The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners, Chapter 11
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§. 1. mentioned in my Sermon, which Mr. Eyre made uſe of to prove that the elect were juſtified before beleeving. The former in ſhort I thus propoſed.
If we are juſtified in Chriſt, then we are juſtified before 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 proſecuting his Argument) the ſumme is, Chriſt was juſtified in his reſurrection, 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 before 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 juſtification purchaſed and impetrated in the death of Chriſt, Heb. 9. 12. 3. A juſtification exemplified in the reſurrection of Chriſt: who himſelf was juſtified in his own reſurrection, and thereby became the exemplary cauſe of juſtification to beleevers, by virtue whereof themſelves 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 glorification; I ſhould not count him worthy of a reply that ſhould inferre, that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before believing. 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 juſtification 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 juſtification 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 poſitum, &c.
Nextly, He ſpeaks ſomething on each member of the diſtinction,§. 2. 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 (according 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 Abraham: all which notwithſtanding, M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our juſtification. But of this we have ſpoken already, as alſo of what he notes upon the ſecond branch of the diſtinction.
The great exception is againſt the third branch, wherein I ſay, that§. 3. 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 exemplary cauſe no more is required then that another thing be conformed 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 meritorious cauſe of any thing.
He proceeds thus. It was needleſſe Chriſt ſhould be a patern§. 4. 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 alſo 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 reaſon. Cannot a ſoul by faith behold the certainty and glorious effects of his juſtification (notwithſtanding all the oppoſition of ſenſe and reaſon) 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 §. 5.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 contends for? upon what pretence then doth he oppoſe me? I acknowledge 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 reſurrection: 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 diſcharge (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:)§. 6. take it at large. If Chriſt were only a patern and example of our juſtification, 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 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 committed.
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 mended according to his own principles. He then doth not only acknowledge, 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 perſon 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 juſtification 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 juſtification 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 conſequence,§. 7. (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 other: that makes Chriſt as bad as ſinners; this makes ſinners as good as Chriſt. Did M. Eyre think it poſſible to convince mens underſtandings by ſuch Argumentations as theſe? His fourth Argument is upon 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§. 8. meaning and expreſſions of all our orthodox writers, who do conſtantly 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 bleſſings which God beſtows on us, had been, to deny him to be a common perſon. The Scriptures call him the firſt borne amongſt many brethren, 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 mDo deſcenſ. lib. 4 ſect. 75.elſewhere ſaies with Athanaſius. Anima Chriſti deſcenſum ſuum ad inferos peregit, & ab inferis reſurrectionem produxit, ut noſtrae reſurrectionis imaginem concinnaret; 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 repreſents them: nSound Beleev pag 79. 80. edit. 1653.M. Shepheard uſeth it verbatim. There is (ſaith he) a merited juſtification by Chriſts death: and a virtual or exemplary juſtification in Chriſts reſurrection as our head and ſurety. So oMed. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. th. 16, 17.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 cauſa eſt noſtrae reſurrectionis, ut à morte reſurgens: pLud. Croc. ſ. Theol. l. 2. cap. 12. p. 353.So others.
His laſt Argument is, that this expreſſion ſavours rankly of Pelagianiſme§. 9. 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 acknowledge 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§. 10. 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 repreſents. 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 participation of his ſpiritual bleſſings, according to our condition and capacity. 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 (whenſoever 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 himſelf. 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 readily acknowledge, that Chriſt was a common Perſon in his Death and Reſurrection, becauſe we receive the benefit of both in our meaſure 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 former§. 11. 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, merits, redemption, and perfect obedience, are not our act, ſo as that we can be ſaid to have ſatisfied, merited, redeemed our ſelves, perfectly obeyed the Law, and borne the curſe thereof, (things for ever 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 conſideration,§. 12. 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§. 13. may be ours, though we did not chooſe him, but God did conſtitute 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 expreſſe 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 properly 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 contradiction; 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 Scriptures 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 obliged to the ſuffering of death natural: he being the common Parent, who by Covenant received righteouſneſſe and life to be communicated 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§. 14. 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 purpoſe; the ſumme of them is, Our perſonal Reſurrection neceſſarily 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 obvious; 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 Reſurrection is before faith, then neither is our Juſtification proved to be before faith, becauſe we were juſtified in Chriſt as a common perſon: 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 common perſon. 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny, (not publickly, 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, becauſe 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…ſurrection, 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 juſtly 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 chargeable 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 performed 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, Juſtification§. 15. 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 diſtinction it ſelf he fixeth nothing. By all which, I perceive, he is weary of his argument drawen from Chriſts Juſtification in his Reſurrection, to prove ours. I ſpeak of a Juſtification virtual and cauſal in Chriſts Reſurrection, and he anſwers I know not what, concerning 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 formally.—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 virtually diſcharged by that mans money. 2. To ſay that Chriſts ſatisfaction doth juſtifie us formally, is to deny our Juſtification formal 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 juſtifie 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 obſervation, that Chriſts dying for us, or for our ſins, and our being juſtified, are Sy…nyma's in Scripture, is moſt plainly refuted by Scripture, 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,§. 16. 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, foreign, 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 formally.
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 ſignifying 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 expelled.
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 written: 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 deſcribeth the bleſſedneſſe of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteouſneſſe without works.—Bleſſed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute ſin. 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before, that God promiſeth nothing in his Covenant which Chriſt hath not purchaſed. But nonimputation 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-imputation of ſin, that is, it procures poſitive bleſſings, but not the deſtruction 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 notion includes not the non-imputation of ſin; or that non-imputation of ſin, which includes not eſſentially the imputation of righteouſneſſe. 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 therefore 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 ſinner, 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§. 17. 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 doctrines 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§. 18. 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 buſineſſe 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 other. Sin can neither be puniſhed nor pardoned before it be committed, in …r to the perſon that ſin…eth. Nevertheleſſe, he that hath the abſolute 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, pL. S…ipula…s ſum & L. poteſt. ſſ. de fide juſs & §. ſide …ſs. inſtit. de fide-juſs.… 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 penalty 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 endure 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 eſſentially ſuppoſe the ſinner and his ſin in being: though another may ſuffer for him, yet another cannot be pardoned for him, pardon of ſin being a perſonal priviledge, that is, ſuch as reſts in the perſon of the ſinner, or nowhere. 2. And that God in the matter of Juſtification 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 Abrahams ſtedfaſt believing on God, for the obtaining of a bleſſing, to ſenſe and reaſon impoſſible, namely, that he ſhould become the father 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 againſt hope believed in hope, v. 18. This is that faith through which he, and all his children in the ſame faith obtain righteouſneſſe.
Having thus at large demonſtrated the weakneſſe of the argument,§. 19. 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 evidence enough that it is too weak to bear the weight which is laid upon it, and if men will embrace opinions which have no ſtronger foundations, is not their own credulity in fault? The charge of ſchiſme and faction was not intended againſt him, or any of his charge in particular: (I little know whether all under his charge be of his opinion, 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 undertake their defence, if he will be true to the Profeſſion which here he makes of himſelf.