The Scripture Gospel Defended, Text – Title page 2
An Anſwer to ſome Animadverſions of a Friend, tending to the further explication of ſome paſſages which through brevity were not underſtood.
§. 1. SIR, Your notes have ſo much Judgment and moderation and ſo little, if any thing contrary to what I aſſert, that they require nothing from me, but a repeated explication of that which you obſerved not as before explained: But when it is enough for me to explain my own Words and Doctrine, you put me on another task to ſeek after the explication of another mans; which I am not obliged to on any account, but for your Satisfaction. It is enough for me to ſpeak true Doctrine in the moſt intelligible manner that I can without examining whether other mens expreſſions be ſound or apt.
§. 2. I begin with your own Notes: And 1. I hope that few are ſo ignorant (that meddle in theſe matters) as to doubt of what you ſay, that no one term much leſs one Metaphor or ſimilitude can adequately expreſs any of the Myſteries of Grace, and no one Metaphor muſt be carried too far; Omne ſimile eſt etiam diſſimile: And all ſet together ſo far as they are thereto intended muſt inſtruct us.
§. 3. I know none but the Socinians that think a Mediator and a Sponſor inconſiſtent; or deny Chriſt to be a Sponſor. And methinks your words for their conſiſtency, import a greater difference between them than there is. It is part of Chriſts Mediation to be a Sponſor: Theſe terms therefore expreſs no difference but between the whole and the part.
But what a Sponſor Chriſt is, is all the doubt which I a little opened, and you paſs by. It is not agreed by expoſitors what the word foreign meaneth in that one only place of Scripture where it is uſed. Very learned expoſitors think that as Moſes was called Gods Mediator or Sponſor to the people as being his Spokeſman and in his name aſſuring them that this was Gods Covenant which he would perform, and returning the peoples anſwer to God, and praying for them but not undertaking for them, and perſonating them; ſo Chriſt is here likened to him, and called the Mediator and Sponſor of the new and better Covenant, not as he perſonateth or undertaketh for Covenanting Subjects, but only as he repreſenteth God the Father to man, and is his Sponſor to us.
But as Paul ſaith he is not a Mediator of one, ſo I ſee not but (though chiefly he be Gods Sponſor to man) yet withal he be there called a Sponſor alſo as well as a Mediator for man to God: But all the doubt is what a Sponſor for man he is.
And firſt we muſt enquire what Covenant he is a Sponſor of? No doubt but Gods Covenant with the Mediator as ſuch, is one, and Gods and the Mediators Covenant with man ſolemnized in baptiſm is another: And yet no doubt but theſe two have ſuch relation as that in ſome ſort or reſpect they may be called one. He that ſaith they are not two is plainly confuted by the conſtitutive defining parts, the Divers Parties, Matter, Terms and Ends.
It was not ſaid to Chriſt, but by Chriſt, [Repent and believe in Chriſt, or be damned.] Pardon and Salvation are not offered to Chriſt to be received by Faith in himſelf. Yet as the Laws of the Land though ſeveral, are One Inſtrumentum Regiminis: So we call all the Laws of Nature uſually ſingularly. The Law of Nature, (and ſo we ſay, The Civil Law, the Canon Law, Gods Law, &c.) Now the queſtion is, what Covenant Chriſt was the Sponſor of? 1. In his own proper Covenant he did Spondere & praeſtare, to ſuffer for us, and to obey for us, (in the juſt ſence in due place explained,) to riſe and aſcend for us, to intercede for us, to Teach us, Guide us, give out his Spirit, and to Juſtifie and Sanctifie and Glorifie his choſen: So that it was part of his Undertaking and Performance to do all this for us; and this may well be called his becoming a Sponſor for us, and to be made to us, Wiſdom, Righteouſneſs, Sanctification and Redemption.
In our Covenant with Chriſt, he is the Impoſer and Stipulator, and we are to Promiſe for our part, to be done by his promiſed help. But on Gods part, it is in this that he is the Sponſor, and not in the former, where God the Father is the Promiſer to Chriſt, and not Chriſt to himſelf as a Covenanter: So that it is in one Covenant that he promiſeth to God for Man, and in another that he promiſeth for God to Man: And the queſtion is which of theſe Covenants it is that the Apoſtle calleth him the Surety of? If you ſay that the Apoſtle taketh both here as parts of One, and ſo meaneth both; I find no proof of this in the Text: And if it were ſo, it is all one; for it were then ſpoken of the whole, but reſpectively to what Chriſt did in the two which are the parts: Indeed it is foreign, and not foreign, that is the Covenant mentioned in the Text: and as Grotius in praeſat. ad notas in N.T. hath copiouſly ſhewed, it is a Divine Diſpoſal, Law, Impoſition, or Statute containing the terms of Life, that is meant by foreign: And cap. 7.22. as it is ſaid, yet Je…us was made a ſurety of a better Teſtament. And c. 8.6. He hath obtained a more excellent Miniſtry, by how much he is the Mediator of a better Covenant [which was ſtabliſhed on better Promiſes.] It is the ſame thing which our Tranſlators call a Teſtament in one Chapter and a Covenant in the other, and it ſeems that a Surety and a Mediator here do mean the ſame thing in Chriſt: And the whole context ſheweth that it is Gods Promiſe or Covenant and Law of Grace made to man that is here meant, and that Chriſts Office and Undertaking and Performance is preſuppoſed. And ſo it is the Fathers Sponſor and Mediator to man that is meant here directly, and mans Sponſor and Mediator towards God by Connotation; but ſo as in other Texts, as Cap. 9.15. that part alſo is directly expreſſed, and Chriſts death made a part of his Mediation.
§ 4. The Queſtion being not then whether Chriſt be Mediator, or Sponſor, or the Second Adam, but what theſe words ſignifie, that which is to be noted by the Reader is, 1. What it is hereon that we aſſert; and whether that be enough. 2. And what it is that we deny as too much, and falſe.
§ 5.1. And for the firſt I explained it here, and more fully in my Treat. of Ju…tifying Righteouſneſs: And to repeat as oft as any one will call for it that hath not leiſure to read it already done is tedious. In ſhort [Chriſt in the Common Nature of man made under the Law of Innocency, of Moſes and that proper to the Mediator, did in the undertaken Perſon of a Mediator, Sponſor for, interpoſing Friend and Saviour, perfectly fulfil all theſe, and give up himſelf to ſuffering as a Sacrifice for Mans Sin, that by the Merit and Satisfaction of him that was God and Man, and Mans undertaking Mediator and Sponſor, doing and ſuffering becauſe we had ſinned, and deſerved ſuffering, and that for our ſakes, and partly …n our ſtead, the ends of God as Governour by the Law of Innocency, and Moſ…s might be obtained to his Glory, without our fulfilling of thoſe Laws or Suffering the deſerved Penalty, and God in conſiſtency with his Wiſdom, Holineſs and Juſtice, might for theſe Merits and Satisfaction of Chriſt give all things into his Hands as the Redeemer, even all Power in Heaven and Earth, and make him Lord of the Dead and Living, and Head over all things to the Church, and give him the Keys, and commit all Judgment to him; that by the will of the Father he might make with faln redeemed Man a Law and Covenant of …race, giving them Himſelf in incomprehenſible Union, and with himſelf his indwelling ſanctifying comforting Spirit of Adoption, with a Covenant Right to Pardon, …uſtification, Adoption and Glory, if they will penitently accept it, by a ſiducial practical belief: And calling Sinners, to this Faith and Repentance, and effectually drawing his Elect, might by this Covenant give them as ſoon as they ſo believe, an actual right to that impunity, Grace and Glory which was antecedently given conditionally to all. And might finally perform all this to them.
In plain and full words, this is that we aſſert, …nd the Office which by the Word Sponſor, Medi…or and Second Adam we mean.
§. 5. I have elſewhere told you that there are many ſorts of Sponſors. 1. There is one that Antecedently maketh himſelf a Party in the Covenant and Bond: As when my Friend is bound with me in the ſame bond for a Debt or Duty: If the Law to Adam had been ſuch as this, took in Chriſt alſo into the ſame bond, and had meant [Ore of you ſhall perfectly obey or ſuffer;] Then that Law would have had nothing againſt Adam at all, becauſe all was fulfi…led by Chriſt: And it bound but diſjunctively, one or the other. Then Chriſts Obedience or Suffering would not have been ſati…factio, which is ſolutio aequivalentis alias indebiti, & ſolutio re…uſabtits; but it would have been ſolutio ejuſdem & non recuſabilis according to the bond.
2. There is a ſubſequent Sponſor that was not before bound, but as a Friend after interpoſeth, and offereth (not in the Perſon of the debtor, but yet in his ſtead) to pay the debt: and this upon ſuch terms as to the Debtors deliverance as he thinks beſt; and ſo may take him as Debtor to himſelf, and put various limits, and Conditions upon his Diſcharge: And ſuch a Sponſor is Chriſt for Man. Many more diſtinctions of Sureties are here conſiderable.
3. But ſome men take a Surety here to be the ſame Perſona civilis, quamvis non naturalis, wit… the Offender and Debtor; as if we did Legally▪ Morally or Civilly that which Chriſt did naturally ▪ As indeed an allowed Repreſentative, Servant or Agent and Attourney is: If I be bound to pay an hundred pound, the Law and Bond mean… not that I muſt needs do it with my own hands▪ but if I ſend my Servant or Friend with the Money, it is Civilly, Legally and Morally done by me, becauſe he was my lawfull Inſtrument: I di… it by him.
II. The Doctrine then, which I deny as ſubverting the Chriſtian Religion is eſpecially theſe three errours following.
I. That the true meaning of Adams Law or Covenant was to bind him or his ſurety disjunctively; viz. Thou ſhalt obey thy ſelf or another (Chriſt) for thee, or elſe thou ſhalt die, or Chriſt for thee.] 1. Gods Word ſaith no ſuch thing. 2. Then Chriſt had been an Antecedent Sponſor. 3. Yea and a party equally bound. 4. Then a Saviour and Grace had been by that Law: which is falſe. 5. Then Adam had been no Sinner; for it was but He or Chriſt and not He and Chriſt that were bound to keep the Law, by this Doctrine. 6. Then no Death had been due to Adam. 7. Then that Law was not broken at all: for it bound but disjunctively. 8. Then the Law condemneth no man. 9. Then our Death and the Curſe of the Earth were injuries, for we kept the Law by Chriſt. 10. Then the Law of Innocency is it by which we are juſtified (which is falſe.) 11. Then there is no place for pardon. 12. Nor for a new Law to give us pardon upon terms or new Conditions: This is to ſubvert the Goſpel.
Yet this is commonly ſaid by the adverſaries, that Adam after his fall was juſtified by that ſame Law, as ſaying, Do this and Live, becauſe he kept it by Chriſt, or Chriſt in his Name and ſtead, ſo that it justifie…h Adam: (which Mr. Wotton de Reco…. hath at large confuted.) If they ſay that the ſame Law or Covenant commanded Adam to obey perfectly and his ſurety alſo in his stead conjunctly, and condemned both Adam for Sin and his Surety for the ſame, then both muſt ſuffer as both muſt obey, and each beareth his own part. It is a fundamental fiction leading on many other errours, to ſay that the Law of Innocency as it commanded Adam Obedi…nce, or as it threatned Death to him was fulfilled by Chriſt for him▪ That Law commanded Adam only Perſonal perfect perpetual Obedience: It mentioned or meant no …carius obed…ae aut poenae: Dum altus ſolvit, aliud ſolvitur. Anothers obeying or ſuffering was no fulfilling of the Law as it commanded Adam: The Law commandeth each ſubject diſtinctly and perſonally: Chriſt fulfilled all the Law as it obliged himſelf, and tha… f…r Adams Redemptio… who had broken it: But the ſame Law a… it ob…d Adam was broken by Adam, and not kept by him or any for him: It is not that Law that gave man a Saviour, but the Mercy of the Offended Lawgiver. To ſay the Hoc fac, & vives, in that Law giveth us right to Life, and juſtifieth us as perfect obeyers, and ſo no Sinners, is to deny the Goſpel.
Many ſay, indeed that Chriſt …atisfied the Law for us: but 1. That proveth that the Obligation of it on us was not fulfilled: For ſati…faction is ſolutio recuſabilis tantidem, loco ſolutionis e…uſdem. 2. But it is an improper ſpeech to ſay that [the Law is ſatisfied] And it meaneth no more but that [the end of Government by that Law is obtained.] And it is properly ſatisfaction only to the Lawgiver, and not to the Law: For the Law in it's ſence admits not of ſatisfaction, (though it hath nothing againſt it:) It is only the ſubjects Obedience that it commandeth, and his death as ſatisfaction for ſin that it demandeth. It is the Lawgiver as he is above his own Law and hath power to pardon, that is ſatisfied: Though as tropically ſome ſay, that Finis Legis est Lex, ſo we will not contend with them that tropically ſay, Christ ſatisfied the Law, while they mean but that he ſatisfied the Lawgiver in obtaining the End of the Law. But Chriſt perfectly fulfilled the Law as it obliged himſelf, upon his Sponſion. And that Law juſtified him, but no man elſe. It is only the New Covenant that juſtifieth us.
II. The ſecond Errour to the ſame purpoſe, is, that though Chriſt and Adam were two Natural Perſons, yet they were One …erſon in a Civil, Legal or Reputative ſenſe, in Chriſts obeying and ſuffering; and ſo that what Chriſt did and ſuffered in his own Natural Perſon, he did and ſuffered in Adams, and every Elect mans Civil, Legal, or Reputative Perſon. This is but the conſequent of the former Errour. He may be called our R…pr…nter in a limited ſenſe, in …antum & ad hoc (for there is no hope of holding our oppoſers to Scriptures phraſe:) But ſuch a ſtrict full perſonating Repreſentation as is here deſcribed, denieth the ſubſtance of the Goſpel. There are indeed ſeveral Caſes in which one in Law or Civil ſenſe doth perſonate another: When the Law alloweth one to do the thing by another, that thing is morally done by himſelf; e. g. by my Servant, Proxie, Attorney, Agent, in Caſes …o allowed by the Law. It is I that pay the debt which my Servant, or any Vicarius allowed by Law payeth for me in my name. Chriſt did not thus pay or ſuffer in our names as our Legal Perſon; but for us and in our ſtead as a ſ…t Sponſor in the perſon of a Mediator; ſo that it cannot be ſaid th…t we did it Legally by him; elſe all the forenamed abſurdities would follow; and ſpecially that Legall… we never ſinn…d, and never deſerved puniſh…ent, nor need either Pardon, or the Sacrifice of Chriſt for Pardon. It's certain that Chriſt never ſinned, but obeyed perfectly from firſt to laſt: And if we did this Lega…ly by him, we ſinned not in Law ſenſe, that is, not truly at all. When we ſhew that it is a palpable contradiction to ſay, that we were perfectly obedient in and by Chriſt, from birth to death, and yet that Chriſt muſt ſuffer for our ſins; it's ſtrange to ſee how ſome men ſatisfie themſelves with wriggling, or huddling out a few inſignificant words, unfit to ſatisfie any other.
And if Chriſts Habitual Perfection be alſo ſo imputed to us, in a Legal ſenſe, we were habitually perfect from birth to death. Whence it is that ſome aſſert an equality of ſuch Perfection in all Chriſtians: The conſequents I will not trouble you with reciting; nor ſtay to enquire whether alſo his Divine …ighteouſneſs be ours in ſuch a Law ſenſe, and ſo Man be deified.
Either Chriſt was our Legal Perſon before we were born, or from the time of our being, or from the time of our believing only. 1. Before we had a Being we were no ſinners, nor bound to obey; and therefore needed not to obey or ſuffer by another. 2. When we were born, we were not in Chriſt, and perhaps not Believers till old Age: And ſo the Elect ſhould Legally be juſt while they are Infidels, and never ſin even in their ſtate of Enmity. 3. If only ſince believing we were ſo perſonated by Chriſt, then his Righteouſneſs is not imputed to us for all the time of our unregeneracy, and then we never ſinned in Law ſenſe after our believing. If they ſay that in ſuffering he repreſented us as unregenerate, and in his obedience as Believers only, then he ſuffered not for our ſins after believing, nor obeyed to merit pardon of our ſins before. If they ſay that ſo far as we are ſinners, we Legally ſuffered in him, and as Believers further to merit glor… we obeyed by him, the contradiction of this is ſhewed before. If we obeyed ſo far as to merit glory by the Law of Works, then we never ſinned: And if we ſuffered in him, for all ſins of Omiſſion and Commiſſion, we merited glory without any other obedience: For the Law requireth nothing but Innocency as neceſſary to life. He that hath no ſin, doth perfectly obey. And pardon of all ſin of Omiſſion and Commiſſion, is the pardon of all puniſhment of Senſe and Loſs, and ſo of the loſs of promiſed Life.
Beſides that, one that is reputed to have Legally fulfilled the Law, muſt be unjuſtly corrected by the puniſhment of temporal afflictions or death, or loſs of the Spirit and Grace, and hath preſent right to the reward of that Covenant, or deliverance from all penal evil at leaſt; ſo that this Doctrine of ſtrict Legal perſonating Repreſentation, overthroweth the New Covenant and Law of Chriſt, and all his Kingdom of Grace, and all Religion.
III. The third fundamental Errour which we deny and oppoſe, is, that the Ʋnion between Chriſt and (the Elect, ſay ſome, or) Believers (ſay others) is ſo near, as that his very perſonal Holineſs, Righteouſneſs and Sufferings, are in Law ſenſe truly our Holineſs, Righteouſneſs and Sufferings as the accidents of our perſons: As if Chriſt and Adam, and every Chriſtian, were one and the ſame ſubject of Holineſs, Righteouſneſs, Suffering, Merit or Satisfaction. Yet they dare not ſay that the Union (like the hypoſtatical) warranteth ſuch a community of Properties or Attributes, as that we may be ſaid to be Divinely Righteous, perfectly Holy, never to have ſinned, to have ſatisfied for our ſelves, to have merited our own Salvation, and many ſuch like; as ſeeing the evil of the conſequents, though not of the premiſes.
And here ſometime they abuſe the ſimilitude of a Husband and Wife; whereas they are diſtinct perſons, and one is not wiſe, juſt or guiltleſs, becauſe the other is ſo; nor hath the Wife any propriety ſo much as in extrinſick goods, but by contract in the proportion granted by the Husband.
Some abuſe the ſimilitude of a Head and Members; whereas Natural Head and Members make one Natural Body; but ſo do not Chriſt and Believers: And a Political Head and Members are diſtinct perſons, and one is not guiltleſs, righteous, wiſe or good, becauſe the other is ſo. But of this more before, and elſewhere. Some here abuſe the ſimilitude of Chriſts being the ſecond Adam, which you here (though not to this Errour) inſiſt upon. And then they feign us, 1. To have bee… otherwiſe in Adam than we were; 2. And his ſin to be otherwiſe imputed to us than it was; And 3. The ſimilitude to extend further than it doth.
I. They feign us to have been Perſonally in Adam, whenas we were but ſeminally in him, and perſonally from him. 2. They feign us to have been in him by a certain Covenant, more than we were by Natural In-exiſtence: And that his ſin was arbitrarily by God through that Covenant, imputed to us further than we were guilty of it by any natural In-being or derivation: As if God made all men ſinners by his arbitrary imputation of that to them, which in their natures they were not really guilty of: And as if our guilt of Adams ſin, were juſt of the ſame ſort as his; yea, and our guilt and his guilt were individual accidents of the ſame individual perſons. But this (which Dr. Twiſſe oft confuteth in moſt of his Books) I have ſo largely and lately cleared in my publiſhed Diſputations of Original ſin, that you ſhall excuſe me for not reciting it here.
3. The guilt of Adams ſin being ours by Natural Derivation, cometh to all alike, entirely (according to the ſubjects capacity▪ and neceſſarily, without the conſent of Parent or Child: Were Adam and all Parents unwilling to communicate it in generation, it would nevertheleſs be done: But Chriſt being not a Natural, but a contracting voluntary Root and Cauſe, doth communicate the fruits of his Righteouſneſs only voluntarily by gift of Contract, at the time, in the …anner, and meaſure, and on the terms that he ſeeth meet.
Here it is obſervable, 1. That both Generation and Regeneration have much unſearchable: How Souls generate Souls, and how the Spirit of Chriſt communicateth Grace to Souls, will never here be clearly apprehended, …ohn 3.8.
2. But it's certain that the Soul of the Parent is not the Soul of the Child, but ſome cauſe of it; and ſo that they are not one perſon.
3. We were not perſons in Adams perſon, either the ſame or diſtinct.
4. But Adam cauſed us, not as a man maketh a garment, houſe, &c. but as one Candle doth light another, by ſome myſterious communication of its eſſence: ſo formae ſe multiplicant, by the Divine benediction [Increaſe and multiply,] and primary cauſation.
5. Though we were not perſ…nally, but virtually and ſeminally in Adam, yet when that ſeed becometh a perſon, that perſon is from Adam, and ſo muſt proportionably be guilty: For who can bring a clean thing out of the eſſence of an unclean?
6. Adam had the common Nature of all men ſpecifically, and radically, and cauſally, though as their nature individually conſtitute their perſons, they exiſted not in him (as extra cauſam.)
7. So Jeſus Chriſt did more aſſume the common Nature of faln Man, than the perſons of any, or the Nature as extra cauſas, conſtituting the individual perſon.
8. Ponum eſt ex cauſis integris; malum ex partiali: Any defe…t maketh ſin, but good muſt have entire cauſes. Adams ſin cauſeth Original ſin in all, ex privatione cauſationis boni: But if Adam had not ſinned, every ſin of their own would have made his Children unrighteous.
9. Chriſt having ſuffered in the common nature of man ſo far did it in their ſtead, and if you will needs ſo call it, ſo far repreſented fallen mankind, as that if they will perſonally receive him by faith, in the New Covenant, they ſhall not periſh for Adams ſin (or their own) (ſuppoſing that the parent is the accepter for the Infant) none periſh for Original ſin alone, without the addition of neglected and refuſed grace and remedy.
10. It is not only the Spiritual off-ſpring that Chriſt was a ſecond Adam to, but partly to all mankind: For by a reſurrection (though not to glory) all men are made alive by Chriſt, Joh. 5.22, 23, 29. 1 Cor. 15. And all have a general conditional reconciliation and pardon, 2 Cor. 5.19, 20. Joh. 3.16. So that actual Juſtification reſulteth to no man from Chriſts meer repreſentation of him, but from his free donation by the New Covenant.
11. It's doubtleſs that all and only the holy ſeed, or faithful, are juſtified actually by Chriſts Righteouſneſs: But in what ſence it is imputed to them is all the doubt.
12. It's alſo doubtleſs that Chriſt ſuffered in our ſtead: But in what ſenſe & how far is all the doubt: Becauſe we deſerved it, he voluntarily aſſumed it, to demonſtrate Gods Juſtice, Mercy and Wiſdom, and deliver us. You ſay before that, [It was ſtricteſt Juſtice that was ſhewed on Chriſt.] I would not ſtrive about the word: It was ſtricteſt Juſtice as upon Chriſt: It was perfect Juſtice as to the ends of Government: But it was not ſtricteſt Juſtice as to us, nor as ſtricteſt ſignifieth the ſtrict fulfilling or executing of the threatning of the Law: For it was not ſo executed, but the ſinner mercifully pardoned.
§. 6. You note that Chriſt muſt take our guilt on him or elſe he could not take our puniſhment.
Anſ. 1. He took not the Reatum facti, or the Reatum …ulpae: For, 1. Our guilt was the accident of one Subject, and that which Chriſt took of another: Therefore the accidents were not the ſame. 2. Elſe ſin however taken in its reatus culpae would have made him culpable, and formally a ſinner, and hateful to God, and like to Satan: Which he was not.
2. He took upon him the Reatum poena ſeu obligationem ad …oenam: But not ours individually the ſame; but one of his own inſtead of ours: Chriſts guilt and ours were divers accidents of divers perſons. The obligations nor the Subjects were not the ſame. Our obligation to puniſhment was an act of the Law which we broke: So was not Chriſts: That Law never bound him to puniſhment: But his own voluntary undertaking and his Fathers impoſition. Our guilt was the occaſion and reaſon of Chriſts aſſumed guilt: As our puniſhment individually was not it that he ſuffered, but his own puniſhment to prevent ours. He ſuffered the juſt for the unjuſt, to redeem us to God. God tells us plainly that Chriſt ſuffered for our ſins, and was made ſin, that is, a Curſe or Sacrifice for ſin for us, that we might not ſuffer. And cannot we receive this plain Goſpel, without ſpinning ſo many additional webs of our own? Chriſts taking our guilt and puni…hment is no more, but his voluntary ſuffering in our ſtead, that we might be pardoned, not by that ſuffering immediately, but by his free donation in the Law of Grace, in his time and on his terms.
§. 7. You note that though we are juſtified by our own Faith, Repentance, and Obedience to the Goſpel againſt the falſe charge of being unbelievers, impenitent and ungodly; Yet to be free from the curſe of the Law, and obtaining right to life, it is Chriſts Righteouſneſs that we muſt plead▪
Anſ. Very true thus, 1. It is only Chriſts Righteouſneſs that we muſt plead as the Satisfying and meriting cauſe: 2. It is only the free Donation of the New Covenant which we muſt plead as our Title or Fundamentum juris, and conveying cauſe of right. 3. It is our Faith and Repentance (in various reſpects) which we muſt plead as the conditio tituli praeſ…i…a which is the neceſſary moral receptive diſpoſition of the Subject receiving. Theſe things are all very plain and ſure.
§. 8. You ſeem to doubt whether by the Law of Works▪ Paul meant not the Law of Innocency: And firſt you ſeem to miſtake me as if I had ſaid that he meant only the Ceremonial Law: I ſay no ſuch thing. But the whole Law of Moſes, conſidered meerly as a law, and by the Jews ill ſeparated from Faith, and Grace was an operous Yoak, and of ſevere penalties to the tranſgreſſours; and though it gave pardon for ſome faults, it was not meerly for the task of ſacrificing but for the great Sacrifice typified: The Law as a Law doth only Command, and threaten and promiſe life to them that do all things written, but gave not grace to do it. The Jews left out the true ſence of the types and promiſe which intended the Meſſiah, in whom it was that the promiſſory part of the Law was made; and thought the very task of duty or works would procure their acceptance and pardon when they failed. If you are not ſatisfied with this reaſon why Paul calleth it the Law of Works, find out a better if you can: But moſt certainly that is a great miſtake that Moſes and Paul deſcribe the Law of Innocency? It's tedious to recite the proof.
1. It's enough that the Law of Innocency as a Covenant was before ceaſed, ceſſante capacitate ſubditorum: When all men had 2000 years been Originally and Actually ſinners, will you feign God with all that ſolemnity to make ſuch a Law as this, [I know and you muſt know that no Son of Adam is Innocent: And I make now a Law that if you …re, and will continue innocent you ſhall live: Elſe you ſhall die? This is too groſs to be feigned of God.
2. It is enough that when the Law was made they were all under actual mercy which was the grace of the new pardoned Covenant.
3. Yea that the Covenant of Grace had ſo long before been made with all fallen mankind in Adam …nd Noah, and renewed to Abraham with ſpe…ial promiſes: And doth God now repeal or hide it.
4. What need we more proof than ſo many Laws about Sacrificing and Confeſſing for forgiveneſs? Which the Law of Innocency knew not.
And why elſe did God deliver the Law as a God of Redeeming mercy, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egypt, proclaiming his name, Exod. 34.6, 7. The Lord, the Lord God Merciful and Gracious, forgiving Iniquity, Tranſgreſſion and Sin.
6. Peruſe all the Contexts in Pau…, and you will be ſatisfied. See Camero de triplice faedere (which Dr. Bolton (of Liberty) was ſo taken with and magnifieth, and Anthony Burges of the Law, proving Moſes Law to belong to a Covenant of Grace. But I have more fully opened all thi… in my Methodus Theologiae. No doubt but Pauls d…ſputes have great difficulty; but this much is very plain.
§ 9. Your next queſtion is about the nature of Faith, whether if it be placed in the will, and include conſent, it be not confounded with Love, whoſe object is goodneſs.
I have anſwered this oft and largely in divers Books, and therefore muſt here be excuſed from ſaying any more than this, viz. 1. You muſt diſtinguiſh between Faith Phyſically taken, and Faith morally taken. 2. Between its formal act and its material.
I. Phyſically ſome one natural act, conſtituted by one Object is called Faith: But morally taken it comprehendeth divers Phyſical Acts, both of the Intellect and Will: And as it is Juſtifying and Saving it is ſo taken: Yea morally it is ſometime in Scripture taken largelier, for our Chriſtian Faith, as God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt the Promiſe, Grace and Glory are all the conſtituting Objects of it in their truth and goodneſs; and ſometime more narrowly as altogether diſtinct from Hope and Love; It is taken in the firſt ſenſe when it is ſaid to be the condition of Juſtification and Salvation.
And here what you ſaid of the neceſſity of conjoyning the many ſimilitudes which expreſs Chriſts Office to us, when but one of them in a Text is named, the ſame muſt be ſaid of Faith in Chriſt. A Moral act which hath many Phyſical acts, muſt be named by ſome one, the reſt being connoted or implied; for it would be uncomely to name them all in every mention of it.
Note alſo, that the name is varied according to what is ſpecially noted in the Object, ſometime Truth, ſometime Goodneſs: So Chriſt ſaith, [The Father hath loved you, becauſe ye have loved me. And Paul, Grace be to all them that love the Lord Jeſus in ſincerity. If any man love not the Lord Jeſus, let him be Anathema Maranatha. And Chriſt, Luke 14.26. and Mat. 10. He that loveth any better than Chriſt, cannot be his Diſciple. And to be a Diſciple, a Chriſtian and a Believer, are all one in Scripture. But when it is the Goodneſs of another Object that is mentioned, the Act is another thing.
I ſuppoſe you will confeſs that no Faith in Chriſt and the Promiſe juſtifieth us, which doth not in that ſame inſtant include, 1. A belief of the Goodneſs, as well as the Truth of both. 2. A willingneſs to receive Chriſt and Grace as good; and a conſent to the offer. And if theſe muſt concur in the ſame inſtant as neceſſary Conditions of our Juſtification or Reception of Chriſt and Grace, call them how you will, and ſay, Conſent is an Effect of Faith▪ or a part of it, all's one to me: But I will ſay, that Conſent is an Effect of one Act of Faith ſtrictly taken; viz. Aſſent; but a part of it taken for Juſtifying, Saving Faith.
II. After many and long thoughts of this matter, I think they that will pretend to exactneſs, muſt ſay, that Truſt is the Formal Act of Faith, as Truſtineſs or Fidelity is the Formal Object: And that the Material Act is threefold, Aſſent, Conſent and Practice; and none of theſe, no not Aſſent is the Formal Act. Both … and Fides ſignifie Trust; yea and Credere too. And ſo Fides, as it ſignifieth Fidelity, and Fides, as it ſignifieth Faith or Truſt, are the Formal Object and Act. I Aſſent to the Truth of the Goſpel, becauſe I Truſt the Veracity or Fidelity of the Author. I Co…nt to the Covenant, becauſe I Truſt the Revealer, Offerer and Promiſer. I actually give up my ſelf to Chriſt, becauſe I Truſt him. Mr. Pemble Vindicat. Grat. hath accurately opened this.
I have in my Aphoriſms, and oft ſaid, that a Chriſtian ſhould rather try his Faith by the Conſenting act, than the Truſting act; becauſe many a one cannot find that they can Truſt Chriſt▪ that yet find Conſent. But I explain this, or recall it, as not well ſpoken: For indeed, though it be Conſent by which we may ſurely know our Intereſt in the Juſtifying Covenant (ſpecially when practically expreſt,) yet Aſſ…ance or Truſt is the Formal Act of Faith, and that Conſent is but the Material. For if we Truſt not Chriſts Fidelity, we can neither Aſſent, Conſent or Practi…e. But when I ſpake as aforeſaid, I followed the ſenſe of moſt complaining Chriſtians who ſay, They cannot Truſt Chriſt, meaning by Truſt, that Quieting of the mind, which is but an effect of Truſt: Whereas at that time they take Chriſt to be Truſty, and a ſu…cient Saviour, but are hindered from the applying and quieting Effect, by Ignorance, or doubting of their own Truſtineſs, and not of the Truſ…ineſs of Chriſt.
If I be tedious in repeating again my old ſimilitudes, you muſt blame your ſelf that are the c…uſe.
Only one Phyſician can cure the Plague: S…me ſlander him as a deceiver: He promiſeth to c…re all that will take him for their Phyſician, and truſt him: Truſting or believing him here in…ludeth materially, Believing his Word, Conſenting to be his Patien…s, and coming to him for Phyſick.
A Prince in India buyeth the Iriſh Rebels that had forfeited their lives, of the King, that they may la… down Arms, and go with him, and become his Subjects: He promiſeth to every one of them a Lordſhip in India, a ſafe Ship thither, and pardon here; ſome call him a Deceiver, and diſtruſt him: He tells them, if they Truſt him, he will perform all this. Here Truſt, the Formal Act, includeth as the Material Acts; 1. Aſſenting to his Word as True; 2. Conſenting to his Off…r and Terms; 3. Practically venturing to lay down Arms, and go with him in the Ship, and forſake their own Countrey.
Such is Faith in Chriſt, when it is made the Condition of Juſtification and Life. The Formal and Materi…l Acts together conſtitute Faith, and not the Formal, or one of the Material (Aſſent) alone. (Nor hath Biſhop Downame well confuted Mr. Pemble about the Formal Act.) In a word (true and pl…in) Baptiſm, our …hriſtening, beſt tells us the Eſſence of Juſti…yin… Faith: For that is the Sealing to us the …u…fying Covenant, that it may actually and ſolemnly deliver to us our part in Chriſt, and ri…ht to Pardon and Life, which is given us on no lower terms, than the Fiducial Aſſent, Conſent and Dedication profeſſed by us eſſentially in Baptiſm.
§ 10. Your next doubt is about the various Objects of Faith in exerciſe (Gods Omnipotency, (Truth, &c.) and the various uſes of Faith accordingly. This is the point which Mr. Lawſon and I ſeemed ſomewhat to differ about: And I have in my Treatiſe of Juſtification ſaid ſo much of it, that you ſhall now excuſe me from any more than telling you, that in Sanctification, where one act really produceth one effect on our hearts, and another act another effect, each effect muſt be aſcribed to its proper act. But you muſt not think it is ſo in our Juſtification or Adoption, where that which we receive is a RIGHT, Jus impunitatis & vitae, which is not the Immediate Effect of our Act, no nor any Effect of it at all, but of Gods Donative Covenant, of which our Faith is but a Condition, and no Efficient Cauſe of our Right. And therefore I doubt not ſtill to ſay, that we are thus juſtified as much by a Conſenting to Chriſts Teaching and Sanctifying Grace, as by Conſenting to be juſtified by his Righteouſneſs; or by fiducial taking him for our Teacher, Interceſſor and King, as taking him for a Satisfier and Meriter for us: Indeed it is undivided Taking Chriſt as Chriſt, that is the Juſtifying Condition, John 1.10, 11, 12. 1 John 5.10, 11, 12.
§ 11. In the end you deſire me to anſwer. What Right…ouſneſs is meant, Rom. 5. By the obedience of one many are made righteous.
Anſ. The meaning is, By the Merit of Chriſts Active and Paſſive (yea Habitual) Righteouſneſs (alſo) exalted in dignity by his Divine Perfection, all faln Mankind is Conditionally pardoned, and hath the gift of Life, enacted in the Law or Covenant of Grace, and all true Believers have by that Covenant actually given them a Right of Ʋnion with Chriſt, and with him Pardon and Adoption, or Right to Grace and Glory, and have the Spirit of Holineſs as the firſt fruits. All this is included in that Righteouſneſs.
§ 12. Laſtly, you ask, What Righteouſneſs Faith is imputed to? Whether that which is by Chriſts obedience, and by Faith, be the ſame? and perfect or unperfect?
Anſ. Here alſo you may take the blame that I ſay things long ago ſo oft ſaid. By Righteous is meant Juſtifiable in general: And the plain meaning is, Chriſt having merited, and freely given Pardon and Life to all ſinners that will fiducially accept his purchaſed Gift, it is not now keeping the Law of Innocency or Works, but only the ſaid fiducial Acceptance of Chriſt and his free Grace that is required on their part to their Right or Juſtification. If by Imputed we meant, Reputing it the MATTER of our total Righteouſneſs, then it were an unſound ſenſe. But (briefly and plainly)▪ Faith in Chriſt is reckoned to us as the Matter of our imperfect perſonal ſubordinate Righteouſneſs, and as the Inſtituted Medium of our Reception of our Ʋnion with Chriſt, and our Right to Pardon and Life for the Merit of his Righteouſneſs. And I think this is plain and full. For Righteouſneſs to be imputed, is meant no more, but that G…d accounteth the perſon Righteous: But the imputing Faith to this, is but to reckon it to be what it is, 1. As the Mat…er of one; 2. As the Medium or Condition of the other.
§ 13. You here give me an Epitome of Dr. John Owens Book of Juſtification, which you judge the beſt that you have ſeen, and ſay it is faithfully collected, to ſave me the labour of reading it, to ſhew me how nearly we agree.
Anſ. I have peruſed the Book, but being now abſent from it, cannot judge whether you have rightly epitomized or recited it, and therefore ſhall ſpeak to it as yours, and not as his: Thanking you for endeavouring to ſpare my labour, but not for calling me to judge of other mens Writings. Only I muſt ſay, I am glad of ſo much Moderation as is in it; but I …etter underſtand many other Books of Juſtification; e…pecially Mr. …ruman, Sir Charles Wolſ…ey, Mr. Gibb…ns Sermon, Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker ▪ a Manuſcript of Dr. Twiſſes (though I agree not with him in his excluſion of Chriſts Active Righteouſ…ſs as juſtifying us,) Le Bl…nk, Placaeus, yea …ohn Go…dwin, Mr. Hote…kis, and many others.
§ 14. Y…u take Imputing Righteou…neſs to be the foundation of Reputing us righteous, and not the ſame thing.
Anſ. The Controverſie is de re, or de nomine. De re we agree that a man muſt be made Righteous before he is Reputed ſo. De nomine I deny that St. Paul by imputing doth mean making us Righteous. foreign is by all confeſſed to ſignifie Accounting, Reckoning or Reputing: Making us Righteous goeth before Reckoning it to us on account. John Goodwin will tell you of many more ſenſes of Imputation than you recite, and more conſiderable.
§ 15. II. You ſuppoſe an Imputation of Righteouſneſs to us, which was not ours before that Imputation. Anſ. Again de re there is a Donation of ſuch: But de nomine I deny that this is it that the Scripture calleth Imputing.
You make this to contain two Acts, and you Name three, 1. A grant or Donation of the thing it ſelf to be ours. 2. A will of dealing with us accordingly. 3. An actual ſo dealing with us.
Anſ. 1. De nomine, I deny that foreign doth in Scripture ſignifie the giving of Righteouſneſs to him that had it not: but the reckoning it on account to him that by gift firſt had it. 2. Nor doth it primarily ſignifie willing to uſe, and uſing as righteous, but only by conſequence inferreth it.
But 2. De re here is no Explication how Imputing is giving, or how Righteouſneſs is given us: There is no queſtion but all the Righteouſneſs that we have is given us by God: But the very heart of the Controverſie is, How the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is given us and made ours: In that Righteouſneſs is found, 1. The Matter. 2. The Form. 1. The matter is, 1. The Habits. 2. The Acts of Chriſt in the Divine and Humane Nature: Are theſe given us, and do we poſſeſs them in themſelves? The Acts are paſt, and ſo are nothing now: and nothing is no bodies actual poſſeſſion. The Acts and Habits were Accidents which ſine interitu cannot paſs from Subject to Subject: Divers Subjects prove diverſity of Accidents. 2. The Form is a Relation, and ſo an Accident alſo: And they muſt needs be two Accidents, that are Formal Righteouſneſs in Chriſt and us, unleſs we are the ſame Subject Perſon. Therefore neither matter nor Relative form in Chriſt and Man is the ſame individual Accident. How then is it ours! What is there in it beſides matter (the ſubject and fundamentum) and form? it's plain that, 1. The Benefits are given us, and are our own by that Gift: All that conſiſt in jure, in right, (as to Chriſt, to the Love of the reconciled Father, the Communion of the Spirit, to further Grace, Pardon, Glory) are all given us inſtrumentally by the new Covenants donative Act: The inherent habits, and the Acts are given us by the Holy Ghoſt. And 2. Theſe Benefits being given us for the Sacrifice, and Merits of Chriſt, the price is ſaid by a Metonymy of the cauſe for the Effect, to be given us, becauſe it is given for us: It was God the Father to whom Chriſt paid the price of our Redemption, and gave his Active and Paſſive Righteouſneſs for us: But Morally and Reputatively it is no unmeet phraſe to ſay that is given to us which is given for us in our neceſſity and to purchaſe us all this.
If the King would ranſom all his Subjects that are Slaves to the Turks, and paid a million for their Freedom, he may well be ſaid to give them a million, though it be but a Metonymical Speech, ſeeing he gave it for them: Though it was the Freedom or Benefits and not the Money which indeed they received: And ſo it is here: So God giveth us Chriſts Righteouſneſs, Merits and Satisfaction; but not properly the things themſelves. If there be any more to be ſaid as given us, I ſhould have been glad to know what it is: but your Words ſhew it not.
Were it the very ſame Individual Righteouſneſs that Chriſt hath, Acts, Habits and Formal Relation made in themſelves our own accidents, it would follow that we are really perfect in Acts, Habits and Relation, and need neither more Pardon nor increaſe of Grace, nor ſhould pray for any, nor uſe means for any, nor are we liable to any corrective Penalty, nor to any want of the Spirits help, but have preſent right to all that is due to a perfect righteous man; with much more ſuch, which is all falſe.
Yet is it truly and fitly ſaid that Chriſt is our Righteouſneſs, that is, the purchaſer and giver of it; and that he is made of God to us Wiſdom, Righteouſneſs, Sanctification and Redemption, on the ſame account: Yea though ſome deny it, his Righteouſneſs may be called the material cauſe of our Righteouſneſs, as ours is our Jus ad impunttatem & vitam, becauſe it is the matter of it's meritorious cauſe. For if Adam had merited Life himſelf, his meritorious Acts and Habits would have been fitly called, the matter of his Righteouſneſs, that is, of the fundamentum Relationis. Yet this is the difference: Adams Right or Relation of Juſt, would have reſulted immediately from his own Acts and Habits c…pared with the Law; whereas ours reſulteth from Chriſts Merits or Righteouſneſs, not immediately as ours in it ſelf, but mediately as paid for us to God, and the Benefit (of Right and Righteouſneſs) given us by the Covenant, for the ſaid Merit of our Mediator.
§ 16. Next you ſay, that this Imputation ſuppoſeth not the Perſon to have done and ſuffered himſelf what is imputed to him, and note their miſtake that ſuppoſe the Doctrine of Imputation to imply that Chriſt did commit our Sins, and we perform his Righteouſneſs.
Anſ. This granteth much towards Concord: But I hope you underſtand that the Queſtion is not whether we did Phyſically do and ſuffer what Chriſt did, even in our Natural Perſons? but whether we did it Morally, Legally, Civilly, Reputatively, as a Man acteth by an Inſtrument, Attorney, Vicar, or Perſonating Repreſenter, …o that the Law reputeth it his Act. Why did you not note this, and tell us whether you deny this alſo, as well as our Phyſical performance? If you deny not this our Legal or Moral doing and ſuffering in and by Chriſt, you did not fairly in your Deſcription of the Mind of your oppoſers, as far as ever I could underſtand them. But if you deny this, our agreement ſeemeth very feaſible. But then you muſt go over the Explication of Imputation and Donation of Chriſts own Righteouſneſs again, and better tell us what you mean by them, than theſe deſcribed words do.
§ 1… Next you tell us of Imputation, 1. Ex juſtitia. 2. Ex Voluntaria Sponſione. 3. Ex injuria. 4. Ex gratia.
1. Things imputed ex juſtitia you ſay are, 1. For F…deral Relation, as Adams ſin. 2. For Natural Relation, and that only as to ſome temporal Effects.
Anſ. Here we muſt ſuppoſe by your former explication, that by Imputation you mean not Eſtimative reckoning or accounting that to a man which he before hath, but, 1. Donation. 2. Ʋſage congruouſly an… will ſo to uſe one. But Adams ſin was no gi… to us, and came not by donation; Nor is Donation, Imputation.
2. What you ſay of Adams ſin being ours by Covenant Relation, as diſtinct from Natural Relation, is unſound, and the matter needeth fuller explication, which as aforeſaid I have attempted in my Diſputation of Original Sin. And as unſound is it that Natural Relation brings none but Temporal Evil. It cannot be proved, nor is to be affirmed, that without natural derivation, we derive by meer Covenant the guilt of Adams ſin; no nor that Covenant derivation is before the natural, nor yet that it goeth any further, or that we contract any more guilt by Covenant, than we do by nature; but the Law of nature it ſelf and Gods congruous Covenant is that which virtually judgeth us guilty, when natural derivation hath made us guilty (as Dr. Twiſſe oft as aforeſaid.)
Do you mean that guilt reſulteth from Gods part of the Covenant, or from Adams, or from his Poſterities? Not from ours, for we exiſ…ed not, and made no ſuch Covenant. Not from Adams part (antecedent to Natural Derivation.) For 1. No man can prove that ever Adam made ſuch a Covenant. 2. Or that God gave him any ſuch power, (much leſs Command) to bring ſin and death on his Poſterity by his Conſent, or Will, or Contract, further than by the Law of Nature they muſt derive it from him if he ſinned. 3. Not by Gods Covenant act: For, 1. No ſuch Covenant of God can be ſhewn, that made men ſinners further than Natural Derivation did. 2. Elſe God ſhould be the Author of ſin, even of all mens Original ſin, if his Arbitrary Covenant made them ſinners, where nature did not.
Nay more, it is not meer Natural Relation, much leſs ſuch Covenant Relation that doth it, (for Relation doth not ſo operate of itſelf) but it is that Generation which cauſeth Fundamentally at once both the Relation of Sons and the adherent guilt.
And in my foreſaid ſecond Diſputation I have proved that Natural derivation (even from nearer Parents) deſerveth more than Temporal hurt.
§ 18. II. Your ſecond ex voluntaria Sponſione you exemplify in Oneſimus and Judah to Jacob, Gen. 43.9.
Anſ. 1. There is no talk of Imputation in either of the Texts, as to the receiver: Much leſs of an Imputation which is Donation. Indeed Paul undertaketh to pay Oneſimus's debt to Philemon; and ſo bids him ſet the debt on his account; that is, take him for the pay-maſter; If this be Imputing the debt to Paul, we are agreed that ſo (not our reatus culpae, but poenae) our … of puniſhment was imputed to Chriſt, that is, he undertook to bear it for us: Paul gave not the money to Oneſimus, but for him (by promiſe.) He was not an antecedent ſurety, but a conſequent? He did not promiſe to pay it in Oneſimus Legal perſon; Nor is the payment properly imputed to Oneſimus as any way done by him, but only the Effected benefit given him.
And Judah only undertaketh to bring Benjamin again, or elſe to bear the blame for ever. No doubt but Chriſt undertook our ranſom, and alſo to effect our actual deliverance. If you will call this [Giving or Imputing his own Righteouſneſs to us, ſo as that in ſe it is made the ſame accident of every believer beſides giving them the benefits of that which he gave to God for them, I will not imitate you.
III. That of Bathſheba, 1 Kin. 1.21. taketh Imputation as the Scripture doth. For accounting and reckoning them to be ſinners, and uſing them accordingly, and not as you do for making them ſuch by making anothers Fact or guilt to become theirs. All theſe inſtances are for what I aſſert. None of them mention any ſuch thing as imputing one mans Acts or Habits to another ſo as to make them or repute them to be really his.
IV. Your fourth ſort of Imputation ex merâ gratiá you ſay is the imputing of that which before that act we had no right to: And you do well to ſay there is no other inſtance of it in Scripture: But you do not well to ſay without proof that this is it that's meant, Rom. 4. God maketh us Righteous by donation before he imput…th it to us: Imputation there is Reckoning, Accounting, and Judging a man to be what he is. Abraham had Faith before God imputed Faith to him for Righteouſneſs: And that Faith was ſuch a Righteouſneſs as God imputed it to be. To ſay, it was an imperfect one, is no wonder: A…aham had none perſonally or properly in ſe but what was imperfect.
The ſum of all our Controverſie is, what Righteouſneſs believers have? You before noted that Righteouſneſs as it is a conformity to the …eceptive part of the Law, is one thing, and as it relateth to the retributive part, and is our Jus impunitatis & vitae it is another. The Doctrine which I bend all theſe words againſt is, that we muſt have, or have, as our own any ſuch righteouſneſs as is a conformity to the precep…ive part of the Law of innocency, whether done by us or Chriſt. Prove that we have any ſuch Righteouſneſs, and I yield all the cauſe to them that plead for the Imputation which I deny. If we have ſuch a Righteouſneſs we have no ſin▪ nor ever had, in the ſenſe of the Law: And have no need of Chriſts Sacrifice, or are capable of pardon or puniſhment. I dare plead no Righteouſneſs as mine but [ſubordinately as a condition and medium, my faith …r performance of the conditions of the Covenant and its gifts, and principally my right to impunity and life for the ſake of the Merits, Sacrifice and Interceſſion of Chriſt, freely given by him in the New Covenant.] It was Chriſts perfect Righteouſneſs which meriteth mine, but I have no perfect Righteouſneſs of my own, either in me, or done by me, by my ſelf or by my Inſtrument or Vicar, nor given to me, ſaving as metonymically, that is ſaid to be given to me which was given for me, and the Effects or fruits of it given to me: Beſides my imperfect Faith and ſincere devotion to Chriſt, I know of no Righteouſneſs that I have, but that which ſaveth me from the Laws Condemnation, and giveth me right to life, which is not perfect obedience to the precept made mine, but pardon of diſobedience, and a freely-given Adoption, merited by another whoſe merits were never mine ſo much as by proper gift or imputation▪ though figuratively they may be ſo called mine. I tire my ſelf and you with tedious repetitions becauſe I find that without the… I am not underſtood▪
Therefore your next inference that Paul ſpea… eth of that which was not ours before Imputation, is not true, as is proved.
And your ſecond that the imputation of Faith as a work, is not of Grace, is cloudy, or untrue, or both. If by a work, you mean a work in Commutation obliging God, or any work which maketh the reward to be of debt and not of Grace, it's true that if faith were ſuch a work it would be an act of Juſtice ſo to judge it. But Faith is no ſuch work; and therefore it would be errour ſo to judge it. But if by a work you mean but a Moral act, as made by the Law of Grace the condition of pardon and life, then to Impute, Repute or Judge it to be what it is ſo made, is an act of Truth and Juſtice, but ſuch Truth and Juſtice as is Evangelical, and conſiſtent with Grace, and is founded on Grace: It is Grace, that we have a Saviour to purchaſe and give all: It is grace that we are not under the Law of Innocency which juſtifieth none but the innocent and perfect that never ſinned: It is Grace that we have a Covenant and Law of Grace, which maketh ſincere faith a Mediate or Subordinate Righteouſneſs, requiring no more at our own hands inſtead of what the Law of innocency required: It is of Grace that as this faith is the matter of this ſubordinate Evangelical Righteouſneſs, ſo it is the receptive medium of our right to Chriſt, pardon and life which is our full ſaving righteouſneſs. It being therefore of Grace that it is made ſo, and alſo that we are made believers, it muſt be of Grace, though of Truth and gracious Juſtice, that it is reckoned or imputed to us, for Righteouſneſs.
By debt oppoſed to Grace, Paul meaneth not, Debitum, D…neſs, by free gifts thankfully accepted, but quod debetur ex operis propria dignitate, as a workman earneth his wages.
§. 19. Your Deſcription of the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, is either to be underſtood as ſpoken in proper words, or as figurative. If the latter, it's unintelligible ſtill till explained: If the firſt, it is that ſame Doctrine which I take to ſubvert all the Goſpel; viz. That [God maketh an effectual Grant and Donation of a true, real, perfect Righteouſneſs, even that of Chriſt himſelf, to all that believe, accounting it as theirs.]
God accounteth not Chriſts Divine Righteouſneſs to be our Righteouſneſs, nor yet his Humane Habitual Righteouſneſs, nor his Obedience to the Law proper to the Mediator, nor his Obedience to the Law of Moſes (which as ſuch bound not you or me,) nor his perfect fulfilling the Law of Innocency, nor his ſatisfactory Sacrifice for ſin, nor his Reſurrection, Aſcenſion, Interceſſion, &c. But he only accounteth theſe to be the Cauſes of our Righteouſneſs, and not our Righ…eouſneſs it ſelf. Though the Meritorious Cauſe may be called the Meritorious Matter in a remote ſenſe, as purchaſing the free Gift of our Formal Righteouſneſs.
Though this alſo is but an unneceſſary Logical name, the thing being without it plainlier opened, Relations having properly no Material Cauſe, and the Subject being it that is uſually ſo called; and our Jus being our Formal Righteouſneſs, and the Covenant Donation the Fundamentum Juris, and Chriſts Meritorious Righteouſneſs being but the cauſe of that Fundamentum or Titulus, it can be called the Matter of our Right but in a remote ſenſe, and ſuch a Matter as is without us, paid for us, but not ours in it ſelf, but the CAƲSE of that Relation which is ours.
The plain inconſiſtency of a Perfect Conformity to the Law made our own, with Chriſts dying for ſin, and our need of pardon, conſtrained a great part of the famouſeſt Divines of the laſt Age, to go too far, in my Judgment, in excluding Chriſts Active, and Habitual Righteouſneſs, to our Juſtification, and confining it to the Paſſive only: Such as Olevian, Ʋrſine, Piſcator, Paraeus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Beckman, and others in Germany; and Camero, with his moſt Judicious and Learned followers in France; and Dr. Twiſſe (whoſe M.S. I before mentioned) Mr. Wotton, Mr. Gataker and others in England: And yet the two laſt, I think, go not ſo far as the reſt. But Mr. Bradſhaw truly told them, that it is not the excluding the Active from Imputation that muſt untie the knot, but the taking Imputation it ſelf in a ſound ſenſe, and forſaking the unſound rigid notion of it, both as to the Active and Paſſive Righteouſneſs. Grotius de Satisfactione hath gone the middle way, and if that Book had been more ſtudied, fewer would have made us a new Goſpel in terms, who, I hope, in ſenſe do mean better than they ſpeak.
§. 20. In your explication you further own the ſubverting ſenſe; viz. That Chriſts perfect Righteouſneſs is made the Righteouſneſs of Believers (forma dat nomen) and is accordingly judged, eſteemed and reputed theirs, being by free Gift made theirs to all ends and purpoſes, whereto it would have ſerved, if it had been their own, without any ſuch Imputation, Donation or Communication, and God dealeth with them accordingly.]
Anſ. This is plainer dealing than we had before. If this were true,
1. We are as righteous as Chriſt.
2. We may deny that ever we were ſinners; for had we done all this our ſelves, that is, kept the Law perfectly from firſt to laſt, we had never ſinned.
3. We had never deſerved puniſhment;
4. Nor needed a Sacrifice;
5. Or a Pardon;
6. Nor ſhould we, during the time of our unregeneracy, have been left under ſpiritual death, or at leaſt, after believing, be left under remaining ſin, and a body of death;
7. Nor have been penally deprived of any help of the Spirit;
8. Nor of any Communion with God;
9. Nor ſo long be kept out of Heaven, or the Reward;
10. Nor ever have been corrected;
11. Nor ever had need of Word, Prayer or Sacraments for the helping us to renewed Pardon;
12. Nor ever have died and rotted in a grave;
13. Nor would the Magiſtrates Execution of Juſtice on us for our crimes be owned as Gods Juſtice.
14. All men wou…d have the ſame degree of Innocency and Holineſs.
15. It would have been a wrong to us, when we had perfectly kept the Law of Innocency, to ſuſpend our right to Pardon and Salvation upon new Conditions in a new Covenant.
16. We having perfectly kept the Law of Innocency as to the death, as ſoon as we believe, cannot be under another Law of the Redeemer that hath the true uſes of a Law.
17. Our own actions beſides Chriſts) are not capable of Reward or Puniſhment.
18. All the Texts of Scripture that mention inherent or practical perſonal Righteouſneſs, would contradict our imputed Righteouſneſs, or make us ſupererogate, and be more than perfectly righteous.
19. We need not fear that any new crime ſhould diminiſh our Righteouſneſs which is perfect, and can neither increaſe or decreaſe.
20. Whether we ſhould not be as righteous on Earth (even under Davids or Peters ſin) as in Heaven? and whether we ſhould be Deified by being divinely righteous, and juſtified by Gods Eſſential Righteouſneſs, as Andr. Oſiand…r taught, I leave to be conſidered, as you further explain your ſelf.
So much to your Epitome, which if I wrong you by judging it all your own, it is long of your ſelf that own it as aforeſaid in the groſs: If the Dr. be wronged, it is by you, and not by me.
§. 21. In the concluſion you do no more peaceably than provedly pronounce us in a manner agreed, enumerating the particulars in which we conſent: But I have told you wherein we are not agreed in words, nor in ſenſe, if thoſe words be not miſ-uſed, whatever we are in latent ſenſe.
I ſtill grant that Chriſt ſuffered, yea and obeyed, in ſome ſort, in our ſtead, though not in our perſon, Civil, or Legal, ſo as that we are Legally reputed the doers of it by or in him: And that his aſſuming our Nature, and being the ſecond Adam, a voluntary Sponſor and Mediator, was a neceſſary reaſon of the application of the fruits to us; and that we are as certainly and happily juſtified and glorified, as if we had been the doers and ſatisfiers our ſelves (ſo many as are ſaved;) But not on the ſame reaſons, nor in the ſame method or manner of conveyance: Nor when in judgment we are accuſed as having ſinned and deſerved death, can we deny it, & plead that we were innocent by another, or by imputation, as we ſhould have been, had we been innocent our ſelves: But we muſt plead pardon, and a free gift of life, through the merits, ſatisfaction and interceſſion of a Saviour.
§ 21. And to all before ſaid, I may add, That they who account all the Laws obligations on each perſon to be fulfilled by Chriſt, (and not only ſatiſfaction given for our not fulfilling them, 1. Muſt ſuppoſe that one perſon of Chriſt to have been Legally as many perſons as he died for (or juſtifieth:) For the Law laid as many diſtinct obligations on them, as they were perſons, and laid them only on their perſons. It ſaid, Thou Adam, Thou Eve, ſhalt perſonally obey perfectly, or die: And the Law of Nature, and of Moſes ſaid in ſenſe, Thou Solomon, Thou Manaſſes, (and ſo of all others) ſhalt do all things commanded, and not ſin. Now that in all Chriſts Obedience he was Legally and imputatively ſo many ſeveral perſons, Adam, Eve, Solomon, Manaſſeh, and ſo that none of theſe broke Gods Law, I find not in the Scripture. If you ſay, Adam was Legally as many perſons as are born of him in ſin, I deny it: He was the Root of all his Poſterity, and they were in him ſeminally and virtually, but not perſonally, actually, or imputatively: But by one mans diſobedience, as their Root and Cauſe, many are made ſinners: And by one mans obedience, as the Root and Cauſe, all Believers are made righteous. It is enough that one Saviour and Mediator in a third perſon of his own did and ſuffered that which by its merits and value (as attaining the Ends of the Law and Government) procured our deliverance from a neceſſity of perfect obeying as the Condition of Life, and from guilt and miſery, and is become the Root, Head and Donor of Grace and Glory.
2. And if (as you ſay) it be the very thing that is imputed to us as ours, to all intents, as if we had done it, why have you not told us, whether it be all that Chriſt did, or but ſome? and what? and how from Scripture you prove the diſtribution? and whether we have not thus, a Righteouſneſs, which is both too much, and too little.
I. Too much: For we were not obliged by the Law to be born of a Virgin, by the Holy Ghoſt, to faſt forty days, to turn Water into Wine, to caſt out Devils, to heal all diſeaſes, and raiſe the dead, to inaite the Goſpel, and ſend out Apoſtles. &c. If you ſay that ſo much only of Chriſts Obedience is in it ſelf our own, as we muſt elſe have done our ſelves, I ask the proof of the limitation.
And II. Is it not then too little, if it muſt be the Idem, and not the Aequivalens? For ſome of us are bound to the Offices of Parents, and ſome of Huſbands and Wives, ſome of Servants, ſome of Magiſtrates, ſome of Souldiers, ſome to actions proper to the ſick, to the old, and other conditions which Chriſt was never in: We are bound to mortifie our ſinful luſts, to pray for pardon and grace, to receive a pardon offered, to yield to the mortifying motions of the Spirit, &c. which Chriſt was not capable of. It was enough that he undertook all that was fit for him, and neceſſary by equivalency to ſatiſfie, and merit a free gift of grace and glory for us, and that he performed the undertaken conditions and duties of all that Law which was laid on him; without doing all the ſame things which were laid on us.
§. 22. And one thing more I deſire you to note, which Grotius de ſatisf. hath minded us of, viz. The great difference that there is between the caſe of a Rector and a Creditor, and between a Subject and a Debtor, or a Debt of Obedience or Puniſhment and a Debt of Money: For the name of Debt occaſioneth ſome men to run the ſimilitude of a Creditor and Debtor beyond the bounds. The Law requireth not a Debitor pecuniae, 1. To pay the very ſame individual money which he borrowed, but the ſame ſum. 2. Nor to pay it by his own hands. But the Law of God obligeth every Subject to every individual act which it commandeth. 2. And obligeth every man to do it all in his own perſon and not disjunctively by himſelf or a Vicar. That Chriſt is limitedly and only to certain ends and uſes a Vicarius poenae in the perſon of a Mediator, is not becauſe the Law as made to Adam required or accepted it, but the Lawgiver as above his Law. The Law that bound Chriſt is fulfilled; but the Law that bound Adam and every man is not fulfilled unleſs that ſame man do himſelf all the ſame things which it commanded him.
§ 23. I conclude all with theſe profeſſions of my opinion of all theſe Controverſies.
I. I believe that the Libertines (commonly called Antinomians) whoſe Doctrines I have in many Books oppoſed, do uſe thoſe ill Notions, and Methods which on pretence of magnifying Chriſt and free grace, do by plain conſequence wrong Chriſt and Grace, and Subvert the Goſpel, and ſhould rather be thence denominated, than from their denying the Law. (The Law of Innocency as a Covenant, and of Moſes as Jewiſh being truly ceaſed.)
II. I believe that yet moſt of thoſe that thus err in notions, are not ſo bad in their Judgment of the matter it ſelf as their words import; but that want of Skill in Terms and Method hath ſeduced men of dull wits, ſlight popular ſtudies, and undigeſted thoughts, to ſpeak worſe than they think, and had they more exact diſtinguiſhing and expreſſive Skill, they would ſhew that they mean moſtly as others do.
III. I believe that unskilful contending with the Papiſts hath occaſioned all this, while in the heats of Controverſy men bend all their wits to diſgrace the Doctrine of their adverſaries, not fearing enough unſafe expreſſions and contrary extreams while they ſeem to ſerve their preſent turn: And then departing from Scripture terms as neceſſary to ſet their hearers far enough from their adverſaries, are next carried into a multitude of new made articles or notions, contrary alſo to Scripture ſenſe, when they have once thus left the words.
IV. I believe that moſt honeſt, plain, leſs learned Chriſtians, and the throughly ſtudied and learned Teachers, agree in the true ſence of the Doctrine of Juſtification which the half ſtudied contenders make to ſeem more difficult than it is, and muddy it by their unlearned queſtions and words. That is, all plain Chriſtians hold, that [Chriſt God and Man is our only Saviour who obeyed, ſuffered and interceedeth for us, as a Mediator, and is become as redeemer the Lord of all, even of Nature, Grace and Glory, and hath merited, purchaſed and made a Covenant and Law of Grace, that whoever believeth in him ſhall not periſh, but have everlaſting life; offering his Grace to all, and effectually giving it to ſome; And that as our King and Lord Redeemer he governeth us by this Law, and requireth Faith and Repentance of all that will be pardoned, and ſincere obedience to the end, of all that will be glorified; and as he pardoneth all paſt ſin at our Converſion, ſo to thoſe that believe and ſincerely obey him, he pardoneth all their following ſins; and as he maketh them righteous by giving them his Spirit to perform the conditions of pardon, adoption and Salvation, and by forgiving all their ſins, and freely giving them right to life Eternal, for the ſake of his Sacrifice and Merits, ſo he accordingly virtually juſtifieth them by his Covenant, and ſo eſteemeth them, and will ſo uſe them, and will ſo judge them finally by his Sentence hereafter, and will receive them as ſo juſtified and adopted to his Glory.]
This all agree in till wranglers trouble them; and this much is enough.
FINIS.
A Defence of Chriſt, AND Free Grace: Againſt the SUBVERTERS, Commonly Called, Antinomians or Libertines; WHO Ignorantly Blaſpheme CHRIST on Pretence of extolling Him.
IN A DIALOGUE Between An Orthodox Zealot, AND A Reconciling Monitor.
WRITTEN On the occaſion of the reviving of thoſe Errours, and the Reprinting and Reception of Dr. Criſpes Writings, and the danger of ſubverting many Thouſand honeſt Souls by the Notions of Free Grace, and Juſtification, miſ-underſtood and abuſed by injudicious, unſtudyed, prejudiced Preachers.
By RICHARD BAXTER.
London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurſt at the Bible and Three Crowns, at the lower End of Cheapſide, near Mercers-Chapel, 1690.