A92141:55
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.
Ans. Armini. in his collation with Junius could have made this Argument stronger. But 1. The Lord by order of nature withdraws his influence, and in the same moment of time (which is of great moment) Adam sins and refuses the influence: And it follows not that Adam sins before he sins, nor follows it that Adam sins by any necessity destructive to the liberty of the will; yea, it is a necessity helping and aiding freedom, because the Lord withdraws no influence from Adam against his will, but in the same moment of time that the Lord withdraws his influence from Adam to the act, Adam withdraws his consent to the act, & virtually subscribes to the wanting of the influence of God. The Adversary is most angry at the distinction, as dark and not intelligible, and says it cannot be taught the people:1 why? The want of the influence of God by order of nature is before the virtual and interpretative merit of wanting that influence; if the virtual merit be an evil merit, malum meritum, or a sin, so it must be posterior, and later then the want of Gods influence, and not before it; but it is like a fiction, that there be two demerits in Adams sin, one culpable, another unculpable. Ans. 1. It is still said by me, that the want of divine influence, by order of nature is before Adam's sin. 2. It is not theologically spoken, that the merit of sin reatris penae is sin or evil; it's a fiction that the merit of sin is either culpable or unculpable, it's rather good, and an obligation to wrath, and a consequent of sin, and is not sin. No merit of reward is either formally obedience, but posterior to obedience; nor is a merit or demerit of punishment is formally sin, but posterior to sin. Christ is liable to punishment for our sins, and as an engaged surety debet puniri ought to be punished for our sins that were laid on him, Isa. 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. but there was formally and inherently no sin in Christ, nor any evil, or any thing culpable in Christ. 3. Adam's virtual consenting to want the influence of God was his very first sin formally; he who refuses to stand, and wilfully falls, he virtually refuses a staff or a pillar to lean upon; he who formally wanders, he virtually hates his guide ⟨image 16⟩