The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 10

The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners · Chapter 10

p. 244CHAP. X.

An Anſwer to Mr. Eyres fourteenth Chapter, and all the Arguments therein contained, by which he endeavours to prove, that there was not any Covenant paſſed between God and Chriſt, to hinder the immediate and actual reconciliation of Gods elect by his death, and to ſuſpend this effect thereof upon termes and conditions to be performed by them: but contrariwiſe, that it was the Will both of God and Chriſt, that his death ſhould be available to their immediat… and actual reconciliation and Juſtification, without any Condition performed on their part.

SECT. I.

HIs firſt Argument is this: There is no ſuch Covenant doth appear in Scripture. Erg…; there is none.§. 1.

Anſw. That the Antecedent …s falſe, hath been already proved from John 6. 40. and 3. 15, 16, 19. and Gal. 5. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and 1 Joh. 5. 11. and Rom. 3. 25. and Iſa. 53. 11. and all thoſe places which declare Juſtification to be conſequent to faith: or wherein men are perſwaded and commanded to turne unto God, that their ſins may be forgiven them. Many ſuch places have been already produced and vindicated againſt Mr. Eyres exceptions: and it were no hard matter to produce many more, as J…r. 26. 2, 3. Stand in the Court of the Lords houſe, and ſpeak unto all the Cities of Judah, all the words that I command thee, diminiſh not a word. If ſo be they will hearken. and turne ev…ry man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil which I p…rpoſe to do unto them. And Jer. 36. 3. It may be that the houſe of Judah will heare all the evil which I purpoſe to do unto them: that they may returne every man fr…m his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their ſin: Plainly diſcovering our converſion unto God, to be the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy. Which doth alſo notably appear p. 245by the contrary ſteps which ſinners tread, in working out their owne damnation, Mark 4. 12. That ſeeing they may ſee and not perceive, and hearing they may heare and not underſtand, leſt at any time they ſhould be converted, and their ſins ſhould be forgiven them. But of this we have ſpoken enough before.

His ſecond Argument is this, The Covenant between God§. 2. and Chriſt was, that upo… giving up himſelfe to death, he ſhould purchaſe a ſeede like the ſtarres of Heaven, Iſaiah 53. 10.

Anſw. What's the inference? Ergo, it was the Will of God that Chriſts death ſhould be av…able to their immediate reconciliation. Can any man divine how this inference follows? eſpecially when it is againſt the expreſſe letter of the text, which I wonder. Mr. Eyre would take no notice of, v. 11. By his knowledge ſhall my righ…us ſ…v…nt juſtifie many. And for the other text which follows, H…. 2. 13. … I and the children whom God hath given me; The Apoſtle mentions it to prove, that both he that ſanctifieth, and they that are ſanctified are all of one, v. 11. But what it is Mr. Eyre would conclude from hence, at leaſt, how theſe words ſhould afford him that which he would conclude from them, is that which I have no hope to underſtand till he hath informed me. He muſt needs be unanſwerable that ſo writes, as his Reader ſhall never be ſure of his meaning.

The third Argument is this: If it were the Will of God that the death of Chriſt ſhould be the payment of our debt, and a full§. 3. ſatisfaction for all our iniquities; then was it his Will that our diſcharge procured thereby, ſhould be immediate. But it was the Will of God that the death of Chriſt ſhould be the payment of our debts, and a full ſatisfaction for our iniquities. Ergo. The Aſſumption Mr. Eyre ſuppoſeth will not be queſtioned. The Propoſition he thus proves: becauſe it is contrary to juſtice and … that a debt when it is paid, ſhould be charged either upon the … ty or the Principal.

Anſw. I ſee now I was miſtaken in the former chapter. I thought there Mr. Eyr… had yielded it a thing poſſible for ſuch an agreement to have paſſed between the Father and the Sonne, as that the Sons ſatisfaction ſhould not preſently and immediately effect the diſcharge of thoſe for whom he ſatisfied. But this argument ſuppoſeth, that the death of Chriſt was neither payment nor ſatisfaction, if ſuch a Covenant paſſed between them. If it be poſſible that there might p. 246be ſuch an Agreement paſſe between the Father and the Sonne, (as it is moſt certain it did) then muſt this Argument needs be inconſequent, which infers the actual and immediate freedome of the elect in the death of Chriſt, becauſe his death was a ſatisfaction. We ſhall therefore prove by and by, that ſatisfaction doth not neceſſarily infer the diſcharge of the debtour. In the mean time, I except, 1. Againſt the confuſed uſe of thoſe two termes, payment and ſatisfaction, which in this Argument ought to be diſtinguiſhed; the former noting ſuch a payment as is of the thing it ſelf in the obligation, the latter a payment refuſable. 2. That the will of God is here made the cauſe of Chriſts death, being a ſatisfaction: in which (though I beleeve Mr. Eyre means no ill) there may be a very great miſtake: for it ſeems to imply that it was not ſo much the value and worth of Chriſts offering which made it a ſatisfaction, as the will of God who would accept it as ſatisfactory. 3. But to the Argument it ſelf; That Chriſt paid our debt, is an ambiguous expreſſion: either it ſignifies, 1. That he was puniſhed for our ſins▪ and ſo paid that ſumme which otherwiſe ſhould have been required of us, (and in this ſenſe it is moſt true) or, 2. That he tranſlated our very obligation upon himſelf, and ſo paid as in our names, and as repreſenting us in making payment: and thus I deny it, as dangerouſly falſe. The reaſon is ready: becauſe what is done, as in our name and perſon, is not ſo much his Act that doth it as ours, whom he repreſents in doing it: whether he repreſent us by our will and conſent (as Proctors and Atturnies that pay and receive monies, or tranſact buſineſſe in our name, and Ambaſſadours whom Princes ſend into forraigne Nations) or by the authority of Law (as what Tutors do in the name of their Pupills and Minors:) in all which, whatſoever is done as in the perſon of another, is not ſo properly his Act that doth it, as theirs whoſe perſon he repreſents. And if Chriſt thus paid our debt, then his payment was more properly our Act then his own; we our ſelves have ſatisfied, merited and redeemed our ſelves: which a Chriſtians eares can never endure. Now to apply the diſtinction. When Mr. Eyre ſayes, that Chriſts death was the payment of our debts, if he mean it in the former ſenſe, of what is …quivalentèr the payment of our debt, I deny his propoſition: If he mean it in the latter ſenſe, of what is our debt ſubjectivè, I deny his aſſumption, and ſay, that it was never the will of God that Chriſts death ſhould in this ſenſe be the payment of our debt. And the phraſes of Scripture, which declare that Chriſt dyed for us, and for our ſins, do indeed well prove the former, that Chriſt p. 247was ſubſtituted in our roome to make ſatisfaction to the Law for our ſins; but they do by no means prove that he paid our debt in the latter ſenſe, viz. as ſtanding in the ſame obligation with us, and repreſenting our perſons in the payment which he made: no more, then thoſe words, aaforeignMatth. 2. 22. Archelaus reigned in the roome of his father Herod, will prove, that Archelaus repreſented the perſon of his deceaſed father, as then King in Judea. Though I will not deny that our Divines are ſometimes wont ſo to underſtand the phraſe of Chriſts ſatisfying in our names and in our perſon, as meaning no more then ſimply a commutation of perſons, he ſuffering that which otherwiſe we ſhould have ſuffered. But if we will ſpeak properly, Chriſt ſtood not as a ſinner, or as a debtor, ex delict…, but as a ſurety for ſinners, and a debtor by voluntary contract, in dying for us.

But the aſſumption will not be diſputed, if Mr. Eyre, by his payment of our debt, mean no more, then ſatisfaction for our debt. The propoſition is moſt faulty, and that which I deny. The proofe of it is this. It is contrary to juſtice and equity, that a debt when it is payed, ſhould be charged either upon the ſurety or principal.

Anſ. Which is very true, when that which is paid is the ſame which was in the obligation. Solutione ejus quod debetur, tollitur obligatio. Now the obligation of Chriſt was obligatio fidejuſſoria, which he hath fully diſcharged in his death, ſo that it cannot be required of him a ſecond time: being once dead he dieth no more, but is ſate downe at the right hand of God for ever. Nevertheleſſe the ſinner (who is obliged ex delicto) is not freed in the ſureties diſcharge, unleſſe it be proved that the ſurety made payment with this bbVidel. Caſſi…s 16 & l. quoties 37. …f de ſilut. & liberat.intent, that the debtor (that is, the ſinner) ſhould be preſently diſcharged as wel as himſelf. That Chriſt had ſuch an intent, Mr. Eyre proves, becauſe his death was a payment or ſatisfaction. The queſtion then between him and me now is, whether an agreement between a credit…r and a ſurety, that the debtor ſhall not be diſcharged immediately upon the ſureties payment, be poſſible, or conſiſtent with the nature of that payment and ſatisfaction which a ſurety makes? Mr. Eyre is for the negative (and the Reader hath his word for it, and nothing elſe, inſtead of Argument). I am for the affirmative, upon the following grounds. Peter owes James a 100. l. whereof he is not able to pay him one farthing. John out of love and compaſſion to Peter, and without his knowledge, interpoſeth as a ſurety. …gageth to James, that if he will accept of payment from him, he will pay him the ſaid 100. l. p. 248provided and agreed between them both, that Peters bond ſhall remaine in full force, and ſo himſelf not be diſcharged till a month after; upon theſe terms John payes his mony, and James receives it. Here the ſumme is paid, and yet the debtor remains for a time obliged. Ergo, he is not diſcharged immediately upon the ſureties payment. Nor is there any thing in this agreement inconſiſtent with the nature of payment or ſatisfaction. 1. John the ſurety might have choſen whether he would have paid or engage to pay the ſaid 100. l. 2. James the creditor alſo might have choſen whether he would have admitted John to be paymaſter or no. 3. Foraſmuch therefore as there is no Law to compel the one to pay, or the other to receive, but it is meerly the voluntary act of both which mutually engageth them; it followes neceſſarily, that it is in the power of them both to agree upon the tearms and time when Peter ſhall be diſcharged by virtue of this payment: becauſe it is in our power to put what Laws we pleaſe upon actions which depend meerly on our own will: otherwiſe a man might be free and not free at the ſame time, and in reference to the ſame action, which is a contradiction. Therefore payment is made (for the creditor is poſſeſſed of as much as the debtor ought him) yet the debtor is not preſently diſcharged. Ergo, the payment of a debt (or rather ſatisfaction for a debt) doth not in all caſes preſently diſcharge the debtor. Other caſes the Reader may ſee in the civil Law: which I deſire him to looke in the places which I have directed him to, in this and the former chapter: to ſpare my ſelf the paines of tranſcribing them.

Nor is there any thing, in all this, contrary to juſtice and equity, as§. 5. Mr. Eyre pretends: for, againſt whom is this injuſtice? Not againſt the creditor nor the ſurety: for it is by the conſent of them both that the debtor be not preſently diſcharged: and it is a known maxime, volenti non ſit injuria. Not againſt the debtor, for he hath not paid his debt; nor did the ſurety pay it with this purpoſe and will, that he (the ſaid debtor) ſhould be preſently diſobliged, but in convenient time. Yet that which follows, That the ſame debt cannot be paid and unpaid, is true; but nothing to the purpoſe: becauſe our queſtion is not whether payment or ſatisfaction be made; but whether he that payes for another may not agree with the creditor, that the perſon for whom he payeth ſhall not preſently be diſcharged, but at ſome diſtance of time after? Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth. That the effects of Chriſts death, as it is the meritorious price of faith, holineſſe, glory, are not preſent but future. But was not the death of Chriſt the meritorious p. 249price of our diſcharge from ſin and the curſe, as well as of thoſe bleſſings? and if Chriſt did merit them, to be given, not preſently, but many years after his death, why not this?

But let us ſee how Mr. Eyre illuſtrates this (for proofe we have none.)§. 6. As when a man that is a treſpaſſer, or any one for him, payes a ſumme of money, which is ſufficient, both for diſcharge of his treſpaſſe, as alſo for the purchaſe of a piece of land; from the treſpaſſe his diſcharge muſt be preſent, if the ſatisfaction be full, though the enjoyment of the land may be in Diem.

Anſ. 1. But neither yet do we hit the mark: for the queſtion is not, whether it be poſſible for a debtor to be diſcharged preſently and immediately upon the payment which another makes for him (which is the utmoſt this inſtance can reach to:) but whether it be not poſſible for him, not to be diſcharged upon ſuch a payment, preſently? which univerſal negative one particular inſtance can never well prove: eſpecially when other inſtances without number may be invented, which will infallibly prove the contrary. 2. Still I long to know the reaſon of that peremptory neceſſity, expreſſed in thoſe words, From the treſpaſſe the diſcharge muſt be preſent, if the ſatisfaction be full. Caſſius hath Maevius in ſuite, for that his cattle have broke into his corne, and done him dammage to the value of 5. l. Lucius gives the ſaid 5. l. to Caſſius, that the next Term (and not before) he may diſcharge Maevius: which accordingly he doth. Is this contract impoſſible? If it be, ſhew us what contradiction there is in the tearms: if it be not, we are not bound to beleeve, that the diſcharge muſt needs be immediate, though Mr. Eyre ſay it. 3. Nor yet am I able to conceive, (ſuch is my dulneſſe) why the effects of ſatisfaction ſhould be more immediate, then thoſe of merit: Eſpecially conſidering that the ſatisfaction of Chriſt is alſo the price of our peace and pardon: and that the difference between them is rather reſpective then real: the ſame obedience being called ſatisfaction, as it is ordered to Gods honour: and merit, as it is ordered to our benefit and advantage. The piece of land which one purchaſeth for another, might it not be enjoyed preſently, if the vendee and purchaſer did ſo agree? it might, (eſpecially if the price be full: as that is, which Chriſt paid for us many years ago.) Is it not then the agreement between the vendee and purchaſer which defers the poſſeſſion till ſuch a time? it is ſo. Why then ſhould not the caſe be the ſame in ſatisfaction? why (ſaith Mr. Eyre) a debt cannot be paid and unpaid. No more can a price be paid and unpaid (ſay I). But neither doth the price nor ſatisfaction p. 250produce their effects neceſſarily, or by way of natural cauſality: but voluntarily according to the compact between the party paying and receiving: which if it did not hinder, the vendee were as much bound to give preſent poſſeſſion of the goods bought (having received the full price of them) as the creditor to forbear the inflicting of evil upon the treſpaſſer (upon ſatisfaction made by a third perſon.)

SECT. II.

THe fourth Argument is this. If nothing hindred the reconciliation§. 7. of the elect with God but the breach of the Law; then the Law being ſatisfied, it was the will of God that they ſhould be immediately reconciled. But nothing hindred their reconciliation with God, but the breach of the Law. Ergo.

Anſ. This Argument were ſomething if the ſinner himſelf had ſuffered according to the Law. As if it might be ſuppoſed that Adam after his ſin could by ſuffering have ſatisfied for his diſobedience: no doubt but he had been preſently reſtored into the ſame ſtate of favour which he was in before, and might have gone to work againe for life upon the ſecurity of the very ſame Covenant, with good ſucceſſe. And if Chriſt had paid the idem (a thing impoſſible, unleſſe he were a ſinner, or we were Chriſt) then indeed had his ſufferings delivered us ipſo facto, and we had not needed a Covenant of grace to pardon or ſave us, but are in as good a capacity of life without it, as Adam was before he fell: as we have obſerved before. But that firſt Covenant being violated, and no ſatisfaction made (or poſſibly to be made) but by a voluntary ſurety; God is left at liberty (as I may ſo ſpeak) to propoſe what tearms and time he pleaſeth, for the reſtoring of ſinners into a ſtate of life and peace, Gal. 3. 21, 22. Now when Mr. Eyre ſays, that nothing hindred the reconciliation of ſinners with God but the breach of the Law, the ſpeech is ſomewhat improper; for though ſin made the breach between God and them, yet it is not that properly which hinders reconciliation, but the ſinners inability to make ſatisfaction: could he have ſatisfied, ſin could have had no power to have kept him at a diſtance from God: and ſo I perceive doth Mr. Eyre mean, by his explication. God (ſaith he) having made a Law that the ſoul which ſins ſhall die, the juſtice and truth of p. 251God required that ſatisfaction ſhould be made for the ſins of the elect, no leſſe then of other men. To the Argument therefore the anſwer is ready. If ſatisfaction were made ſo (which it was not) as that the Law had been anſwered in the very thing which it required, viz. the ſinners puniſhment, then I would yeeld it wholly, and more then Mr. Eyre will thank me for: namely that life is given us by the very ſame Covenant which was made with Adam in his innocency. But ſatisfaction being taken ſtrictly for a payment refuſable, which one is admitted to make for another; and then it produceth the effect of our reconciliation no otherwiſe, then as he that admitteth and he that is admitted to make payment ſhall agree. Wherefore I deny the propoſition as being grounded in the former falſe ſuppoſal, viz. That ſatisfaction cannot be made in any way, but it muſt needs effect a preſent diſcharge: which I have already diſproved. The explication of this Argument I …nd no fault with (more then that one expreſſion, That the onelyonly cauſe of Chriſts death, was to ſatisfie the Law: whereas they that deny his death to have been ſatisfactory at all, do yet aſſigne many cauſes of his death, which our ſelves allow of) but there is nothing in it which tends to prove the thing denied, more then a compariſon or two, which need a little conſideration.

As when the cloud is diſſolved, the Sun ſhines out: when the partition §. 8.wall is broken down, they that were ſeparated are againe united: ſo the cloud of our ſins being blotted out, the beams of Gods love have as free a paſſage towards us, as if we had not ſinned.

Anſ. Now would I know what is that moral neceſſity of Gods communicating life to us upon Chriſts ſatisfaction, which anſwers to the natural neceſſity of the Suns ſhining forth upon the diſſolution of the cloud: (for to ſay that God may ſalvâ juſtitiâ communicate life to ſinners, Chriſt having ſatisfied, is not to the purpoſe: 'tis a muſt and not a may which muſt make Mr. Eyres Argument conſequent,) one of theſe three it muſt needs be: either, 1. A neceſſity of obligation by virtue of ſome Law or Covenant: but the onelyonly Covenant which God made with man before the fall, was that made with Adam in innocency, promiſing life upon perfect obedience. If by virtue of that Covenant God ſtands ſtill engaged to give life to men, ſuppoſing ſatisfaction to be made for diſobedience: then doth that Covenant made with man in innocency, ſtand ſtill in force as the onelyonly way of life, and men (at leaſt the elect) are legally and in ſtrict juſtice as innocent as if they had never ſinned: both which are deſperately falſe p. 252and overthrow the very foundations of faith, or, 2. The neceſſity of a decree: God having decreed that the elect ſhall be reconciled immediately upon Chriſts ſatisfaction for their ſins; it muſt needs be that he having ſatisfied, they muſt be immediately reconciled. But the very ſuppoſing of ſuch a decree, is the begging of the queſtion: and being ſuppoſed, it will not inferre that the elect muſt needs be reconciled by the death of Chriſt immediately, quatenus it was a ſatiſfaction; but ſimply quatenus it was decreed to be immediately antecedent to their reconciliation: or, 3. A kind of natural neceſſity: God being eſſentially good, cannot but do good to an innocent ſinleſſe creature, or to a ſinful creature, ſuppoſing ſatisfaction to be made for his ſin: which is all one, as if himſelf had never ſinned. But this is wider of truth then either of the former: for (whatſoever may be ſaid of it in reference to a creature perfectly righteous) out of doubt there was no other neceſſity of Gods accepting Chriſts ſatisfaction, then his own good pleaſure. He might juſtly have deſtroyed ſinners, and never provided a propitiation for them. It is therefore as clear as the Sun when the clouds are diſſolved, that there is no neceſſity of an immediate reconciliation between God and ſinners upon the death of Chriſt: but only of a reconciliation to follow then, and upon ſuch tearms as God and Chriſt agree. 2. Wherefore to the compariſon I anſwer: that Chriſt died not meerly to diſſolve and ſcatter the clouds of ſin; but to create a Iſa. 51. 16. & 65. 16. … Cor. 5. 15. 17.Isa 51:16Isa 65:16new heaven (and a new earth) in which himſelf was to ſhine as the ddMalac. 4. 2.Mal 4:2Sun of righteouſneſſe, and to diſpel the clouds and darkneſſe of ſin: my meaning is, Chriſt died not to repaire the old Covenant; nor by removing of hindrances, to make us capable of the influences of life and love, in that way in which they ſhould have been derived to us by the firſt Covenant: but therefore died he, that by means of death for the redemption of tranſgreſſions, he might become that new and living way, through which we might come unto God by faith, and partake in life and remiſſion of ſins. Heb. 9. 15. and 10. 17, 20, 22. compared. 3. Obſerve one thing more (Reader) from M. Eyres application of his ſimilitude. So (ſaith he) the cloud of our ſins being blotted out; the beams of Gods love have as free a paſſage towards us, as if we had not ſinned. What are theſe beams of love? Is pardon of ſin any of them? if it be, then behold the ſenſe of the compariſon: viz. Chriſt having ſatisfied, God can now pardon ſin as freely as if men had no ſin, and ſo had never needed pardon. This is a rare notion: but there is yet ſomething worſe then non-ſenſe included in it; namely, that ſinners are diſcharged without pardon: p. 253as having (in Chriſt) paid to the full the debt which they owed: as ſwearers and drunkards are diſcharged upon payment of the mulct enjoyned by Law, without the Magiſtrates pardon; and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law, as if they had never broken it. If immediately upon Chriſts ſatisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the bleſſings of the promiſe as if they had never ſinned, there is then no need that they ſhould beleeve and repent in order to the obtaining of life and ſalvation.

The fifth Argument ſucceeds. If it were the will of God that the §. 9.ſin of Adam ſhould immediately overſpread his poſterity, then it was his will that the ſatisfaction and righteouſneſſe of Chriſt ſhould immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect: for there is the ſame reaſon for the immediate tranſmiſſion of both to their reſpective ſubjects: for both of them were heads and roots of mankind. But the ſin of Adam did immediately over ſpread his poſterity. All men ſinned in him, Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual ſin. Ergo.

Anſ. I deny both propoſition and aſſumption. Firſt, for the aſſumption: I deny that any man is guilty of Adams ſin, till he exiſt and be a child of Adam. He that is not, is not under Law, to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it: of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it. And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men ſinned in Adam before they had any being of their own: neither doth the text ſay ſo, but only that death paſſed upon all men, f…r that all have ſinned: which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have ſinned (as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipſis, thus. Death paſſed upon all men by him in whom all have ſinned) yet will it be ſhort of his purpoſe. Doth not the Apoſtle ſay in the ſame verſe, Death hath paſſed upon all men? and v. 15. through the offence of one, many be dead: which many himſelf interprets of all. v. 18. for (as Beza notes well, v. 15.) many in this compariſon is not oppoſed to all, but to one. Is it therefore lawfull to inferre, that men are actually dead before they are borne? Nothing leſſe. The meaning then of this ſpeech, All men are dead in Adam, is no more but this: That ſentence of death paſſed upon Adam, by virtue of which all that are borne of him, eo ipſo that they derive their being from him, become ſubject unto the ſame death. In like manner, all are ſaid to have ſinned in him: not that his poſterity then unborne and unbegotten (that is, no body) were immediately guilty of his fact: but becauſe by the juſt diſpenſation of God, it was to be imputed to them as ſoone p. 254as they had ſo much being as to be denominated children of Adam. His offence tainted the blood, and according to Gods Covenant and way of dealing with him, was interpreted as the act of the humane nature, then exiſting in himſelf (for tota natura generis eſt in qualibet ſpecie) but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular perſons partaking in that nature before their own perſonal exiſtence. In ſhort: we ſinned in Adam no otherwiſe then we did exiſt in him; for operatio ſequitur eſſe: but to exiſt in Adam, is not to exiſt ſimply, (but rather the contrary: for when men are men and have a perſonal exiſtence of their own, they exiſt no longer in Adam, but out of him: as every effect wrought exiſts out of its cauſes) but onelyonly notes a virtue or power in him productive of us (poſitis omnibus ad ag…ndum requiſitis.) So to ſin or be guilty in him, is not to ſin or be guilty ſimply; but onelyonly notes the cauſe of the propagation of guilt, together with our ſubſtance, to be then in being. If we apply this, it will follow, that as no man partakes in Adams guilt, till he be borne a child of Adam; ſo none partake in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, nor the benefit of his ſatisfaction, till they be borne unto him by faith. And that doth the Apoſtle put out of queſtion in this very diſpute, Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans diſobedience many were made ſinners; ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous: which words were written many years after Chriſts death: and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Chriſts obedience: Ergo, they were not made righteous immediately in his death. That for the minor.

The propoſition comes next to be canvaſed: where I deny that§. 10. there is the ſame reaſon for the tranſmiſſion of Adams ſin and Chriſts righteouſneſſe to their reſpective ſubjects: for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind, as the Apoſtle ſhews, Rom. 5. 14. and ſo farre forth they agree, both communicating their effects to their children: Adam, ſin and death to his natural children: Chriſt, righteouſneſſe and life to his ſpiritual children: yet the ſame Apoſtle in the ſame place ſhews that there is a divers diſſimilitude or diſagreement betwixt them, and that in ſeveral reſpects, v. 15, 16, 17, 18. particularly in that he calls our juſtification by the obedience of Chriſt the gift, and free gift in oppoſition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation, v. 15, 16. implying the obedience of Chriſt to be ſo performed, as that there is yet required an act of grace on Gods part, to give us the effect of it: (as well as an act of faith on our part, that it may be given to us, or that we may receive it: of p. 255which the Apoſtle ſpeaks in the next verſe, v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace—ſhall raigne in life: for we receive the grace of God by faith, 2 Cor. 6. 1.) ſuitable to what this Apoſtle had ſaid before, chap. 3. 25, 26. that Chriſt was ſet forth to declare the righteouſneſſe of God—that he might be th… juſtifier of him that beleeveth in Jeſus. But the effects of Adams diſobedience came upon his poſterity by the neceſſity of the ſame judgement which paſſed upon himſelf, as the natural father of all men: ſo as there needs no other act, either on Gods part, or on our part; but eo ipſo that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and puniſhment. But of this we have ſpoken more largely before.

The ſixth Argument follows. If the ſacrifices of the Law were immediately §. 11.available for the typicall cleanſing under that adminiſtration; then the ſacrifice which Chriſt hath offered was immediately availeable, to make a real atonement for all thoſe ſins for which he ſuffered. The reaſon of the conſequence is, becauſe the real ſacrifice is not leſſe efficacious then the typical. But thoſe legal ſacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the ſinners part, Lev. 16. 30. Ergo.

Anſ. 1. I except againſt the propoſition: becauſe there is no neceſſity of the conſequence. The atonement made by ſacrifices might be available to an immediate cleanſing, though Chriſts be not, becauſe, 1. God might will the former, though not the latter. 2. The people cleanſed by ſacrifice were all in being. 3. And all actually guilty of thoſe ſins from which they were cleanſed by ſacrifice. 4. And the puniſhments from which they were delivered, were for the moſt part carnal and outward, and as it were preſent, being either actually upon them (as their, ſeparations from the congregation for leproſie or other defilements, ſuddaine plagues deſtroying multitudes of them &c.) or in ſight (as it were) and neere at hand: in which reſpect it was neceſſary that the atonement made by ſacrifice ſhould have the more immediate effect. But they who are purged by the ſacrifice of Chriſt, many of them were not in being when his ſacrifice was offered, nor multitudes of them, yet much leſſe had they then committed thoſe ſins from which his ſacrifice doth afterwards purge them: nor is the puniſhment of their ſins already upon them, but put off in expectation of repentance. If Mr. Eyre will give me that liberty which …e takes himſelf, I might as well argue thus. If the ſacrifices under the Law obtained no pardon but for ſins committed, then neither doth p. 256the ſacrifice of Chriſt obtaine preſent pardon for ſins to come, not yet committed. But the firſt is true, Ergo, ſo is the laſt. I doubt he would not grant my propoſition. The reaſon which he addes for confirmation of his own, hath no weight: for the efficacy of the ſacrifices typical and real is rather to be meaſured by the greatneſſe of the effect wrought, then by their quickneſſe in working them. That ſacrifice is of greateſt efficacy which produceth the greateſt effect, whether it produce it immediately or no: for example. The ſacrifice of Chriſt is of greater efficacy then thoſe under the Law: becauſe they ſanctified to the purifying of the fleſh, but the blood of Chriſt purgeth the conſcience, Heb. 9. 13, 14. But it did not purge our conſciences immediately as ſoon as it was offered: for we had then no conſciences to purge. Yet (I hope) Mr. Eyre will not ſay, that Chriſts ſacrifice is therefore of leſſe efficacy then the other.

But the aſſumption is that which I do moſt except againſt. viz. §. 12.That thoſe legal ſacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the ſinners part. How doth Mr. Eyre prove this? Thus: it is ſaid, Lev. 16. 30. the Prieſt ſhall make an atonement for you. Ergo, there was no condition required on the peoples part. But neither was the atonement perfectly made by the offering of the ſacrifice: but it was moreover required on the Prieſts part that he entred into the holy of holies, and made atonement there, to v. 12, 15. (a type of our Lords entrance into heaven to make reconciliation there for our ſins, Heb. 9. 24. and 2. 17, 18. and 4. 14, 15.) and on the peoples part, that they did upon that day humble and afflict their ſoules: otherwiſe they could not have any benefit by that atonement: as we have obſerved before out of v. 29, 30. and Lev. 23. 27, 28, 29. We have alſo already ſhewed that in ſome other caſes ſome actions were required, as conditions without which ſinners received not the benefit of that typical atonement. But for the general this may ſuffice, that the people who received the benefit of thoſe ſacrifices were a people in Covenant with God, and worſhippers of him, Heb. 10. 1, 2. which was the grand condition of their partaking in the effects of that whole ceremonial ſervice, and were therein types of the ſpiritual worſhippers of the new Teſtament, who come by faith to the blood of ſprinkling, even to Chriſt crucified, for a ſpiritual and eternal cleanſing.

p. 257SECT. III.

WE come now to Mr. Eyres ſeventh Argument. Some of§. 13. the Elect are reconciled to God, immediately by the death of Chriſt, without any condition performed by them. viz. elect Infants. Ergo, all the elect are ſo reconciled.

Anſw. I deny the conſequence, becauſe it infers an univerſal from a particular. The Apoſtle ſayes, It is appointed unto all men once to die, Heb. 9. 27. and through death to enter into Heaven: ſhall I ſay this is falſe, becauſe Enoch and Elijah went to Heaven, and never ſaw death? If the general directions, commands and promiſes in Scripture, muſt all be arraigned of falſhood, if they be not applicable to Infants, as well as unto perſons that have underſtanding to know their Maſters will▪ we ſhall make ſad work: exceptions of particular perſons make no breach upon a general rule. The Apoſtle ſayes, He that will not work, muſt not eat: If we ſhould give Infants no more food then they work for, the world would be ſoon at an end.

2. But I deny the antecedent alſo. viz. That elect Infants are immediately reconciled to God by the death of Chriſt, without any condition performed on their part. A double anſwer therefore are our Divines wont to make to this objection. 1. That Infants may have the ſeed or habit of faith, though it be not wrought in them in the ordinary way of preaching. 2. That their Parents faith is the condition of their ſalvation, if they die before they are capable of putting forth the act of faith themſelves. Mr. Eyre will not hear of either of theſe anſwers, but invades them both.

The former, 1. Becauſe Infants have no knowledge of good or evil, §. 14.Deut. 1. 39. and there cannot be faith without knowledge. 2. Faith cometh by hearing of the Word preach't, Rom. 10. Now Infants heare not; or if they do, they underſtand not what they hear.

Anſw. 1. Wilt thou ſee then (Reader) what is the aime and upſhot of all Mr. Eyres diſcourſe? this it is, that there is no neceſſity of believing or repenting, that men may be ſaved: for Infants are ſaved without it, as not being capable of ſo much as the habit of either: and God doth not give ſalvation unto Infants in one manner, and p. 258to men in another; (theſe are his own words) therefore men alſo may be ſaved without it. 2. Or if he ſhall ſay (as he doth ſomewhere elſe) that God hath purpoſed to give faith to all that are of yeares of diſcretion, before he give them ſalvation: yet ſtill we retort upon him what he requires of us, Let him clear it up from Scripture, l…t him ſhew us the text that ſaith, that God hath purpoſed to have Infants in one way, and men in another. 3. And yet I know not whether he hath ſo much charity to Infants, as to allow them any room in the Kingdome of Heaven: he cannot, if his Argument be good; for the text is expreſſe, Mark 16. He that believeth not, ſhall be damned; and Infants are uncapable of believing: for they cannot hear the Word, nor have they any knowledge of good or evil: nor doth God ſave them in one way, and men in another. 4. But to what he ſpeaks here of the incapacity of Infants, having the ſeed or habit of grace, the anſwer is eaſie. It is true, they know neither good nor evil: but it will not follow (I trow) that they are neither good nor evil. They have the habits of ſin in them, even whiles they are uncapable of the act, Ergo, they are capable of the habits of grace too: otherwiſe ſin and grace were not contraries; for contraria tribuuntur eidem. And it is certain, that as all are now borne in ſinne; ſo all ſhould have been borne righteous, if Adam (the father of us all) had not tranſgreſſed.

And to the ſecond exception, viz. That faith cometh by hearing §. 15.of the Word preached, Rom. 10. 17. the ſame anſwer will ſuffice: faith may be conſidered, either in its compleat act, (and ſo no doubt it comes by hearing; the reaſon is rendred by the Apoſtle in the ſame chapter, ver. 14. How ſhall they beleeve on him of whom they have not heard?) Or 2. In its ſeed, root or habit: and ſo I deny that it is alwayes and in all perſons, wrought by hearing of the Word preached. The Chriſtian and godly inſtructions of Parents, as they are ordained of God to be a meanes of inſtilling his feare into the hearts of their children, Eph. 6. 4. Iſa. 28. 9, 10, 11. ſo are they not unfrequently bleſſed with ſucceſſe, according to the capacity of children, as in Timothy, 2 Tim. 3. 14, 15. And ſometimes God by his own immediate working, may inſpire that grace into the heart of an Infant, which it is not poſſible any means ſhould be uſed by men to effect. David ſeems to have been gracious from a childe, Pſal. 22. 9, 10. and 71. 5, 6. and Iſaac, G…l. 4. 29. and Chriſt bleſſed Infants, Mark 10. 16. and he bleſſeth by doing or working that in them, which godly Parents can do no more, p. 259then deſire may be done, when they are ſaid to bleſſe their children.

But we have a famous inſtance (which puts all out of doubt) of John §. 16.the Baptiſt, who was filled with the Holy Ghoſt, even from his mothers womb, Luke 1. 15. What ſayes Mr. Eyre to this? He cites theſe words, and gives anſwer to others a great way off, ver. 41. whereupon Mary's ſalutation of Elizabeth, the babe is ſaid to leap in her wombe; and tells us, That this exultation, Divinitús facta eſt in Infante: non Humanitùs ab Infante: and therefore is not to be drawn into an example, or urged as a rule to us, what to think of others. Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus. We cite the words of v. 15. (and ſo doth Mr. Eyre too,) to prove Infants capable of the habit of grace: and he anſwers to v. 41. which is no part of the objection he had propoſed againſt himſelf. But whereas he ſayes, it is not to be urged as a rule to us, what to think of other Infants; he ſhould have given us the reaſon too; for it proves invincibly, that Infants are capable of the habits of grace, (which is all intended to be proved by it) and by conſequence, that Mr. Eyres two Arguments to the contrary, from Infants want of knowledge and inability to hear, are nothing worth. ddVi… B…co…m. de ſide …uſtif. Q …1. per tot.Ergo, the Scriptures contradict not them that ſay, Infants may have the ſeed of faith.

Nor yet do they ſay any thing contrary to Scripture, who aſſert,§. 17. that Infants performe the conditions of reconciliation and ſalvation by their Parents; foraſmuch as it is manifeſt throughout the Scriptures, that Infants follow the condition of their Parents, whether they be the Infants of Gentiles, or of the people of God. And as the former are ſtrangers from the C…venant, together with their Parents, and thereby liable to all the evils that accompany ſuch a condition, Ezra 10. 3. Deut. 7. 2, 3, 6. Iſa. 56. 3. ſo doth the Lord claim a ſpecial right and propriety in the children of his people, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. in regard of which they are called holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. (the greater is their ſacriledge, who refuſe to gi…e unto God the things that are Gods, but will needs have their children kept at liberty, to chooſe whether they will ſerve God or the devil, when they come up to ripeneſſe of underſtanding) which relation of theirs to God, as ſome of his people, and of him to them, as their God, by vertue of their Parents faith, Deut. 7. 6, 7, 8. Nehem. 9. 8. (for never ſince the world was made did God make a Covenant with a faithful man, the bleſſings and bene…it of which ſhould reach no farther then his own perſon▪ witneſſe his Covenant p. 260with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Phineas, David, &c.) doth ſignally include the Promiſe of pardon of ſin, Jer. 31. 33, 34. and 32. 38, 39, 42. And if Noahs faith was available, to the ſaving, not of himſelf only, but his family alſo, Heb. 11. 7. and the faith of godly Parents, for the life of their children, Matth. 15. 28. John 4. 50, 51. I ſee no reaſon why it ſhould be denied, to be of as great acceptance with God, for the ſalvation of ſuch of them as die in their infancy.

Yet a double Argument Mr. Eyre hath againſt it. 1. Hence§. 18. it will follow, that all the children of believing Parents are juſtified: which he ſuppoſeth no man will ſay.

Anſw. But he might have known that the Lutherans ſay ſo; and that without any great inconvenience, which I am able to foreſee. That which I apprehend will be readieſt objected againſt it, (though Mr. Eyre object not it, nor any thing elſe) is, that many children of godly Parents live and die in ſin: Ergo, They were never juſtified. But this inference will not paſſe: for it will be anſwered, That the Parents faith remains no longer the condition of his childes pardon and ſalvation, then during the ſtate of infancy: when he is growen up to the uſe of his own underſtanding and will, a perſonal faith of his own is required upon the ſame termes of neceſſity, as of others, who from their birth were without God, and ſtrangers from his Covenant. Iſrael in Egypt is likened to a child, Ezek. 16. 5, 6, &c. Hoſ. 11. 1. and in Gods dealing with them there, (when they were in their Infantage) we have a type and embleme of his dealing with other Infants, who are the children of his ſervants, and of ſuch as believe on him, after the example of Abraham. Their father Abrahams faith, was the condition of their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, Deut. 10. 15. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he choſe their ſeed after them. And becauſe he would keep the oath which he had ſworne unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the houſe of bondmen, chap. 7, 8. Nevertheleſſe, after they had been farther inſtructed in, and known the Will of God, he required of them, that they ſhould feare, him, and walk in all his wayes, and love him, and ſerve him with all their heart and ſoule, Deut, 10. 12, 16. Otherwiſe they were liable to a returne, to the ſame or a worſe bondage, then that out of which they had been redeemed, chap. 28. 65, 68. And it is alſo obſervable, that the Infants in Iſrael, continued their right to the promiſed land, while their Parents were cut off for rebellion, Numb. 14, 30, 31.

p. 261As to the ſecond exception, That we may as well aſſert works§. 19. of ſupererogation, as that one is juſtified by anothers faith. I had thought Mr. Eyre had better underſtood what works of ſupererogation are, then to trouble us with ſuch an impertinency. But to the two texts of Scripture in the margine, to which he refers us, Ezek. 18. 20. and Hab. 2. 4. to prove, that a mans faith or righteouſneſſe is available, only to his own ſalvation: they are both to be underſtood pro ſubject â materiâ. He that is furniſhed with meanes and abilities, for the exerciſe of a faith of his owne, or for performing works of righteouſneſſe, cannot expect ſalvation by the faith or righteouſneſſe of his Parents, while himſelf lives in unbelief and unrighteouſneſſe.

The eighth Argument is the old poſtulatum, that faith cannot be§. 20. the condition of our reconciliation, but it will then needs ſhare with Chriſt in the glory of this effect, which we have ſhewed already at large, to be contrary to the judgment of Scriptures, Reaſon, Lawyers, Divines, I may adde, of all ſorts of perſons. All men will acknowledge, that the freeſt Promiſe imaginable becomes not obligatory, but upon ſuppoſition of acceptance by him to whom the Promiſe is made: eeVide D Marta. Neapol. Digeſt. Noviſſ. Tom 3. Tit. Donatarius.and the freeſt donation becomes invalid, if he to whom it is given will have none of it. And faith being no more then an acceptance of Chriſt, John 1. 12. Rev. 22. 17. one would think it might be made the condition of the gift of righteouſneſſe and life, without danger of ſharing in the glory of Chriſt. More of the unreaſonableneſſe of Mr. Eyres crude aſſertion, (though it be more then needs, and more then once I intended) the Reader ſhall finde below, in anſwer to Mr. Eyres nineteenth chapter.

Enter the ninth Argument. If it were the Will of God, that§. 21. his people ſhould have ſtrong conſolation, and that their joy ſhould be full; then it was his Will, that their peace and reconciliation ſhould not depend upon conditions performed by themſelves; for it is impoſſible that any ſoul ſhould enjoy a firme and ſetled peace, whoſe confidence towards God is grounded upon conditional Promiſes: and (ſays the Apoſtle) our ſalvation is by grace, to the end that the Promiſe may be ſure to all the ſeed, Rom. 4. 16.

Anſw. We expect other manner of proof of the conſequence, then what is here preſented us, It is moſt true, that Gods Will is, that his people ſhould have ſtrong conſolation, not without faith, but through faith, as is moſt expreſſe in that very place which Mr. Eyre quotes, Heb. 6. 18. That we might have a ſtrong conſ…lation, who p. 262have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope ſet before us. Alſo the Apoſtle John, 1 Ep. 1. 4. gives the reaſon of his writing the doctrine of the Goſpel, namely, that through the faith thereof our joy may be full. But it is the wildeſt reaſoning that ever I met with, to inferre, that if the gift of peace and reconciliation be ſuſpended upon believing, then he that believes cannot have ſtrong conſolation; juſt as if I ſhould inferre, becauſe the Lord ſayes, John 16. 24. Ask and ye ſhall receive, that your joy may be full. Ergo, He that asketh can never attain to fulneſſe of joy. The ſtrength of our joy and conſolation depends upon the immutability and faithfulneſſe of the Promiſe which we beleeve: and by how much the more ſtedfaſtly we beleeve, by ſo much the more do we partake in the comfort of the Promiſe. But that is above all, that Mr. Eyre ſhould quote, Rom. 4. 16. to prove, that if our ſalvation depended never ſo little upon our works, we could not be ſure thereof; (Amongſt which works he includes faith, abſurdly enough, but ſuitable to his dealing with the Authours whom he quotes here, and elſewhere, applying to faith what they ſpeak againſt works,) when the very words of the text are expreſly and purpoſely againſt the inference which he makes from them. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the Promiſe might be ſure to all the ſeed. Since man was borne upon the earth, was it ever thought poſſible that theſe words ſhould yield this inference? Ergo, if ſalvation depend on faith, we can never be ſure of it? Though neither doth the text ſpeak of the certainty of the ſubject, or of our being ſure of ſalvation: but of the certainty of the object, or of ſalvation's being ſure to us.

Let us hear the tenth Argument. If it were the Will of God, that§. 22. the death of Chriſt ſhould be available for the reconciliation of the elect, whiles they live in this world; then it was his Will, that it ſhould procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation, without the intervention of thoſe conditions, ſuppoſed to be required of them. The reaſon is, becauſe they cannot perform all the conditions required of them, till their laſt breath: this being one, that they muſt perſevere to the end.

Anſw. This Argument (with many of the reſt) if it prove that ſinners are reconciled without any condition performed on their part, yet it doth not prove (what it ſhould do) that they are reconciled immediately in the death of Chriſt, or before they beleeve. If we contended for no more then that faith were antecedent to Juſtification, not the condition thereof; this Argument would not hurt p. 263us; and therefore is not like to be very ſerviceable to Mr. Eyre. 2. Nor doth it ſo much as pretend to diſprove Juſtification upon any condition, (as ſuppoſe upon the firſt act of faith) and therefore is yet farther impertinent. 3. But that which it would diſprove (if it had ſtrength enough) is the conditionality of final perſeverance unto Juſtification. But neither do we make final perſeverance the condition of our firſt Juſtification; but the firſt ſimple act of faith, and perſeverance in the faith to the end, the condition of final Juſtification, as Paul alſo doth, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. I have fought a good fight, I have finiſhed my courſe, I have kept the faith, From HENCEFORTH there is laid up for me a Crown of righteouſneſſe, &c. So Rev. 2. 17. To him that overcometh will I give a white ſtone, &c. of which we have ſpoken before. Wherefore I deny that, which ſhould be Mr. Eyres Aſſumption, viz. That it was the Will of God that the elect ſhould be perfectly and compleatly reconciled or juſtified, whileſt they live in th… world. The reaſons of which denial I have already given at large, and ſhall not now repeat them. And whereas Mr. Eyre thinks much, …at the elect ſhould be denied perfect reconciliation, not only till they beleeve, but not till death; He may be pleaſed to underſtand, that I deny them to be perfectly juſtified or reconciled, till the reſurrection. For as long as any enmity remaines undeſtroyed, they are not perfectly reconciled. But all enmity is not deſtroyed till the reſurrection, 1 Corinth. 15. 25, 26.

And what hath Mr. Eyre againſt it? words and nothing elſe.§. 23. 1 (Saith he) innumerable Scriptures declare that the Saints are perfectly juſtified. A…ſw. But doth not quote us ſo much as one: and a good reaſon why. 2. That nothing ſhall be able to ſeparate from Gods love. Anſw. Not for ever, but for a time it may, til… all enemies be ſubdued: the laſt of which is Death. The happineſſe which the ſoule enjoyes in the mean time is its own, not the happineſſe of the perſon, as our Lords Argument ſuppoſeth, M…t. 22. 31, 32. 3. Juſtification is as full and perfect as ever it ſhall be, it doth not grow and increaſe, but is perfect at firſt. …nſw. Prove it: it grows in the renewed acts of pardon, H…l 12. 17, 1 Joh… 2. 1. 2. …or God doth multiply …orgiveneſſes, Iſ…. 55. 7. It grows in the perfection of its parts: whereof the moſt abſolute and compleat is our Juſtification in the day of judgement. It grows in the perfection of its effects: which are begun in the ſoule firſt, and ſo take place upon the body, and the whole man, R…m. 8. 10, 11, 23. p. 264Paul expected a farther participation in the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, then he attained to in this life, Gal. 5. 5. Phil. 3. 8, 9, 11. 4. Baptiſme (ſaith Mr. Eyre) which ſeales to us the forgiveneſſe of all our ſins, is adminiſtred but once in all our life-time: to ſhew that our Juſtification is done all at once. Anſw. Baptiſme ſeals that Promiſe, by which all ſins paſt are forgiven; (ffLuke 3. 3. M…rk 1. 4.Luke 3:3) and all ſins future ſhall be forgiven when committed, the ſinner continuing in the faith of Jeſus Chriſt; from which if he fall away, it is impoſſible that he ſhould be renewed again to repentance, Hebr. 6. 6. or be capable of having another Covenant made or ſealed to him, by which his ſins may be remitted, Heb. 10. 29. Mr. Eyre here addes ſome texts of Scripture, Ezek. 16. 8, 9. Acts 13. 39. 1 John 1. 7. Col. 2. 13, 14. to what purpoſe I cannot imagine; unleſſe it be to prove, that all ſins are forgiven at once (for neither of theſe texts ſpeak a word of Baptiſme.) If he mean all ſins paſt are forgiven upon the firſt act of faith, I have granted it: but if he mean all ſins to come alſo, it lies upon him to prove it: that is, that ſins not committed are ſins.

SECT. IV.

THe eleventh Argument proceeds thus. If it were the Will of§. 24. God, that the death of Chriſt ſhould certainly and infallibly procure the reconciliation of his Elect; then ſurely it was not the Will of God, that it ſhould depend on termes and conditions on their part: becauſe that which depends upon future conditions is, as to the event, altogether uncertain.

Anſw. 1. Neither doth this Argument prove, that we are juſtified immediately in the death of Chriſt, or before we beleeve. 2. I deny the conſequence with the proof of it: for although that which depends upon future conditions, as to the event be uncertain, as the word uncertain ſignifies the ſame with contingent, (for it is a true rule in the Civil Law, (ffL. Si pupillus ff. de N vat.) Conditio neceſſaria non ſuſpendit diſpoſitionem) yet is this uncertainty or contingency to be underſtood in reference to man, and the ſecond and immediate cauſes of a things exiſtence; not in reference to God, to whom even contingent eventsg Vid… doctiſfimum D. Ramum Schol. Dialect. l. 5 c 6. are as certain, as if they were neceſſary: we ſhall make ſtrange work in Divinity, if events ſhall be denied to be contingent in their p. 265own nature, becauſe in reference to Gods Will or knowledge they are certain and infallible, and ſo far forth neceſſary; for example, God did will the certain and infallible ſa…ety of all thoſe that were in the ſhip with Paul, Acts 27. 24. yet nevertheleſſe it came not to paſſe, but upon condition of their abiding in the ſhip: without the performance of which condition they had periſhed, ver. 31. Except theſe abide in the ſhip, you cannot be ſaved. And Mr. Eyre might eaſily have foreſeen, that this Argument wounds himſelf as much as us. He acknowledgeth the Covenant made with Adam, to have been conditional: and in that very thing placeth the main difference between it and the Covenant of grace; obedience then was the condition of Adams continuance in life; and ſin, of his death. But did not God know that Adam would ſin, and will to permit it? or will Mr. Eyre deny this, becauſe his death was ſuſpended upon a future condition, and therefore was altogether uncertain, as to the event? Phyſician heal thy ſelfe. It is by the Will of God, that contingent things come to paſſe contingently.

Nor is the twelfth argument more happy. If God willed this§. 25. bleſſing to the elect but conditionally, then he willed their reconciliation and Juſtification no more▪ then their non-reconciliation and condemnation; for if he willed their Juſtification only, in caſe they ſhould beleeve and repent, then he willed their damnation in caſe they do not beleeve and repent. Ergo, he willed their Juſtification no more then their damnation; contrary to John 6. 38, 39. and 17. 21, 22, 24.

Anſw. (hhVide Amyr…ld…m Sp…im. Anim…d. Speci…l. co…tra Sp…h…m. à p. 146. ad ſiu…m libri.) Out of doubt God willeth the damnation, even of the elect themſelves in caſe they do not beleeve and repent: (though that caſe ſuppoſeth what is not to be ſuppoſed, without more d…ſtinctions then my preſent matter will permit me to digreſſe into) but Mr. Eyres inference, that therefore he wills their damnation as much as their Juſtification, is meerly drawn in, without any diſpoſition in it ſelfe to follow; for the Prom…ſe of remiſſion, upon condition of faith, is not made unto men, who are as it were i… m…di…, between life and death; but unto ſinners already under condemnation: and is given as a remedy againſt that death under which they are already held. God thereby manifeſting, that although▪ according to his own Laws and conſtitutions, he cannot ſave impenitent and unbelieving ſinners, (Heb. 3. 19. Jer. 3. 19.) yet is it far more acceptable to him, that ſinners ſhould and be ſaved, then by their obſtinacy provoke him, and as it were conſtraine him to execute p. 266his juſtice upon them. Ezek. 18. 31, 32. and 33. 11. Lament. 3. 33, 34, 2 Pet. 3. 9. As Moſes ſpeaks, Deut. 30. 19. I have ſet before you life and death, bleſſing and curſing, therefore chuſe life, that both thou and thy ſeed may live. Wherefore we anſwer by the uſual diſtinction of the Will of God: which is either iiVid. Chamier. Panſtrat. de Praedeſt. c. 6. §. 3 & 14.voluntas foreign, determining of events: or voluntas foreign determining of what is good and acceptable in the ſight of God: by the former God doth will infallibly that his elect ſhall be juſtified by the death of Chriſt. By the latter, though he will their Juſtification much more then their damnation (as hath been ſhewed) yet he wills it no otherwiſe, then that if they will not be reconciled, but turne away from God through unbelief, Chriſt and his righteouſneſſe ſhall profit them nothing.

The thirteenth argument undertakes great matters. Conditional§. 26. reconciliation neceſſarily ſuppoſeth free-will.

Anſw. It doth indeed ſuppoſe voluntatem per gratiam liberabilem, the will freeable by grace, not per naturam liberatam, freed by nature. If the caſe of ſinful men were the caſe of devils, to be judicially ſo confirmed and obdurate in ſin, as that it were impoſſible for them to repent and believe on a Saviour; Mr. Eyre would then put me hard to it, for I ſhould never be able to give any tolerable account why a conditional reconciliation ſhould be preached and preſſed ſo vehemently upon a ſinful world. But how doth Mr. Eyre prove that a conditional reconciliation ſuppoſeth free-will? Thus,

Either God willed it unto men, upon a poſſible or impoſſible condition. Anſw. Upon a condition poſſible.

Mr. Eyre, Then either it is poſſible becauſe God will beſtow it, or becauſe man can performe it. Anſw. Becauſe God will beſtow it, though this diſjunction be not well expreſſed, for mans ability to performe is not contrary to Gods beſtowing, but the effect of it. But Mr. Eyre ſayes, we cannot mean it of a condition poſſible by Gods gift, becauſe God will beſtow upon us nothing but what Chriſt hath purchaſed; and Chriſt hath purchaſed nothing, ſave what God hath promiſed in his Covenant: and Mr. W. denies that the Promiſe of faith is any part of the Covenant, or any effect of it, page 32. and others that are for this conditional reconciliation, look upon it as a ridiculous conceit, that God ſhould promiſe men ſalvation upon a condition, and that he ſhould work this condition in them and for them.

p. 267Anſw. Per varios caſus, per tot diſcrimina rerum, Tendimus in Latium. I do not wonder Mr. Eyre is ſo groſſely out, ſeeing he hath no ſhorter way to his Concluſion. It is very hard to me to conceive how this Argument proceeds: but thus I think it is. The thing which Mr. Eyre is proving is this, That no condition, or particularly, that faith is not a condition poſſible by the gift of God▪ The proof ſtands thus, If God beſtow nothing but what Chriſt hath purchaſed, then faith is not a condition poſſible by the gift of God. But the firſt is true. Ergo, ſo is the laſt. The Propoſition ſtands upon this ground. Chriſt (according to us) hath not purchaſed faith▪ Ergo, if God beſtow nothing but what Chriſt hath purchaſed, he doth not beſtow faith. The Antecedent is thus proved. What God hath not promiſed in his Covenant, Chriſt hath not purchaſed. But God (according to us) hath not promiſed faith in his Covenant. Ergo, Chriſt hath not purchaſed it. This is the demonſtration. But yet we need ſeveral things to be demonſtrated. Firſt, that God gives nothing but what Chriſt hath purchaſed. 1. He gave Chriſt himſelf to be a purchaſer, Eſa. 9. 6. To us a childe is borne, to us a Son is given. 2. Mr. Eyre denies Chriſt to have purchaſed the Covenant of remiſſion. 3. And our natural being and faculties will hardly be proved the fruit of Chriſts merits. 4. And ſuch of our Divines, (who yet are neither Papiſts nor Arminians) who ſuppoſe faith to be an immediate effect of the ſame grace, with the giving of Chriſt to be our Redeemer, will yet need a farther proof of this poſition then I do. Secondly, that Chriſt hath purchaſed nothing, but what God hath promiſed in his Covenant, for the very making and enacting of the Promiſe or Covenant of grace, is the fruit of Chriſts Purchaſe, (whence his blood is ſo often called the blood of the Covenant, Heb. 10. 29. and 13. 20. Matth. 26. 28.) 3. That I deny that the Promiſe of faith is any part or effect of the Covenant. I do indeed deny that it is an effect of the Covenant made with us, that is, that we are not in Covenant with God, when God promiſeth to give faith: but he promiſeth to give faith, that we may thereby be brought into Covenant with him. But the Covenant being taken largely, for a declaration of that whole good, which God will work in and for his people, and ſo God promiſeth faith: for explication of which, I muſt refer the Reader to the place where I purpoſely treat of it. In the mean time (Reader) hath not Mr. Eyre gallantly performed his undertaking? Something, I perceive, he would faine faſten upon us: but his cord (his threefold cord) is made of burnt flax.

p. 268As for thoſe that look upon it as a ridiculous conceit, that God§. 27. ſhould promiſe ſalvation upon a condition which he worketh in us, is Mr. Eyre of their minde, or is he not? If he be not, why doth he trouble us with them? If he be, why doth he fetch ſuch a compaſſe to come at his Concluſ…on? had it not been ſhorter to argue thus? If faith be the condition of ſalvation, then God doth not give faith: the reaſon is, becauſe it is ridiculous, that God ſhould promiſe ſalvation▪ upon a condition which he worketh in us. But (according to us,) faith is the condition of ſalvation. Ergo. if Mr. Eyre think this Argument of the Remonſtrants unanſwerable, they will be much beholden to him. But I deny the Propoſition, kkVid… …piſ…op D…venant. diſſert de m…rte Chriſti…. 5. p 57. ad ob…. 2.and ſay, there is no inconvenience in affirming, that God gives ſalvation upon a condition of his own working. Provided it be underſtood (as it ought) according to the difference which the ſame action hath, in reference to the univerſal, and its particular cauſe. Indeed it were ridiculous to ſuppoſe, that God ſhould make any action, which is wholly and immediately from himſelfe, the condition of any bleſſing he gives; as that he ſhould promiſe to glorifie us upon condition he raiſe us from the dead: to raiſe us, upon condition he juſtifie us: to juſtifie us, upon condition he give us faith. But the ſame faith which God worketh in us, is alſo our act (for it is we that beleeve, and not God, though he make us to beleeve) and as it is our act, ſo is it performed voluntarily, and a fit object of a command or promiſe: I mean, capable of being commanded or rewarded, or of being made the condition of a reward. And thus (for example) obedience was the condition of that life which was promiſed to Adam. (this Mr. Eyre grants.) Nevertheleſſe to the exerciſe of that obedience the concurrence of God was neceſſary, as of the firſt cauſe: for creatures eſſentially depend on God, not only for their being, but for their motion and operation, Acts 17. 28. Ergo, a voluntary act of ours may be the condition of our ſalvation, though God work that act in us. How many orders doth God give to Joſhua, Gideon, David and others, concerning the times and places, when and whither they ſhould remove their hoſt, that they might put their enemies to the rout, or eſcape an overthrow by them. Theſe motions were the conditions of thoſe ſpecial victories or deliverances which God would give them; yet by the efficiency of Gods power and providence did they move from place to place. Hundreds of like inſtances are obvious.

One thing more Mr. Eyre addes, If (ſaith he) any ſhall ſay, that§. 28. p. 269God did will that by Chriſt we ſhould have faith, and after that reconciliation; yet 1. It will follow notwithſtanding, that our reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Chriſt (as Owen proves againſt Baxter, page 34.) And 2. Then all the controverſie will be about Gods order and method, in conferring on us the effects of Chriſts death.

Anſw. That reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Chriſt, may be underſtood in a double ſenſe: either 1. By comparing the effects with the cauſe (and then the meaning is, that the death of Chriſt contributes an immediate efficiency to our reconciliation, whenſoever it is that we are reconciled: and this is all that Mr. Owen ſayes in the place mentioned. Meritorious cauſes (ſaith he) do actually & ipſo facto produce all thoſe effects which immedi…t…ly ſlow from them: not in an immediation of time, but of cauſality. I doubt not, but the death of Chriſt hath in its kinde an actual and immediate influence upon our eternal glorification, which yet is the laſt effect or benefit we receive by him.) Or 2. By comparing the effects with the cauſe, and one with another, and ſo that is the immediate effect of the death of Chriſt, which exiſts immediately upon the death of Chriſt, without the interpoſition of any other cauſe to produce it. Of this only is the Queſtion, as alſo Mr. Eyre himſelf hath hitherto underſtood it: otherwiſe I am perſwaded himſelf will grant, that all the Arguments he hath hitherto uſed (one or two at moſt only excepted) come not within ſight of the Concluſion they aime at.

As to the ſecond thing, that then all the controverſie will be about Gods order and method, in conferring on us the effects of Chriſts death: though if there were nothing elſe but this in queſtion; it will be of very dangerous conſequence to pervert and trouble that order, which God uſeth in bringing ſinners to life: yet is there much more in queſtion, viz. whether upon ſuppoſition of Chriſts Purchaſe, and Gods ſpecial purpoſe of giving faith to ſome, the ſame faith, as it is a voluntary act of ours, may not by Gods Will of Precept, be made the condition of our partaking in righteouſneſſe and reconciliation by the death of Chriſt? This is the thi…g which Mr. Eyre ſhould have diſproved, if he had intended his Argument ſhould have concluded any thing. We have already ſhewed at large the monſtrous inconveniences that attend the denial of it: and ſo much hath been ſpoken by thoſe that are for the middle way of univerſal redemption, eſpecially the French Divines, that I cannot▪ p. 270think it worth my labour to adde any thing more. The Lord Jeſus hath put the matter out of Queſtion to me, John 6. 39, 40. And this is the Fathers Will which hath ſent me, that of all which he hath given me, I ſhould loſe nothing, but ſhould raiſe it up again at the laſt day. And this is the Will of him that ſent me, that every one that ſeeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlaſting life, and I wil raiſe him up at the laſt day. The former verſe declares his own and his fathers ſpecial Will to ſave the elect. The latter, that yet the condition of beleeving is impoſed on all men (the elect, as well as others) that they through the performance thereof may be ſaved.

And ſo we are come to the laſt Argument, which in brief is this,§. 29. The imputing of our ſins to Chriſt was formally the non-imputing of them unto us. But our ſins were accounted or imputed to Chriſt without any condition on our part. Ergo, they are diſcounted or non-imputed to us, without any condition performed by us.

Anſw. I deny the Propoſition, namely, that the imputing of our ſins to Chriſt, is formally the non-imputing of them unto us: becauſe 1. If this be true, then doth not God for Chriſts ſake forgive any mans ſin, as the Apoſtle ſaith he doth, Eph. 4. 32. the reaſon is plain, becauſe it was not for Chriſts ſake that himſelf was puniſhed. Our pardon is not the effect of Chriſts puniſhment, but on the contrary, his puniſhment is the effect of our pardon, if the imputation of our ſins to him be formally the non-imputation of them to us. 2. What then is the meaning of Pauls prayer for them that deſerted him? 2 Tim. 4. 16. The Lord grant that it may not be imputed to them: that is, the Lord grant that Chriſt may be puniſhed for them? or what is the meaning? The Lord grant they may be ſome of thoſe for whom Chriſt hath been puniſhed? that were all one as to pray that they may be elected from all eternity. Whatſoever ſenſe M. Eyre will put upon the words, it will either not agree with ſenſe, or not with himſelf, or not with the text. 3. Upon the ſame principle it will follow, that the death of Chriſt as it was a ſatiſfaction, and his reſurrection from the dead contributes nothing to our juſtification, neither by way of influence, nor by way of evidence: for might it be ſuppoſed that the Lord Jeſus had lyen for ever under the power of death, that had been the beſt evidence to us that we ſhould never be puniſhed, if his puniſhment were formally our nonp…nition: and by way of influence it can do nothing, becauſe Gods p. 271freeing or taking off puniſhment from us is in nature before his laying it on Chriſt, if the imputing it to Chriſt be formally the non-imputing it to us: many other inconveniences attend this doctrine: but it is needleſſe to inſiſt upon the mention of them.

Beſides theſe Arguments, there are ſeveral teſtimonies of Scripture§. 30. which M. Eyre mentions, to prove our reconciliation to be the actual and immediate effect of Chriſts death: let us view them, Coloſ. 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. Heb. 9. 12. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12, 14. Coloſ. 2. 10, 13, 14. Rom. 8. 33, 34.

Anſ. 1. We have already anſwered at large to Rom. 8. 33, 34. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. Eph. 1. 7. and by conſequence to Coloſ. 1. 14. for the words are the ſame in both thoſe places. We have therefore here to anſwer no more then the texts out of the Hebrews, and one out of the Coloſſians; let us take them in order, Heb. 9. 12. Chriſt hath obtained eternal redemption for us. I cannot aſſure my ſelf how M. Eyre underſtands this text: but if he ſee no more in it then all men I can meet with, he can conclude no more from it then what was never denyed, namely that Chriſt hath purchaſed eternal redemption for us. But he hath alſo purchaſed eternal life and glory for us: will it therefore follow that our glorification, is the actual and immediate effect of his death? he gave himſelf to redeem us from all iniquity, Tit. 2. 14. are we therefore freed from all ſin immediately in his death?

The next is Heb. 1. 3. Chriſt by himſelf hath purged our ſins, and afterwards ſate down as having finiſhed that work, Heb. 10. 12. Anſ. The former place (according to the original) ſaies no more then that Chriſt in his death made a purge of our ſins: foreign which is no more then we have often yeelded, that Chriſt hath made a plaiſter in his own blood for the curing of our wounds: that is, in dying he performed that righteouſneſſe which is the cauſe of our remiſſion: his blood being that which waſheth us from all our ſins. But that this purge had its effect immediately upon its own exiſtence, is that which M. Eyre muſt give us another Text to prove: whereas he addes, that he afterwards ſate down as having …iniſhed that work, Heb. 10. 12. and good reaſon: becauſe that one offering of himſelf was ſo perfect and ſufficient for all thoſe ends unto which it was ordained, that there is no need that himſelf or any thing elſe ſhould be offered a ſecond time, for thoſe ends. But if M. Eyre mean that he hath ſo perfectly reconciled us in his death (not only quoad conſtitutionem cauſae, but quoad effectum) as that there needs nothing more p. 272to be done towards our reconciliation, he may do well to reconcile the Apoſtle to himſelf, who tells us his work in heaven is to make reconciliation, Heb. 2. 17, 18. Wherefore in all things it beboved him to be made like unto his br…thron, that he might be a mercifull and faithful high Prieſt in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the ſins of the people; for in that he himſelf hath ſuffered, being tempted, he is able to ſuccour them that are tempted. compare Heb. 4. 15. and 7. 25.

The like anſwer I give to Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected §. 31.for ever them that are ſanctified, namely, that Chriſts death hath perfected us quoad meritum, not quoad efficaciam. The death of Chriſt (ſaith the llDr. Godwin. in Rom. 8. …4. ſect 5. pag. 177.Rom 8:4Author often commended) was perfect for an o…lation, to which as ſuch nothing can be added: there needed no more, nor any other price to be paid for us. But hence to inferre, that therefore we were perfectly reconciled quoad effectum in the death of Chriſt, is point blank againſt the Text, which tells us in the very next foregoing words, v. 13. that Chriſt doth yet expect till his enemies be made his foot-ſtoole: amongſt which the Apoſtle reckoneth ſin and death, 2 Cor. 15. 26, 55, 56. which, though (together with Devils) they were deſtroyed in ſome ſenſe in the death of Chriſt, Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 14, 15. Yet, foraſmuch as the holy Ghoſt witneſſeth that Chriſt doth yet expect a farther deſtruction of them, it lets us underſtand, that theſe enemies, and ſin in particular, was no farther deſtroyed in his death, then as therein was laid the foundation and cauſe of a perfect and eternal remiſſion, which by virtue of that blood carried up and pleaded in heaven, ſhould be given unto them that by faith come for it unto the throne of grace; as the Apoſtle explaines himſelf, Heb. 4. 14, 15▪ 16. and in this very chapter, v. 26. If we ſin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the truth, there r…mains no more ſacrifice for ſins: implying, that a wilful rejecting of Chriſt through unbelief (which I conceive to be that ſpecial ſin which the Apoſtle means) deprives us of the benefit of remiſſion of ſins by his ſacrifice: which how it can be if ſins were perfectly and abſolutely pardoned immediately in his death, I cannot conceive: ſee alſo, v. 38, 39.

The laſt place is leaſt of all to purpoſe: Chriſt (ſaith M. Eyre)§. 32. hath made us compleat as to the forgiveneſſe of our ſins. Coloſ. 2. 10, 13, 14.

Anſ. 1. The Apoſtle ſpeaks to ſuch who had already received the Lord Jeſus, v. 6. And of ſuch no doubt it is true, that all their ſins p. 283are pardoned. 2. But neither doth the Apoſtle limit our compleatneſſe in Chriſt to the forgiveneſſe of our ſins: nor doth he ſay that we were made compleat in his death, but rather in his exaltation: And ye are compleat in him who is the Head of all principality and power. His ſcope is to roote and eſtabliſh the Coloſſians in the faith of Chriſt, v. 7. in oppoſition to ſuch innovators as would have introduced the worſhip of Gentile Daemons, v. 8, 18. or the obſervation of Jewiſh rites, v. 20, 21. as if without theſe Chriſt had not of himſelf been able to ſave them. But ye are compleat in Chriſt (ſaith the Apoſtle) or be ye content with Chriſt (as the words will beare to be rendred) as who alone is moſt ſufficiently able to give and increaſe you in all good, and to deliver you from all evil, and beſtow on you the reward of eternal life, v. 15, 18, 19. But what all this is to the purpoſe I know not. It ſeems Mr. Eyre had a mind to bring it in for company.