The method of grace in the justification of sinners. Being a reply to a book written by Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury: entituled, Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ, or the free justification of a sinner justified. Wherein the doctrine contained in the said book, is proved to be subversive both of law and Gospel, contrary to the consent of Protestants. And inconsistent with it self. And the ancient apostolick Protestant doctrine of justification by faith asserted. By Benjamin Woodbridge minister of Newbery.

CHAP. XI.

A reply to Mr. Eyres fifteenth Chapter: of justification in Christ as a common person. Justification not proved thereby to be before faith.

SECT. I.

WE are now come to the review of those two Arguments mentioned in my Sermon, which Mr. Eyre made use of to prove that the elect were justified before be∣leeving. The former in short I thus propo∣sed.

If we are justified in Christ, then we are justified be∣fore we beleeve. But we are justified in Christ, Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon: shewing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me, (concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account: having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prose∣cuting

his Argument) the summe is, Christ was justified in his resur∣rection, as a common person: Ergo, the elect were then justified in him.

My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct. The summe is: if justification be taken properly, I deny that we were justified in Christ: if improperly, I deny that it will follow, that we were justified before faith, because we were justified in Christs resurrection, no more then it will follow, that because we are said to be risen with Christ. Ergo, men are risen from the dead be∣fore they are borne, or dead, or while they are lying in their graves. But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces, let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it.

First then, I say we may conceive of a threefold justification. 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God, Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justifi∣cation purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ, Heb. 9. 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ: who him∣self was justified in his own resurrection, and thereby became the ex∣emplary cause of justification to beleevers, by virtue whereof them∣selves shall also be justified in due time, &c.

What says Mr. Eyre to this? 1. He infers in general, that then by my own confession, justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith. The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered, chapt. 1. §. 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God, as purchased by Christ, as exemplified in his glo∣rification; I should not count him worthy of a reply that should inferre, that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before be∣lieving. Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification, tells his Reader before hand that, That were a poore put off, because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali. Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato. When we speak of justi∣fication simply, there is no man but understands it of actual justification.

Which makes me beleeve his report concerning his book (at least some parts of it) that it had cost him but little paines: for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much. I mention justifica∣tion cum adjecto with a limitation: and in the close of my answer, oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called; and this I may not be allowed to do, because of Analogum per se po∣situm, &c.

Nextly, He speaks something on each member of the distinction, and says,

1. That which I called justification, purposed in the decree of

God is real and actual justification.

Ans. Thou hast then thy choise (Reader) whether thou wilt beleeve, the Apostle or M. Eyre. The Text quoted (Gal. 3. 8.) says thus: The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith, preached before, the Gospel unto Abraham. The justification here spoken of, is surely justification simply so called, because it is put by it self, without any Term of restraint or diminution: and M. Eyres rule is, Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato. And this justification (accor∣ding to the Apostle) was a thing foreseen: a thing that God would do▪ a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abra∣ham: all which notwithstanding, M. Eyre will have the eternal de∣cree of God to be our justification. But of this we have spoken al∣ready, as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the di∣stinction.

The great exception is against the third branch, wherein I say, that Christ in his resurrection being himself justified, became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should beleeve. I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this, as I meet with in M. Eyres answer to it.

1. (Saith M. Eyre) there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ: the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or patern of our justi••••cation.

Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term, where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person (in which he so much delights) attributed to Christ? 2. If concerning that which is equivalent; surely, the Term of an exemplary cause, is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other: for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we beare the image of the heavenly Adam, 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ, from the beginning to the end of our faith, Rom. 8. 29, 17. Now wherin we bear Christs image, therein was he an exemplary cause; for to an ex∣emplary cause no more is required then that another thing be confor∣med to it, as its image, and exist by virtue of it (which I desire the Reader to observe, because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause, as if there were no difference between them.) If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ, then he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours. And whereas M. Eyre says,

that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary, but a meritorious cause:

it is not universally true. For the resurrection and ascension of Christ

were acts of Christs as Mediatour: and yet in them he was not the me∣ritorious cause of any thing.

He proceeds thus.

It was needlesse Christ should be a patern of our justification: for this patern must be of use, either unto us, or unto God. Not to us, because we do not justifie our selves: not to God, because he needs no patern to direct him.

Rep. The disjunction is imperfect: for it was needful for the glory of Christ, as the Apostle expresly witnesseth, Rom. 8. 29. Them he al∣so did pr••d••stinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren. It is no small part of Christs glory to be the first begotten from the dead, and a person so farre advanced above all others, that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him, and in being fashioned according to his image. 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects, as if we are said to be justified in Christs resurrection as a common person: whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives, or the influence which it hath upon our justification. And whereas Mr. Eyre saies it can be of no use to us, because we do not justifie our selves, it is a strange kind of rea∣son. Cannot a soul by faith behold the certainty and glorious effects of his justification (notwithstanding all the opposition of sense and rea∣son) by looking on Christ justified as an exemplary cause, to whom himself also shall be conformed in one time?

Secondly, Mr. Eyre argues against it thus. He that pays our debts to the utmost farthing, and thereupon receives a discharge, is more then a paterne of our release.

Rep. More then a patern of our release? Is this all Mr. Eyre con∣tends for? upon what pretence then doth he oppose me? I acknow∣ledge Christ to be the meritorious cause of our release in his death, and not only the exemplary cause of it in his resurrection. As to the thing which (I think) Mr. Eyre intends, I have told him often, that Christ entred into an obligation of his own to make satisfaction for our debt: from which obligation he was discharged in his resurrecti∣on: God acquitting him, as having paid as much as was demanded. But if Christ had power to do what he would with his own; then was it in his power and his Fathers, to give us the effect of this satisfaction, when and upon what tearms they pleased: and to suspend our dis∣charge (notwithstanding Christ were long before discharged) till himself should sit down at the right hand of Glory, and give it us with his own hand, according as sinners in successive generations come to him for it. M. Eyre hath often said the contrary, but proves it no where.

His third Argument chargeth high (magnis tamen excidit ausis:) take it at large. If Christ were only a patern and example of our justi∣fication, then was he justified from his own sins, and consequently was a sinner, which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered. The rea∣son of the consequence is evident: for if Christ was but a patern of our justification, then was he justified as we are. Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have com∣mitted.

Rep. 1. This the charge: this the proofe. But because M. Eyre is so carelesse of what he speaks, let us see whether the matter be mend∣ed according to his own principles. He then doth not only acknow∣ledge, but contend that the elect were justified in Christ as a common person. Now what is a common person? It is a general tearm, and should have been described more plainly then it is: but something he speaks of him, §. 1. Whatsoever is done by or to a common per∣son as such, is to be attributed to them in whose steed he stands, and §. 4. 1. The act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents. The summe is. A common person is he that represents another both in what he doth, and in what is done to him. Now then thus I proceed. If Christ were justified as a common person, then was he justified from his own sins, and consequently was a sinner, which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered. The reason of the consequence is evident: for if Christ was justified as a common person, then was he justified as we are (for a common person is he that represents another both in what he doth, and in what is done to him) Now we are justified from our own sins, which we our selves have committed. Ergo. Let M. Eyre answer this for himself, and he hath answered for me. But because he hath put me out of hope of the former, I will do the latter presently. 2. In the mean time I will propose one thing to M. Eyres consideration. If the justification of Christ as a common person were actually, and formally the justificati∣on of the elect, then are not the elect justified of grace but of works: (which is the most horrid contradiction to the Gospel that can be uttered:) the reason of the consequence is evident: because Christ was not justified of grace but of debt. Ergo, if that act of justificati∣on which passed upon him, be that which justifies us, then are not we justified of grace.

But to M. Eyres Argument (if it may so be called) I deny his con∣sequence, (as evident as it is) and the proofe of it. To the former I say, that Christs resurrection was his discharge from his own▪ obligation,

which he voluntarily undertooke to suffer and satisfie for our sins: and therein he became the exemplary cause of a like discharge which should follow on them that beleeve, from that obligation which comes upon them involuntarily and necessarily because of sin. To the proof I say, that Christs Justification was such as ours is, in regard of its common nature and effects, (which is sufficient to the agreement of the example and counterpart: as the sacrifices of old represented Christ dying, though he were a man, and they were beasts) not in its principle and special nature. Surely it will not be denied, that we beare the image of Christ in our resurrection from the dead: but then (will Mr. Eyre say) he was raised as we are: now we are raised from corruption. Ergo, he also was raised from corruption, which is as horrid a contradiction to Scripture as can be uttered, Psal. 16. 10. or he was raised by his own power, John 2. 19. Ergo, if we in our Resurrection are conformed to him, then are we also raised by our own power; which is blasphemy as bad as the o∣ther: that makes Christ as bad as sinners; this makes sinners as good as Christ. Did M. Eyre think it possible to convince mens under∣standings by such Argumentations as these? His fourth Argument is up∣on the point all one with this, and hath been answered already over and over, in that wherein it differs from this.

His fifth Argument is.

That I recede very far both from the meaning and expressions of all our orthodox writers, who do con∣stantly call our Saviour a common person,

but never the exemplary cause of our justification: particularly my Grandfather Parker, de descens. lib. 3. sect. 49, 50, 53.

Rep. 1. I did not think before (nor do I now) that the affirming of Christ to be an exemplary cause of all those spiritual heavenly bles∣sings which God bestows on us, had been, to deny him to be a com∣mon person. The Scriptures call him the first borne amongst many bre∣thren, Rom. 8. 29. The first borne of every creature, Colos. 1. 15. the first fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. 15. 20. phrases importing that there are many others, who by his power shall be conformed to his image in all his heavenly perfections: which is all I seek by the tearm of an exemplary cause. But he that calls Christ the first borne, the first begotten, the first fruits, is so far from denying him, as that he doth suppose him to be a common person, in regard that the proper import of these phrases is to teach us, that he hath received excellent blessings, not for himself, but for others also. The reason why I use the tearm of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person, I

give the Reader a little below. 2. And that our Divines do usually call Christ a common, person is a thing so well known, that M. Eyre should not need to have quoted my Grandfather Parker to convince me of it. He should have shewed that they call him so in such a sense as cannot be expressed by the tearm of an exemplary cause. So doth not my Grandfather, at least in the point of Christs resurrection, of which he there speaks not a word: but m elsewhere saies with Athanasius. Anima Christi descensum suum ad inferos peregit, & ab inferis resurrectionem produxit, ut nostrae resurrectionis imaginem concin∣naret; which in sense is the very same that I say, concerning Christs becoming an exemplary cause in his resurrection. 3. Nor are our Divines such strangers to the use of that expression, as M. Eyre repre∣sents them: n M. Shepheard useth it verbatim. There is (saith he) a merited justification by Christs death: and a virtual or exemplary justi∣fication in Christs resurrection as our head and surety. So o Dr. Amese, finis resurrectionis fuit—ut se & justificatum & alios justificantem ostenderet. 5. ut resurrectionis nostrae tam spiritualis quàm corporalis hypostasin, exemplar, & initiatio fieret. Christus enim exemplaris cau∣sa est nostrae resurrectionis, ut à morte resurgens: p So others.

His last Argument is, that this expression savours rankly of Pelagi∣anisme and Socinianisme.

For they make the second Adam a meer paterne and example of our reconciliation.

Rep. I have read indeed concerning the Pelagians, that they deny the propagation of Adams sin any otherwise then by imitation: and that the Socinians say, Christ shews us the way of salvation by the example of his own life, I know. But if I, who thankfully acknow∣ledge our Lords merits and satisfaction, and live by the faith thereof, am yet guilty of Pelagianisme and Socinianisme for affirming, that as in all things else, so in his justification he had this preeminence above others, as not only to be justified himself, but to become the justifying cause of others after his own paterne and similitude; I am content to beare the reproach of both.

SECT. II.

IN the next place I gave the Reader an account why I used the tearme of an exemplary cause, rather then of a common person, in these words. I use the tearme of an exemplary cause rather then

of a common person, because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents (as the Parliament of the Common-wealth) but Christ is such a common person, as that he is the cause of those whom he represents in every thing in which he represents them.

This excuse (saith M. Eyre) is both fallacious and impertinent. Fallacious, because it seems to intimate, that an exemplary cause doth expresse as much as a common person: which is clearly false: for the act of the exemplar is not the act of the Imitator; as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he re∣presents.

Parents are examples to their children, not common persons.

Rep. Know (Reader) first, that we are not now speaking of our active, voluntary imitation of Christ in duties of obedience: but of our being passively conformed and fashioned like him in the partici∣pation of his spiritual blessings, according to our condition and capa∣city. Thus in our justification do we bear his image and partake in his likenesse; who as he was the first borne from the dead, so is he the first borne of them that are justified, forasmuch as his resurrection was his justification. And as our resurrection from death (whenso∣ever it shall be) exists by virtue of his, Joh 14. 19. He being risen as the first fruits of them that slept, 1 Cor. 15. 20. So also doth our justification. 2. This being premised I adde, that to say that Christ in his resurrection was the exemplary cause of our justification is far more pertinent and significant, then to say, we were then justified in him as a common person (especially according to M. Eyres use of that tearme, of which more presently:) the reason is ready; because the former phrase expresseth the influence which his justification hath upon ours, and the dependance which ours hath upon his, which the latter doth not; for to be justified in another as a common person, doth neither declare his justification to be the cause of ours, nor ours the effect of his: could we have delegated a person to have received from God that sentence of absolution in our names (as Israel sent up Moses into the mount) we had all of us been justified as immediately as himself, nor had our justification had any dependance upon his, though we had then been justified in him as a common person. 3. Wherefore, as to the tearme of a common person (concerning which I have made a more toylesome search into the civil law, and those few Civilians which I have, then the moment of the matter requires) it may be understood in a double sense: either, 1. fictione suppositi,

when a person (by a kinde of civil metempseuchosis) doth so represent another, in what he doth, or is done to him, as that the same things are said to be done by, or to the person whom he represents. As Ambassadours represent the person of the Princes that employ them: what they do as such, is reputed the act of the Prince that sends them forth, and what is done to them as such, is reputed as done to him. We do, or receive that, which our Attorney doth, or receives in our name. Or 2. Ex re gestâ, when a person doth that, in the effects of which (be they good or evil) others partake as well as him∣self. Thus the punishment of high treason is common with the Traitour to his children, though he do not represent them, neither in offending, nor in being punished. Thus a Surety payes his money as a common person, because the Debtour (as well as himself) if no compact hinder) hath the benefit of a discharge, though he do not represent the debtour in making payment. In this latter sense I rea∣dily acknowledge, that Christ was a common Person in his Death and Resurrection, because we receive the benefit of both in our mea∣sure and kinde as well as himself And in this sense an exemplary cause expresseth as much and somewhat more then a common person.

But Mr. Eyre will have Christ to be a common person in the for∣mer sense: and that as well in his Death as his Resurrection. That he was so in his death, I deny roundly. The reason is that, for which Mr. Eyre chooseth to call him a common person, rather then an exemplary cause, because (saith he) the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents. But Christs satisfaction, me∣rits, redemption, and perfect obedience, are not our act, so as that we can be said to have satisfied, merited, redeemed our selves, per∣fectly obeyed the Law, and borne the curse thereof, (things for e∣ver impossible for sinners to do, Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6.) Ergo, they are not representable as doing of them. Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person, representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth; But the Scripture is expresse, that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned; so is it by the one righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ, that all are justified, Romanes 5. 17, 18.

The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another con∣sideration, and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection, then in his death. Nevertheless,

neither in that do I approve the tearme, (unlesse it be understood in the second sense mentioned) for the reason already given. And to what Mr. Eyre addes, of Parents being examples to their children, he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example, but the exemplary cause of our Justification. Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners, but they are not exemplary causes thereof. This for the fallacie.

2. (Saith Mr. Eyre) it is impertinent,

because Christs discharge may be ours, though we did not choose him, but God did consti∣tute and appoint him to be the Head, Surety, and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam, and yet his sin was imputed to us.

Answ. 1. Nor do I intend any thing more in changing the terme of a common person into that of an exemplary cause, then to ex∣presse that preheminence which Christ hath, as in all things else, so in his Justification; which the terme of a common person is so farre from doing, as that it supposeth the just contrary; for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own, as his whom he represents. As, what an Ambassadour doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings, and what is done to him as such, is more pro∣perly done to the King then to him. In like manner, if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us, then are we properly the first risers from the dead, and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours. 2. That God appointed his Sonne to be the Head, Surety, and common Person of the Elect, is a contra∣diction; if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyres sense, for one that represents others in what he doth, and in what is done to him; Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect; so the Scri∣ptures call him, and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us; But the common Person described as such, is neither Head nor Surety, because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly: none other do the like, and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them: the case is the same in what he receives, or in what is done to him, as Head and Surety. 3. Concerning Adam, I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyres sense of that phrase: and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him, we have already largely opened. His sin is indeed imputed unto us: not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it, for that is in it selfe an errour of

falshood: and besides is contrary to the Apostle, who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many, who never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, neither in individuo, nor in specie, Rom. 5. 14. but because by vertue of that sin we his children stand obli∣ged to the suffering of death natural: he being the common Parent, who by Covenant received righteousnesse and life to be communi∣cated to his children, if himself continued obedient, otherwise to lose it, both to himself and us.

That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyres argument is, inferring our Justification before saith, from our Justification (in some sense) in the Resurrection of Christ, I said, we may as justly inferre that our Resurrection is past already, because we are risen in Christ, as that our Justification is past before we beleeve, because we are (in some sense) justified in Christ. We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ, Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer, Ergo, we are sanctified before faith.

In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little pur∣pose; the summe of them is,

Our personal Resurrection ne∣cessarily supposeth our life and death. But to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt, &c.

Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand, and Justification on the other, is plain and obvi∣ous; but the whole strength of Mr. Eyres Argument lieth in this one thing, that we were justified in Christ as a common person. Now if our rising in Christ as a common person, will not infer that our Re∣surrection is before faith, then neither is our Justification proved to be before faith, because we were justified in Christ as a common per∣son: and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection, ••t must be upon some other account, then because we were justified in him as a com∣mon person. 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny, (not publick∣ly, for feare of the people) that we are risen in Christ as a common person. Christ (saith he) fully merited our Resurrection to glory, in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ, (a strange and unheard of interpretation, that we should be said to be raised with Christ, be∣cause he in his death merited our Resurrection, which might have been true, though himself had never been raised) but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee, that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ, so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising, (a phrase not used in Scripture, but admitted by me as agreeable, or not contrary

thereunto,) not for our Justification in him as a common person, but for his merit or purchase of our Justification. Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too, (though very privately) and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words. It is, (saith he) no such absurdity to say, Christ hath purchased our R••surre∣ction, though we are not risen, as to say, he hath purchased our discharge, and yet we are not discharged; for to say a debt is discharged, and yet just∣ly chargeable, is a contradiction. Purchased? why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection, were really and formally the discharge of sinners? and not whether he purchased our discharge in his death? But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose, then nothing at all. As to the reason added, we have already shewed at large, in what sense Christs death, may be called the payment of our debt. A debtour cannot discharge a debt, and yet that debt be justly charge∣able upon him: but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand, that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid, or upon some condition to be perform∣ed by him, I shall beleeve, when I see, not words, but power and argument: which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre.

The Conclusion therefore, and summe of my Answer was this, Ju∣stification is either causal and virtual, or actual and formal: we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification, but not actually and formally.

Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things (already confuted) concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ, and the payment and satisfaction in his death: but upon the distin∣ction it self he fixeth nothing. By all which, I perceive, he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resur∣rection, to prove ours. I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection, and he answers I know not what, concern∣ing Christs death. Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration.

I grant (saith Mr. Eyre) that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually; but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us for∣mally.—And therefore Christs dying for us, or for our sins, his reconciling us to God, and our being justified, are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase, Rom. 58, 9, 10.

Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before, nor

can I understand now, viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ, as it was his death, not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part. If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory, which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth: yet is the speech strangely improper. As if a broken undone debtour, seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him, then his debt comes to, should say, his debt is virtually paid, or himself vir∣tually discharged by that mans money. 2. To say that Christs sa∣tisfaction doth justifie us formally, is to deny our Justification for∣mal to be Gods act, (for it was not God but Christ that satisfied) or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin (for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him) or that he was justified before us: yea rather, we are first justified, if his satisfaction justi∣fie us formally: because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection. I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially, being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified; never till now, that it justifies formally. 2. The next ob∣servation, that Christs dying for us, or for our sins, and our being ju∣stified, are Sy••••nyma's in Scripture, is most plainly refuted by Scri∣pture, Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered, (namely, unto death) for our sins, and rose again for our Justification.

In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection, not made by me, but by some others, and it is here brought in by head and shoulders, without the least occasion offered, saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself, by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof; and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person, to the Purchase of Justification in his blood. Neverthelesse, because the truth is on the objectours side, and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself, let us see what is said. The objection is this, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that we might be made (he doth not say, that thereby we are made,) the righteousnesse of God in him. Ergo, the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent, which tends to the procuring of our Justification, and not the same for∣mally.

Thou seest (Reader) that the scope of the objection is to prove, that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification, which Mr. Eyre, after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it, doth now plainly deny: and that of Justification not as signify∣ing

the act but the effects. What, have we heard so often of Christs procuring, meriting, purchasing Pardon and Redemption, when he is here denied to have done any thing, tending to the procuring of our Justification? But let us see Mr. Eyres answer: it consists of three parts.

1. (Saith he)

That this phrase, that we might be, or be made, doth not alwayes signifie the final, but sometimes the formal cause:

as when it is said, That light is let in, that darknesse may be ex∣pelled.

Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely, if at all, used in the New Testament, and improperly, wheresoever it is used: and thrice in this chapter, but a little before, used in its most obvious sense, verse 10. 12, 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions, because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer, that the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousnesse to us do differ. But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousnesse to us; Ergo, the making of him to be sin for us, and of us righteousnesse in him, is not formally the same.

Mr Eyre, 2.

Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us, differ: yet the imputation of sin to him, and non-imputation of it unto us, is but one and the same act of God.

Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is writ∣ten: The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse, and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act (differing only in respect of the terminus à quo & ad quem) Rom. 4. 6, 8. David de∣scribeth the blessednesse of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteous∣nesse without works.—Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not im∣pute sin. 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before, that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased. But non∣imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant, Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin, and the non-imputation of it is all one, Rom. 4. 7, 8. Ergo, it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction, the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse, but not the non-imputa∣tion of sin, that is, it procures positive blessings, but not the destru∣ction of, or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin, which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour. 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse, which in its formal no∣tion

includes not the non-imputation of sin; or that non-imputati∣on of sin, which includes not essentially the imputation of righte∣ousnesse. He hath told us long since that both these are immanent and eternal acts of God, and as such, the death of Christ procures neither: the effects of both are one and the same, and it is there∣fore impossible to distinguish them in reference to their effects. It is to me a mystery beyond comprehension, how that imputation which constitutes a sinner righteous, should yet include nothing of the non-imputation of sin, or how sin can be non-imputed to a sin∣ner, and yet he abide unrighteous, unlesse some other act concur to make him righteous.

His third answer is,

The non-imputation of sin to us, antecedes the imputation of righteousnesse to us in order of nature only, not of time.

Rep. That is, the righteousnesse of Christ avails nothing to the non-imputing of sin to us. The very naming of these hideous do∣ctrines is a sufficient confutation of them. Should I have delivered such things, the names of all the most loathsome hereticks that ever were, would have been accounted too soft to have been thrown at my head.

Yet Mr. Eyre hath not done object••ng against himself, but in the end of this third answer brings in some body objecting thus. We were not then (I suppose he means when Christ died,) Ergo, righteousnesse could not then be imputed to us.

His answer is,

They might as well object, our sins were not then. Erge, they could not be imputed unto Christ in the busi∣nesse of Justification, God calleth things that are not, as if they were, Rom. 4. 17.

Rep. 1. I deny the parity of reason between the one and the o∣ther. Sin can neither be punished nor pardoned before it be commit∣ted, in ••r to the person that sin••eth. Neverthelesse, he that hath the ab∣solute dominion of his own life (as Christ had) may as a Surety suffer all that punishment, which by the Law can at any time grow due to sin: for even amongst men, p 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accipi potest in ••uturam obligationem, Sureties are admitted upon future obligations. If as soon as death by the Law was made the punishment of sin, before men had broken the Law, the Lord Jesus had given up himself to death, that in case we should sin, his death should have had the same effect as now it hath: in this case our sin, (though then but possible) had been imputed unto him; for he had borne the penalty due to it, and

threatened against it, but his righteousnesse had not been imputed to us, upon the same supposition, that we had not sinned. In like manner, though the sins of the elect were not in being, (I mean of all the Elect borne since his death) when Christ died; yet the full pe∣nalty which could at any time grow due to them, was then in being, and determined by the Law, which punishment also (in summe and substance) he might and did undergo, that when we should sin, we might yet be washed in his blood from all our sins. The future sins of the Elect, Christ might make so farre present in himself, as to en∣dure all the penalty which they could at any time deserve, it being not our desert of punishment which obligeth him to suffer it, but his own voluntary submission to it, which makes punishment due to him as our Surety, before it become due to us as actual sinners; But pardon of sin being essentially the destruction of that very obligation, which the sinner hath contracted upon himselfe, doth therefore es∣sentially suppose the sinner and his sin in being: though another may suffer for him, yet another cannot be pardoned for him, par∣don of sin being a personal priviledge, that is, such as rests in the per∣son of the sinner, or nowhere. 2. And that God in the matter of Ju∣stification calleth things that are not as though they were, is no part of the Apostles meaning, Rom. 4. 17. but to shew the ground of A∣brahams stedfast believing on God, for the obtaining of a blessing, to sense and reason impossible, namely, that he should become the fa∣ther of many nations, his own body, and Sarahs wombe being dead, v. 19. The reason hereof was, because God is he that raiseth the dead, and is able to give being to things out of nothing, for he calleth things that are not, as if they were, therefore Abraham a∣gainst hope believed in hope, v. 18. This is that faith through which he, and all his children in the same faith obtain righteous∣nesse.

Having thus at large demonstrated the weaknesse of the argument, from our Justification in Christ as a common person, to prove our Justification before faith I left this censure upon it, they are credulous soules that will be drawn by such decayes as these into schisme and faction, to the hardening and discomforting of more hearts in one houre, then the opinion it self (should it obtain) will do good to; while the world stands; which censure is of such ill resentment with Mr. Eyre, that he hath used no lesse then two leaves of paper, to wipe off the dirt, untruth, slander, (and what he pleaseth) cast upon himself and his Church thereby.

As to the Argument, his own deserting it in plain ground is evi∣dence enough that it is too weak to bear the weight which is laid up∣on it, and if men will embrace opinions which have no stronger foun∣dations, is not their own credulity in fault? The charge of schisme and faction was not intended against him, or any of his charge in par∣ticular: (I little know whether all under his charge be of his opini∣on, or whether all of his opinion in the place he lives in, be under his charge) but in general against all, who without better ground then the foresaid Argument will afford them, shall by jealousies, separations, envyings, backbitings, rash censurings, &c. violate the rules of Christian love and peace, whereof if neither Mr. Eyre, nor any of his charge are guilty, yet some others of his judgement in this point, are: and that so foully that he would loath to under∣take their defence, if he will be true to the Profession which here he makes of himself.

Notes

• §. 1.
• §. 2.
• §. 3.
• §. 4.
• §. 5.
• §. 6.
• §. 7.
• §. 8.
• m

  Do descens. lib. 4 sect. 75.
• n

  Sound Be∣leev pag 79. 80. edit. 1653.
• o

  Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. th. 16, 17.
• p

  Lud. Croc. s. Theol. l. 2. cap. 12. p. 353.
• §. 9.
• §. 10.
• §. 11.
• §. 12.
• §. 13.
• §. 14.
• §. 15.
• §. 16.
• §. 17.
• §. 18.
• p

  L. S••ipula••••s sum & L. potest. ss. de fide juss & §. side ••••ss. in∣stit. de fide-juss.
• §. 19.