Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Section 8
SECT. VIII. Of Juſtification by Christ's Righteouſneſs, imputed.
119. Christ's perſonal Righteouſneſs, Divine or Humane, habitual, active How little the Papiſts differ from the Imputation which they quarrel with. See in Bellarm. words cited and approved by Davenant de Juſtit. And Pet. a S. Joſeph. Theol. Speculat. l. 4. c. 10. ſaith, [Obj. P…ccatum remitti non poteſt quamdiu homo manet converſus ad creaturam & averſus a Deo: At ſemper averſus erit a Deo niſi mutatur. Reſp. Sufficere▪ mutationem moralem, quae per ſolam Dei condonationem fieri poteſt, ut jam homo non dicatur averſus a Deo. (This is Antinomianiſm, and falſe; As if God called not him averſe who is really averſe.) Obj. 2. Si peccatum remitti poteſt ſine actu aut habitu—per ſolam imputationem erit quae eſt …aereticorum ſententia. Reſp. Haereticos loqui de facto & non de imputatione peccati remanentis & vere non remiſſi: nos de poſſibili & de ver… remiſſione qua peccatum tollatur.] See how the caſe is turned and wranglers deceive themſelves. We hold it neither de facto nor de poſſibili: and they hold it de poſſibili and not de facto, viz▪ that bare pardon and non▪ imputation may put away the very being of ſin, and may ſave men. Of which more afterwards. But many others deny that ſin can be remitted by extrinſick condonation: See Cacer's Sum. The. 22. c. 2. They ordinarily take Remiſſion for deſtroying the ſin it ſelf.or paſſive (as it's called) is not given us or made ours, truly and properly in the thing it ſelf, but in the effects (as was aforeſaid) for neither the ſame matter; nor the ſame form is ſtrictly ours. 1. That neither of them is ours in a phyſical ſence is undeniable. If the Divine Righteouſneſs were ſo ours, we were Gods. And a Habit, an Act, and a Paſſion (materially) cannot be removed from one ſubject to another, nor the ſame be in divers ſubjects: Theſe are as palpable contradictions as Tranſubſtantiation is. And the Relative form is founded in the matter or ſubject, and can no more be removed. The paternity of a Generator, and the paternity of an Adopter, are not the ſame, but two. And a Relation is an accident, alſo which periſheth when removed from the ſubject; and in another is another. 2. If it be ſaid that both are ours Morally or Imputatively, I anſwer, It is true: But that phraſe is of large and doubtful ſignification. 1. If the meaning be that [The Covenant of Grace doth as certainly pardon or juſtifie us (in the way and degree promiſed by it) for the merit of Chriſts Righteouſneſs (in performing his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father) as our own merit (had it been poſſible) would have done; or our Innocency would have Juſtifyed us by the Covenant of Innocency] this is true.
2. But if the meaning be that [Chriſts merit and ſatisfaction, by perfect holineſs, and obedience, and ſuffering, are ſuppoſed or Reputed by God to have been inherent in us, or done by us in our civil perſon in Christ; or that in a ſence natural or Legal we did all thoſe things our ſelves, or that God judgeth us ſo to have done, by Judging Chriſt and us to be the ſame civil perſon; or elſe that all the Benefits of Chriſts Righteouſneſs ſhall as fully and immediately be ours, as if we had been, and done, and ſuffered, merited and ſatisfyed in and by Chriſt; All this is falſe.
120. For if this were ſo, we could need no pardon; for he that is reputed to be Innocent, by fulfilling all the Law, is reputed never to have ſinned, by omiſſion or commiſſion: And he can have no pardon of ſin, who hath no ſin to be pardoned. Therefore ſuch an Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to us, would make his ſatisfaction null or vain, or certainly neither imputable to us, nor uſeful for us.
121. Some to avoid this do divide the Time of our Lives, and ſuppoſe Chriſts ſufferings to have ſatisfied and purchaſed pardon of our ſins, for all the Time before our Believing, and his Righteouſneſs to be imputed to us for the Time ſince our Believing: But this is a humane fiction: For our ſins after believing muſt have pardon too, by Chriſt's ſatisfaction.
And ſome diſtinguiſh of our Time and State under the two Covenants, and ſay that Chriſt's ſatisfaction was for the pardon of our ſins under the firſt Covenant, which continued but till the promiſe made to Adam, Gen. 3. 15. And ſo was for none but Adam's ſin imputed to us; and that after that all being under the new Covenant, it condemneth none but the finally impenitent (who ſcape not) and ſo that Gods pardoning men ſince the new Covenant is but his preventing their need of pardon, or elſe pardoning temporal puniſhments only: But this is contrary to the Goſpel, which tells us that Chriſt dyed for our ſins, even all that ever are forgiven, and that all are forgiven to believers, (and not the neceſſity of forgiveneſs prevented) and not only Adam's ſin as ours: Nor only the temporal, but the perpetual puniſhment. And even temporal puniſhment is not due to the innocent.
122. Some diſtinguiſh only of Actions, and not of Time, and ſay Chriſt's Sacrifice ſatisfyed for all our ſins, that they may be forgiven, and his righteouſneſs is imputed to us, that we may be alſo accounted juſt; But this is but either ambiguity, or the fore-detected groſs contradiction. For if by Justice they mean Reputed ſinleſsneſs, or perfecti…, then theſe two cannot ſtand together: For he that is ſuppoſed a Sinner, is ſuppoſed not ſinleſs or perfect; And he that is ſuppoſed ſinleſs cannot be ſuppoſed pardonable.
123. Some think to avoid the contradiction, by diſtinguiſhing only the moments of Nature, and double reſpect of the ſame mans actions: They ſay that we are firſt in order of Nature ſuppoſed to be Sinners, and pardoned, and then to be ſuch as moreover need the reputation of Innocency or Righteouſneſs which is added to pardon. But, 1. He that is pardoned all ſins of omiſſion and commiſſion, is accounted Innocent and Righteous as to any Guilt of puniſhment, either of ſence or Loſs. 2. And he that is after accounted Innocent and Juſt from his firſt being to that hour, is judged never to have needed pardon: And ſo they make God come with an after act, and condemn his own foregoing act of error and injury; or at leaſt to contradict it, and in the firſt inſtant to ſay [I pardon this Sinner] and in the ſecond to ſay [I now repute him one that never ſinned or needed pardon.]
124. But the commoneſt way of ſuch Divines is, to ſay that Chriſts Righteouſneſs is firſt imputed; that is, we are reputed to have perfectly obeyed and been habitually holy in Christ, and then ſin is next pardoned as a fruit of the merits of this. But this is ſtill but the oft detected contradiction, that we are firſt accounted ſinleſs, and therefore our ſins are forgiven us.
125. Some ſay that the Law ſince the fall obligeth us both to obey and to ſuffer, and not to one only; elſe a Sinner bound to ſuffer, ſhould not be bound to obey. Therefore Chriſt muſt do both for us: But this is too groſs for any man to utter that ever knew what Law and Government is. Do they mean that as to the ſame Act and time, the Law bindeth us to obey and ſuffer? or for divers acts and inſtants of time? Do they mean that the Law bound man both to perfection and ſuffering for perfection, or to ſuffering for ſin? No man doubts but when one ſin is committed, and puniſhment deſerved, the Law is ſtill the Law, and bindeth men ſtill to obey or ſuffer more the next moment, and again to obey or ſuffer more the next moment. But this concerneth not our queſtion. Did the Law bind Adam to obey and to ſuffer before he ſinned? Did it bind him both to obey and ſuffer for his new ſin the next inſtant? It's true it bound him to ſuffer for his old ſin? but not for the next before it is committed. And the obligation to duty goeth before the obligation to puniſhment for that ſame action; becauſe the action cometh between; and the firſt is an act of Gods antecedent Will, and the ſecond of his conſequent Will, that is, of the Retributive, and not the Preceptive part of the Law.
And they note not that the queſtion is not, what obedience a man is bound to, but what he performeth or muſt be reputed to have performed. If they will ſpeak ſo unaptly as to ſay that the Law commandeth Lapſed man, not to have ſin, or imperfect man to have been perfect; that is, that the Command to day bindeth Adam ad praeteritum not to have ſinned yeſterday, or bindeth to Impoſſibility in nature, that exiſtent ſin ſhould not be exiſtent, (in all which I leave them to their …iberty of words) yet it is certain that no man hath perfectly obeyed for one year or day. And therefore if Chriſt's perfect obedience and …olineſs be imputed to them from their firſt being, then they are re…uted not-lapſed, nor-ſinners from the beginning and, ſo not pardona…le. But if it be only for the time after ſin that Chriſt's perfection is …theirs, after what ſin muſt it be? If after Adam's, then we need no pardon of any but Adam's ſin. If after converſion, then we need no pardon for ſins after Converſion. If after our laſt ſin, then Chriſt's per…ection is not imputed to us till after death.
126. Others would come nearer the matter, and ſay that we are …eputed Righteous as fulfillers of the Law, and yet reputed Sinners as Breakers of the Law: and that though there be no medium in naturals between light and darkneſs, life and death, yet there is between a …reaker of the Law, and a fulfiller of it, viz. a non-fulfiller; and be…ween juſt and unjuſt, that is not-just: But this is a meer darkneſs: There …s a medium negative, in a perſon as not obliged; but none between Poſi…ive and Privative in one obliged as ſuch. A ſtone is neither juſt nor …rivatively unjust: Nor a man about a thing never commanded or for…idden him: But what's this to the matter? God's Law is pre-ſuppoſed: we talk of nothing but Moral acts: The Law forbiddeth Omiſſions and Commiſſions: both are ſin. Do theſe men think that he is not reputed Poſitively juſt, (and not only not-unjuſt) who is reputed never to have committed a ſin, nor left undone a duty in his life. Can …he Law be fulfilled more than ſo? What is Righteouſneſs if that be not?
Obj. Adam was neither juſt nor unjuſt in his firſt moment; no nor till he ſinned ſay ſome, becauſe till then he was not obliged to obey, or at leaſt to any meritorious act, that is, to love God.
Anſ. 1. Adam was in his firſt inſtant but Habitually juſt, and not by Act, becauſe not obliged to impoſſibilities any more than an Infant or a ſtone: But we ſpeak only of obliged perſons. 2. It is not true that Adam was not obliged to obey and Love God before he ſinned, or that he never Loved God as God.
Obj. At leaſt Adam merited not the Reward, though he ſinned not till then.
Anſ. 1. He merited what Reward he had, viz. the continuance o his bleſſings firſt freely given: but not an immutable ſtate. 2. It is yet unreſolved what that was by which Adam muſt merit Immutability and Glory? whether, 1. Once obeying or conſent to his full Covenant. 2. Or once loving God. 3. Or conquering once. 4. Or eating of the tree of Life. 5. Or preſevering in perfect obedience to the end; that is, till God ſhould tranſlate him, which is moſt likely. His not Meriting Immutability before the time, was no ſin, we confeſs. 3. And we maintain as well as you, that Chriſt hath not only ſatisfied for ſin, and merited pardon, but alſo Merited Imm…table Glory. But conſider, 1. That Adam's not doing that which was to merit Glory, was his ſin of omiſſion, and to pardon that omiſſion, is to take him as a meriter of Glory. 2. Therefore it muſt be ſomewhat more than he forfeited by that omiſſion and his commiſſion, which cometh in by Chriſt's merit above forgiveneſs. 3. That Chriſt merited all this, both by his active, paſſive and habitual Righteouſneſs, by which he merited pardon. 4. That it was not we that merited it in him, but he, to give it us only on the terms of a Law of Grace.
127. Yet ſome come nearer, and ſay that, To puniſh and not-Reward are not all one: And ſo the reſpect that Sin hath to the deſerved puniſhment needed pardon and ſatisfaction: But our deſerving the Reward needed Christ's perfect Obedience to be imputed. In this there is ſomewhat of truth. But you muſt avoid the errors that lie in the way, and a… by moſt ſuppoſed truths. 1. Remember that man can have nothing from God, but what is a meer Gift as to the matter, though it be a Reward as to the order and ends of collation. And in this caſe, puniſhment is damni as well as ſenſus; And ſo the loſs of the Reward is the principal part of Hell or Puniſhment. So that if Chriſt's death hath pardon… our ſins of Omiſſion, we are reputed to have done all our duty; And if ſo, we are reputed to have merited the Reward: And if he pardon our … as to all puniſhment of ſenſe and loſs, he pardoneth them as to th… forfeiture of Heaven as a Gift, if not as a Reward.
128. But, ſay they, remiſſion of ſin is but part of Juſtification, becauſe a man may be forgiven, and yet not reputed never to have broken the Law. To put away guilt, and to make one righteous are two thing. Anſ. Still confuſion. Guilt is either of the fault as ſuch, or of the puniſhment, and of the fault only as the cauſe of puniſhment. If all g… both culpae & poenae were done away, that perſon were reputed po… righteous; that is, never to have omitted a Duty, or committed a … But indeed when only the Reatus poenae (& culpae quoad poenam) is do… away, the Reatus culpae in ſe remaineth. And this Chriſt himſelf never taketh away, no not in Heaven, where for ever we ſhall be judged, once to have ſinned, and not to be ſuch as never ſinned.
129. And this ſeemeth the very core of their error, that they th… Of this ſee wotton de Reconcil. at large.we muſt be juſtified in Chriſt by the Law of Innocency, which juſtified Christ himſelf; and that we are quit or waſhed ſimply from all guilt of fault, as well as obligation to puniſhment: which is a great untruth, contrary to all the ſcope of the Goſpel, which aſſureth us, that we are juſtified by the Law of Grace or Faith, and not by the Law of Works: That Chriſt freeth us from the curſe and penalty of the Law: which he could not do, if we were reputed never to have deſerved it, as never being Sinners. If we are reputed ſuch as fulfilled the Law of Innocency (by another in our civil perſon, or as fully repreſenting us,) all the Goſpel is over-turned: There is no room for Repentance, none for the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, none for Faith in his blood, nor for Pardon, or prayer for Pardon, or any Grace, Act, Duty or Ordinance, Sacraments, Confeſſion, or any thing which ſuppoſeth Sin.
To ſay that Adam's Law meant, [Do this, by thy ſelf or by Chriſt, and thou ſhalt live,] is a Humane fiction, not found in Scripture, confounding the Law of Innocency with the Goſpel: And to ſay that the New Covenant maketh us one Perſon with Chriſt, and then the Law of Ad… doth juſtifie us, is a double error. We are not reputed one Perſon with Chriſt; nor doth the firſt Covenant juſtifie any but the Perſon that performeth it. But we maintain as well as they, that the ſame Righteouſneſs of God in himſelf, is manifeſted in both Covenants, and the ſame holy love of perfect Obedience, and the ends of the firſt Covenant are ſecured by the ſecond. But the tenour and terms are not the ſame, nor the Righteouſneſs of the ſubject as denominated from thoſe terms. It is not the ſame Law which condemneth us and juſtifieth us, nor that juſtifieth Chriſt and us; nor is it the ſame Habits, or Acts, which are the immedi…e fundamentum of the Relation of righteous in Chriſt and in us, …ough his Righteouſneſs be the meritorious cauſe of ours. And there…re not the ſame with the thing merited.
130. The Truth which they grope after, and muſt reconcile them …, is as followeth. Chriſt in his Sufferings did ſtand in the room of …ners as their Sponſor, and ſatisfied Juſtice as was ſaid before: And …d had other ends yet to accompliſh: It was meet that the perfection …his Law ſhould be glorified by a perfect fulfilling of it by Chriſt, …en we had failed. Satan was hereby confounded: God pleaſed and …noured: Man ſhewed what he ſhould have been, and yet ſhould do: …ns nature in Chriſt was thus actively and habitually perfected: By all …s Chriſt performed his Obedience to the mediatorial Law, and his Herveus Natal. quodlib. 4. q. 14. could ſpeak thus much better than many Proteſtants. [Sicut meritum Chriſti quantum ad actum quem exercuit, non tranſit in alios; tranſit tamen in alios quantum ad effectum illius meriti illis qui applicantur ad Chriſtum mediantibus Sacramentis vel mediante fide propria; Qui quidem effectus eſt Gratia quae eſt c…ntraria, culpae, & quae reddit hominem dignum vita aeterna: Ita etiam demeritum Adae, licet non tranſeat in alios quantum ad actum quem exercuit, tamen tranſit quoad effectum culpae originalis, quae eſt contraria gratiae, & reddit dignum poenae aeterna, & indignum vita aeterna. How doth this differ from the ſoundeſt Proteſtants as to the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us, or Adam's ſin.…venant of Redemption; and ſo acquired a right firſt to himſelf of giving …t the purchaſed Benefits to Sinners, by a new Law or Covenant of Grace …d according to it; By which Covenant, only as his Inſtrument, the …her and Son give us Right to them, in an Order there eſtabliſhed. … that is there given to us, Chriſt purchaſed for us, by performing his …n Covenant firſt with the Father, by perfect Holineſs, and Obedience, …en in his Sacrifice on the Croſs, and by all that he undertook to do as Redeemer, antecedently. The Purchaſe was made for this Donation … its end, and is commenſurate to it: juſt ſo much as Chriſt hath given … as to matter, manner, terms, degree, time, &c. he did purchaſe and …rit for us, and no more. Had he antecedently done all that he did … our perſon, and we in him, in Law ſenſe, the thing it ſelf, with its ſeparable conſequents and effects, had been all ours ipſo facto, before and …thout the donation or conveyance of a new Law or Covenant; nor …d they been ever given us upon terms and conditions, when they were … own before, without thoſe terms. But now what is given us by the …ew Covenant, we have title to on this account, becauſe it was pur…aſed by the perfect Merit and Saerifice of Chriſt, and ſo given us by …m, and by the Father. So that it is ours as ſure as if we had merited it …r ſelves, but not ours in the ſame order, and meaſure, and time, and …ms, as if we had merited it our ſelves (in our natural or legal per…ns). For then it would have been all ours at once ipſo facto, even …e merit it ſelf, and the fore-ſaid effects. We deſerved puniſhment, …nd Chriſt was puniſhed in our ſtead, that we might be forgiven; not …mediately, but on Covenant-terms: we had forfeited Life by ſin; And …hriſt merited Life for us by his Perfection, (not in our perſons, but in …e perſon of a Mediator,) which Life was to be given to us by the ſaid …ovenant: The antecedent benefits (ſuch as the Covenant it ſelf) he …veth abſolutely, and antecedently to any act of ours. God reputeth all his Satisfaction and Merit of Chriſt to be as meet and effectual to pro…ure us all theſe Benefits, to be thus given, as if we our ſelves had done and …ffered: And in this ſenſe Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is given us, and made ours, … that it is given for us, and we have the ſaid benefits of it: Not that God doth give us the very habits of Holineſs which were in Chriſt, nor …he tranſient acts which he performed, nor the very Sufferings which he …nderwent, nor the Relation of righteous ſatisfactory and meritorious, as … was that numerical Relation which immediately reſulted from Chriſt's …wn Habits, Acts and Sufferings; For ſuch a tranſlation of accidents is … contradiction. But God giving us all the effects, or Salvation merited, …n it ſelf properly, is ſaid alſo not unfitly to give us the Merit or Righteouſneſs which procured them; that is, as it was paid to God for us, to procure them; even as he is ſaid to give Chriſt himſelf (antecedently … our Faith) to the World as a Saviour. And thus Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, Merit and ſatisfaction may be ſaid to be imputed to us, in that it … thus given us, and thus truly reputed ours.
131. But when the Text ſaith, Rom. 4. 24. Righteouſneſs is imputed … us, the meaning is no more, but that God reputeth or judgeth us righte… though we have not the Righteouſneſs of Innocency, or of the Law … Works; which indeed is done for Chriſt's meritorious Righteouſ… procuring it: But the Text ſpeaketh not of Chriſt's perſonal Righteouſ… in matter or form, imputed to us as being it ſelf our own. Impu… Righteouſneſs to us, is a conſequent Act (after Faith) of God as Jud… and not an antecedent donation.
132. And it is true that formaliter, non-punire & praemiari, … puniſh, and to Reward are not all one: And in ſome caſes a man may … freed from puniſhment, who is not rewarded: But it is as true as is a… ſaid, 1. That Gods Salvation, and all his Benefits, are ever free Gifts … to the matter and value firſt, and then the relation of a Reward is b… ſecondary as to the Order of collation, and the reaſon comparative, wh… one man hath them rather than another (as a thankful Child hath the Gift which the Contemner goeth without). 2. And that here, Not to have this Gift (forfeited by our ſin) is to be puniſhed: And ſo h… non-donari, is puniri materially though the relations differ. 3. And that it is the ſame Righteouſneſs of Chriſt which meriteth our Impunity quoad damnum & ſenſum, and which meriteth our Right to the Gift of Life, both ſub ratione doni as a Gift, and ſub ratione condonationis as a forgiveneſs of the forfeiture, and of the poena damni: So that here … no room for the conceit, that Chriſt's death was only to purchaſe Pardon, and his Righteouſneſs to merit Life. That which confoundeth men here is, their taking the divers Reſpects, and Connotations, and Co… ceptions of one and the ſame thing, to be divers ſeparable things: Th… ſame Law hath the Preceptive part (to do and not do) and the Retributing part (penal and rewarding). The ſame Obedience of Adam was … doing what was commanded, and a deſerving what was promiſed. … more was promiſed to perſevering Perfection than to the firſt act of Obedience. One Sin deſerved death; but one act of Obedience deſern… not immutable Glory. And as the ſame Act is formally Obedience related to the Command, and formally meritorious or praemiandus, … related to the Promiſe. And the ſame Act is ſin and puniſhable, as related to the Precept (or Prohibition) and Threatening; ſo the ſame Glory is a free Gift in one reſpect (as related ut bonum to God as Benefactor) and a Reward in another (as related quoad ordinem conferendi to God … Rector.) And the ſame loſs of Glory is poena related to the Threatening and it is the loſs of a Reward as related to the Promiſe. And ſo the ſ… Merits of Chriſt's active, and paſſive, and habitual Righteouſneſs, becauſe our Glory, both by giving us pardon of our forfeiture, and by Covenant-Donation, and as a Reward to Chriſt, and to us when … perform the conditions of his Gift.
133. And it is certain, that Chriſt's Sufferings are firſt ſatisfactory and then meritorious, being a part of his Active, that is, voluntary O… dience. And Chriſt's Holineſs and Obedience are meritorious of pardon … Sin, as well as of Salvation.
134. If there be (as there is) any thing which is given us throug… Chriſt, more than our own Innocency or Obedience would have m… ted, the Gift of that is more than remiſſion of Sin; And is to be aſcribe… accordingly to the Purchaſe of Chriſt's Merits. But yet both his Holineſs and Sufferings (though not as ſufferings) did merit it: And that was not a fulfilling of the Law in our ſtead.
135. This ſuperadded Gift (what-ever it is) ſeemeth in Scripture to be included in Adoption, and not in Juſtification: But yet it may in this ſenſe be called Justification, in that when our Right to that Gift is queſtioned, that Right muſt be juſtified by the Covenant-Donation, and by Chriſt's meritorious Purchaſe of it. But this is only de nomine: We are agreed of the thing.
136. It is greatly to be noted, that as a Reward is in the formal notion more than not puniſhing (where materially they are the ſame) ſo Chriſt hath not at all merited that eternal Life ſhould be ours, by way of Reward for our fulfilling the Law in him, but that it ſhould ours by his free Gift, as a Reward to Christ for his own Merits. So that the Relation of a Reward for Perfection, belongeth only formally to Chriſt, (who taketh it as his benefit that we are ſaved through his love to Souls) but not at all to us. And to ſay (as too many hold) that Heaven is our Reward for our perfection of Holineſs and Obedience in and by Chriſt, is a Humane Invention, ſubverting Chriſt's Goſpel; or unfit ſpeech, if better meant.
137. Yet a Reward it is to us, to be glorified; but that is not for our fulfilling the Law of Innocency by Chriſt, but for our believing in Chriſt, and performing the conditions of the Covenant of Grace: which giveth us Life as a free Gift; but yet in the order of the condition it hath the relation, and name of a Reward to us, in the Scripture.
138. So that here are three rewarding Covenants before us: 1. The Covenant or Law of Innocency rewarding man for perfection to the end; And this rewarded none but Chriſt: And it is falſe that we are rewarded by that Covenant, or juſtified by it, for Chriſt's fulfilling it. But it All the ſtir of the Papiſts is to prove that we have inherent Righteouſneſs as well as pardon, which Proteſtants are as much for as they. The reſt is de nomine juſtificationis, Malder. 1. 2. q. 113. a. 2. p. 572. Apoſtolus, 2 Cor. 5. non aliud vult quam Chriſtum cui nullum debebatur ſupplicium, factum fuiſſe hoſtiam pro noſtro peccato, ut nos qui apud Deum nihil merebamur, praeter. ſupplicium, juſtitia Dei fieremus in ipſo; id eſt, gratis ſine noſtris operibus conſequeremur per ipſius merita juſtitiam coram Deo.] What doth this differ from the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Idem ibid▪ Quando Apoſtolus dicit multos conſtitui juſtos per unius obedienti… ſignificatur cauſa meritoria, non autem formalis: And ſo ſay we: But ſome call Chriſt's Righteouſneſs the cauſa material…s, meaning no more but that it is the matter of that Merit, for which we are juſtified; As if Adam had perfectly fulfilled the Law, his fulfilling it, had been meritorious of his ſentential Juſtification, and yet the matter of his conſtitutive Juſtification; that is, of his Righteouſneſs. And ſome u…ptly call it the formal cauſe: But an unapt logical notion is not an error in Faith or Theology. Idem ib. p. 573. Quamvis …x omnino rigida juſtitia ſolus Chriſtus Dominus ſatisfactat; de condigno tamen, ita ut merces operi …ono debeatur poſt Dei promiſſionem, meretur juſtus coronam juſtiſi… quam reddet in illa die juſtus judex: Eſt noſtra juſtitia tota, totum meritum, tota ſatisfactio dependens a me…ito & ſatisfactione Chriſti. Still here is a wordy Controverſie.juſtified Chriſt. 2. The Law or Covenant made only to and with Chriſt the Mediator: And this Covenant further rewarded Chriſt as Mediator, giving him all that it promiſed to himſelf and us, for his performing the mediatorial conditions. And ſo our Life is Chriſt's Reward. 3. The Covenant or Law of Grace (for it is the ſame thing in ſeveral reſpects that's called the Law and the Covenant), which giving Life on the condition of Faith, doth juſtifie and reward Believers. And we are juſtified and rewarded by no other Law.
139. When Rom. 4. oft ſaith (and other Texts) that we are juſtified by Faith, it connoteth and includeth that we are juſtified by Chriſt and his Sacrifice, Merits and Covenant reſpectively, believed in: But yet it is not Chriſt, nor his Sacrifice, or Merits, or Promiſe that is meant by the word [Faith.] It was a groſs abuſe of the Text ſo to expound it: Faith connoteth the Object, but it is not Chriſt that is called Faith.
140. But the meaning is, that man having forfeited Life, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs (habitual, active and paſſive,) hath merited, that it ſhall be given us as a free Gift, but yet regularly under a Law: But the Law maketh nothing but believing acceptance the condition of our Right, and he that doth that much, ſhall, without perfection, be eſteemed and uſed as righteous for the ſake of the ſaid Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. So that in point of Merit, as to the value of the thing, Chriſt's Righteouſneſ… is inſtead of our Innocency: But as to the order of collation, ſomething being ſtill to be required of us as a condition of Right, ſo our Faith now is inſtead of our Innocency, as being all that is laid on us inſtead of …, that we may have right to Juſtification. And to aſſign this condition o… our part, Paul ſaith, That Faith is imputed to us for righteouſneſs. To deny this ſenſe, is to uſe violence with the Text.
141. Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is made ours, as our Sins were made his: which is not in themſelves, as is aforeſaid: God forbid we ſhould think that Chriſt was ever reputed by God to be a Sinner, a Blaſphemer, a Murderer, an Enemy to God and Goodneſs, one that had Satan's Image, and was his Servant, a Perſecutor of himſelf, &c. But only our ſin was imputed to him as to the puniſhment deſerved: that is, he aſſumed the Reatum poenae, the puniſhment, and a dueneſs occaſioned by our ſin; but made his own by his voluntary ſponſion; But never had he the rea…um culpae in its ſelf, but meerly as aforeſaid reſpectively to the puniſhment. Even ſo we have the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, not in its ſelf, as Proprietors of it, but in relation to the effects; that is, we have the effects, even our Justification, and other benefits as purchaſed by it, and for its ſake: And as our guilt, or obligation to puniſhment, was not Chriſt's, till his voluntary ſponſion or conſent did make it ſo; Even ſo his Righteouſneſs is not ours in the effects, till our voluntary conſent accept it: Becauſe i… is not a natural, but a contracted Relation that is between Chriſt and us. And as it is not a ſtrict propriety in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs that we have, ſo it is much leſs a plenary and abſolute propriety: nor have we it in the Relation of a meritorious cauſe to all uſes, as if it had been fully our own, but only limitedly to thoſe uſes which God accepted it for, and hath aſſigned to it in the Goſpel; that is, it is but a certain ſort and meaſure of mercies that are given us from it in Gods time and way.
142. To the aſſerting of the rigid ſenſe of Imputation, they are neceſſitated to ſay that, which ſuppoſeth Gods repute of the matter to be falſe; that is, that he reputeth us to have done that in and by Chriſt, which we never did by him: But God judgeth nothing to be otherwiſe than it is? that he judgeth Chriſt to have been the Sponſor and Mediator, and in that perſon to have done and ſuffered as he did, is becauſe it is true: But he judgeth him not to have been the legal Perſon of the Sinner, and as many perſons as there be redeemed Sinners in the world, becauſe that is not true.
143. They ſay that what the Surety doth, the Debtor doth in Law-ſenſe, and to judge ſo is not to err. But there are ſeveral ſorts of Sureties, much more of Inſtruments in paying a Debt. 1. There be free Sureties, who are not obliged to the Debtor as his Dependents; and theſe either by counter-ſecurity, or by right of the thing, may recover all of the Debtor again. And therefore the Law ſuppoſeth not the Debtor to have payed the Debt by them; but that the Creditor made them both Joynt-Debtors for his own ſecurity. 2. There are Sureties antecedently, and Sureties conſequently: One that before the Debt doth conditionally make himſelf a Joynt-Debtor, in caſe the Principal pay it not; And there is a Surety more properly called an undertaking-Friend, who after payeth the Debt, being diſobliged before. Chriſt was not a Surety of the firſt ſort, in Law-ſenſe; And if you call Gods Decrees, which are his Eſſence, Suretiſhip, your liberty of words changeth not the caſe. 3. There is a Surety who payeth the Debt in the name and perſon of the principal Debtor; (And he is not properly called a Surety, but an Agent or Subſtitute:) And Chriſt was none ſuch; nor is any proper Surety ſuch. And there is a Surety which, by the Creditors conſent, doth pay the Debt in his own name, agreeing that the chief Debtor ſhall have no benefit by it but from him, as he ſhall give it, on certain terms: And this was Christ's caſe. 4. There is a Surety that payeth the ſame debt that was due from the Principal: And there is a Surety or Friend that undertaketh only to make the Creditor ſatisfaction, becauſe the Debtor cannot pay. And this is the caſe. 5. Laſtly, There is a pay-maſter that is the Debtors Inſtrument, whether Servant, Delegate, or whoever at his command or requeſt doth pay it in his name and perſon: And this is not the caſe. And there is a proper Surety, who is a third perſon and no Instrument, and payeth it in his own name though for another. This, as I ſaid, is the caſe; and therefore it is not we that paid it.
Therefore to the Objection I ſay, that to judge Chriſt ſuch an Inſtrument or Delegate of ours, or Surety that did all in our legal perſon; is to misjudge and err, as is proved, which God cannot do.
144. Chriſt did and ſuffered in the common nature of man, though not in the perſon of each Sinner. And mans nature is ſo far redeemed by him, that for the meer Original Sin of nature alone, no man ſhall periſh, unleſs he add the rejection of Grace; (of which ſomewhat is ſaid before.) But yet as Nature exiſteth only in perſons, ſo it is all perſons, who have this much benefit and more. But that he merited and ſatisfied in our Nature, is a proper ſpeech, and truer than that he did it in our perſons.
145. But all this ſimilitude of a Creditor and Debtor, is to be limited in the application, according to the great difference of Sin and Debt, which will infer a great diverſity in the conſequents; which may eaſily be collected by the Reader.
146. As to the great and weighty queſtion, whether Chriſt died for How far Chriſt died for ſins againſt the Law of Grace.ſins againſt the New Covenant, or only for thoſe againſt the old: I anſwer, Diſtinction is here notoriouſly neceſſary. 1. If by the old Covenant, or firſt Covenant, you mean the conditional Promiſe, [Be perfect and live] no ſin ſince Adam's is againſt that conditional Promiſe, becauſe it ceaſed through mans incapacity, upon the Fall; And Chriſt died not only for the firſt ſin.
2. If by the first Covenant you mean, the bare command of perfect perpetual Obedience, Chriſt died for ſins againſt that command which is ſtill in force, but not as a Covenant of Life given on that condition.
3. If by the firſt Covenant, you mean the punitive part of the Law of Innocency, ſaying, [Thou ſhalt die if thou obey not perfectly.] So Chriſt died for all our Sins in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, even as we are condemnable for them by that Law. And that part alſo of the Law continueth to make puniſhment our due in primo inſtanti, though with an adjoyned remedy.
4. If by the New Covenant, you mean the meer preceptive part of Chriſt's ſupernaturally-revealed Law, or of the foreſaid Law of Nature, as in the hands of Chriſt, ſo Chriſt died for ſins againſt the Law of Chriſt. 2. If by the New Covenant or Law you mean, the Promiſe and Threatening of Chriſts Law, or either; ſo Sin may be ſaid to be againſt them in two ſenſes: 1. Objectively, as they are neglected by us: And ſo that Sin formally is only againſt the Precept, and Chriſt died for it. 2. Or as the Sin hath puniſhment threatened by the Sanction, and no pardon given by the Promiſe: And ſo Sin is in two ſenſes alſo againſt the ſaid Sanction: that is, 1. When it is ſuch a Sin as the Promiſe giveth no pardon to conditionally, And ſuch as the commination peremptority condemneth the Sinner for to remedileſs miſery. And this Sin is the final non-perf…rmance of the Goſpel-Condition (Faith and Repentance). And ſuch only are fully obliged to ſuffer Hell by the commination of the Law of Grace: And for ſuch Sin Chriſt never died: not becauſe he never died for the perſon as to any other ſin, or for any benefit, as ſome teach: But becauſe, 1. He reſolved never to die for that ſin it ſelf, (of final Unbelief, Impenitence and Unholineſs.) 2. And becauſe he never died to ſatisfie his own Law of Grace, and to take off its proper full obligation to final puniſhment; but only to ſatisfie God inſtead of mans ſuffering what the Law of Works obliged him to.
2. But there is alſo a mediate or conditional dueneſs of puniſhment, according to the Law of Grace: which is when a man by not believing and not-repenting at the preſent, and by neglecting and reſiſting Grace, doth ſo far forfeit all Grace and Salvation, as that God may cut him off, and cast him into Hell if he will; not having peremptorily ſaid, that he will do it; nor given men any aſſurance that he will not. This man is not immediately and fully under the dueneſs of Hell fire, but on ſuppoſition that God ſhould firſt cut him off; and then his Impenitence would be final, which is the firſt caſe: But this perſon is under all this guilt. 1. Guilty of puniſhment not forgiven againſt the Law of Works. 2. He is ſo far guilty of puniſhment, according to the Law of Grace, as 1. That no pardon is given him, or due to him. 2. And God may juſtly take away his Spirit and forſake him. 3. And God may juſtly cut him …. 4. And if God ſhould cut him off, Hell will be his full immediate due.
147. By this it further appeareth, that we cannot be juſtified as perſonally Chriſt not capable of our kind of Obedience.fulfilling all Righteouſneſs in Chriſt: Becauſe we are all our life time principally under thoſe great Duties of the Law of Grace, which Chriſt neither did nor could do for us. We are bound all our days to accept a Saviour, to accept pardon of Sin, and mortifying Grace, to confeſs our Sins, to repent of them, and ſorrow for them; to labour in the uſe of all Means and Ordinances to mortifie them; To do all our duties as Sinners, in that manner as thoſe muſt do that are in a Phyſicians hands for Cure; To receive and apply Chriſt's Merits to that end; to beg his Interceſſion and daily pardon; To labour that imperfect Grace may be ſtrengthened: In a word, Sin, and a deſire of healing, ſo affect all that the Goſpel commandeth us, that Chriſt was not capable of any of this. And if all this was undone till our Converſion, and much of it undone after our Converſion, and yet Chriſt never did it for us, not we in him; How can it be ſaid that we are juſtified by fulfilling all the Law in and by Chriſt? yea the Law of Nature ſtill commandeth us, to obey the Law of Grace, ſuppoſing it made and revealed to us.
148. The queſtion whether Chriſt payed the Idem or the tantundem, is hence alſo more fully reſolved: By payment is meant, either Holineſs or The Idem or Tantundem.Suffering. And 1. This ſheweth that Chriſt's Obedience was not materially the ſame with ours (as aforeſaid). 2. And I before proved that a great, and the far greateſt part of our puniſhment was ſuch as Chriſt could never ſuffer; either permitted Sin it ſelf, or deſertion by the Spirit of Holineſs, or divine diſpleaſure and hatred, or accuſations of Conſcience, &c. 3. And the Law binding only the Sinner, and not any Surety to ſuffer, and every man perſonally to obey, moſt clearly it is not Idem qu…d debetur, were it but meerly becauſe it is not ejuſdem or per eundem.
149. Indeed ſolution of the Debt, and ſatisfaction ſtrictly taken thus …iffer, that ſatisfaction is ſolutio tantidem, vel aequivalentis alias indebi…i. And if Chriſt be ſaid to have paid the very ſame duty and puniſhment which the Law required, he is denied to have ſatisfied for our non-pay…ent: For a Law that is fully performed can require no more, nor the Law-giver neither: And therefore both Satisfaction and Pardon are ſhut …ut.
150. It is not properly the Law which is ſatisfied, but the Law-giver …s above Law as is ſaid: But yet improperly the Law may be ſaid to be …tisfied in that the ends of the Law-giver in it are obtained.
151. Though I owe much thanks to God for what, near thirty years go, I learned from Grotius de ſatisfact. yet I muſt ſay that in this great …ueſtion, whether Chriſt ſatisfied God for Sin as Domino abſoluto, vel … parti laeſae, vel ut Rectori, which he aſſerteth alone, I take him to come …ort of accurateneſs and ſoundneſs; And that this is the truth.
God is to man, 1. Dominus abſolutus, that is, our Owner. 2. Rector …premus. 3. Amicus, Benefactor: vel Pater & finis. Sin is againſt God in all theſe three Relations: 1. As our Owner, it is a denying him and …lienating his own quoad uſum. 2. As Rector, it breaketh his Law. 3. As …r Lover and End, it is a departing from him. For 1. As our Owner, we we him total reſignation and uſe as ſuch. 2. As our Ruler, we owe him …ubjection and Obedience as ſuch. 3. As our Friend (Benefactor & Ama…liſſimus) we owe him Gratitude and Love as ſuch (which yet is part …f Obedience too.) Now Sin being the privation of all this, God is to …e ſatisfied for it as ſuch, in all theſe three Relations; And is pars laeſa … all theſe three Relations, that is, he is injured, though not hurt. It is …ue, that Government and puniſhing Juſtice, formally as ſuch, belong to God only as Rector. And ſatisfaction is made him eminently in that Re…ation; yet alſo to compenſate the injury done by ſin to him in the other …wo Relations alſo.