A92141:54
Influences of the life of grace
Influences of the life of grace. Or, A practical treatise concerning the way, manner, and means of having and improving of spiritual dispositions, and quickening influences from Christ the resurrection and the life. By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.Influences of the life of grace. Or, A practical treatise concerning the way, manner, and means of having and improving of spiritual dispositions, and quickning influences from Christ the resurrection and the life. By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of St. Andrews in Scotland.
London: printed by T.C. for Andrew Crook, 1659
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
6. Neither is it to be forgotten that the Lords saving concurrence to bring the Elect to glory, is of an higher and more excellent nature then the influence of God to Adam: For that influence to Adam was 1. connatural, and not the fruit of Christs merit, as are saving influences in Christ. 2. That influence to Adam, was not given to Adam as predestinated to obtain the Law-reward of life. I judge Adam was not predestinate to any such Law-life, but to obtain life and pardon in the satisfactory death of Christ. Nor 3. was that influence given to Adam in order to perseverance, for perseverance was commanded indeed to Adam, but it was neither promised of God to him, nor was it ever in the purpose or decree of God to bestow it on him; therefore Gods influence to Adam's obedience must be a far lower and weaker causality then the saving influences of Christ. It was said by me, that God withdrew his influence from A•am, who in the same moment was willing to want it; not that Adam formally refused it, but that materially, interpretatively, and in his actual consenting to sin he refused it. The Adversary cries out, but soft words and strong and hard Arguments were best. It is questioned (saith he) whether Adam's will to eat was before the Lords denial of his influence, 1or posterior and later then the denial, or at once (it is of no moment whether they were at once in time) they dare not say before, because then Adam had sinned before he sinned; if his will to eat be posterior to the want of God's influence, ⟨image 15⟩there is manifestly an antecedent necessity: therefore Dr. Tuiss. saith they were coexistent in the same moment of nature; and so the necessity yet stands.
6. Neither is it to be forgotten that the Lords saving concurrence to bring the Elect to glory, is of an higher and more excellent nature then the influence of God to Adam: For that influence to Adam was 1. connatural, and not the fruit of Christs merit, as are saving influences in Christ. 2. That influence to Adam, was not given to Adam as praedestinated to obtain the Law-reward of life. I judge Adam was not praedestinate to any such Law-life, but to obtain life and pardon in the satisfactory death of Christ. Nor 3. was that influence given to Adam in order to perseverance, for perseverance was commanded indeed to Adam, but it was neither promised of God to him, nor was it ever in the purpose or decree of God to bestow it on him; therefore Gods influence to Adam's obedience must be a far lower and weaker causality then the saving influences of Christ. It was said by me, that God withdrew his influence from Aam, who in the same moment was willing to want it; not that Adam formally refused it, but that materially, interpretatively, and in his actual consenting to sin he refused it. The Adversary crys out, but soft words and strong and hard Arguments were best. It is questioned (saith he) whether Adam's will to eat was before the Lords denial of his influence,