This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
HAving now asserted the antecedency of faith to Justi∣fication, from many expresse testimonies of Scri∣pture, and discovered the fruitlesnesse of all Mr. Eyres attempts against them; We proceed to the Vindication of the Reasons added in my Sermon, for proof of the same point. These Mr. Eyre undertakes in his tenth Chapter. They are five in number: and the first is this.
If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word, which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief, then no unbelieving sinner is justified. But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word that may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he remains in unbelief. Ergo.
Mr. Eyre first denies the Assumption;
For the Gospel declares that God hath transacted all the sins of the Elect on Jesus Christ: and that he by his offering hath made a full and perfect atone∣ment for them, whereby they are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old, carnal Israel were typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest, Lev. 16. 30.
Rep. 1. Supposing the tenour of the Gospel or New Covenant to be such a declaration as this: yet I deny, that this declaration hath the forme or force of a Law, to absolve the sinner from the sen∣tence of a former Law. The Reason's plain, because it is but nar∣ratio rei gestae, a meer historical narration of what hath been trans∣acted between God and Christ. And doth not Mr. Eyre see, that if he yield it to have the nature and operation of a Law in discharg∣ing sinners, he contradicts himself in his next answer? wherein he denies, that Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared act, that is, by a Law. Indeed, such a Gospel as he here speaks of, may declare the sinner to be discharged by some former act: but it selfe cannot be his discharge, and therefore the answer is nothing to the purpose. 2. The atonement made by Christ, may be said to be perfect two wayes. 1. In respect of it self, and so it was most perfect, as wanting nothing that was requisite to constitute or make it a compleat cause of our peace. 2. In reference to its effects, and so it is yet imperfect, and shall continue so till the Saints be glorified, because till then they shall not have the full effect, or perfection of peace, purchased in the death of Christ. If Mr Eyre mean this latter sense, when he sayes the Gospel declares a full and perfect a∣tonement made by Christ: he begs the question. In the former I grant it. 3. And so that the Elect were cleansed from their sins in the death of Christ quoad impetrationem, because he obtained eter∣nal redemption and cleansing for them; but not quoad applicationem, till they do beleeve, because the remission purchased in the death of Christ, is not applied or given to us till we believe. 4. Though the Priest made an atonement for all the sins of Israel upon the day of ex∣piation, Lev. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themselves, and humbling their soules on that day, ver. 23.
otherwise they should have no benefit by that atonement, Lev. 23. 29. Whatsoever soule shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. Is not this to teach us, that without faith and repentance, we shall not have remission by the death of Christ?
Secondly, Mr. Eyre denies the Proposition; which stands upon this ground, That Justification is the discharge of a sinner, by a pub∣lished declared act.
Where note (Reader) that by a declared act, I mean, not an act of God, declaring and manifesting to a sinner that he is justified (as Mr. Eyre doth willingly mistake me, and thereupon patcheth a non∣sequitur upon me, which I intend not to unstitch) but such a decla∣ration of his will, as is essential to make it a Law; for the very es∣sence of a Law consisteth in this, that it is the declared will of the Law-giver, Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. which is the only rule that determines, both de debito officii, of what shall be our duty to do, and de debito poenae & praemii, of what rewards or penalties shall become due to us. Accordingly, the thing I maintain is, that our discharge from punishment due by Law, must be by the revealed will, that is, by some contrary Law or Con∣stitution of God. And I very well remember, that in private confe∣rence with Mr. Eyre, about nine or ten yeares since, I told him my judgement was so then: and that our Divines were generally dark, in opening the nature of Justification, for want of taking notice of it: to which he then consented. But Tempora mutantur, &c. the thing it self I thus proved.
Sin is not imputed where there is no Law, Rom. 5. 13. Ergo, nei∣ther is righteousnesse imputed without Law.
Mr. Eyre answers, 1.
Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves, where there is not a Law to convince them of it, yet God may: for his hating of a person, is his imputing of sin. The scope of Rom. 5. 13. is not to shew when God be∣gins to impute sin to a person, but that sin in being supposeth a Law: and consequently, that there was a Law before the Law of Moses.
Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre indeed think, that when it is said, Sin is not imputed where there is no Law, the meaning should be, men will not impute sin to themselves where there is no Law? To impute sin hath but two senses in Scripture. 1. To punish it, 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and then the meaning is, that men will
not punish themselves where there is no Law; and because the pu∣nishment which the Apostle doth here instance in, is death: there∣fore the full sense will be this, that men will not kill themselves where there is no Law: a very probable glosse. Or 2. To accuse or charge the guilt of sin upon a person. But the use of the Word will not allow us to understand it of a mans imputing or charging sin upon himself. a For it is never used in all the Scriptures to sig∣nifie the act of a man upon himself, but perpetually the act of an∣other, as Paul to Philemon, ver. 18. If he owe thee any thing, im∣pute it to me: especially when it is put passively, as here it is, sin is not imputed. See Rom. 4. throughout. 3. And I do heartily wish Mr. Eyre would have given us a short paraphrase upon the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, that we might have seen what tolerable sense could have been made of them according to his Exposition: and whether the Apostle do affirme or deny that men did impute sin to themselves before the Law; especially if the Apostles scope be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is, namely, to shew that sin in being, suppo∣seth a Law: how can it be conducible to that scope, to speak of mens not imputing sin to themselves without a Law? 4. The grand designe of the Apostle is plainly to illustrate our salvation by Christ, by comparison of contraries: and the similitude in its full explica∣tion stands thus. As by the disobedience of Adam, sin and death en∣tred upon all his children: so by the obedience of Christ, life and righteousnesse betides all his. The Proposition is set down, ver. 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entred into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned. This is pro∣ved, ver, 13, 14. and the summe of the proof (as I take it) is this. Sin was imputed, and that unto death, from the beginning of the world. Ergo, there must be some Law in being, according to which sin was imputed: for it cannot be imputed where there is no Law, ver. 13. This Law must be either the Law of Moses, or the Law given to Adam. The former it cannot be, for sin and death were in the world long before that Law was given, even as long as from Adam to Moses, ver. 14. Ergo, it must be the Law given to Adam. And so hath the Apostle his purpose, That it was by the disobedience of one (namely Adam) that sin entred into the world, and death by sin. From whence it is manifest, that God doth never impute sin without a Law: that is, doth neither charge persons as guilty of sin, nor punish them for it (other sense the phrase of imputing sin hath none in all the Scripture) for from
the imputation of sin unto death, the Apostle infers the necessity of a Law, according to which sin was imputed in the long tract of time between Adam and Moses.
2. Gods hatred of reprobation is not his imputing of sin, as being antecedent to any act of the creature, whether good or evil, Rom. 9. 13. If Mr. Eyre think otherwise, why have we not one syllable of proof, neither from Scripture nor reason, to warrant us to call the acts of God by such new names as they were never known by be∣fore since the world was made? The Apostle prayes, that the sin of those that deserted him, be not laid to their charge, or imputed to them, 2 Tim. 4. 16. and the same sense hath the prayer of Stephen for his murderers, Acts 7. 60. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, both which suppose the imputation or non-imputation of sin to be a consequent to it, not antecedent. And against the con∣stant language of Scripture, and of all men, must we be forced, up∣on no other Authority then Mr. Eyres bare word, to beleeve the imputation of sin to be from eternity; and when the Apostle says, sin is not imputed where there is no Law; we must beleeve, (for Mr. Eyre sayes it) that the meaning is, There is no sin where there is no Law. Briefely, if sin be imputed from eternity, men are mise∣rable from eternity, which is impossible; for he that is not, is not miserable, Mat. 26. 24.
Therefore Mr. Eyre hath a second answer, and that is,
That there is not the same reason of our being sinners, and being righteous: seeing that sin is our act, but righteousnesse is the gift of God.
Rep. What then? yet there may be, and is the same reason of im∣puting sin, and imputing righteousnesse, which are both Gods acts. It is but changing the terme, and the matter will be clear. To im∣pute righteousnesse, and not to impute sin, are termes much of the same signification with the Apostle, Rom. 4. 6, 8. Now to im∣pute sin, and to non-impute sin, are contraries, (though the latter be expressed by a negative terme) Ergo, they are both of them actions of the same kinde and common nature. Contraria sunt op∣posita sub eodem genere proximo. Ergo, there is the same reason for the one and the other, that if sin cannot be imputed without Law, then neither non-imputed.
More particularly thus I argued, that as condemnation is no se∣cret act or resolution of God to condemn, but the very voice and sentence of the Law, Cursed is he that sinneth: so on the contrary,
our Justification must be some declared sentence or act of God, which may discharge the sinner from condemnation.
Mr. Eyre answers,
That as condemnation comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam: so our Justification descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the second Adam: which New Covenant, and not the Conditional Promise, (as Mr. W. would have it) is called the Law of faith, Rom. 3. 27. and the Law of righteousnesse, Rom. 9. 31.
Rep. The reason then is acknowledged to be the same on both sides. Ergo, as condemnation is by a Law, so must Justification be, which was before denied. To what is here said for explication I reply, 1. That the former part of it supposeth that which I will never grant, nor Mr. Eyre ever prove: and that is, That there is no condemnation which comes upon sinners for moral transgressi∣ons, but by the Law given to Adam. Indeed that Law condemn∣ed him as the head of mankinde for his first disobedience: and so condemneth all his posterity for original sin. But his posterity are not concerned in those personal sins which he committed after his first transgression; nor in the condemnation which became due to him for them: no more then they are subject to condemnati∣on for one anothers sins. But that Law which was given to him at first as the common head of mankinde, and had effect upon him as such; became afterwards of meer personal obligation, both upon him and all men else, for personal, actual sins. So that no man now is, or ever was, since the first transgression subject to condem∣nation by that Law, quatenus it was given to Adam as a publick per∣son, for any personal sins of their own: but as it was obliging immedi∣ately upon each man in his own person. And therfore the Law of M••∣ses speaks more personally. Cursed is every man that continueth not in every thing which is written in the Law to do it, Gal. 3. 9, 10. And by this Law is every transgressour condemned, not with a derivative condemnation, (such I mean, as is derived, and as it were propagated from another) but such whereof every sinner in his own person is the first and immediate subject. And unto this con∣demnation is our Justification most frequently opposed in Scripture. The Argument therefore hath yet no answer, nor nothing like it. The condemnation of a sinner for his own personal sins, is an act of God, condemning by a Law: Ergo, the Justification which is op∣posed thereto, is an act of God by a Law in like manner. 2. I deny
that condemnation comes upon any man, by vertue of the Law gi∣ven to Adam, till himself be borne a childe of Adam. Ergo, from the acknowledged pnrity of reason it must follow, that no man is ju∣stified by the Covenant made with Christ, till himself be borne of Christ, that is, by faith, Gal. 3. 26. John 1. 12. 13. and 3. 5. so that in this respect the Argument is yielded. For clearing of the antecedent, note: That when it is wont to be said, we were condemned in Adam, it is not to be understood properly, but with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an As I may so say, to use the Apostles expression, in a case not much unlike, Heb. 7. 9, 10. As I may so say, Levi also paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loines of his father. Not as if we were then actually condemned, who then had no existence: for he that is not, can be no more under Law, then he that is dead and free from Law, Rom. 6. 7. and 7. 3. and condemnation by Law, being a transient act, requires an ob∣ject existent upon which it may passe. But because the very same sentence which condemned him then, takes hold without any reno∣vation of all his posterity successively unto the same condemnation. Even as when it is said, in Adam all di••. 1 Cor. 15. 22. Not as if men could die before they are borne, but because it was appointed and determined by the foresaid Law, that all borne of Adam should die, Heb. 9 27. And in this respect our spiritual being in the second Adam, is as necessary to our partaking in his righteousnesse, as our natural being in the first Adam, to our partaking in his condem∣nation.
Yea. 3. It is a great deal more necessary: and therefore I deny Mr. Eyres consequence; for though it were yielded, that condem∣nation comes on men only by the Law of Adam: yet will it by no means follow, that Justification descends to us from Christ, as the immediate effect of that Law or Covenant by which himselfe was justified. The reason is plain, because Adam represented all man∣kind, as virtually in the same obligation with himself: (b) and his of∣fence was the act of the whole humane nature, though it be not im∣puted to particular persons, till they begin to exist: and his condem∣nation was so far forth the condemnation of all mankinde, it being the very same sentence that condemneth both him and us. But Christ Jesus represented no man as in the same obligation with him∣selfe, either in his obedience or Justification: otherwise we are ju∣stified by works, or he by grace: for we must be acknowledged to have satisfied Gods justice in him, and to have merited eternal life
in him, in the very same propriety of speech, as we are said to have sinned and dyed in Adam: which I will never beleeve while I live: because it excludes grace altogether from having any hand in the justification of a sinner. The grace of our justification is usually placed in these (c) two things. 1. In that Christ was given freely of the Father for us. 2. And his obedience and ••••tisfaction accepted in our stead. But in neither of these is there any grace at all, if we have merited and satisfied in him, as we are said to sin and die or be condem∣ned in Adam. For the Law it self will allow us to make satisfaction if we are able (for it inflicts the penalty but in ord••r to satisfaction: and the punishment of sinners is not eternall, but because they can∣not satisfie by bearing it). But if we have satisfied in Christ, it seems we were able to do it. ••b esse ad posse valet consequentia. And justice it self will accept of satisfaction being performed. And as God deals not more rigorously with us in condemning us, then he did with Adam in condemning him: so neither doth he deale any whit more mercifully with us in justifying us, then he did with Christ in justifying him, if his satisfaction and justification be ours in the same sense, in which Adams sinne and condemnation is ours. How much safer is it to say with the Scripture, He is the propitiation for our sinnes, 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternall redemp∣tion for us, Heb. 9. 12. then to talke of our being in him a propitia∣tion for our owne sinnes: or of purchasing in him redemption for our selves? The conclusion is; the Law that justified Christ cannot justifie us, though the law that condemned Adam, were yeelded to be the only law that condemneth us: (which yet I have already denyed) Erg••, there must be some other Law according to which sinners are justified: and that is, that Law of grace preached in the Gospel, who∣soever beleeveth shall be saved: called the law of faith, Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteousnesse, Rom. 9. 31.
4.
No (saith Mr. Eyre) those places are to be understood of the new covenant made with Christ:not of the conditionall promise, as I would have it.
Rep. Which is spoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyres disputing, that is dictating. I acknowledge my selfe unworthy to be compared with him in any respect: yet the truth (if he think himself in the truth) is worthy of a more laborious defense then a frigid so 'tis or 'tis not so, though I may not be worthy of a better answer. I am per∣swaded himself will acknowledge that the propriety of the phrases favours me: and he doth not so much as pretend to any Argument
hat may compell me to understand them improperly. 1. For the law of faith, it is expresly opposed to the law of works. Where is boasting then? it is excluded. By what law? of works? nay, but by the law of faith. The law of works is the law that requires us to per∣forme works that we may be justified. Ergo, the law of faith is the law which requires faith unto justification; even that doctrine which manifesteth the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, without the works of the law; as he had before de∣scribed it, v. 21, 22. Thus Beza, Evangelium vocat legem fidei, id est, doctrinum quae salutem prop••nit sub conditione, si credideris—oppos••tam doctrinae quae justitiam & salutem proponit cum conditione, si omnia feceris. To the same purpose Paraeus, Aretius, Hemmingius, &c. And therefore the Apostle having said, that the law of faith excludes boasting, he addes immediatly, v. 28. we conclude there∣fore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. To put faith for Christ is such a piece of boldnesse as I dare not ad∣venture upon, as much as Mr. Eyre challength me for my forehead. The reasons are mentioned before. 2. And as for the law of righteous∣nesse. Rom. 9. 31. it is called the righteousnesse which is of faith in the very next foregoing verse, v. 30. And I would Mr. Eyre would tell us how we may otherwise make sense of the Apostle, when he sayes the Gentiles attained it by faith, v. 30. and the Jews fell short of it by stumbling at Christ through unbelief, v. 31. And a few verses below chap. 10. 6. the Apostle calls it the righteousnesse which is of faith, and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach: the voyce and tenour of which he describes, v. 9. If th••u shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: and all this in opposition to the righteousnesse of the law which the Jews sought after: the summe of which is comprehended in these words. The man that doth them shall live by them, v. 5. Hence it is manifest, that the law of righteousnesse, is that by which only righteousness is attain∣able: and that is the Gospel-promise of justifying them that be∣leeve in Jesus, though they be not able to fulfill the Law of Moses.
§. 1.
§. 2.
Vid Guil. Esthi. in loc.
§. 3.
§. 4.
§, 5.
§. 6
Vide Paul. Ferrium scho∣last. Orthod. spe c. 20 §. 3.
See the Assemb. confes. cap. 11. §. 3.
§. 7.