. 35. Your confidence hath a great recompence of reward. That is (ſaith Mr Eyre) in the preſent effects which it did produce, as inward peace, joy, &c. Rep. And yet in the very verſe foregoing, v. 34. it is called that better and enduring p. 208ſubſtance in heaven, and in the following verſe, v. 36. The promiſe which is obtained, after that with patience we have done the will of God, and v. 39. The ſaving of the ſoul. The laſt place I mentioned was Jam. 1. 17. Every good gift cometh down from above: Not as if it muſt needs be coming down when the Apoſtle ſpake thoſe words; but that whenſoever any one receives a good gift, it is from God. Againſt this Mr. Eyre excepts nothing. If then in theſe and many other places, and that by Mr. Eyres own confeſſion (for he acknowledgeth an heteroſis of tenſes, to be a trope very frequent in Scripture) verbes of the preſent tenſe have ſometimes the ſignification of verbes future, ſometimes are only notes of affirmation, without reſpect to any definite time: Why doth Mr. Eyre make ſuch outcries againſt me, to ſo little purpoſe, for interpreting the preſent words (In whom I am well-pleaſed) according to the Analogy of other places?

Why (ſaith he) I ſhould have ſhewn that it muſt be ſo expounded here. §. 8.Rep. Nay, but by his leave, I have performed my undertaking, in ſhewing that they yeeld him no proofe of what he ſought in them. Beſides, my judgement of the words is, that they ought to be confined to the perſon of Chriſt: and that I thought (and yet think) ſufficiently proved, becauſe they mention no other perſons, and they are a compleat ſentence without the addition. What I ſpeak of this ſecond anſwer, is upon allowance to Mr. Eyre of the ſelvidge he would ſow upon them, to ſhew that notwithſtanding that addition, yet the words do not come up to his purpoſe.

SECT. III.

NEvertheleſſe, I did alſo farther ſhew that his interpretation§. 9. could not be right; becauſe the Text would then contradict plaine teſtimony of Scripture, particularly that in Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impoſſible to pleaſe God, or to be pleaſing unto God.

Mr. Eyre anſwers. The Apoſtle ſpeaks there of mens works and actions, not of their perſons.

Rep. 1. But the Greek bbSee 2 Cor. 5. 9. Rom 12 1. & 14. 18.2 Cor 5:9Rom 12:1Rom 14:18foreign, when it denotes Gods well-pleaſedneſſe with a perſon, is never uſed, but to ſignifie Gods complacency in or approbation of a perſon becauſe of his qualities, or actions, p. 209or both. So doth foreign alſo, when it notes, not the decree or purpoſe of the will (as ſometimes it doth) but the affection, as when it is ſaid in chapter 10. 38. If any man draw back (namely by unbelief, Heb. 3. 12.) my ſoule ſhall have no pleaſure in him. Where Gods diſpleaſure is with the perſon: but 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. foreign. 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 wellpleaſedneſſe 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 onelyonly. 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.)

p. 210In 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: onelyonly, 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. ccSee John Yates Mod. of Divin. pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno, A…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 a…rimony▪ p. 211ſufficient. Therefore I ſhall not need to confute it: yet one thing I ſhall offer to the Readers conſideration. If the reaſon of Gods wellpleaſedneſſe with ſinners be this onelyonly, 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 …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 it. 3. In the mean time, I muſt confeſſe to Mr. Eyre, I do not underſtand what he means to tell us of a wall of partition raiſed between God and the elect. What? are they juſtified, and all their ſins pardoned, and that from eternity, and yet is there a wall of partition between God and them? Is pardoned ſinne able to ſeparate between the ſoul and God? Woe to poore ſinners, if this be true.

But let us ſee his Scriptures: (for one Text of Scripture is of more§. 12. conſequence to me then a hundred ſuch Arguments) they are theſe, Eph. 1. 6, 7. and 2. 13, 14. Col…ſſ. 1. 20, 21. and 2. 13, 14. 2 Cor. 5. 19.

Rep. To Epheſ. 1. 6, 7. we have anſwered before; and have ſhewed from the very letter of the Text, that it doth not only not exclude faith from being neceſſary to Gods acceptance of us, but alſo doth neceſſarily include it. Eph. 2. 13, 14. ſpeaks not of a partition wall between God and ſinners, but between Jews and Gentiles. The words are theſe. But now in Chriſt Jeſus, yea who ſometimes were afarre of, p. 212are made nigh by the blood of Chriſt; for he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Indeed in ver. 16. there is mention made of reconciliation unto God: but ſuch as throws down the wall and bulwarks, which Mr. Eyre would build upon it. And that he might reconcile both unto God, in one body by the Croſſe, having ſlain the enmity thereby. Can any thing be more plain, then that Jewes and Gentiles are firſt made one body by faith, before they are actually reconciled to God by the vertue of the Croſſe of Chriſt? Therefore holy Bayne obſerves well upon the place, That we muſt get fellowſhip with Chriſt, we muſt be incorporated with him and with believers, before we can be reconciled with him. And ſurely this incorporation is by faith, ver. 13. 17, 20. chap. 3. 6, 12. and 4. 4. John 10. 16.

The ſame I ſay to Col. 1. 20, 21. And (having made peace (or making§. 13. peace foreign) through the blood of his Croſſe) by him to reconcile all things to himſelfe; by him, I ſay, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you that were ſometimes alienated, and enemies in your minde by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his fleſh, through death, &c. Doth not the Apoſtle ſpeak as plainly, as it is poſſible for mans tongue to utter it, that by the body and death of Chriſt, theſe Coloſſians were reconciled now? which particle now is expreſſely oppoſed to the time wherein they were alienated, and enemies in their mindes by wicked works. I ſhall here tranſcribe ſomething of a reverend and renowned dd…p Davenant on the place.Doctour of our own, becauſe his words are ſo cleer and full. Ex hoc loco colligimus, &c. Out of this place we gather, that there is a double reconciliation conſidered in Scripture: the one general, finiſhed in the ſacrifice on the Croſſe, of which the Apoſtle ſpake in the verſe foregoing. It pleaſed the Father by the blood of the Croſſe, to reconcile all things to himſelfe; and John chap. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the ſin of the world. This I call general, becauſe it is conſidered according to the value of the ſacrifice, which is not only general, but infinite; and according to the manner of propoſing it in the preaching of the Goſpel, which is alſo indefinite and general.—But beſides this reconciliation in the Croſſe, and generally Applicable unto all, the Scripture ſhews us alſo a particular and applied reconciliation in the hearts and conſciences of particular men: namely, when that ſacrifice of Chriſt, which hath in it an univerſal power of reconciling all men, is actually applied to the reconciliation of this or that man. Of this ſpeaks the Apoſtle when he ſays: Now hath he reconciled you. 2ly, we p. 213are taught when and how men are made partakers of this particular reconciliation, namely, by the faith of the Goſpel.—As Rom. 3. 22. Thus farre Davenant. If then Mr. Eyre will urge this place aright, it overthrows the thing which he would prove by. What conſequence is this? The Scriptures …ear witneſſe, that they that believed, were reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne. Ergo, They were reconciled while they were in unbelief.

The next place is Col. 2. 13, 14. And you being dead in your ſinnes, §. 14.and the uncircumciſion of your fleſh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all treſpaſſes. If Mr. Eyre will argue from this verſe, his inference muſt be this. Erg…, all their treſpaſſes were forgiven them immediately upon the death of Chriſt. But the Adverbs of time, though they be not here expreſſed, yet are they neceſſarily implied, as appears plainly from the parallel place, Eph. 2. 1, 2, 3. where their death in ſin is expreſly limited to the time paſt, namely the time of their unbelief, in oppoſition to the time preſent, namely, the time of their Converſion; which words if we borrow from thence and put them here, the Apoſtles ſenſe is plainly this: you were in times paſt dead in ſins; but now, ſince you have believed, are quickened, that is to ſay, have your ſins pardoned, which to be his meaning is undeniable, from ver. 12. the verſe next foregoing, where he tells them, that they were riſen with Chriſt in Baptiſme, through the faith of the operation of God: And then preſently addes, as another excellency and priviledge of the ſame faith, (if at leaſt the priviledge be not the ſame in other words) that they were quickened together with Chriſt, through the pardon of their ſins, where, as their being raiſed with Chriſt in Bapptiſme, doth by no means note ſimultatem temporis, that they were baptized at the ſame time as Chriſt was raiſed, but ſimilitudinem qualitatis, that by faith and baptiſme they were conformed ſpiritually unto the image of Chriſt in his Reſurrection, (See Rom. 6. 4, 5, 6.) ſo neither doth their being quickened with Chriſt in the forgiveneſſe of their treſpaſſes, ſignifie that their ſins were then forgiven when he was quickened, (much leſſe immediately upon his death, which Mr. Eyre ſhould and would prove:) but our conformity to him in our deliverance from death moral, as he was raiſed from death natural.

But it may be 'tis the next verſe which Mr. Eyre thinks more for his purpoſe, ver. 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was againſt us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, p. 214nailing it to his Croſſe. The words (as I conceive with our Expoſitors) are to be underſtood of the abrogation of the ceremonial Law, by which the Jewes were ſeparated from the Gentiles, and the Gentiles from that acceſſe unto God which the Jewes had. And this indeed was a neceſſary and faire preparation to the reconciling of the Gentiles through faith: but how it ſhould follow from hence, that the Gentiles, or any ſinners elſe, were reconciled to God immediately upon the de…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 eeVide 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 171Rom 8:34after 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; p. 215Here'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. ffAquin. 3 … …q. 49. art. 1. ad 3 m.Chriſtus in ſuâ paſſione nos liberavit cauſaliter, id eſt, inſtituens cauſam noſtrae liberationis, ex qua poſſent quaecunque p…ocata quandoque remitti, vel praeterita, vel praeſentia, vel futura. Siout ſi medicus faciat medicinam, ex quâ p…ſſent qu…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; a… 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 …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 …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 … foreign 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 …married, or be reconciled to her h…ſband, foreign: which is not meant of her laying aſide of enmity againſt her husband, but of her …ſing meanes to obtain the favour and affection of her h…sband, that he may be reconciled to her. So Matth 5. 24. Be reconciled to thy Brother, foreign, 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 p. 216your ſelves from this untoward generation. In the Greek the verbe is paſſive foreign, 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 inſ… parably, and to depend immediately are all one, 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 p. 217was 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. p. 218And 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 n…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 p. 219words 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 C…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 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 p. 220if 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 foreign, and ſeparated from the Conjunction …, by the interpoſition of two entire words foreign and foreign, 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 p. 221Apoſtle 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 p. 222then our reconciliation in the death of Chriſt, by the Apoſtles own Explication, is of the ſame kinde with our condemnation in Adam: it is manifeſt it muſt be underſtood of reconciliation in the cauſe, not in the effect.

Nor let it trouble the Reader, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks as if the effect§. 21. were wrought (we were reconciled) for nothing more common in Scripture, then to ſpeak of the effect as wrought, when proviſion is made of a ſufficient cauſe, by which it ſhall or may be wrought, Ezek. 24. 13. I have purged thee, and thou waſt not purged, that is, there was nothing wanting on Gods part that might conduce to her purging, though the effect did not follow, Col. 1. 23. the Goſpel was preached to every creature under heaven: not that every perſon and Nation had then heard the Goſpel (for they have not yet heard it) but that by Gods permiſſion and commandment they might hear it. Chriſt hath aboliſhed death, 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely, he is the authour and cauſe of its abolition, or he hath aboliſhed it quoad meritum, for death is not deſtroyed de facto & quoad effectum, till the Reſurrection, 1 Cor. 15. 26, 54. ſo in verbs of active ſignification, Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God is powerful,—piercing to the dividing aſunder, &c. Pſal. 19. 7, 8. converting, making wiſe, rejoycing the heart, enlightening the eyes, all which do not ſo much ſignifie the act, as the vertue and ſufficiency of the cauſe. In like manner, when Chriſt is ſaid to be the propitiation for our ſins, and not for ours only, but for the ſins of the whole world, 1 John 2. 2. it is to be underſtood of the vertue and ſufficiency of his blood to take away ſin, not of a propitiation then preſently wrought and effected: for there is none ſuch before faith, if the Apoſtle may be beleeved, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Multitudes of like inſtances are obvious.

A third Argument is that mentioned in my Sermon out of v. 11.§. 22. By whom we have now alſo received the atonement, which in plainer termes is this, That now, that is, ſince we are believers, we are actually reconciled unto God.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, 1. That I might as well argue, that becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith 1 Cor. 15. 20. Now is Chriſt riſen. Ergo, he was not riſen before he wrote that Epiſtle. Or from Eph. 2. 2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief. Ergo, he did not work in them before.

Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre then think, that the particle now in this p. 223place is to be taken in the ſame ſenſe, as in thoſe? if he doth, his next anſwer is a nullity: if he doth not, he might have ſpared this. The word foreign now hath ſeveral uſes, ſometimes it is a meer ſupplement or redundancy, Pſal. 39. 7. ſometimes a note of tranſition, as when it is ſaid, Now it came to paſſe. ſometimes of a continued act, as Eph. 2. 2. Heb. 9. 24. ſometimes of a ſuppoſition, Rom. 8. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſometimes of oppoſition, or of aſſumption, 1 Cor. 15. 20. Heb. 11. 16. but moſt commonly and naturally of time, and particularly of the time of mens being converted, Rom. 6. 19, 21, 22. and 1…. 30. Gal. 2. 20. and 4. 9. and elſewhere often; ſo is it taken here, as being diſtinguiſhed from the time of the death of Chriſt, ver. 10. and ſuperadding ſome other benefit then what was effected immediately in his death, namely, the receiving of reconciliation; neither of which are to be found in either of the places mentioned by Mr. Eyre, nor will any of the other ſenſe of the word comport with this place.

His ſecond anſwer therefore is, We cannot receive or apply reconciliation to our ſelves but by faith, yet it follows not, that God did not account it to us before.

Rep. The accounting of reconciliation to us, is an expreſſion I never heard before. 2. Juſtification and reconciliation are here uſed to ſignifie the ſame thing. Ergo, to receive the atonement is all one with the receiving of Juſtification, or pardon of ſin, as Acts 26. 18. and 10. 43. which we have ſhewed before, cannot be meant of our knowing our ſins to be pardoned.

SECT. V.

FOr farther Explication of the difference between our reconciliation§. 23. in the death of Chriſt, and after our believing, I obſerved (out of Grotius) a diſtinction of three periods of the Will of God. 1. As it may be conceived immediately after ſin committed, before the conſideration of the death of Chriſt. And now is the Lord at enmity with the ſinner: though not averſe from all ways and meanes, by which he may returne to friendſhip with him again. 2. As it may be conceived after the death of Chriſt, and now is the Lord, not only appeaſable, but doth alſo promiſe, that he will be reconciled with ſinners, upon ſuch …mes as himſelf ſhall propoſe. 3. As. p. 224the ſame Will of God may be conſidered after an interceſſion on Chriſts part, and faith on the ſinners part: and now is God actually reconciled, and in friendſhip with the ſinner.

Againſt any of theſe particulars Mr. Eyre excepts nothing, but exclaims againſt the whole as extreamly groſſe; and why? forſooth, becauſe it makes God changeable. But as groſſe as it is, not our Proteſtants only, but the Scriptures alſo own every ſyllable of it, nor will the ſatisfaction of Chriſt ſtand without it. God was in friendſhip with Adam, while he continued righteous and without ſin. I conceive it is next to an impoſſibility, that the righteous Lord ſhould be at enmity with a righteous man, who neither is a ſinner, nor in the room of a ſinner. After Adam had ſinned, was not God at enmity with him? Yes ſurely, unleſſe Chriſt be dead in vaine: by his death we were reconciled while we were enemies. After the death of Chriſt, God is reconciled unto ſinners. Lo here, God is a friend, an enemy, and reconciled again: and is this ſuch monſtrous Divinity with Mr. Eyre? But for the Readers farther information, I ſhall endeavour to ſhew, how God may be firſt a friend, then an enemy, then reconciled, without any variableneſſe or ſhadow of changing in himſelfe; and then ſhall adde a word or two more concerning our reconciliation in the death of Chriſt, and ſo return to Mr. Eyre.

Reconciliation is the redintegration or renewing of friendſhip:§. 24. (ggVide Ariſt. ad Nichom. 8. 2, 7.) and friendſhip is either foreign, between thoſe who may be equally ſerviceable one unto another, in any office of love and friendly communication of good, in a way of arithmetical proportion: or foreign, between thoſe that are of unequal condition, the one excelling the other in dignity, or age, or power: between whom there cannot therefore be any reciprocal communication of good, but in a way of geometrical proportion: he that is of low degree and meaner rank, imparting love and honour, and obſervance to him that is of high degree, according to that authority, dignity or eminency in any kinde, wherein he is exalted above him.

And this (for example) is the friendſhip between (hhAriſtot. ibid c. 8, 11.) a Prince and§. 25. his ſubjects, conſiſting on his part, in his providing for their liberty and welfare, by and according to Law: and on their part in their ſubjection and obedience to him, according to the ſame Law: As on the contrary, the enmity between them conſiſts, on their part, in their breaking of the Laws, eſtabliſhed and maintained by his authority: p. 225and on his part, in the egreſſe and exerciſe of his authority, in inflicting puniſhment upon them for their offence, according to the ſame Lawes; ſo that a ſupream Governour as ſuch, is at peace with all thoſe againſt whom his Lawes have no quarrel; and an enemie to all with whom his Laws are at enmity. Thus ſtood the caſe originally between God and man; God being engaged by his Covenant to reward obedient man with life, and to puniſh him if he ſhould be diſobedient in the leaſt; the former of which was his friendſhip; and the latter (when the Law was broken) his enmity, Rom. 5. v. 10. 13. 15, 16, 17. compared. As on the other ſide, mans love and friendſhip to God, conſiſted in his obedience to the Law, Matth. 22. 37, 39. and his enmity in rebellion againſt it, Rom. 8. 7.

From which grounds it will be eaſie to underſtand how God may§. 26. be a friend, an enemy, reconcilable, and reconciled with the ſame perſons ſucceſſively; for while the Will of God, (I mean his revealed royal Will or Law) is to do good, and nothing but good to man, God is ſo long his friend: when upon mans diſobedience the ſame rectoral Will of God was to inflict evil upon him, he was an enemy. When the New Law of grace is enacted, detracting ſo far from the rigour and poremptorineſſe of the former, as to make it poſſible for the ſinner to obtain life upon other termes, God is ſaid to be reconcilable: when upon the intreaty of thoſe Ambaſſadours, whom the King and Lawgiver ſends into the world, ſinners are prevailed with to accept of and performe the termes of peace, then is God ſaid to be reconciled. Reconciliatio (ſaith judicious (iiAntiſynod. de morte Chriſti. c. 1. p. …5 12…. & Dav…n. diſſert. de mort. Chriſti. p. 65. 68.) Ames) non infert aliquam intrinſecam mutationem in Deo, ſed talem mutationem in diſpenſatione extrinſeca, quâ fit, ut influentia propenſae ejus volunt atis in peccatores ordinatè poſſit deriv…ri, ad eorum ſalutem perficiendam: Sicut poſt Auguſtinum, Lombardum, Thomam, Commentatores omnes & Calvinus inſtit. lib. 2. cap. 16. &c. Yea, ſo farre is all this from making any change in God, that he muſt of neceſſity be changed, unleſſe this be true. Should he be an enemy to man perfectly righteous, or not an enemy to him while a ſinner, or not reconciled to him when penitent, and a believer, he muſt deny himſelf; ſo little cauſe hath Mr. Eyre to charge us with Vorſtian Divinity.

Then for the ſecond thing, I wiſh Mr. Eyre had told us more§. 27. plainly what he would have, when he contends for the reconciliation of the elect, immediately in the death of Chriſt. Doth he mean p. 226that they were then perfectly reconciled? This I am ſo farre from believing, that though I thankfully acknowledge that Chriſt merited a perfect reconciliation (as he did alſo a perfect ſanctification) yet I cannot beleeve, that the elect are perfectly reconciled during this life, no, nor till the Reſurrection: For 1. If the elect be already perfectly reconciled, then Chriſt is no longer a Mediatour between God and them. But Chriſt is moſt certainly a Mediatour between God and them: not an arbiter only, or internunti…s, but a Mediatour. The Aſſumption all Chriſtians yield. The reaſon of the Propoſition is, becauſe it is the very nature and work of a Mediatour to (kkVide Hug. Grot. de ſatisfact p. 172. ex Suidâ.) make peace: and common ſenſe informes us, that there is no need of a Mediatour where there is no diſagreement; and the Scripture is expreſſe, Gal. 3 20. A Mediatour is not of one, that is, of them that are at perfect friendſhip and agreement one with another. And therefore when all enmity between God and man ſhall be deſtroyed perfectly, Chriſt ſhall ceaſe to be any longer a Mediatour. For he muſt reigne till all enemies be put under his fe…t, and then ſhall Chriſt deliver back his mediatory Kingdome into his fathers hands, 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. To ſay, he a Mediatour ſtill, not to perfect, but to manifeſt reconciliation, is to ſay nothing: For the want of the manifeſtation of reconciliation is ſome part of enmity, or not. If it be, then God and believers are not yet perfectly reconciled: if not; then ſhall not Chriſt need to be a Mediatour between God and them for that end. 2. If it be the work of Chriſt in heaven to make reconciliation for ſinners on earth, then thoſe ſinners are not perfectly reconciled to God at preſent. But the firſt is true. Ergo. The text is plain, Heb. 2. 17. It behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Prieſt, in things pertaining unto God, to make reconciliation for the ſins of the people. The Apoſtles ſcope is to ſhew the neceſſity of Chriſts ſufferings on earth before he went to heaven, ver. 9, 10. namely, that from the experience of his own ſufferings and temptations here, he might be the more merciful and faithful to make reconciliation for our ſins. Compare Heb. 4. 15. Nor can this be meant of making known or manifeſting reconciliation. For 1. The Greek word foreign, notes ſuch an act as is converſant. firſt about God: that he might be faithful in things pertaining to God, ſayes the text: even as the object of the ſervice of every High Prieſt ordained for men, is things pertaining to God, primarily and in the firſt place, Heb. 5. 1. But to manifeſt reconciliation, is p. 227an act primarily and totally converſant about us, not an act to Godward for us. 2. The manifeſtation of reconciliation being wrought by the Spirit of Chriſt, is moſt properly an act of Chriſt, as King: but the reconciliation here ſpoken of, is preciſely and formally the act of Chriſt as Prieſt. 3. And as the Greek word is not ſo much as pretended to ſignifie a manifeſtation in any other place, ſo in this eſpecially it cannot have that ſenſe, becauſe the conſtruction will not bear it. foreign, to reconcile ſins, is as much as foreign, to make a reconciliation or propitiation with God for their ſins.

But if Mr. Eyre mean no more, then that the death of Chriſt did immediately effect an imperfect and initial reconciliation, he knows that I yield it in part, viz. that God through the death of Chriſt, hath ſo far forth laid aſide his enmity againſt ſinners, as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will beleeve and repent: whereof alſo he hath given them ſuch aſſurance in his Goſpel: that if now they be not reconciled, it is becauſe they wil not be reconciled: if they die, it is becauſe they will die. But if his meaning be, that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Chriſt; then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word: but ſeeing reconciliation hath its degrees, let him demonſtrate that it muſt-be underſtood, not of the firſt degree (which I ſtand for,) but of the ſecond, which begins in application. 2. I deſire alſo to know, by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Chriſts death? Is it by ſome act of his minde? ſurely that will be very dangerous to affirme, that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Chriſt. Is it a tranſient act? ſhew us then its object: it is paſt imagination, how an effect can be wrought and exiſt in or upon an object, which it ſelfe hath no exiſtence. Laſtly, i… 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 (llSee Dr. Reynol…s. in P…. 110. p. 427. 429. & Dr. Go…win on Rom. 8 ſect 5. p. 71, 177.Rom 8) 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 p. 228be 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 p. 229reconciliation, 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. mmVide J…nium. & Willet. Hexapl. in loc.ſome interpreting it of that end of ſin, not which Chriſt made, but which ſinners themſelves make by repentance, nnVid. 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 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 p. 230unto 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 w…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 p. 231to them that beleeve, for the blood of Chriſt pardons not ſin immediately, but unto them onelyonly 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 no… …ol…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 …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 ooL. mutuum. §. 2. ff. de reb cred. l. cum. …. de ſol. l. Debitor. ff. de ſol. (ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem) l. ſi …c. §. 3. ff. de re ju….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 p. 232Chriſt is not ſolutio ejuſdem. A ſervice which I little expected to be put upon, by an Engliſh Divine. ppVide librum …vi mei reverendiſſimi Robert… … arkeri de deſcenſu. l. 3. §. 57, 58. p g. 108 109 The Aſſemb larg. Catech. o… juſti. q. 2.1. All our Divines acknowledge that Chriſt made a true proper ſatisfaction unto God for our ſins. qqL. …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 onelyonly. 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, rrL. quod in di em ff de ſol. & l. quod quis 49. ff … 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 ssUt & in contractu erſenali de facto. Ulpian. in l. inter … rtif. 31. ff. de ſol.. In corporal puniſhments, which metaphorically may be called the payments of debts to the Law, the ſameneſs of the perſon is eſſential to the ſameneſs of the payment: ſo that ſi alius ſ…lvat, aliud ſ…laitur: if another perſon pay, 'tis 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. ttGrot. de ſatiſfact. Chriſti. c. 6. p. 119. & videſis Andr. Eſſen. de ſatiſfact. l. 2 ſect. 3 …. 3. p. 519, 520, 521 &c.Ʋbi 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 uuVide 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 p. 233ſame 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. xxS…e P. Uſhers Immanu…. pag. 10. f at the end of his Body of Divinity, and Eſſen. ubi ſ… 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. Iſa… 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—Lo… 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 p. 234Chriſt 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 if they be both in the very ſame bond and obligation, hath ſome thing of truth in it: (though then alſo the ſurety hath the ſame action againſt the debtour, which the creditor had before) otherwiſe it is moſt notoriouſly falſe, and the contrary determined frequently in the yyI. in ſumma l. Si poenae. D. de condict. in deb. l Si quid poſſeſſor ff. de Pet. Haered. l. Papin. ff. Ma…d.civil Law. If the payment of the ſurety do preſently diſcharge the debtour, it is becauſe he agrees with the creditour, that the payment which he makes ſhall be accepted for the preſent and immediate diſcharge of the debtour, which is the ſecond thing I beganne to mention before, and ſhall now farther explaine. The death of Chriſt being not the very ſame which was in the obligation; therefore that it may be effectual for our deliverance, there is a double act required on Gods part, to whom this payment is made: the one is, to admit or give way that ſatisfaction be made; the other p. 235factam ratam habere to accept it when made, and conſequently to diſcharge and free the debtour: for Chriſts ſatisfaction was admitted, that our obligation might he deſtroyed by the intervening act of God, the ſupream Governour of mankind, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation—that he may be the juſtifier of him that beleeveth in Jeſus.

Moreover, Chriſt being not a ſinner, but a ſurety, and his payment not the payment of the principal debtour, but of a ſurety; therefore it is in his power to agree, whether his payment ſhall be accepted and be effectual for the diſcharge of the ſinner preſently, or for ſome time to come: abſolutely, or upon condition. Whence (by the way) appears what little ſtrength there is in Mr. Eyres ſecond exception, viz. That Chriſts payment is leſſe efficacious, then if we had paid our ſelves, if we be not thereby diſcharged preſently, becauſe Chriſts ſatisfaction produceth its effects according to the agreement between his Father and himſelf, and no otherwiſe: and the virtue of it is to be meaſured by the greatneſſe of the effect, which could not be wrought by any meer created cauſe: whether it produce it ſooner or later, upon condition or without.

Wherefore if we prove that the Father and Son agreed, that none§. 35. ſhould have actual diſcharge by the death of Chriſt till they do beleeve; we carry the cauſe, by Mr, Eyres owne judgement. Yet in yielding thus much he hath not a little prejudiced the authority of his own determinations. (ſo I call them, becauſe he lays them downe ſo peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proofe). How often doth he tell us before and after this conceſſion, that our diſcharge in the death of Chriſt, muſt needs be preſent and immediate? as pag. 68. §. 7. Our diſcharge from the Law was … not to be ſub termino or in diem, but preſent and immediate. And in this chapter, §. 13. The death of Chriſt, as it is a ſatisfaction or payment, ſo the diſcharge thereby procured muſt needs be preſent and immediate. As if it were a contradiction in the nature of the thing, that we ſhould not preſently be diſcharged, if Chriſt hath made ſatisfaction. And yet here yeelds that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Sonne, the diſcharge obtained in Chriſts ſatisfaction may be ſuſpended. It is therefore a thing poſſible that Chriſt may have ſatisfied, and yet we (the elect I mean) not be preſently diſcharged. And what then means the muſt needs? were it a thing denyed, it were eaſie to give innumerable inſtances of ſatisfaction made, when yet the perſon for whom it is made, is not preſently freed: but becauſe it is not denied, p. 234duplicate page p. 235duplicate page p. 236I haſten to the ſervice which Mr. Eyre challengeth me to performe, with a promiſe, that if it be performed he will yeeld the cauſe: and that is to ſhew, that it was the will of the Father and of the Sonne that none ſhould have actual reconciliation by the death of Chriſt till they do beleeve.

For proofe of this, I quoted the words of the Lord Jeſus, wherein§. 36. he gives us an account both of his own and his Fathers will in this matter, Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that ſent me, that whoſoever ſeeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him, may have everlaſting life. To which Mr. Eyre anſwers. This Text and others like it, do only ſhew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Chriſt, to wit, th…y that beleeve.

Rep. An anſwer which lets me ſee ſomething of what the wit of man can do in darkening plaine teſtimonies, whoſe ſenſe is obvious at firſt view, even to vulgar capacities. This is not the firſt time we have met with this anſwer in Mr. Eyre: and it hath been already convicted, and caſt by more then a jury of Arguments in …hap 5. & 8.two places: and therefore here I ſhall ſpeak but▪ briefly to it. 1. I… this and the like Texts do only ſhew …o are the perſons that have the enjoyment of Chriſts benefits, namely beleevers: then either they ſhew that beleevers as ſuch (in ſe…ſ… … ) are the ſubjects of that life which is here promiſed: and then I have what I would have; for if men as beleevers, are the ſubjects of this life, then the proo…s full, that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are beleevers: much leſſe before they are borne: and leaſt of all at the time of the death of Chriſt: nor was it the will of the Father or of the Sonne, that they ſhould ſo do. Or the meaning is, that the perſons who enjoy this life, are ſuch whoſe property and priviledge it is to be beleevers ſome time or other, ſooner or later, though they may not be beleevers when they firſt begin to partake therein: and ſo they are deſcribed à c…nſ…quenti, from their faith as a conſequent of their firſt partaking in this life. And if ſo, I ſhall return Mr. Eyre his offer: namely, that if he will ſhew me but one place of Scripture, from the beginning of Geneſis to the end of the Revelation, wherein perſons that ſhall enjoy a benefit, are deſcribed from the conſequent of that benefit, with a diſtributive particle prepoſed (ſuch as is the particle whoſoever in the preſent Text) and I will yeeld him the cauſe: at leſt ſo farre forth as it is concerned in theſe Texts. But if Mr. Eyre cannot give one inſtance of the like phraſe of ſpeech in all the Bible (as I know he cannot) then let him take heed leaſt he become guilty of that, which he p. 237doth elſewhere groundleſly charge upon me: I meane, of attempting to ſuborne the ſpirit to ſerve his own turne. And what I ſpeak of the deſcription of a perſon in order to his receiving of a benefit, is true alſo in reſpect of any evil threatned. How many hundreds of times are ſuch ſentences in Scripture? As for example, Matth. 5. 22. Whoſoever is angry with his brother without a cauſe—Whoſoever ſhall ſay unto his br…ther Racha—Whoſoever ſhall ſay, thou foole, ſhall be in dang…r of ſuch and ſuch puniſhments. Can theſe (or the like expreſſions any where elſe) be onelyonly the deſcriptions of perſons that ſhall be puniſhed? and that from the conſequent of their puniſhment as already begun.

2. The Lord by comparing faith to ſeeing, ſeems to allude to Iſraels §. 37.looking up to the brazen ſerpent for healing, Numb. 21. As he alſo doth almoſt in the ſame words, altogether in the ſame ſenſe, Joh. 3. 14, 15. As … lift up the Serpent in the wilderneſſe, ſo muſt the Sonne of man be lifted up, that whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhould not periſh, &c. Now I would know, when it is ſaid, Numb. 21. 8. Every one, or whoſoever looketh upon it (ſ…. the Serpent) do the words onelyonly deſcribe the perſons that ſhould be healed from their property o… looking up? or do they alſo pro… the Act upon which their healing was ſuſpended? If the latter, … thoſe words, Whoſoever ſe… and beleeveth the Sonne, … life, muſt be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe. If the former, th…n the Iſraelites might alſo have been healed before they looked up to the ſerpent: for to denominate them lookers, it is ſufficient that they looked up at any time, whether before or after they …re healed. But I will not do one work twice: enough hath been ſpoken already againſt this notion, unleſſe it had ſome better authority then meerly mans invention.

The next place I mentioned was, …l. 5. 2, 4. without faith Chriſt §. 38.ſhall profit us n…thing. …, it was not the will of God nor of Chriſt, that any man ſhould be juſtified by the death of Chriſt, till he doth beleeve.

But (ſ…ith Mr. Eyre) this place is p…lp…ly ab…e…. Th… Apoſtle doth n…t … witho…t faith Chriſt ſhall profit …s nothing; but if we … any thing … Chriſt as neceſſary to attaine ſalvation, we are not bele… vers: our profeſſion of Chriſt ſhall profit us nothing.

Rep. Where doth the Apoſtle ſay theſe words? If M. Eyre give us onelyonly the ſenſe of them; we ſhall ſhew preſently, that what I ſay is included as part of the ſenſe. But I will never beleeve while I live, p. 238that Mr. Eyre hath rightly expreſſed the Apoſtles ſenſe. As if the Apoſtle ſpake againſt joyning of any thing with Chriſt as neceſſary to attaine ſalvation (unleſſe by joyning with Chriſt, he mean in an equal degree of cauſality, or as ſharing in that kind of cauſality which Chriſt put forth for our ſalvation). For out of doubt, Faith and Repentance are neceſſary to be joyned with Chriſt, that we may be ſaved. 2. But to diſcover how palpably Mr. Eyre hath abuſed me in charging me with an abuſe of the Text, let us tranſcribe the words. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you be circumciſed, Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing. For I teſtifie againe to every man that is circumciſed, that he is a debtor to the whole Law. Chriſt is become of no effect to you: whoſoever of you are juſtified by the Law, you are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteouſneſs by faith. For in Jeſus Chriſt, neither circumciſion availeth any thing, nor uncircumciſion; but faith which worketh by Love. 1. I do here obſerve the Apoſtles Argument by which he proves, that if they be circumciſed, Chriſt ſhall profit them nothing. Thus it runs. He that is bound to keep the whole Law for juſtification, to him is Chriſt of no effect for juſtification. He that is circumciſed is bound to keep the whole Law for juſtification. v. 3. Ergo, Chriſt is of no effect to him: or as the Apoſtle varies the words, v. 4. Ergo, he is fallen from grace, whoſoever he be that expects to be juſtified by the Law. In oppoſition to this he declares in his own, and other Chriſtians example the only way how Chriſt may become profitable, and of effect to us for juſtification, and that is by faith, without legal performances, v. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteouſneſſe by faith. And have I yet abuſed the Text, becauſe I ſay it hath this ſenſe, that without faith Chriſt ſhall profit us nothing? yea. 2. The whole diſcourſe of the Apoſtle proceeds upon this ground, that legal obſervances make Chriſt of none effect to us, becauſe they overthrow faith. For he that will be juſtified by the Law, muſt keep the whole Law; and that deſtroys faith: as he had alſo often and plainly told them before, chap. 3. 12. 10, 11, 17, 18. compare Rom. 4. 14. 3. Mr. Eyre himſelf acknowledgeth in the very next words that the Apoſtle attributes that to faith which he denyes …o other works, v. 6. In Chriſt Jeſus neither circumciſion availeth any thing nor uncircumciſion, but faith which worketh by love. I aſſu… But the thing denied to other works, is, that they are able to juſtifie… yea rather that they make it impoſſible for us to be juſtified, becauſe they make Chriſt to become of none effect to us, v. …, 4. Ergo, the thing aſcribed to faith is, that by it we are juſtified, and p. 239through it doth Chriſt become profitable, and grace of effect to our Juſtification. Ergo, without it Chriſt profits us nothing, as to that end and purpoſe. Therefore Mr. Eyre contradicts himſelf immediately, in his Comment upon that, v. 6. When he ſayes, that the intent of the Apoſtle here, was not to ſhew what it is that doth juſtifie, but what are the exerciſes of divine worſhip in which Chriſtians ſhould be converſant.

But out of doubt his meaning was to ſhew, how Chriſt and grace become effectual to our Juſtification, if he do here aſcribe to faith that which before he had denied to other works: which is Mr. Eyres own grant, and the Apoſtles unqueſtionable intent: for the words (as appears by the particle for, in the beginning of the verſe) are the reaſon why through faith he expected Juſtification, and not in the way of circumciſion, ver. 5. to wit, becauſe circumciſion availeth nothing, no, nor uncircumciſion neither, but faith which worketh by love, which reaſon of his faith he had alſo given before, chapt. 2. 16.

As to thoſe two truly godly learned Authours, Calvin and Perkins, whom Mr. Eyre alledgeth as abetting what he ſaith, concerning the Apoſtles intent, if the cauſe were to be carried by number of voices, we could quickly diſpatch it. But neither do either of theſe gratifie Mr. Eyre a whit. Calvins words are theſe, Quantum ad praeſentem locum attinet, Paulus nequaquam diſputat an charitas ad juſtificandum cooperetur fidei, ſed tantùm indicat quae nunc ſint vera fidelium exercitia. i. e. As to the preſent place, Paul doth by no meanes diſpute, whether love do cooperate with faith unto Juſtification, but only intimates what are now the true exerciſes of the faithful. Is this all one, as if he had ſaid, faith availes us nothing in order to our Juſtification before God? the contrary to which he had ſpoke but juſt before, upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumciſionis? Reſpondet, in Chriſto nihil valere: ideoque juſtitiam in fide ſitam eſſe, &c. Perkins his words are theſe, in anſwer to the objection of the Papiſts from thoſe words, Faith worketh by love. Paul (ſaith he) doth not ſhew in this verſe what juſtifieth, but what are the exerciſes of godlineſſe in which Chriſtians muſt be occupied. And he doth not ſhew how faith juſtifieth, but how it may be diſcerned to be true faith, namely, by love. But neither doth this intend any thing more, then to ſhew the reaſon why Paul deſcribes juſtifying faith as working by love, viz. not that it juſtifieth as working by love, though it be the property of that faith by which we are juſtified, to work by love. But he was far from thinking, that faith was no whit available to our Juſtification before God. It is his p. 240own obſervation upon this very verſe, not far before. The ſecond Concluſion, Faith is of great uſe and acceptation in the Kingdome of Chriſt. By it, firſt our perſons, and then our actions pleaſe God: and without it nothing pleaſeth God. And immediately after theſe words which Mr. Eyre refers to, diſputes for Juſtification by faith without works, againſt the Papiſts.

The laſt place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath §. 40.the Sonne, hath life: he that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Mr. Eyre anſwers, He doth not ſay, that all who have not faith, (except final vnbelievers,) have not the Sonne or any bene…t by him.

Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the teſtimony is true. 1. Life doth here ſignifie all that bleſſedneſſe which God hath given us in Jeſus Chriſt, ver. 11. Ergo, he that hath not the Son, hath no benefit by him. But he that believeth not, hath not the Sonne; for to have the Sonne is to believe on him. Ergo, he that believeth not, hath not the Sonne, nor any benefit by him. That we have the Sonne by believing on him is manifeſt: 1. From the Apoſtles own interpretation; for having ſpoke in general, He that hath the Son hath life, he applies it particularly to thoſe to whom he writes, v. 13. And theſe things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Sonne of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. 2. From the perpetual ſenſe of the phraſe, throughout all theſe Epiſtles, as chap. 2. 23. Whoſoever denieth the Sonne, the ſame hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father alſo; ſuitable to what this John records in his Goſpel. chap. 12. 44, 45. He that beleeveth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that ſent me: And he that ſeeth me, ſeeth him that ſent me. And more expreſſely in his Epiſtle, 2 ep▪ v. 9. Whoſoever tranſgreſſeth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Chriſt, HATH NOT GOD: But he that abideth in the doctrine of Chriſt, HE HATH both the Father and the Sonne. Compare 1 ep. 2. 24.

2. If we are ſaid in Scripture, any where to have the Son, in any other ſenſe then by believing, or as excluding believing, why have we no intelligence of it? Mr. Eyre might very well think we ſhould interpret his ſilence (partly, in that he declares not how we may be ſaid to have Chriſt any otherwiſe then by faith; partly, in not attempting to juſtifie it from the phraſe of Scripture) as an argument that himſelf is conſcious, that the doctrine which he here ſuggeſts p. 241hath no footing in the Scriptures. Briefly, the Apoſtle ſpeaks without diſtinction or limitation, He that hath the Sonne, hath life: even that eternal life whereof he ſpake in the verſe immediately foregoing. If the Son may be had without believing, then eternal life may be had without believing alſo; wherefore we winde up the Argument. If it were the Will of God that none ſhould have the life which is in his Sonne, till by believing he had the Sonne; then was it his Will that none ſhould be juſtified by the death of Chriſt till they did beleeve. The reaſon is: becauſe the life of pardon or Juſtification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne, and virtually includes all that life we have by Chriſt. But the antecedent is proved true from the text. Ergo, the conſequent is true.

To theſe texts mentioned in my Sermon, and now vindicated, let§. 41. me adde one or two more. If God hath ſet forth Chriſt to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; then was it not the Will of God, that any man ſhould have actual remiſſion or Juſtification by the blood of Chriſt, till he did beleeve. But God hath ſet forth Chriſt to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Ergo. The Aſſumption is the Apoſtles own words, Rom. 3. 25. The reaſon of the Propoſition is plain, becauſe if any man be pardoned and juſtified immediately in the death of Chriſt, then is not Chriſt a propitiation zzInſeri… fidem, ut doceat, fidem eſſe conditionem, ſub quà Chriſtus nobis datus eſt propitiatorium. Dav. Paraeus in loc.through faith, but without it. Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or ſufficiency to the blood of Chriſt, by which it may be made in its kinde a more perfect cauſe of our remiſſion: but becauſe God hath ſo conſtituted, that our remiſſion ſhall not follow, and ſo our ſins not be propitiated quoad …ffectum in the blood of Chriſt till we beleeve.

Again, the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne, in his undertaking the work of Redemption, is ſet down at large, Iſa. 53. throughout; particularly, ver. 10. 11, 12. where alſo the Juſtification of thoſe for whom he died is mentioned, as the fruit and effect of Chriſts offering himſelfe for them, and bearing their iniquities, but not before their faith, but through it, ver. 11. By his knowledge ſhall my righteous ſervant juſtifie many, that is, by the knowledge of him, where knowledge (as elſewhere in Scripture often) ſignifies faith. And what ſhall I ſay more? we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures, that God requires, commands and exhorts all men to beleeve, that they may be juſtified by the blood of Chriſt. And what ſtronger evidence can we need then this, that it p. 242was not the Will of God that men ſhould be juſtified by that blood before they did beleeve? even as under the Law there was no propitiation by ſacrifice typical, but ſuppoſed on the offendors part, the concurrence of ſome act (as aaLev. 5. 5.Lev 5:5c…nfeſſion, bbChap. 23. …9 30.humiliation, cc…b. 1. 4, 3, 2 & …aſſim.laying his hand on the head of the ſacrifice, ddL…v. …. 16. & …ide Joma. Pe…r…k. 8 8, ….or the like,) ſignifying that faith, by which ſinners ſhould be juſtified, when Chriſt the true ſacrifice ſhould 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 himſe…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. p. 243But 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 eff…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 eff…ctum till the Reſurrection, R…. 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. Eyr… 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. …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