The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter, John 3, 18. and Eph. 2, 3. vindicated. All unbelievers under condemnation. Ergo, none juſtified in unbelief.
SECT. I.
MY ſecond Argument, by which I proved that men are not juſtified before faith, was this.
They that are under condemnation, cannot at the§, 1. ſame time be juſtified. But all the world are under condemnation before faith. Ergo, none of the world are juſtified before faith.
Mr. Eyre firſt enters a caution againſt the major: which I had briefly, and (as I thought, and yet think) ſufficiently proved in my Sermon in theſe words. Juſtification and Condemnation are contraries: and contraries cannot be verified of the ſame ſubject at the ſame time. Juſtification is a moral life, and condemnation a moral death: a man can be no more in a juſtified ſtate, and a ſtate of condemnation both at once, then he can be alive and dead both at once; or a bleſſed man and a curſed man both at once. What? that the Apoſtle deſcribes Juſtification by non-condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. and oppoſeth it to condemnation as inconſiſtent with it, on the ſame perſon at the ſame time, ver. 33, 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another, as good and evil, light and darkneſſe.
Upon theſe grounds I ſaid, that the Propoſition muſt needs be true. This (as if I had not ſo much as pretended any reaſon for it) Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident aſſertion: but in the mean time, never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it ſtands. This is a ſad caſe: but who can help it?
Yet he will grant the Propoſition with this Proviſo, That theſe ſeeming contraries do refer ad idem, i. e. to the ſame Court and Judicatory, not otherwiſe: for he that is condemned, and hath a judgement on record againſt him in one Court, may be juſtified and abſolved in another. He that is caſt at common Law, may be quitted in a Court of equity. He that is condemned in the Court of the Law, may be juſtified in the Court of the Goſpel.
Rep. Which is very true: otherwiſe our Juſtification were no pardon. But I would ask. Are theſe two Courts coordinate, and of equal power? or is the one in power ſubordinate to the other? If the former, how ſhall a man know whether he be caſt or abſolved? as in our own caſe, If the Law be of as much power to condemne, as the Goſpel is to juſtifie, how ſhall a man know whether he be condemned or juſtified? or what ſentence ſhall a poor ſoul expect, when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal? if of abſolution, why the Law condemnes him? if of condemnation, the Goſpel juſtifies him? and which of theſe two ſhall take place? But if the one be ſubordinate to the other, then the ſentence of the ſuperiour Court reſcindes the judgement of the inferiour, and makes it of no force, and ſo the man is not abſolved and condemned both at once. This is the very ground of uL. 1 ſſ. de Appell…. & L. Si▪ q…is …appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher; otherwiſe there were no uſe of them, nor any poſſibility by appealing to bring controverſies to an iſſue. Therefore it is impoſſible, that the ſame perſon at the ſame time, and in reference to the ſame ſins, ſhould ſtand condemned and juſtified before God. 2. Nevertheleſſe, I alſo think that a man may be condemned (I mean ipſo jure, under an actual obligation to puniſhment) and yet be in a ſtate of Juſtification, at the ſame time: which becauſe it is neceſſary, I ſhould explain, for the better underſtanding of the oppoſition between Juſtification and Condemnation, I ſhall here once for all ſet down my opinion. A ſtate of Juſtification I call it, not ſimply, becauſe all ſins are actually pardoned (for multitudes may not be yet committed) but becauſe all paſt ſins are pardoned, and a Promiſe given to the ſinner, by which all future ſins ſhall be pardoned: mercy prevailing againſt juſtice, Mount Sion againſt Mount Sinai, Mount Gerizim againſt Mount Ebal, even as a man is then in a ſtate of grace and regeneration, not becauſe he hath no ſin in him, but becauſe he hath a ſpirit of life within him, prevailing more and more againſt the luſts and rebellions of his fleſh, till at laſt ſin be perfectly deſtroyed out of the ſoule. And ſo my opinion is, 1. That as ſoon as a man beleeves, all his ſins paſt are forgiven him. 2. As often as he falls into new ſins, he contracts upon himſelf a new guilt, or obligation to puniſhment by vertue of the Law: ſo as it were juſt with God to deſtroy him, notwithſtanding his former ſins be pardoned. 3. The Lord Jeſus, our Advocate with the father, doth continually repreſent and plead the Promiſe of remiſſion made in his blood, on the behalf of ſinners: by vertue of which, not only the preſent and ſpeedy execution of puniſhment is ſuſpended, but the ſinners right to ſalvation continued and renewed, notwithſtanding his new contracted guilt (xJuſtificatio toties ſi…, quoties homo veré Poenitentiam agit & ſide ad Chriſtum mediatorem confugit. Solin. Meth. theol. de Juſtif.) (ſuppoſing the renewed acts of faith and repentance on the ſinners part; of implicite repentance for ſ…ns leſſe known, and unobſerved; and of explicite repentance for groſſer ſins, unleſſe want of time may alter the caſe.) Even as when God complaines, that Iſrael had broken his Covenant, and were t…rned out of the way that he commanded them, and he would therefore preſently have conſumed them: Moſes oppoſeth the Covenant of their fathers, Remember Abraham, Iſaac, and Iſrael thy ſervants, to whom thou ſwareſt by thine own ſelf, &c. Exod. 32. 8, 10, 13. And thus far I grant, that in theſe viciſſitudes, Juſtification and Condemnation may conſiſt in the ſame perſon: but by no meanes can I yield, that a man can at the ſame time ſtand condemned for thoſe very ſins, from which the Goſpel juſtifies him: or that he can be in a ſtate of Juſtification and a ſtate of Condemnation both at once.
What follows about the different eſtates of grace and nature, we ſhall conſider below in the debate of Epheſ. 2. 3. only the laſt words of this paragraph deſerve farther conſideration.
The Law (ſayes Mr. Eyre) condemns all men living, for that all have ſinned. The Law doth not conſider men as El…ct or Reprobates, or as believers or unbelievers, but as righteous or ſinners. The Law will not ceaſe to threaten and condemn believers as long as they live.
Anſ. It ſeems then that the elect and believers are as much under the§. 2. condemnation of the Law, as reprobates and unbelievers: the Law (if I underſtand theſe words) condemning no man effectually, that is, holding no man guilty, ſo that he ſhall need to fear condemnation by the Law, unleſſe there be ſome other more effectual cauſe of his condemnation: though the Law condemne him for as much as in it lies, or to the utmoſt of its power, or in ſom reſpect only, but not ſimply and univerſally. This (I think) is the meaning of theſe words: but becauſe there may be ſome other myſtery under them, which I am not able to reach, I ſhall ſet down my anſwer by way of queſtion. 1. Whether the elect and believers be not in as much danger of hell fire, as the reprobate and unbelievers? If it be ſaid (as I ſuppoſe it muſt) that the danger of both is equal by the Law, (though ſome other act of God put a difference betwixt them) I would ask, 2. What is that curſe of the Law, which Chriſt hath redeemed us from? for if the Law condemn only for its own part, or foraſmuch as in it lies, but never had power to hold the ſinner under an obligation to wrath, neither was there any need that Chriſt ſhould die to redeem us from the curſe of that Law: nor can we be redeemed, becauſe the Law hath the very ſame power over us after his death, yea, and after our faith, as it had before, even by Mr. Eyres conceſſion: for it condemnes all men equally without diſtinction. 3. Whether the Law do condemn any man at all? yes (will it be ſaid) ſo far as its power reacheth, which is thus far: that he that tranſgreſſeth the Law, can expect no benefit by the Law, or he forſeits his right to life and bleſſedneſſe, by that Law which he hath tranſgreſſed. Nevertheleſſe he may at the ſame time have right to life by ſome other act of God: But 1. Is that ſaying true or falſe, Curſed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them? I will not ſo much as ſuſpect that any man that is called a Chriſtian, will ſay there was no truth in that threatening: and if there be truth in it, then he that tranſgreſſeth the Law is in a curſed eſtate (till at laſt he be delivered from it, through faith in the blood of Chriſt): and if he be curſed, then ſurely the Law hath more power over him, then to deprive him of his right to life, as to any help it ſelf can afford him. He is curſed who hath no right at all to life: if he hath no right by the Law, yet is he never a whit the more miſerable for that, as long as he hath right by any other act of God. 2. And if he hath no right by any other act, yet is he not condemned. The Law indeed doth its part towards his condemnation: but it ſeemes, it condemnes him no farther, then that as if there be no other act that condemnes him more effectually, the ſinner remaines uncondemned notwithſtanding: for to be condemned by the Law, is not to be condemned ſimply in Mr. Eyres ſenſe; for believers themſelves (according to him) are condemned by the Law, who yet are not ſimply condemned; ſomething more of this notion we muſt ſpeak by and by.
But the Aſſumption is that againſt which Mr. Eyre makes the moſt§. 3. profeſſed oppoſition, namely, that all the world is under condemnation before faith. This Mr. Eyre denies. And why?
Becauſe it was the Will of God that none of the elect ſhould periſh or be condemned.
Anſw. True: not executively. But Mr. Eyre knows, we put a difference between periſhing and condemnation in this debate: and that by condemnation we mean, not the execution of puniſhment or wrath, but a legal obligation to the ſuffering of it. And though God did purpoſe that the elect ſhould not periſh, or be condemned executively, & quoad eventum: yet ſhould Mr. Eyre prove, that he purpoſed that the elect ſhould not ſtand obliged equally with other ſinners, for ſome time, to the ſuffering of wrath. This if he prove, I will yield the cauſe. The purpoſe of God in it ſelfe makes no difference between men, whoſe cauſe is the ſame before the juſt and impartial Judge. Do we not know that a Prince may purpoſe to ſave the life of a Malefactour, againſt whom notwithſtanding the Law is in force, and judgement proceeds, and ſentence paſſeth, and the man thereby as much obnoxious to death, as any other Melefactours, till ſome other act of the Prince, beſides his meer purpoſe, interpoſe and prevent his death? But of this we have ſpoken largely already.
The Aſſumption, namely, that all the world is under condemnation§. 4. before faith; I proved from the expreſſe teſtimony of the Lord Jeſus, John 3. 18. He that beleeveth not, is condemned already. That is (ſaith Mr. Eyre) He that never believeth, as chap. 8. 24. If you beleeve not (i. e. not at all) you ſhall die in your ſins. Our Saviour had no intent at all to ſhew the ſtate of the elect before believing: but the certain and inevitable miſery of them that beleeve not, by reaſon of the ſentence of the Law that had paſſed upon them. All the reſt of the anſwer conſents well enough with that Explication of the text which I gave in my Sermon.
Rep. Firſt, for that which is pretended to be our Lords intent in theſe words, let me intreat thee (Reader) to peruſe and ponder the text; for I think thou ſhalt hardly meet with the like abuſe of the Oracles of God, in any Authour that acknowledgeth the Divinity of Scriptures, ver. 14. As Moſes lift up the Serpent in the wilderneſſe, ſo muſt the Son of man be lifted up, ver. 15. That whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhould not periſh, but ſhould have everlaſting life, ver. 16. for God ſo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Sonne, that whoſoever believeth on him, ſhould not periſh, but ſhould have everlaſting life, ver. 17. for God ſent not his Sonne into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be ſaved, ver. 18. He that beleeveth, is not condemned: he that beleeveth not, is condemned already, &c. Thou ſeeſt (Reader) that the words contain a moſt ſerious and faithful teſtimony to a ſinful world, that though they had brought upon themſelves eternal miſeries, yet God had ſent his Sonne into the world, not to condemn the world, but to ſave them: and if any man periſh, 'tis not for want of a ſufficient remedy provided in the death of Chriſt, but for their own wilful refuſal to embrace and make uſe of it: as himſelfe tells us, ver. 19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkneſſe rather then light. Now what ſayes Mr. Eyre? why he will have us beleeve, that the Lords intention is quite againſt his expreſſion, and that he is come to teſtifie to the world, that their miſery is certain and inevitable, by reaſon of the ſentence of the Law that had paſſed upon them. It is time to burne our Bibles, if ſuch gloſſes as theſe muſt be received for truth. 2. If the miſery of thoſe that beleeve not be inevitable, by reaſon of the ſentence of the Law, how is this to be underſtood? either that the Law paſſed ſentence upon them as unbelievers: (but this I ſuppoſe is too unreaſonable to be affirmed:) or that the ſame men, who afterwards prove unbelievers, were before ſentenced by the Law to certain and unavoidable miſery. But then their unbeliefe contributed nothing to make their miſery unavoidable: whereas our Lord chargeth the unavoidableneſſe of miſery upon wilful unbelief, ver. 19. This is the condemnation, (not that men are in darkneſſe) but that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkneſſe rather then light. Were it not for this, men might do well enough, notwithſtanding all that the Law had done againſt them. Ergo, miſery is not made certain and inevitable to any by the Law, before unbelief be added. 3. Mr. Eyre told us but now, that the Law condemned all men equally (that's the ſenſe of his words, if there be any ſenſe in them.) The Law (ſaith he) doth not conſider men as elect or reprobate (I know not how it ſhould: for the Law is neither God, nor man, nor Angel) as believers or unbelievers, &c. how comes it then to paſſe that miſery ſhould be made unavoidable to one, and not to another by the ſame Law?
Next, we ſhall enquire into Mr. Eyres Expoſition of ver. 18.§. 5. He that beleeveth not is condemned already; that is, (ſaith he) he that never beleeveth, which is not only gratis dictum, ſpoken without ſo much as a pretence of Reaſon, but is manifeſtly inconſiſtent with the text. Indeed condemnation is executed upon none, but final unbelievers: but unbelievers in the text are to be underſtood generally of all unbelievers whatſoever, and not to be confined to final unbelievers. 1. Such unbelievers are here meant, who are part of that world into which Chriſt is ſent: for after the Lord had ſaid, ver. 17. God ſent not his Sonne into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world by him might be ſaved; He diſtributes this world into two parts, Beleevers and Unbeleevers, ver. 18. He that beleeveth, is not condemned: he that believeth not, is condemned already. But final unbeleevers as ſuch, are no part of that world into which Chriſt is ſent: for a final unbeleever is he that dies in unbelief: if he beleeve but one minute before his death, he is not a final unbeleever. And Chriſt is not ſent to the dead, but to the living. 2. Such unbelievers are here meant whom Chriſt was ſent to ſave, ver. 16, 17. But Chriſt was not ſent to ſave final unbelievers as ſuch. Ergo, ſuch unbelievers are not here meant. 3. We have alſo mention of a double condemnation in the text: one which Chriſt findes men under when he comes into the world, and which he comes to deliver them from, ver. 17, 18. The other which men are left under for final unbelief, and rejecting of Chriſt the light of life, ver. 19. This is the condemnation, &c. for Chriſt could not finde men condemned for a final rejecting of him, till he had been preached and tendered to them. Ergo, they that beleeve not, ver. 18. are unbeleevers in general. 4. The condemnation here ſpoken of, is that which is avoidable (and is actually avoided) by beleeving. Ergo, it is not the condemnation of final unbeleevers. The Antecedent I proved in my Sermon, from ver. 36. He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him; implying, that the wrath of God by the Law is upon every ſinner (for he is condemned already) yet not ſo neceſſarily and remedileſly, but that by beleeving he may eſcape it: but if he beleeves not, then it abides on him. To this Mr. Eyre tells me, That to ſay the place hints, there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing, is but an attempt to ſuborne the Spirit to ſerve our turne. A ſhort way of anſwering Arguments. yContra Crell. p. 452, 453.This very interpretation doth Eſſenius vindicate at large againſt Mr. Eyres friends (in the point of eternal reconciliation) the Socinians: and urgeth the ſignificancy of the Greek word foreign abideth, according to its conſtant uſe in Scripture: though I ſtand not ſo much upon the bare word. The ſame interpretation doth zTract. 14. in Joan. Non dicit, Ira dei venit ad eum, ſed manet ſuper eum &c.Auguſtine give of it, and many others, Proteſtants and Papiſts. Chemnitius, aAnalyſ. in loc.Piſcator, Aretius, Beza, Dyke, Janſenius, Tolet, Ferus, &c. Who being ſuch profeſſed enemies in religion, cannot be rationally ſuſpected of a confederacy againſt the Spirit. I had thought a Miniſter might have ſaid, not only to each man diſtributively, but to the whole world collectively (if he were able to ſpeak to their hearing) believe in the Lord Jeſus and you ſhall be ſaved, without being guilty of ſuborning the Spirit to ſerve his own turne. And yet ſurely in ſo ſaying he doth more then hint, that the wrath of God may be eſcaped by believing.
5. And that I do not erre in the meaning of the holy Ghoſt, I am yet farther convinced, becauſe the Lord came not into the world to§. 6. give life ſimply, but to give ſalvation, v. 17. that is, to give life to them that were dead. Ergo, they whom he ſaves were dead, de jure or de facto: as the Apoſtle argues, 2 Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead. And to be dead in Law, is to be under condemnation. Now whom doth Chriſt ſave? not final unbeleevers, but ſuch as are unbeleevers for a time only: Ergo, they who are now beleevers, were ſometime under condemnation, or elſe Chriſt never ſaved them. If they are only condemned in themſelves, or by the Law (in that diminutive reſpective ſenſe in which Mr. Eyre uſeth that phraſe) they are never a whit the more in danger of periſhing for that, and therefore not capable of being ſaved properly. 6. The compariſon which our Lord propoſeth, v. 14, 15. and upon which this whole diſcourſe dependeth, puts it yet farther out of doubt. As Moſes lifted up the ſerpent in the wilderneſſe, even ſo muſt the Sonne of man be lifted up, that whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhould not periſh, but have eternal life. Concerning which words we deba…e more particularly under the third generall Argument following: and therefore here I ſhall only make ſome brief obſervations upon the co…pariſon, and paſſe on. 1. As then the people for whom the ſerpent was lifted up, were all mortally ſtung of the fiery ſerpents (ſee the ſtory it ſelf, Numb. 21. 6, 7, 8, 9.) So is all the world become ſubject to condemnation through ſin, (for the people that were ſtung in the type, are the world in the Antitype: and their mortal wound there, is condemnation here, by our Lords own expoſition, v. 16, 17, 19.) 2. That as the ſerpent was by Gods appointment lifted up in the wilderneſſe, that whoſoever looked on him might be healed of the mortal bites of the fiery ſerpent and live: ſo is the Sonne of man lifted up, that whoſoever beleeveth on him ſhould not periſh, but ſhould have everlaſting life, by Gods appointment in like manner, v. 15, 16. 3. That as the ſerpent was not lifted up to deſtroy any of the people (for they were mortally wounded before) but to heale them: ſo Chriſt was not ſent into the world to condemn the world (for they are condemned already) but to ſave them. v. 17. 4. Yet they that looked not on the ſerpent ſo lifted up, did thereby procure unto themſelves a certaine death (becauſe it was to be abſolutely unavoydable by any other means whatſoever:) ſo they that beleeve not on the Sonne of God, but love darkneſſe rather then light, do thereby procure to themſelves certaine and remedileſſe condemnation, v. 18, 19. There remaining no more ſacrifice for ſin, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, Heb. 10. 29. Hence I deduce theſe four Corollaries. 1. That condemnation lyes upon all men, (without difference) for ſin. 2. Yet there is a remedy and way of eſcape from this condemnation revealed in the Goſpel. 3. That the way to eſcape condemnation, is to beleeve on Jeſus Chriſt. 4. The contempt of Chriſt by poſitive unbelief, makes condemnation unavoidable. Ergo, every man in the world, whiles an unbeleever, or ſo long as he continues in unbelief, is under condemnation.
And as to the Text which Mr. Eyre brings in for illuſtration,§. 7. Joh 8. 24. If you beleeve not, you ſhall die in your ſins: I conſent to Mr. Eyres interpretation, that the meaning is; if you beleeve not at all, or if you never beleeve, you ſhall die in your ſins. And it informes us in the truth of thoſe two things, which I have been hitherto contending for. 1. That becauſe of their ſins, they became lyable to eternall death. 2. That yet their condemnation was not peremptory and irrevocable, unleſſe to all their other ſins they added unbelief final; for if at any time they did beleeve, they ſhould eſcape that wrath which was due to them for ſinne. As when Paul ſaies, Act. 27. 31. Except theſe men abide in the ſhip, you cannot be ſaved. He ſhews them that they were in eminent danger of periſhing in the waters: and yet that they might be ſafe enough if the men aforeſaid continued in the ſhip. That place therefore makes againſt Mr. Eyre altogether.
SECT. II.
BEfore we ſpeak any further of this place, we muſt attend M.§. 8. Eyre, who interpoſeth another Text which I mentioned (not under this, but) under the former Argument, to the ſame purpoſe, and that is Eph. 2. 3. Where the Apoſtle tells the Epheſians (whom God had choſen to eternall life, chap. 1. 4.) that they were by nature children of wrath as well as others.
Mr. Eyre anſwers. 1. That the Text doth not ſay that God did condemn them, or that they w…re under condemnation before converſion.
Rep. This might have been ſpared, if this text had been anſwered in the place where I produced it: and ſo it may yet, for wrath and condemnation often ſignifie one and the ſame thing in Scripture, Joh. 3. 19, 36. 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Rom. 1. 17, 18. & 2. 5. with Rom. 8. 1, 34. And to the ſame ſenſe doth Mr. Eyre himſelf expound it in his maine anſwer, which is this.
By nature, or in reference to their ſtate in the firſt Adam they were children of wrath, they could expect nothing but wrath and fiery indignation from God. Yet this hindred not, but that by grace they might be the children of his love: for ſo all the elect are while they are in their blood and pollution, Ezek. 16. 4, 8. The Lord calls them his ſonnes and children before converſion. Iſa. 43. 6. and 53. 11. and 8. 18. Heb. 2. 9. For it is not any inherent qualification, but the good pleaſure of God that makes them his children. Eph. 1. 5. Rom. 8. 29. Joh. 17. 6. Elect children have the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to them, though they know it not: and I know no reaſon (ſaith he) why it ſhould not be imputed to the reſt of the elect before converſion.
Rep. Two things I have here to do. 1. To ſhew what the Apoſtles§. 9. ſenſe is in theſe words. 2. What is Mr. Eyres ſenſe, and how inconſiſtent with the Apoſtles. 1. When the Apoſtle ſaies we were by nature children of wrath: by foreign nature, I underſtand their whole naturall condition, from their very firſt originall, wherein they began to be the children of Adam, unto the time of their converſion unto Chriſt. And ſo his meaning is, that during the whole time of their naturall unregenerate eſtate, they were under an obligation to eternal puniſhment, for the ſinfulneſſe of their nature and (bper foreign, hoc in loco intelligi foreign ait Suidas in verbo foreign ad finem) lives. That this is his meaning is manifeſt, not only from this verſe, [Amongſt whom we all had our converſatiou in times paſt, in the luſts of our fleſh fulfilling the deſires of the fleſh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others]: and from the words following, v. 4, 5. [But God, when we were dead in ſins hath quickened us together with Chriſt:] but alſo from that other place, altogether parallel to this. Coloſ. 2. 13. [And you being dead in your ſins and the uncircumciſion of your fleſh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all treſpaſſes.] (cVide Eſthium, Davenan…, B… zam, D…odat. Hemming. alios.) Expoſitors are agreed, that by the uncircumciſ…on of the fleſh is meant the ſinfulneſſe and corruption of nature: and therefore by comparing the places together it is manifeſt, that for the ſinfulneſſe of their nature and converſation (the two parts of the naturall man) the Apoſtle pronounceth theſe Epheſians to have been in times paſt children of wrath and damnation, no leſſe then any other.
Now for Mr. Eyre, we muſt a little enquire what is his meaning,§. 10. when he ſays that beleevers were children of wrath, namely by nature or in reference to their ſtate in the firſt Adam: and againe, that conſidered in themſelves, and as they come from the loynes of Adam they are ſinful and curſed creatures. Which being to be underſtood in a diminutive ſenſe only, & ſecundum quid (for Mr. Eyre will not allow us to inferre, that becauſe they are under wrath by nature, Ergo, they are under wrath ſimply: nor becauſe they are curſed in themſelves, Ergo, they are curſed ſimply) muſt therefore be extended no farther, then may conſiſt with a ſtate of bleſſedneſſe and freedom from wrath, which the ſame perſons are in at the ſame time. And ſo the meaning is, that there is in every man (even the elect themſelves) naturally, and as they are the children of Adam, ſufficient ground and matter of condemnation: though they never ſtand actually condemned (either in reſpect of their obligation to, or the execution of puniſhment) becauſe of the grace of God preventing and hindring it. Even as he ſaid before, that the Law condemned the elect (whom yet he denies to be ever condemned ſimply) by the word condemneth (a verbe of active ſignification) expreſſing, not the effect which the Law produceth (for it is impoſſible men ſhould be condemned and not condemned both at once) but the faculty, power and virtue that is in the Law to condemne ſinners, if the Act of it were not hindred and bound up by grace. Thus do we often ſpeak in ordinary diſcourſe, as when we ſay Rhubarbe purgeth Choler: not relating to the actual operation of it (though the verb be of active ſignification) but to the virtue of it for ſuch an operation: and light makes all things manifeſt: relating ſtill to the faculty and property of it, not to the Act or exerciſe: for the words may be ſpoken at midnight. And as in theſe and the like expreſſions, the verbe active ſignifieth, not the Act or preſent influx of the cauſe, but the power and virtue of it: ſo when it is ſaid, that a man is accurſed, condemned in himſelf, or by nature, or the like; the verbs paſſive do not note the effect wrought and exiſting, but the morall capacity of a perſon to be the object of condemnation: nothing on his part hindring it, but rather preparing and diſpoſing him for it.
This (if any thing) being Mr. Eyres ſenſe, we are next to ſhew§. 11. that it is altogether inconſiſtent with the Apoſtles meaning in this text. And that appears. 1. From that the Apoſtle doth not ſay, we are the children of wrath by nature: but, we were the children of wrath by nature, namely in times paſt, as he doth twice expreſſe himſelfe, v. 2, 3. plainly oppoſing the time preſent to the time paſt, wherein they were children of wrath, but now were ceaſed to be ſo. Whereas, according to the ſenſe which Mr. Eyre puts upon the words, it is impoſſible that a ſinner ſhould be delivered from being a child of wrath, either in this world or in the world to come. Even glorified Saints, conſidered according to what they are by nature, or in themſelves, or in reference to their ſtate in the firſt Adam, are children of wrath, and ſo they remaine to all eternity. 2. The phraſe here uſed (as Beza well obſerves) children of wrath, is borrowed from the Hebrews; who are wont to call him foreign a ſonne of death, who is deſigned or adjudged to die, or hath contracted upon himſelf an obligation unto death, without any preſent actuall reverſion: as he that is found guilty of ſtripes, and adjudged to be beaten, is called a ſonne of ſtripes. Deut. 25. 2. ſee alſo 1 Sam. 20. 31. and 2 Sam. 12. 5. Pſal. 102. 20. Therefore the ſame phraſe applied here to the elect in their unbelief, notes, that they were then under ſuch an ordination to death, as did exclude their preſent (dC ram Deo damnati. Calvin) pardon and abſolution: They that were pardoned, were children of life, not of death. 3. We were alſo children of wrath (ſaith the Apoſtle) even as others. Will it be ſaid that all the world are children of wrath by nature; but by grace juſtified, and children of life at the ſame time? If not, it muſt be yeelded that the elect and reprobate are both equally under the ſame condemnation, both equally obnoxious to eternall puniſhment, ſo long as they continue equally in a natural unregenerate condition. 4. The parallel place before-mentioned, Col…ſ. 2. 13. confirmes all I have ſaid. And you being dead in your ſinnes, and the uncircumciſion of your fleſh, hath he quickned together with him, having forgiven you all your treſpaſſes. Beleevers then themſelves were ſometimes dead, that is, under condemnation, and ſo under it, as that they were then without remiſſion of ſins, for their quickning is by remiſſion: and nothing is quickned except it be dead.
That the elect, though children of wrath by nature, may yet at the§. 12. ſame time be the objects of love, is nothing to the purpoſe, till that love be proved to be their juſtification: which we have before diſproved. 2. That the elect are called the children of God before converſion; I cannot conceive how it is proved from any or all the texts mentioned: if Mr. Eyre had formed any Argument from them, it ſhould have had an anſwer. Nevertheleſſe, I acknowledge that elſewhere in Scripture they are ſo called, but metonymically: not becauſe they are children properly (for the relation of father and children, ſuppoſeth the exiſtence of the terms on both ſides related: take away one, and the other alſo is taken away); but becauſe they were deſigned and predeſtinated to be children: according to that of the Apoſtle, Eph. 1. 5. Having predeſtinated us to the Adoption of children by Jeſus Chriſt to himſelf. Even as the Lord tells Paul, Act. 18. 10. That he had much people in Corinth: that is, many who were to be made his people by Pauls miniſtery, though before they were not his people, 1 Pet. 2. 10. And as God calls Cyrus his ſhepherd, Iſa. 44. 28. Two hundred years before he was borne: becauſe he was deſigned to ſuch an employment: and ſo he is called, not from what he was, but from what he was to be: as on the contrary, others ſometimes are named, not from what they are, but from what they had been in times paſt. Matth. 21. 31. Publicans and harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before you: that is, ſuch as had been ſo. 3. That it is the good pleaſure of God, and not any inherent quali…cation in us, which makes us his children; if it be meant of children by Adoption, and of that good pleaſure of God, which is a temporal tranſient Act, is true. But it ſhould have been proved, that the ſaid good pleaſure of God makes us his children without any inherent qualifications in us. The Scriptures tell us that we are the children of God by faith. Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. and 4. 5. &c. 4. I alſo yeeld that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is imputed to infants though they know it not: and that ſo it is alſo to multitudes of grown Chriſtians. But it ſhould be proved that ſuch infants are uncapable of the habit of faith: or that their parents faith doth not ſupply their incapacity, as to their juſtification: of which more hereafter.
SECT. III.
IN the next place Mr. Eyre gives us an account in what ſenſe the elect, though freed from wrath and condemnation, may yet§. 13. be ſaid to be under it: namely, in regard the Law doth terrifie and affright their conſciences, Rom. 4. 15. In which reſpect it is called a miniſtration of wrath and death, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9.
Anſw. Whether Mr. Eyres intent in this undertaking be to give another expoſition of the elects being children of wrath, I cannot tell. If it be, he muſt quit the former: for this will not conſiſt with that. There he told us the elect were children of wrath, that is, by nature, or in themſelves, or in reference to their ſtate in the firſt Adam: abſtracting or rather preſcinding from any effect of wrath that ever was, or was to be upon them. But here they are children of wrath in reference to the effects of wrath in their conſciences. 2. When he ſayes, the Law is called a miniſtration of death and condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9. becauſe it did terrifie and affright the conſcience: if he mean that this is the only reaſon why it is ſo called, as if it did not condemn perſons as well as their conſciences, I deny it altogether. Death and condemnation, when they expound one another (as there they do) ſignifie that of the perſon, and not of the conſcience only, Rom. 5. 16, 17. 3. In like manner when the Law is ſaid to work wrath, Rom. 4. 15. I deny it to be meant meerly of horrour of conſcience: but principally of that wrath which excludes them from a right to the heavenly inheritance, which right is given by the promiſe, v. 14. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the w…rkes of the Law are under the curſe.
Mr. Eyre proceeds. The wrath of God ha…h a threeſold acception§. 14. in Scripture. 1. It ſignifies the moſt juſt and immutable will of God, to inflict upon men the puniſhment which their ſins ſhall deſerve. 2. It notes the threatnings of the Law, Rom. 1. 18. Pſal. 6. 1. Hoſ. 11. 9. Jon. 3. 9. 3. The execution of thoſe threatnings, Eph. 5. 6. Luk. 21. 23. Matth. 3. 7. The elect are under wrath in the ſecond ſenſe only.
Anſw. If the firſt ſenſe be a Scripture-ſenſe, why have we not one word of Scripture to juſtifie it? The reaſon's ready, becauſe that will of God, which we are wont to call Reprobation, is neither wrath, nor an Act of wrath in Scripture language. 2. When Mr. Eyre grants that the elect are ſubject to the threatnings and comminations of the Law, he explaines himſelf thus. The threatnings of the Law do ſeize upon and arreſt their conſciences as well as others: the Law as a rigid Schoole-maſter, doth never leave to whip and laſh them untill they fly unto Chriſt.
I asked then. 1. Whether that paine and anguiſh of Spirit which the elect (whiles unbeleevers) feele, be any part of the evil threatned in the Law? If it be (as moſt undoubtedly it is) then Mr. Eyre contradicts himſelf in ſaying the elect are under the threatnings of the Law, but not under the execution of them. If it be not, he contradicts himſelf againe, in ſaying the Law doth whip and laſh them. It is not the Law that torments them, but ſomewhat elſe (what it is I cannot tell) if their torment be none of that evil which the Law threatneth. 2. I would ask alſo, what power there is in theſe arreſts of the Law to make them fly to Chriſt? If by repreſenting to them that they are under condemnation till they lay hold on Chriſt by faith, then they are under condemnation till they believe: which Mr. Eyre will not heare of. If only that they are damnable in themſelves (as he doth afterwards expreſſe himſelf) they are as lyable to ſuch an arreſt of the Law, after they believe, as before, even by Mr. Eyres conceſſion. And that word is not like to move a ſinner very haſtily to ſeek a change of his condition, which will purſue him as much after his condition is changed as before.
When it is ſaid that the elect are never under the execution of the§. 15. threatnings of the Law, that is, that the puniſhments threatned in the Law, are never executed upon them; if it be meant of the puniſhments reſerved to the world to come, it is true: but if it be meant of thoſe which are proper to this life, it is utterly falſe, Iſa. 57. 17. and 47. 6. and 54. 7, 8. Job 36. 7, 11, 12. Rom. 5. 12. and 8. 10, 20, 21, 23. 1 Cor. 11. 30, 31, 32. and 15. 22, 26. Jam. 5. 15, 16. 1 Joh. 5. 16. and hundreds of other places.
And this ſection I have written to follow Mr. Eyre: what is his intent in all this himſelf beſt knows. His concluſion is, that the conſciences of the elect before faith are under wrath, not their perſons, (though it be a rule in Logick, that (e) omnis actio & paſſio eſt proprie totius compoſiti: and therefore to ſay the conſcience is under wrath,e Vid. Ameſ. Theſ. Log. th… 76 in diſtinction from the perſon, is none of the neateſt expreſſions) and then tells his reader, that againſt this I have ſeveral exceptions. Whereas I never excepted againſt it at all in the generall, but onelyonly as not being ſutable to that particular text in John 3. 18. Which I had urged to prove, that all unbelievers are in a ſtate of condemnation. Nor doth Mr. Eyre anſwer this text by this diſtinction (though I think I was informed that he was wont ſo to do: which was the reaſon that I laid in the following Arguments againſt it) and therefore Mr. Eyre might have ſpared his paines of attempting to anſwer the ſaid Arguments, as not prejudicing that interpretation which he gives of the text. Nevertheleſſe it may be uſefull to examine his anſwers.
SECT. IV.
THe firſt Argument then proving that the condemnation mentioned,§. 16. Joh. 3. 18. cannot be meant of condemnation in conſcience meerly, was this. The condemnation which the unbelievers there ſpoken of are under, is the condemnation of the Law: which pronounceth all men guilty, not only in their own conſcience, but before God. Rom. 3. 19.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, that the voyce or ſentence of the Law, ſhews not who are condemned of God, but who are guilty and damnable in themſelves, if God ſhould deal with them by the Law. But the elect are diſcharged from this rigorous Court, their cauſe is judged at another Bar.
Rep. The words of the text are theſe. Whatſoever the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law, that every mouth may be ſtopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. The thing which I inferre from this Text compared with Joh. 3. 18. (for illuſtration of which I mentioned it) is this. That every unbeliever (elect, or not elect) ſtands guilty, that is obliged to puniſhment in the ſight or judgement of God, and not only of his own conſcience. Which to be the true ſenſe of the place, is manifeſt from the importance of the Greek word foreign which we render guilty: not only as being the ſame with the Hebrew foreign which properly ſignifies a debt orf Vid. Eli. Thisb. in verb. foreign. & Joh. S…lden. do Jure Na…. & Gent l. 1. cap. … p. 46. obligation: but alſo, as being conſtantly uſed in the ſame ſenſe in Greek Authors. Therefore gComment. Graec. Ling p. 166.Budaeus expounds it, as of the ſame ſignificancy with foreign, Qui eſt obnoxius è re judicatá: foreign. A man condemned or adjudged to puniſhment, though he have not yet ſuffered it. Accordingly Beza upon the place notes well. foreign in foreign non tantum declarat judicium quo vel …bſolvi vel damnari poſſit aliquis (hac enim ſignificatione ipſi etiam filii Dei ſunt foreign, in quibus tamen nulla eſt condemnatio) ſed foreign i. e. condemnationem declarat, ſicut foreign in foreign.
Now to what Mr. Eyre ſayes, that the Law doth only declare who§. 17. are damnable in themſelves, not who are condemned of God, it is contrary, 1. To himſelf. 2. To ſenſe. 3. To reaſon.
1. To himſelf: for remember (Reader) that I brought in this place as an explication of that in Joh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not, is condemned already. Which condemnation Mr. Eyre hath already acknowledged to be by the Law, (and makes it the condemnation of finall unbelievers onelyonly) I did rightly infer; if the condemnation there ſpoken of be that which is by the Law, then is it condemnation before God, Rom. 3. 19. (and not in conſcience only: which was the thing I was there proving.) To this Mr. Eyre tells me, the Law ſhews not who are condemned of God, but who are damnable in themſelves. How? hath it already condemned, and that remedileſly, the greateſt part of the world, and yet doth it no more then ſhew who are damnable in themſelves; not, who are condemned of God? me thinks he ſhould at laſt ſuſpect the truth of that cauſe, which doth ſo often daſh him upon contradictions. 2. To ſenſe: for I appeale to the experience of all Chriſtians, who have felt the work of the Law driving them out of themſelves to fly unto Chriſt, whether it have not convinced them, not only that they are damnable in themſelves (for that it will do after they are in Chriſt as well as before) but that they are (while out of Chriſt) condemned; that is, under an obligation and tendency to the ſuffering of wrath, and out of a ſtate of ſalvation. That it doth, ſo is manifeſt from the firſt queſtion, which a ſoul, upon whom the Law comes with power, will aske, What ſhall I do to be ſaved? Act. 2, 37. and 16. 30. A queſtion which ſuppoſeth him to be convinced by the Law that he is a condemned creature: needing, not only comfort, but ſalvation, that is, deliverance from condemnation, in which only he can be comforted. Now if this be the worke of the Law, when brought home by the power of God; then muſt it needs be moſt true that ſuch a ſoul is indeed in the ſtate of condemnation, till by faith he be paſſed from death to life: and accordingly the Law muſt be acknowledged to declare not only who are damnable in themſelves, but who are condemned of God.
It is alſo againſt reaſon: for demonſtration of which we muſt enquire,§. 18. what it is for a man to be damnable in himſelf? It implies that there is on his part, ſufficient cauſe of condemnation, though he be not actually condemned, for want of the concurrence of ſome other cauſe; but what that actuall condemnation is, which is hereby intended to be excluded, we muſt farther enquire. Condemnation (which we are forced often to obſerve) ſignifies either the ſinners obligation to puniſhment, or the execution of puniſhment: in the former ſenſe he is condemned, who by the Law is guilty of death: in the latter ſenſe, he who is actually damned, and ſuffers the puniſhment threatned. In diſtinction from one or both of theſe it is, that a man is ſaid to be damnable in himſelf: If from the former, the meaning is this: That all the world (the elect and all) have wrought that evill which were moſt ſufficient to work the forfeiture of their right to life, and make them lyable to eternal death, if there were any Law in force againſt them. If this be the ſenſe Mr. Eyre will have the Apoſtle ſpeak in, when he ſayes all the world is become guilty before God, marke what follows. 1. Then the Law neither doth, nor ever did condemn any man living: for men are ſuppoſed to be damnable, and but damnable, not actually condemned, for want of a Law in ſorce to condemn them, that is, to hold them under an obligation to puniſhment. The Law doth but ſhew its teeth (pardon the expreſſion reader) but it neither doth, nor ever did bite any man, no not the moſt preſumptuous tranſgreſſours of it: though tranſgreſſours be as fit objects as can be for the Law to take hold of, if it had power ſo to do. Hence, ſecondly, I would ask whether ever God did condemn any man: If he did, by what Act? not by the Law: that ſhews indeed who are damnable in themſelves▪ not who are condemned of God. I ſuppoſe it will be ſaid, that ſome are condemned by the eternall Act of Reprobation. …ut I leave it to Mr. Eyre to prove, that the name or nature of condemnation can agree to that Act according to Scripture: which if he cannot prove, (as ſure enough he cannot, nor all the men on earth) it muſt needs follow, that there is no ſuch thing as the condemnation of any man, according to Scripture. Againſt this ſenſe of the text I could adde much more, if I could perſwade my ſelf to think that it were needful, for the help of any man.
But it may be this damnability is oppoſed to damnation executed;§. 19. and then the meaning is, That the Law doth not ſhew whom God damneth, (that is, puniſheth with damnation) but who are damnable or puniſhable in themſelves, if God ſhould try and judge them according to the Law. But 1. This is nothing to the purpoſe. It is no part of my undertaking, to prove, that every one who at preſent is an unbeliever, is damned, as that word notes the execution of damnation, or wrath actually inflicted: but that he is condemned, that is, under a legal obligation to puniſhment, till ſome gracious act of God diſcharge him. When therefore Mr. Eyre oppoſeth, that men are not condemned by the Law, but damnable; he fights with a ſhadow: for he that is damnable (executively) is condemned (legally) which is that I am proving: for it is the work of judgement to execute Laws, and to give to every man according to what is due to him by Law: if then, upon ſuppoſition that men were to be tried and judged by the Law of works, they would be found damnable: it muſt be alſo ſuppoſed, that they were before obliged by Law to the ſuffering of damnation. 2. Otherwiſe the Law is but the carcaſſe of a Law, and called a Law equivocally, as we call a dead man a man: for example. There was a Law in Iſrael, that whoſoever ſhould not humble himſelf upon the day of expiation, ſhould be cut off Lev. 16. which Law is now abrogated. Nevertheleſſe, it may be truly ſaid, that if a Jew, who now keeps not that day, were to be tried and judged by that Law, he would be found puniſhable. If it be ſaid, that Law is now abrogated, and ſo no man incurres the penalty, upon the non-obſervance of it; It is moſt true, yet may he be ſaid to be puniſhable by it in ſenſu diviſo, in the very ſame ſenſe in which Mr. Eyre allows ſinners to be damnable by the Law of works, namely, upon ſuppoſition it were in force to make the penalty due, and ſinners were to be tried and judged by it. 3. And was it not worth the while, for the Lord Jeſus to come down from heaven to redeem ſinners from the curſe of the Law, and that at no eaſier a rate, then by being made a curſe for them, when the Law never curſed or condemned any man, but only ſhews who are damnable in themſelves, if they ſhould be judged by the Law? From which way of judgement, the Elect are ſuppoſed to be ſecured by an antecedent act of God.
SECT. V.
MY ſecond Argument to prove, that the condemnation mentioned,§. 19. John 3. 18. cannot be meant meerly of condemnation in conſcience; was this. The condemnation of an unbelievers conſcience, is either true, or falſe If true, then it is according to the judgement of God, and ſpeaks as the thing is, and ſo God condemns as well as the conſcience. If falſe, &c.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, There is a threefold act of conſcience about ſin. 1. When it witneſſeth to us about the deſart of ſin. 2. When it witneſſeth to us concerning the act of ſin. 3. When it witneſſeth to us concerning our final ſtate and condition before God. Now if conſcience bear witneſſe to a man concerning what he hath done, and what is his deſart in ſo doing, it doth but its duty. But if it tell a man, that for the ſins which he hath done he is a damned creature, and muſt periſh everlaſtingly; ſuch a conſcience is both penally and ſinfully evil.
Rep. The Argument is wholly untouched. For the queſtion is not, whether an unbelievers conſcience condemn him truly in reference to his final eſtate: but whether it condemn him truly in reference to his preſent ſtate? If it tell him, that at preſent he is in a ſtate of condemnation, doth it ſpeak true, or falſe? Herein Mr. Eyre will not anſwer me, but ſaith only, that if it tell him his caſe is deſperate, and without hope, it ſpeaks falſe. I need not tell Mr. Eyre that his anſwer is impertinent: I am perſwaded he knows it well enough, conſcience may tell an unbeliever that he is condemned (and herein it ſpeaketh true) though it do not tell him that there is no way of coming out of this ſtate of condemnation, (which were falſe.) 2. The two former anſwers alſo are not much to purpoſe: for to witneſſe concerning the act and deſart of ſin, is as proper to the conſcience of a believer as of an unbeliever: whereas our queſtion is only concerning the unbelievers conſcience. And if this be the whole of what conſcience can juſtly charge upon an unbeliever, then is the believer as much ſubject to condemnation of conſcience, as the unbeliever.
Upon the ſecond branch of the Argument, there is nothing I ſhall§. 20. need reply to, ſaving only that paſſage of Mr. Eyres, That Chriſts merits will not ſave thoſe whom God doth condemne. To which I ſay, that though none other can juſtifie thoſe whom God condemnes: yet God himſelf may, and doth juſtifie thoſe whom he had before condemned; or elſe no ſonne of Adam ever was or ſhall be juſtified, Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation: even ſo by the righteouſneſſe of one, the free gift came upon all men unto Juſtification of life.
A third Argument, proving, that the condemnation mentioned,…. 21. John 3. 18. was not to be meant of condemnation in conſcience only, was, becauſe it is called the wrath which ſhall abide on unbelievers, ver. 36.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, Therefore we ſay, no elect unbeliever is condemned of God, becauſe the wrath of God doth not abide upon him.
Rep. It is yielded then, that the condemnation about which we diſpute, is not meerly condemnation in conſcience, which is as much as I ever ſought from the place: and that Mr. Eyre knows well enough. 2. We have ſhewed before that the wrath of God is upon every one that is an unbeliever at preſent, though it do not abide upon any but final unbelievers.
Laſtly, thus I argued. The condemnation here ſpoken of, is oppoſed§. 22. to ſalvation, v. 17. Ergo, it is more then condemnation in conſcience.
Mr. Eyre anſwers, That the condemnation oppoſed to ſalvation, is damnation: and then, by Mr. Eyres Argument, the Elect, becauſe they are ſometimes unbelievers, muſt all be damned.
Rep. Sure, Mr. Eyre believes not our Engliſh Proverb. As good never a whit as never the better. Salvation is ſometimes taken ſtrictly for an executive deliverance from wrath, Rom. 5. 9. And ſo none are ſaved in this life. Sometimes more largely, and ſo it containes both that compleat ſalvation, and the beginnings of it in this life, viz. that right which is given us to it in our Juſtification, Luke 19. 9. Rom. 1. 16, 17. and 10. 9, 10. He that beleeveth not, is under condemnation, as it is oppoſed to ſalvation in the latter ſenſe. The ſecond anſwer is replied to already.