The Imputation of Christs Righteousness, Polemic 1 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. The Objections Anſwered.
Obj. 1. YOƲ confound a Natural and a Political perſon: Chriſt and the ſeveral believing ſinners are not the ſame natural Perſon, but they are the ſame Political. As are with us, ſaith Dr. Tullie, the Sponſor and the Debtor, the Attorney and the Clyent, the Tutor and the Pupil; ſo are all the faithful in Chriſt, both as to their Celeſtial regenerate nature, of which he is the firſt Father, who begetteth ſons by his Spirit and ſeed of the Word to his Image, and as to Righteouſneſs derived by Legal Imputation. Vid. Dr. Tullie, Juſtif. Paul. p. 80, 81. It's commonly ſaid that Chriſt as our ſurety is our Perſon.
Anſ. 1. The diſtinction of a Perſon into Natural and Political or Legal, is equivoci in ſua equivocata: He therefore that would not have contention cheriſhed and men taught to damn each other for a word not underſtood, muſt give us leave to ask what theſe equivocals mean. What a Natural Perſon ſignifieth, we are pretty well agreed; but a Political Perſon is a word not ſo eaſily and commonly underſtood. Calvin tells us that Perſona definitur homo qui caput habet civile. (For omnis perſona eſt homo, ſed non viciſſim: Homo cum eſt vocabulum naturae; Perſona juris civilis.) And ſo (as Albenius) civitas, municipium, Caſtrum, Collegium, Ʋniverſitas, & quod. libet corpus, Perſonae appellatione continetur, ut Spigel. But if this Definition be commenſurate to the common nature of a civil perſon, then a King can be none; nor any one that hath not a civil head. This therefore is too narrow. The ſame Calvin (in n. Perſonae) tells us, that Seneca Perſonam vocat, cum prae ſe fert aliquis, quod non eſt; A Counterfeit: But ſure this is not the ſence of the Objectors. In general ſaith Calvin, Tam hominem quam qualitatem hominis, ſeu Conditionem ſignificat. But it is not ſure every Quality or Condition: Calvin therefore giveth us nothing ſatisfactory, to the deciſion of the Controverſie which theſe Divines will needs make, whether each believer and Chriſt be the ſame Political Perſon. Martinius will make our Controverſie no eaſier by the various ſignifications gathered out of Vet. Vocab. Gel. Scaliger, Valla; Which he thus enumerateth. 1. Perſona eſt accidens conditio hominis, qualitas quâ homo differt ab homine, tum in animo, tum in corpore, tum in externis. 2. Homo qualitate dictâ proditus: 3. Homo inſigni qualitate praeditus habens gradum eminentiae, in Eccleſia Dei, &c. 4. Figura, ſeu facies ficta, larva hiſtrionica, &c. 5. Ille qui ſub hujuſmodi figura aliquam repreſentat, &c. 6. Figura eminens in aedificiis quae ore aquam fundit, &c. Individua ſubſtantia humana, ſeu ſingularis homo. 8. Individua ſubſtantia Intelligens quaelibet. Now which of theſe is Perſona Politica vel Legalis. Let us but agree what we mean by the word and I ſuppoſe we ſhall find that we are agreed of the Matter. When I deny the Perſon of Chriſt and the ſinner to have been the ſame, or to be ſo reputed by God, I mean by Perſon, univocally or properly, An Individual Intelligent ſubſtance. And they that mean otherwiſe are obliged to Define; For Analogum per ſe poſitum ſtat pro▪ ſuo ſignificato famoſiore. If they mean that Chriſt and the Believer are the ſame as to ſome Quality, or Condition, let them tell us what Quality or Condition it is, and I think we ſhall be found to be of one mind.
But I think by the ſimilitudes of a Sponſor, Attorney, and Guardian, that they mean by a Political Perſon (not as a ſociety, nor ſuch as agree in Quality, but) A natural Perſon ſo related to another Natural perſon, as that what he doth and ſuffereth, Is or Hath, is limitedly to certain ends and uſes as effectual as if that other perſon himſelf did and ſuffered, Were or Had numerically the ſame thing. I obtrude not a ſenſe on others, but muſt know theirs before I can know where we differ. And if this be the meaning, we are agreed: Thus far (though I greatly diſlike their way that lay much ſtreſs on ſuch humane phraſes,) I grant the thing meant by them. Chriſts Holineſs Habitual and Actual, and his Merits and Satisfaction are as effectual to a believers Juſtification and Salvation upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace (which is ſealed by baptiſm) as if we had been, done and ſuffered the ſame our ſelves. But ſtill remember that this is only [limitedly] to theſe uſes, and on theſe termes and no other, and I think that this is the meaning of moſt Divines that uſe this phraſe.
But the ſenſe of thoſe men that I differ from and write againſt (the Libertines and Antinomians, and ſome others that own not thoſe names,) is this: that A Legal Perſon is one ſo Related to anothers Natural perſon as that what he Hath, Doth, or Suffereth in ſuch a caſe, is (not only effectual as aforeſaid to others, but) is in itſelf ſimply Reputed or Imputed to be Morally, though not phyſically, the Habit, Act and Suffering, the Merit and ſatisfactory Sacrifice of the other perſon: And ſo being the reputed Haver, Doer or Sufferer, Meriter or Satisfyer himſelf, he hath abſolute right to all the proper reſults or benefits.
And ſo a man may indeed many ways among us Repreſent or Perſonate another. If I by Law am Commanded to do this or that ſervice per meipſum aut per alium, I do it in the Moral or Law-ſence, becauſe the other doth it in my name and I am allowed ſo to do it. So if I appear or anſwer by any Proctor or Attorney; if the Law make it equal to my perſonal appearance and anſwer, it is ſaid that I did it by him: (but only ſo far as he doth it as my Repreſenter or in my name): So if I pay a debt by the hand of my Servant or any Meſſenger, if ſo allowed, I do it by that other. So indeed a Pupil, doth by his Guardian what his Guardian doth, only ſo far as the Law obligeth him to conſent or ſtand to it.
We did not thus our ſelves fulfil all the Law in and by Chriſt: Nor are we thus the Proprietors of his Habitual perfection, Merits or Satisfaction.
The common reaſon given by the contrary-minded is, that he was our Surety, or Sponſor, or fidejuſſor: and ſo we tranſlate foreign Heb. 7.22. and I remember not any other text of Scripture allegable for that title. But this word doth not neceſſarily ſignifie any ſuch Repreſenter of our Perſons as aforeſaid. Nay when he is called thus the fidejuſſor of a better Covenant, it ſeemeth plain that it is Gods Covenant as ſuch, and ſo Gods Sponſor that is meant; and as Grotius ſaith Moſes pro Deo ſpoſpondit in Lege Veteri: Jeſus pro Deo in Lege Nova: Lex utraque & pactum continet, promiſſa habet. Sponſorem dare ſolent minûs nati: & Moſes & Deus hominibus melius nati erant quam Deus qui inconſpicuus. So alſo Dr. Hamond [He was Sponſor and Surety for God, that it ſhould be made good to us on Gods part, on Condition that we performed that which was required of us:] And here they that tranſlate foreign a Teſtament, never intended that it was our Part of the Covenant that is meant by a Teſtament: But (the moſt Judicious expoſitor,) Mr. Lawſon on the text, truly ſaith [The Scriptures of Moſes and the Prophets tranſlated into Greek will tell us; That foreign always ſignifieth a Law or a Covenant, and for the moſt part both: ſo it doth in the writings of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts where it ſeldom ſignifieth the laſt Will and Teſtament of a man. The ſame thing is a Law in reſpect of the precepts, &c. foreign turned Surety, ſignifieth one that undertaketh for another to ſee ſomething paid or performed: And though the word is not found in the New Teſtament except in this place, &c. But Varnius tells us that foreign is foreign, a Mediator; and ſo it is taken here as it's expounded by the Apoſtle in the Chapter following: And becauſe a Prieſt doth undertake to procure from God, both the Confirmation and performance of the promiſes to the people, and to that end mediates between both; therefore he is a Surety and Mediator of the Covenant, and in this reſpect the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant is a Prieſt.]
So Calvin (though almoſt paſſing it by) ſeemeth to intimate that which I think is the truth, that Chriſt is called foreign of Gods Covenant from the ſacerdotal appropinquation, mentioned verſ. 19. &c.
And M…rlorate after Theoph…lact, Sponſorem pro Mediatore & interceſſore poſuit.
So Paraeus in loc. Eſt novi faederis Sponſor Chriſtus, quia novum faedus ſanguine & morte ſua obſignavit.
So the Dutch Annot. and many others, beſides the Ancients, by a Sponſor, tell us is meant a Mediator.
And we grant that a Mediator is not of one, but doth ſomewhat on the behalf of both parties. But that as Mediator he Is; Hath, Doth, Suffereth, Meritteth, Satisfyeth; ſo as the Repreſenter or perſon of each believer, as that every ſuch Perſon is ſuppoſed in Law to have Been, Done, Suffered, Merited, thus in and by the Mediator, is neither ſignified by this or any other text.
2. And they that diſtinguiſh of a Natural and Political Perſon, do but darken the caſe by an ill-expreſſed diſtinction, which indeed is not of two ſorts of Perſons, but between Reality and Acceptation, taking Perſon properly for a Natural Perſon: It's one thing to be ſuch a Perſon, and another thing to have the Act, Paſſion, Merit, &c. Accepted for that other Perſon: And this latter ſignifieth, either 1. That it was done by the other perſon mediately, as being a cheif Cauſe acting by his Inſtrument. 2. Or that it was done for that other Perſon by another. The firſt is our denyed ſence, and the ſecond our affirmed ſence.
Among us Sureties and Sponſors are of ſeveral ſorts: Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another ſenſe of Sponſion in the Civil Law, than is pertinent to the objectors uſe: And in Baptiſm the ſame word, hath had divers ſenſes as uſed by perſons of different intentions. The time was when the Sponſor was not at all taken for the Political Perſon (as you call it) of Parent or Child, nor ſpake as their Inſtrument, in their name: But was a Third perſon, who (becauſe many parents Apoſtatized, and more Died in the Childs minority) did paſs his word, 1. That the Parent was a credible Perſon, 2. That if he Dyed ſo ſoon or Apoſtatized, he himſelf would undertake the Chriſtian Education of the Child. But the Parent himſelf was Sponſor for the Child in a ſtricter ſenſe, (as alſo Adopting Pro-parents were, & as ſome take God-fathers to be now,) that is, they were taken for ſuch, whoſe Reaſon, will and word, we authoriſed to diſpoſe of the Child as obligingly, as if it had been done by his own reaſon will and word, ſo be it, it were but For his good, and the Child did own it when he came to age: And ſo they were to ſpeak as in the Childs name, as if Nature or Charity made them his Repreſenters, in the Judgment of many. (Though others rather think that they were to ſpeak as in their own perſons, e. g. I dedicate this Child to God, and enter him into the Covenant as obliged by my Conſent.) But this ſenſe of Sponſion is nothing to the preſent Caſe.
They that lay all upon the very Name of a Surety as if the word had but one ſignification, and all Sureties properly repreſented the perſon of the Principal obliged perſon, do deal very deceitfully: There are Sureties or Sponſors, 1. For ſome Duty, 2. For Debt, 3. For Puniſhment. 1. It is one thing to undertake that another ſhall do a Commanded duty: 2. It's another thing to undertake that elſe I will do it for him: 3. It's another thing to be Surety that he ſhall pay a Debt, or elſe I will pay it for him: 4. It's another thing to undertake that he ſhall ſuffer a penalty, or elſe to ſuffer for him, or make a Valuable Compenſation.
1. And it's one kind of Surety that becometh a ſecond party in the bond, and ſo maketh himſelf a debtor; 2. And its another ſort of Surety that undertaketh only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a Friend; who may pay it on ſuch Conditions as he and the Creditor think meet, without the Debtors knowledg. Every Novice that will but open Calvin may ſee that Fidejuſſor and Sponſor are words of very various ſignification; and that they ſeldom or never ſignifie the Perſon Natural or Political (as you call it) of the Principal: Sponſor eſt qui ſponte & non rogatus pro alio promittit, ut Accurſ. vel quicunque ſpondet, maximè pro aliis: Fidejubere eſt ſuo periculo fore id, de quo agitur, recipere: Vel, fidem ſuam pro alio obligare. He is called Adpromiſſor, and he is Debtor, but not the ſame perſon with the Principal, but his promiſe is acceſſoria obligatio, non principalis. Therefore Fidejuſſor ſive Interceſſor non eſt conveniendus, niſi prius debitore principali convento: Fidejuſſores a correis ita differunt, quod hi ſuo & proprio morbo laborant, illi vero alieno tenentur: Quare fideijuſſori magis ſuccurrendum cenſent: Veniâ namque digni ſunt qui alienâ tenentur Culpâ, cujuſmodi ſunt fidejuſſores pro alieno debito obligati, inquit Calv.
There muſt be ſomewhat more than the bare name foreign once uſed of Chriſt as Mediator of Gods Covenant, or the name of a Surety as now uſed among men, that muſt go to prove that the Mediator and the ſeveral ſinners are the ſame Legal Perſons in Gods account.
But ſeeing Legal-Perſonality is but a Relation of our Natural perſon, to another Natural perſon, that we may not quarrel and tear the Church when really we differ not 1. Let our agreement be noted. 2. Our difference intelligibly ſtated.
1. It is granted (not only by Dr. Tullie, but others that accurately handle the Controverſie,) 1. That Chriſt and the Believer never were nor are our Natural perſon; and that no union with him maketh us to be Chriſt, or God, nor him to be Peter, John, or Paul, &c. That we know of no third ſort of Natural perſon, (which is neither Jeſus, nor Peter, John, &c.) But compoſed of both united, which is conſtituted by our Union. For though it be agreed on, that the ſame Spirit that is in Chriſt is (operatively) alſo in all his Members, and that therefore our Communion with him is more than Relative, and that from this Real-Communion, the name of a Real-Ʋnion may be uſed; yet here the Real-Ʋnion is not Perſonal (as the ſame Sun quickeneth and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and a Plant, and yet maketh them not our perſon:) Therefore he that will ſay we are Phyſically one with Chriſt, and not only Relatively; but tell us [ONE What?] and make his words Intelligible; and muſt deny that we are ONE PERSON: and that by that time we are not like to be found differing. But remember that while Phyſical Communion, is confeſſed by all, what ƲNION we ſhall from thence be ſaid to have (this Foundation being agreed on) is like to prove but a queſtion, de realitione & nomine.
2. Yea all the world muſt acknowledg that the whole Creation is quoad praeſentiam & derivationem more dependant on God than the fruit is on the Tree, or the Tree on the Earth, and that God is the inſeperate Cauſe of our Being, Station, and Life; And yet this natural intimateneſs, and influx, and cauſality, maketh not GOD and every Creature abſolutely or perſonally One.
3. It is agreed therefore that Chriſt's Righteouſness is neither materially nor formally, any Accident of our natural Perſons; (and an Accident it is) unleſs it can be reduced to that of Relation. 1. The Habits of our Perſon, cannot poſſibly be the habits of another inherently. 2. The actions of one cannot poſſibly be the actions of another, as the Agent, unleſs as that other as a principal Cauſe, acteth by the other as his Inſtrument or ſecond Cauſe. 3. The ſame fundamentum relationis inherent in One Perſon, is not inherent in another if it be a perſonal Relation: And ſo the ſame individual Relation that is one Mans, cannot numerically be another Mans, by the ſame ſort of in-being, propriety▪ or adherence. Two Brothers have a Relation in kind the ſame, but not unmerically.
4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falſly, and therefore taketh not Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to be any more or otherwiſe ours; than indeed it is; nor imputeth it to us erroneouſly.
5. Yet it is commonly agreed, that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is OƲRS in ſome ſenſe; And ſo far is juſtly reputed Ours, or imputed to us as being Ours.
6. And this ambiguous ſyallable [OƲRS] (enough to ſet another Age of Wranglers into bitter Church-tearing ſtrife, if not hindred by ſome that will call them to explain an ambiguous word) is it that muſt be underſtood to end this Controverſie. Propriety is the thing ſignified. 1. In the ſtricteſt ſenſe that is called Ours, which inhereth in us, or that which is done by us. 2. In a larger (Moral) ſenſe, that which a Man as the principal Cauſe, doth by another as his Inſtrument, by authorizing, commanding, perſwading, &c. 3. In a yet larger ſenſe that may be called OƲRS, which a third perſon doth partly inſtead of what we ſhould have done (had, or ſuffered) and partly for our uſe, or benefit. 4. In a yet larger ſenſe that may be called OƲRS, which another hath, or doth, or ſuffereth for our Benefit, (though not in our ſtead) and which will be for our good, (as that which a Friend or Father hath, is his Friends or Childs, and all things are Ours, whether Paul, or &c. and the Godly are owners of the World, in as much as God will uſe all for their good).
7. It is therefore a Relation which Chriſt's Righteouſneſs hath to us, or we to it, that muſt here be meant by the word [OƲRS]: Which is our RIGHT or Jus; And that is acknowledged to be no Jus or Right to it in the foreſaid denied ſenſe; And it is agreed that ſome Right it is. Therefore, to underſtand what it is, the Titulus ſeu Fundamentum juris muſt be known.
8. And here it is agreed; 1. That we are before Converſion or Faith related to Chriſt as part of the Redeemed World, of whom it is ſaid, 2 Cor. 5.19. That God was in Chriſt, reconciling the World to himſelf, not imputing to them their ſins, &c. 2. That we are after Faith related to Chriſt as his Covenanted People, Subjects, Brethren, Friends, and Political Members; yea, as ſuch that have Right to, and Poſſeſſion of Real Communion with him by his Spirit: And that we have then Right to Pardon, Juſtification, and Adoption, (or have Right to Impunity in the promiſed degree, and to the Spirits Grace, and the Love of God, and Heavenly Glory). This Relation to Chriſt and this Right, to the Benefits of his Righteouſneſs are agreed on: And conſequently that his Righteouſness is OƲRS, and ſo may be called, as far as the foreſaid Relations and Rights import.
II. Now a Relation (as Ockam hath fully proved) having no real entity, beſide the quid abſolutum, which is the Subject, Fundamentum, or Terminus, he that yet raileth at his Brother as not ſaying enough, or not being herein ſo wiſe as he, and will maintain that yet Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is further OƲRS, muſt name the Fundamentum of that Right or Propriety: What more is it that you mean? I think the make-bates have here little probability of fetching any more Fuel to their Fire, or turning Chriſt's Goſpel into an occaſion of ſtrife and mutual enmity, if they will but be driven to a diſtinct explication, and will not make confuſion and ambiguous words their defence and weapons. If you ſet your quarrelſome Brains on work, and ſtudy as hard as you can for matter of Contention, it will not be eaſie for you to find it, unleſs you will raze out the names of Popery, Socinianiſm, Arminianiſm, or Solifidianiſm, Hereſie, &c. inſtead of real Difference. But if the angrieſt and lowdeſt Speakers be in the right, Bedlam and Billingsgate may be the moſt Orthodox places.
Briefly, 1. The foreſaid Benefits of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, (Habitual, Active and Paſſive) as a Meritorious, Satisfactory, Purchaſing Cauſe, are ours.
2. To ſay that the Benefits are Ours, importeth that the Cauſal Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is related to us, and the Effects as ſuch a Cauſe: and ſo is it ſelf OƲRS, in that ſenſe, that is, ſo related.
3. And Chriſt himſelf is OƲRS, as related to us as our Saviour; the Procurer and Giver of thoſe Benefits. And do you mean any more by [OƲRS]?
If you ſay that we deny any Benefits of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs which you aſſert, name what they are. If you ſay that we deny any true Fundamentum juris, or reaſon of our title, name what that is. If you ſay that we deny any true Relation to Chriſt himſelf, tell us what it is: If you cannot, ſay that you are agreed.
1. If you ſay that the Benefit denied by us, is that we are judged by God, as thoſe that (habitually and actively) have perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency our ſelves, though not in our natural Perſons, yet by Chriſt as repreſenting us, and ſo ſhall be juſtified by that Law of Innocency as the Fulfiller of it, we do deny it, and ſay, That you ſubvert the Goſpel, and the true Benefits which we have by Chriſt.
2. If you ſay that we deny that God eſteemeth or reputeth us, to be the very Subjects of that Numerical Righteouſneſs, in the Habits, Acts, Paſſion or Relation, which was in the Perſon of Chriſt, or to have done, ſuffered, or merited our ſelves in and by him, as the proper Repreſenter of our Perſons therein; and ſo that his Righteouſneſs is thus imputed to us as truly in it ſelf our own propriety, we do deny it, and deſire you to do ſo alſo, leſt you deny Chriſtianity.
2. If you blame us for ſaying, That we had or have no ſuch Relation to Chriſt, as to our Inſtrument, or the proper full Repreſenter of each Believers particular Perſon, by whom we did truly fulfil the Law of Innocency, habitually and actively, and ſatisfied, merited, &c. We do ſtill ſay ſo, and wiſh you to conſider what you ſay, before you proceed to ſay the contrary.
But if you come not up to this, where will you find a difference.
Object. 2. Chriſt is called The Lord our Righteouſneſs, and he is made Righteouſneſs to us, and we are made the Righteouſneſs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21, &c. And by the Obedience of one, many are made Righteous.
Anſw. And are we not all agreed of all this? But can his Righteouſneſs be Ours no way but by the foreſaid Perſonation Repreſentating? How prove you that? He is Our Righteouſneſs, and his Obedience maketh us Righteous.
1. Becauſe the very Law of Innocency which we diſhonoured and broke by ſin, is perfectly fulfilled and honoured by him, as a Mediator, to repair the injury done by our breaking it.
2. In that he ſuffered to ſatisfie Juſtice for our ſin.
3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the Father, all that Righteouſneſs which we are truly the Subjects of, whether it be Relative, or Qualitative, or Active; that is, 1. Our Right to Chriſt in Union to the Spirit, to Impunity, and to Glory; And, 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which we are made Holy, and fulfil the Conditions of the Law of Grace. We are the Subjects of theſe, and he is the Miniſter, and the meritorious Cauſe of our Life, is well called Our Righteouſneſs, and by many the material Cauſe, (as our own perfect Obedience would have been) becauſe it is the Matter of that Merit.
4. And alſo Chriſt's Interceſſion with the Father, ſtill procureth all this as the Fruit of his Merits.
5. And we are Related as his Members (though not parts of his Perſon as ſuch) to him that thus merited for us.
6. And we have the Spirit from him as our Head.
7. And he is our Advocate, and will juſtifie us as our Judg.
8. And all this is God's Righteouſneſs deſigned for us, and thus far given us by him.
9. And the perfect Juſtice and Holineſs of God, is thus glorified in us through Chriſt. And are not all theſe ſet together enough to prove, that we juſtly own all aſſerted by theſe Texts? But if you think that you have a better ſenſe of them, you muſt better prove it, than by a bare naming of the words.
Object. 3. If Chriſt's Righteouſneſs be Ours, then we are Righteous by it as Ours; and ſo God reputeth it but as it is: But it is Ours; 1. By our Ʋnion with him. 2. And by his Gift, and ſo conſequently by God's Imputation.
Anſw. 1. I have told you before that it is confeſſed to be Ours; but that this ſyllable OƲRS hath many ſenſes; and I have told you in what ſenſe, and how far it is OƲRS, and in that ſenſe we are juſtified by it, and it is truly imputed to us, or reputed or reckoned as OƲRS: But not in their ſenſe that claim a ſtrict Propriety in the ſame numerical Habits, Acts, Sufferings, Merits, Satisfaction, which was in Chriſt, or done by him, as if they did become Subjects of the ſame Accidents; or, as if they did it by an inſtrumental ſecond Cauſe. But it is OƲRS, as being done by a Mediator, inſtead of what we ſhould have done, and as the Meritorious Cauſe of all our Righteouſneſs and Benefits, which are freely given us for the ſake hereof.
2. He that is made Righteouſneſs to us, is alſo made Wiſdom, Sanctification and Redemption to us: but that ſub genere Cauſae Efficientis, non autem Cauſae Conſtitutivae: We are the Subjects of the ſame numerical Wiſdom and Holineſs which is in Chriſt. Plainly the Queſtion is, Whether Chriſt or his Righteouſneſs, Holineſs, Merits, and Satiſfaction, be Our Righteouſneſs Conſtitutively, or only Efficiently? The Matter and Form of Chriſt's Perſonal Righteouſneſs is OƲRS, as an Efficient Cauſe, but it is neither the neareſt Matter, or the Form of that Righteouſneſs which is OƲRS as the Subjects of it; that is, It is not a Conſtitutive Cauſe nextly material, or formal of it.
3. If our Union with Chriſt were Perſonal, (making us the ſame Perſon) then doubtleſs the Accidents of his Perſon would be the Accidents of ours, and ſo not only Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, but every Chriſtians would be each of Ours: But that is not ſo. Nor is it ſo given us by him.
Object. 4. You do ſeem to ſuppoſe that we have none of that kind of Righteouſneſs at all, which conſiſteth in perfect Obedience and Holineſs, but only a Right to Impunity and Life, with an imperfect Inherent Righteouſneſs in our ſelves: The Papiſts are forced to confeſs, that a Righteouſneſs we muſt have which conſiſteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law, and not only the Retributive part: But they ſay, It is in our ſelves, and we ſay it is Chriſt's imputed to us.
Anſw. 1. The Papiſts (e. g. Learned Vaſque… in Rom. 5.) talk ſo ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants, or the Law of Innocency and of Grace, as if they never underſtood it. And hence they 1. ſeem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency, or of Nature now commanding our perfect Obedience, but only of the Law of Grace. 2. Therefore they uſe to call thoſe Duties but Perfections; and the Commands that require them, but Counſels, where they are not made Conditions of Life: and ſins not bringing Damnation, ſome call Venial, (a name not unfit) and ſome expound that as properly no ſin, but analogically. 3. And hence they take little notice, when they treat of Juſtification, of the Remitting of Puniſhment; but by remitting Sin, they uſually mean the deſtroying the Habits: As if they forgot all actual ſin paſt, or thought that it deſerved no Puniſhment, or needed no Pardon: For a paſt Act in it ſelf is now nothing, and is capable of no Remiſſion but Forgiveneſs. 4. Or when they do talk of Guil… of Puniſhment, they lay ſo much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction, as if Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits had procured no pardon, or at leaſt, of no temporal part of Puniſhment. 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Proteſtants, as if we denied all Perſonal Inherent Righteouſneſs, and truſted only to the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs as juſtifying wicked unconverted Men: The Papiſts therefore ſay not that we are innocent or ſinleſs, (really or imputatively); no not when they dream of Perfection and Supererrogation, unleſs when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Condition of the Law of Grace, and not that of Innocency.
2. But if any of them do as you ſay, no wonder if they and you contend: If one ſay, We are Innocent, or Sinleſs in reality, and the other, we are ſo by Imputation, when we are ſo no way at all (but ſinners really, and ſo reputed); what Reconciliation is there to be expected, till both lay by their Errour?
Object. 5. How can God accept him as juſt, who is really and reputedly a Sinner? This diſhonoureth his Holineſs and Juſtice.
Anſw. Not ſo: Cannot God pardon ſin, upon a valuable Merit and Satisfaction of a Mediator? And though he judg us not perfect now, and accept us not as ſuch; yet 1. now he judgeth us Holy, 2. and the Members of a perfect Saviour; 3. and will make us perfect and ſpotleſs, and then ſo judg us, having waſhed us from our ſins in the Blood of the Lamb.
Object. 6. Thus you make the Reatus Culpae, not pardoned at all, but only the Reatus Poenae.
Anſw. 1. If by Reatus Culpae be meant the Relation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator, and ſo to be Reus, is to be Revera ipſe qui peccavit; then we muſt conſider what you mean by Pardon: For if you mean the nullifying of ſuch a Guilt, (or Reality) it is impoſſible, becauſe neceſſiate exiſtentiae, he that hath once ſinned, will be ſtill the Perſon that ſinned, while he is a Perſon, and the Relation of one that ſinned will cleave to him: It will eternally be a true Propoſition, [Peter and Paul did ſin]; But if by Pardon you mean, the pardoning of all the penalty which for that ſin is due, (damni vel ſenſus) ſo it is pardoned; and this is indeed the Reatus poenae: Not only the Penalty, but the Dueneſs of that Penalty, or the Obligation to it, is remitted and nullified.
2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpae you mean an Obligation to Puniſhment for that Fault, this being indeed the Reatus poenae, as is ſaid, is done away. So that we are, I think, all agreed de re; And de nomine you may ſay that the Reatus Culpae is done away or remitted, or not, in ſeveral ſenſes: In ſe it is not nullified, nor can be: But as Dueneſs of Puniſhment followeth, that is pardoned.
Object. 7. You have ſaid, That though we were not perſonally but ſeminally in Adam when he ſinned, yet when we are Perſons, we are Perſons guilty of his actual ſin: And ſo we muſt be Perſons that are Partakers of Chriſt's Actual Righteouſneſs, and not only of its Effects, as ſoon as we are Believers. For Chriſt being the Second Adam, and publick Perſon▪ we have our part in his Righteouſneſs, as truly and as much as in Adam's ſin.
Anſw. 1. We muſt firſt underſtand how far Adam's ſin is ours: And firſt I have elſewhere proved that our Covenant-Ʋnion and Intereſt ſuppoſeth our Natural Ʋnion and Intereſt; and that it is an adding to God's Word and Covenant, to ſay, That he covenanted that Adam ſhould perſonate each one of his Poſterity in God's imputation or account, any further than they were naturally in him; and ſo that his innocency or ſin ſhould be reputed theirs, as far as if they had been perſonally the Subjects and Agents. The Perſon of Peter never was in Reality or God's Reputation, the Perſon of Adam. (Nor Adam's Perſon the Perſon of Peter): But Peter being virtually and ſeminally in Adam, when he ſinned, his Perſon is derived from Adam's Perſon: And ſo Peter's Guilt is not numerically the ſame with Adams, but the Accident of another Subject, and therefore another Accident, derived with the Perſon from Adam (and from nearer Parents). The Fundamentum of that Relation (of Guilt) is the Natural Relation of the Perſon to Adam, (and ſo it is Relatio in Relatione fundata). The Fundamentum of that natural Relation, is Generation, yea a ſeries of Generations from Adam to that Perſon: And Adam's Generation being the Communication of a Guilty Nature with perſonality to his Sons and Daughters, is the fundamentum next following his perſonal Fault and Guilt charged on him by the Law: So that here is a long ſeries of efficient Cauſes, bringing down from Adam's Perſon and Guilt a diſtinct numerical Perſon and Guilt of every one of his later Poſterity.
2. And it is not the ſame ſort of Guilt, or ſo plenary, which is on us, for Adam's Act, as was on him, but a Guilt Analogical, or of another ſort: that is, He was guilty of being the wilful ſinning Perſon, and ſo are not we, but only of being Perſons whoſe Being is derived by Generation from the wilful ſinning Perſons, (beſides the guilt of our own inherent pravity): That is, The Relation is ſuch which our Perſons have to Adam's Perſon, as make it juſt with God to deſert us, and to puniſh us for that and our pravity together. This is our Guilt of Original ſin.
3. And this Guilt cometh to us by Natural Propagation, and reſultancy from our very Nature ſo propagated. And now let us conſider of our contrary Intereſt in Chriſt.
And, 1. Our Perſons are not the ſame as Chriſt's Perſon, (nor Chriſt's as ours) nor ever ſo judged or accounted of God.
2. Our Perſons were not naturally, ſeminally, and virtually in Chriſt's Perſon (any further than he is Creator and Cauſe of all things) as they were in Adams.
3. Therefore we derive not Righteouſneſs from him by Generation, but by his voluntary Donation or Contract.
4. As he became not our Natural Parent, ſo our Perſons not being in Chriſt when he obeyed, are not reputed to have been in him naturally, or to have obeyed in and by him.
5. If Chriſt and we are reputed one Perſon, either he obeyed in our Perſon, or we in his, or both. If he obeyed as a Reputed Sinner in the Perſon of each Sinner, his Obedience could not be meritorious, according to the Law of Innocency, which required ſinleſs Perfection; And he being ſuppoſed to have broken the Law in our Perſons, could not ſo be ſuppoſed to keept it. If we obeyed in his Perſon, we obeyed as Mediators, or Chriſt's, of which before.
6. But as is oft ſaid, Chriſt our Mediator undertook in a middle Perſon to reconcile God and Man, (not by bringing God erroneouſly to judg that he or we were what we are not, or did what we did not, but) by being, doing, and ſuffering for us, that in his own Perſon, which ſhould better anſwer God's Ends and Honour, than if we had done and ſuffered in our Perſons, that hereby he might merit a free Gift of Pardon and Life (with himſelf) to be given by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Accepters. And ſo our Righteouſneſs, as is oft opened, is a Relation reſulting at once from all theſe Cauſes as fundamental to it, viz. Chriſt's Meritorious Righteouſneſs, his free Gift thereupon, and our Relation to him as Covenanters or United Believers. And this is agreed on.
Object. 8. As Chriſt is a Sinner by imputation of our ſin, ſo we are Righteous, by the imputation of his Righteouſneſs. But it is our ſin it ſelf that is imputed to Chriſt: Therefore it is his Righteouſneſs it ſelf that is imputed to us.
Anſw. 1. Chriſt's Perſon was not the Subject of our perſonal Relative Guilt, much leſs of our Habits or Acts.
2. God did not judg him to have been ſo.
3. Nay, Chriſt had no Guilt of the ſame kind reckoned to be on him; elſe thoſe unmeet Speeches, uſed raſhly by ſome, would be true, viz. That Chriſt was the greateſt Murderer, Adulterer, Idolater, Blaſphemer, Thief, &c. in all the World, and conſequently more hated of God, (for God muſt needs hate a ſinner as ſuch). To be guilty of ſin as we are, is to be reputed truly to be the Perſon that committed it: But ſo was not Chriſt, and therefore not ſo to be reputed. Chriſt was but the Mediator that undertook to ſuffer for our ſins, that we might be forgiven; and not for his own ſin, real or juſtly reputed: Expoſitors commonly ſay that to be [made ſin for us], is but to be made [a Sacrifice for ſin]. So that Chriſt took upon him neither our numerical guilt of ſin it ſelf, nor any of the ſame ſpecies; but only our Reatum Poenae, or Debt of Puniſhment, or (leſt the Wrangler make a verbal quarrel of it) our Reatum Culpae non qua talem & in ſe, ſed quatenus eſt fundamentum Reatus poenae: And ſo his Righteouſneſs is ours; not numerically the ſame Relation that he was the Subject of made that Relation to us; nor yet a Righteouſneſs of the ſame Species as Chriſt's is given us at all, (for his was a Mediators Righteouſneſs, conſiſting in, 1. perfect Innocency; 2. And that in the Works of the Jewiſh Law, which bind us not; 3. And in doing his peculiar Works, as Miracles, Reſurrection, &c. which were all His Righteouſneſs as a conformity to that Law, and performance of that Covenant, which was made with, and to him as Mediator). But his Righteouſneſs is the Meritorious Cauſe and Reaſon of another Righteouſneſs or Juſtification (diſtinct from his) freely given us by the Father and himſelf by his Covenant. So that here indeed the Similitude much cleareth the Matter; And they that will not blaſpheme Chriſt by making guilt of ſin it ſelf in its formal Relation to be his own, and ſo Chriſt to be formally as great a ſinner as all the Redeemed ſet together, and they that will not overthrow the Goſpel, by making us formally as Righteous as Chriſt in kind and meaſure, muſt needs be agreed with us in this part of the Controverſie.
Object. 9. When you infer, That if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Chriſt, we cannot be again bound to obey our ſelves afterward, nor be guilty of any ſin; you muſt know that it's true, That we cannot be bound to obey to the ſame ends as Chriſt did, (which is to redeem us, or to fulfil the Law of Works) But yet we muſt obey to other ends, viz. Ingratitude, and to live to God, and to do good, and other ſuch like.
Anſw. 1. This is very true, That we are not bound to obey to all the ſame ends that Chriſt did, as to redeem the World, nor to fulfil the Law of Innocency. But hence it clearly followeth that Chriſt obeyed not in each of our Perſons legally, but in the Perſon of a Mediator, ſeeing his due Obedience and ours have ſo different Ends, and a different formal Relation, (his being a conformity proximately to the Law, given him as Mediator) that they are not ſo much as of the ſame ſpecies, much leſs numerically the ſame.
2. And this fully proveth that we are not reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by him: For elſe we could not be yet obliged to obey, though to other ends than he was: For either this Obedience of Gratitude is a Duty or not; If not, it is not truly Obedience, nor the omiſſion ſin: If yea, then that Duty was made a Duty by ſome Law: And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude (or for what ends ſoever) either we do all that we are ſo bound to do, or not. If we do it (or any of it) then to ſay that we did it twice, once by Chriſt, and once by our ſelves, is to ſay that we were bound to do it twice, and then Chriſt did not all that we were bound to, but half: But what Man is he that ſinneth not? Therefore ſeeing it is certain, that no Man doth all that he is bound to do by the Goſpel, (in the time and meaſure of his Faith, Hope, Love, Fruitfulneſs, &c.) it followeth that he is a ſinner, and that he is not ſuppoſed to have done all that by Chriſt which he failed in, both becauſe he was bound to do it himſelf, and becauſe he is a ſinner for not doing it.
3. Yea, the Goſpel binds us to that which Chriſt could not do for us, it being a Contradiction. Our great Duties are, 1. To believe in a Saviour. 2. To improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of Faith. 3. To repent of our ſins. 4. To mortifie ſinful Luſts in our ſelves. 5. To fight by the Spirit againſt our fleſh. 6. To confeſs our ſelves ſinners. 7. To pray for pardon. 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want. 9. To love God for redeeming us. 10. Sacramentally to covenant with Chriſt, and to receive him and his Gifts; with many ſuch like; which Chriſt was not capable of doing in and on his own Perſon for us, though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them, and pray for the pardon of our ſins, as in our ſelves.
4. But the Truth which this Objection intimateth, we all agree in, viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency, that the keeping of that Law might not be neceſſary to our Salvation, (and ſo ſuch Righteouſneſs neceſſary in our ſelves) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency, and be ſaved upon our ſincere keeping of the Law of Grace, becauſe the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator, and thereby the Grace of the New-Covenant merited, and by it Chriſt, Pardon, Spirit and Life, by him freely given to Believers.
Object. 10. The ſame Perſon may be really a ſinner in himſelf, and yet perfectly innocent in Chriſt, and by imputation.
Anſw. Remember that you ſuppoſe here the Perſon and Subject to be the ſame Man: And then that the two contrary Relations of perfect Innocency, or guiltleſneſs, and guilt of any, (yea much ſin) can be conſiſtent in him, is a groſs contradiction. Indeed he may be guilty, and not guilty in ſeveral partial reſpects; but a perfection of guiltleſneſs excludeth all guilt. But we are guilty of many a ſin after Converſion, and need a Pardon. All that you ſhould ſay is this, We are ſinners our ſelves, but we have a Mediator that ſinned not, who merited Pardon and Heaven for ſinners.
2. But if you mean that God reputeth us to be perfectly innocent when we are not, becauſe that Chriſt was ſo, it is to impute Error to God: He reputeth no Man to be otherwiſe than he is: But he doth indeed firſt give, and then impute a Righteouſneſs Evangelical to us, inſtead of perfect Innocency, which ſhall as certainly bring us to Glory; and that is, He giveth us both the Renovation of his Spirit, (to Evangelical Obedience) and a Right by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt that merited it; And this thus given us, he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteouſneſs in us.