The Life of Justification Opened, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
Mr. Baxter's Answers to some of our Argum. for Imputation, examined.
MR. Baxter, in his book against D. Tully proposeth some Objections, that he may make answere unto them, according to his own Grounds: Though some things, here repeated in his answers, have been already considered by us; yet we shall examine briefly his answers, as here given.
His answere to the first Objection hath been examined, in the foregoing Chapt. The 2. is this. Christ is called tht Lord our Righteousness, & He is made Righteousness to us, & we are made the Righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor. 5: 21. & by the Obedience of one many are made Righteous. He answereth to this …. And are we not all agreed of all this? But can His Righteousness be ours no way, but by the foresaid personating R…presentation. Ans And will not Socinians; who overturn all the foundations or Christianity, and ought not be called, or accounted Christians, say the same, as to the Scripture-expressions? are we therefore agreed with them in judgment? or is there no difference betwixt us: His not agreement in the words, but in the sense of Scripture, that maketh a true agreement (2.) Christ's Righteousness may be, and is Ours another way, than by that Personating and Representating, which he stated, as the butt of his arguments & another way also, than he proposeth as his own judgment, as we saw.
He rels us next, how Christ is our Righteousness, & how His obedience maketh us Righteous, in his judgement, in 8 or 9 particulars. 1. Because the very Law of Innocency, which we dishonoured & broke by sin, is perfectly fulfilled & honoured by Him, as a Mediator, to repaire the injurie, done by our breaking it. Ans. The Law, which the Devils dishonoured & broke by sin, was perfectly honoured & fulfilled by the Angels, who stood; is therefore their Righteousness to be called the devils? But he will say; They obeyed not, as Mediator; True: But then the ground of Christ Righteousness, becomning ours, must be some other thing, than His honouring that Law by fulfilling it, which we dishonoured by breaking. But he saith, Christ repaired the injurie, done by our breaking it True; yet … there be no more, that will not make His Righteousness ours; because, as is obvious, ere this be, we must have an Interest therein; & this obedience must be performed by Him, a our Mediator & Surety, undertaking & Satisfying the demands of the Law for us, & in our stead.
2. In that (saith he) He suffered to satisfie justice for our sin. Ans. Neither is suffering, as such, Righteousness; Nor could He satisfie justice for our sin, in & by suffering, if He had not done it in our stead, & as one Person with us in Law. If Titius steal from Sempronius a 1000. Pound; & Maevius givius Sempronius a 1000. Pound upon some distinct account. Sempronius receiveth no satisfaction, for what Titius stole from him, but if he come & give it for Titius & he be satisfied there-with, then there is a Law Union & oneness betwixt Titius & Maevius, whereby the Satisfaction given by Maevius, becometh the satisfaction of Titius.
3. He saith, in that hereby He hath merited of God the Father all that Righteousness, which we are truely the Subjects of, whether it be Relative or qualitative, or Active; that is, our right to Christ in union, to the Spirit, to Impunity & to glory, 2. the grace of the Spirit by which we are made holy, & fulfill the conditions of the Law of grace: we are the Subjects of these, & he is the Meriter; & the Meritorius Cause of out life is well called our Righteousness, & by many the material Cause (as our own perfect obedience would have been) because it is the matter of that merite. Ans. That Righteousness, which he saith here Christ hath merited, is not that Righteousness unto justification of life, as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5: 18. And which we have by the Obedience of Christ, made ours by Imputation vers 19. whereof we are here speaking, & in respect of which Christ is said to be our Righteousness (2.) Our right to Christ is not our Righteousness, in order to justification; nor is our Right to Impunity & Glory that Righteousness, but a consequent thereof (3.) In respect of the Graces of the Spirit, which follow justification, & do not preceed it, Christ is called our Sanctification: & Mr. Baxter knoweth, there is a difference betwixt Righteousness & Holiness. (4.) The Meritorius Cause of our life is well called our Righteousness. when it is Imputed to us & put upon our score, as the Ground of our justification & Absolution; & upon this account only is it by many called the Material Cause.
4. And also (saith he) Christ's jntercession with the Father still procureth all this, as the fruit of His Merites. Ans. Of Christ's procuring our holiness we make no Doubt: but that upon this account, He is called our Righteousness, is denied: for this is not His Obedience & Righteousness, whereby we become Righteous unto justification of life.
5. And we are related (saith he) as His members (though not parts of His person, as such) to Him, that thus merited for us. Ans. if we be related to Him, as members, in order to our partaking of His Righteousness & Merit…s, we must be parts of His legal Persons though not of His Physical Person… for by Members here I suppose, he meaneth Members of His Mystical body or members of His Ransomed & Redeemed body: And head & Members here make one Political body, & become one Political Person, or one in Law-sense.
6. And (saith he) we have the Spirit from Him, as our Head. Ans, This is but what what was said before in the 3. place. And this Spirit is given for holiness: but Christ is our Righteousness, as well as our Sanctification; & it is of His being Righteousness, that we are speaking.
7. And he is our Advocat (saith he) & will justifie us, as our judge. Ans. His being our Advocat, is the same with His Intercession spoken of in the 4. place. (2.) The Father will judge us, & justifie us by Him; therefore God the Father shall be our Righteousness, as well as Christ; & consequently shall have merited all for us, by His blood & Sufferings, & that in a more principal manner, according to this Reason.
8. And all this (saith he) is God's Righteousness, designed for us, & thus far given us by Him. Ans. But all this is not that Righteousness, which God hath designed for us, in & through Christ, in order to our justification; nor that Righteousness, by which we become formally Righteous in Law-sense; & thereupon are justified & pronounced Righteous in the sight of God; for this is Christ's Surety-Righteousness, imputed to us, & none else can be it.
Lastly saith he. And the Perfect justice & holiness of God is thus glorified in us, through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove, that we justly owne all asserted by these Texts. Ans. It remaineth to be cleared, how the Perfect justice & holiness of God can be said to be glorified in us, through Christ, if Christ's Righteousness & Satisfaction be not imputed to us & accounted ours, & Christ & we be not looked upon, as one Person in Law: for all that is wrought in us, is far from being answerable to the Perfect justice & holiness of God, because of its Imperfection. And because Mr. Baxter doth not grant the Imputing of Christ's Surety-righteousness (which is only answerable to the Perfect justice & holiness of God) unto us, in all that he hath here said, he cannot be said to owne all, that is asserted by these Texts.
The 3. object, is. If Christ's Righteousness be ours, then we are righteous by it, as ours; & so God reputeth it, but as it is. But it is ours 1. by our Union with him. 2. by his gift, & so consequently by God's Imputation. To this he answereth. 1. That he hath told before, in what sense it is ours, & in what sense not. Shortly here he giveth us his mind againe, saying. It is truely Imputed to us, or reputed, reckoned, as ours; but not in their sense, that claim a strick Propriety in the same Numerical Habites, Acts, Sufferings, Merites, Satisfaction, which was in Christ, or done by Him, as if they did become subjects of the same Accidents; or as if they did by an Instrumental second cause. But it is ours, as being done by a Mediator, in stead of what we should have done, & as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness & Bonefites, which are freely given us for the sake thereof. Ans. This is but what we heard, when he was clearing the state of the question; & there (Chap. XIII.) we shewed, that his sense was not satisfying: for in his judgment, as we found, there is no Righteousness truely ours, in order to justification, but our Faith, which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness, which by Christ's Merites is advanced to this dignity of being the potestative Condition of the New Covenant, wherein pardon & Right to life is promised upon Condition of Faith; & so faith is our Immediat Righteousness, in order to the obtaining of these favoures; & Christ's Merites have only procured them remotely, in procuring this Covenant. But we hear no mention made by him of any such Imputation, as whereby Christ's fide jussory or Surety-righteousness is really made over and Imputed to Beleevers, that they thereby may become formally Righteous, in the sight of God, and be justified as such, & so pardoned and have right to life, immediatly upon the account of this Surety-righteousness made theirs. Nor hear we any clear ground laid down by him, whereupon Christ's Righteousness can be called Ours, & we thereupon be reputed of God legally Righteous, & dealt with as such. We hear of Benefites bestowed because of His Merites; But we hear not that Pardon and Right to Glory are made the Immediat result and effect of Christ's Merites & Righteousness, but only mediat, by the Interveening of the New Covenant, whereby our Faith, the condition thereof, called our Gospel, Personal Righteousness, is made the Immediat cause of our possessing these benefites; whereby he giveth occasion, at least, to judge, that he maketh our faith the Immediat procuring & Meritorius Cause of Pardon and Right to life. However between his way, & that, which he here rejecteth (which we also reject, neither asserting, that Christ was our Instrumental Second cause: nor claiming a strick propriety in the same Numerical Habites &c. which were in Christ, as if we became Subjects of the same Accidents, speaking of what Christ did & suffered, in a Physical sense) we know, & owne a Midway, whereby Christ's Obedience & Suffering, considered not Physically, but legally & juridically, are transferred & communicated unto us, not as Physical accidents, from one Physical subject to another, but in a Law & juridical sense. And though this Imputing & communicating of Christ's Surety-righteousness cannot be explained by, nor appear consistent with Logical or Metaphysical Notions, applicable only to Physical Entities, & as considered as such (to wich Mr. Baxter in all his Explications of this matter, doth so frequenily laboure to restrick us, contrary to all Reason, Yea and to Common sense) Yet we must owne it for a truth, knowing that these fundamental truthes, recorded in Scripture, and held forth to us only by divine Revelation, stand in no need of Aristotle's learning, in order to their being Savingly understood & practified: And that Law-termes are more fit, to help us to some understanding in this matter, which is hold forth in Scripture, as a juridical act, than Metaphysical termes; and yet we see no ground to say, that this matter, whereof we treat, must, in all points, keep even a resemblance unto Iustinian's modes, knowing that it is a divine Mystery, and unparallelable.
He saith 2. He that is made Righteousness unto us, i… also made wisdom, Sanctification, & Redemption to us, but that sub genere causae Efficientis, non autem constitutivae; We are not the Subjects of the same Numerical wisdom and Holiness, which … Christ, plainly the Question is, whether Christ or His Righteousness Holiness, Merites and Satisfaction, be our Righteousness constitutivly, or only efficiently. The matter and forme of Christ's personal Righteousness is ours, as an efficient cause; but it is neither the neerest matter, nor the forme of that Righteousness, which is Ours, as the subjects of it, that is, it is not a Constitutive cause, nexly material, or formal of it. Ans. (1.) It is true, He, who is made Righteousness to us, is also made Sanctification, &c. and that He is made Sanctification by being an Efficient cause: but it will not follow, that He must be also the Efficient cause, and no other of our Righteousness, which is of a far other Nature, and is no Inherent inwrought thing, as is Sanctification. (2.) It is true, we are not the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness, which is in Christ, neither can we be, if they be considered Physically: but yet we can be Subjects of the same Numerical Righteousness, Legally and juridically considered; & thus we are to consider it here, & not Physically, however Mr. Baxter, ad nauseam usque inculcat this; for we consider it, and must consider it, as a Surety-righteousness; & we know that that same Individuat payment and Satisfaction, made by the Surety, is in Law-sense the Debtor's, and imputed to him, as the ground of his liberation from trouble and distress, at the hands of the Creditor. (3.) Hence we see, that Christ's Surety-righteousness, consisting in His Obedience and Sufferings, is that whereby we are constituted Righteous in the sight of God, in a legal sense: and need not enquire, whether it be the neerest matter, or forme or both, of our Righteousness: for these Metaphysical termes have no place here, though Mr. Baxter can never hold of them. We are made Righteous in a Law-sense, & not Physically, by Christ's Imputed Righteousness, and upon this account, it is ours legally: & it is folly, to enquire for Physical matter, and forme or Constitutive causes of Moral or juridical Beings, or Effects, as Phylosophers do, when speaking of Physical, or of Metaphysical beings.
He saith 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: & so not only Christ' Righteousness, but every Christians, would be each of ours. But that is not so, nor is it so given us by him. Ans. We acknowledge no Union with Christ, making us the same person with Him Physically (& it seemeth Mr. Baxter will understand it no otherwayes) But we acknowledge an Union legal, Political, & foederal, whereby we become one person juridical, in Law-sense: and as to this, Mr. Baxter's accidents have no substantial place or Consideration.
The 4. Object is, you do seem to suppose, that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all, which consisteth in Perfect Obedience & 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, & not only the Retributive part. But they say, it is in our selves, and we say, It is Christ's Imputed to us. Thus he proposeth it, but if I were forming the objection, I would say, That Mr. Baxter Supposeth, we have no Righteousness at all, in order to justification, beside our Act of Faith: for as for his Right to Impunity and life, it is no Righteousness: & beside, I hope he will not say, that that is given before justification; & of a Righteousness preceeding (in order of Nature, at least) justification, we are speaking, & enquireing after it.
What he answereth to this Objection, in the first place, because it only concerneth Papistes, & their Misapprehensions, in the matter, I passe. But 2. he saith, If any of them do, as you say, no wonder, if they & you contend: If one say, we are Innocent, or sinless, in reality; & the other, we are so by Imputation, when we are so no way at all, but sinners really, & so reputed. Ans. If by Innocent, or sinless, he mean such, as never sinned, never Man, Protestant or Papist, dreamed of such a thing. If by these termes, he meane such, are now not guilty legally, of the charge brought in against them; this we acknowledge, and must acknowledge, or we know not, how any shall ever be justified; for God will not pronounce sinners, as such, really and legally to be righteous, His judgment being according to truth: & therefore because we have no righteousness within us, whereupon we can be pronounced not guilty, we must have a Righteousness imputed to us, even the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But Mr. Baxter, it seemeth, will not understand, what this legal non-guiltiness is; & yet in matters among men it is very clear and manifest. If Paul had fully Satisfied, according as he undertook, Philemon, for the wrongs and injuries done him by Onesimus; If Onesimus had been convented before a judge for these same crimes and Injuries, & had produced the Satisfaction made by his Surety Paul, & accepted by the creditor Philemon, would not the judge have had ground in Law & equity, to pronounce Onesimus not guilty, & therefore not to be punished, according as was libelled against him? And yet though Onesimus had been pronounced Innocent, that is, not-guilty, as to Crimes and Injuries alleiged against him, in this case, in a legal sense, it would not follow, that he had never committed these wrongs; nor had the evincing of that been necessary to his Absolution and justification. His Legal Innocency or Righteousness, by vertue of the Satisfaction made by his Surety, now judicially accounted & reputed his, being Sufficient. These things are plaine to such, as will but open their eyes: but all the world cannot make them plaine to such, as will understand nothing, but what is cast into Aristotelian Metaphysical Mould. Were it not lost laboure for any to enquire, what is the Matter & Forme of this legal Righteousness of Onesimus? Whereof is it constitute? How came Paul's righteousness to be his, and so one accident to go from subject to subject? whether was Paul's satisfaction the Efficient, or Constitutive cause of Onesimus his Innocency, or non-guiltiness, and the like?
The 5. Object is, How can God accept him, as just, who is really & reputedly a sinner? This dishonoureth His Holiness and Justice. To this he saith. Not so: cannot God pardon sin upon a valuable Merite, & Satisfaction of a Mediator? & though He judge us not perfect now, & 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 judge us, having washed us from our sins, in the bloud of the Lamb. Ans. All this giveth no satisfaction to the objection; for the objection speaketh of acceptance in Justification, & consequently of that acceptation, that preceedeth Sanctification. (2.) It is true, God can & doth pardon sins; but meer pardon of sins is not justification, the person must be accepted, as righteous; and yet by Mr. Baxter's way, the man hath no righteousness, to ground such a judgment and acceptation: and God's judgment being alwayes according to truth, the justified man must be righteous, that he may be accounted & accepted as Righteous, in Justification. Therefore either Mr. Baxter must grant, that he is Righteous through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ; or that he is Righteous inherently by his faith, or by his fulfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant; for there is not a third: or that he is prononnced Righteous without a Righteousness.
The 6. object. Thus you make the Reatus culpae not pardoned at all, but only the Reatus poenae. To this he saith 1. If by Reatus culprae be meaned the Relation of a sinner, as he is revera peccator, & so to be reus is to be revera ipse qui peccavit, then we must consider, what you meane by Pardon: for if you mean the nullifying of such a guilt (or Reality) it is impossible; because necessitate existentiae, he that hath once sinned, will be still the person that sinned, while he is a person, & the relation of one that sinned will cleave to him. It will eternally be a true proposition, [Peter & 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; & 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. Ans. The nullifying of the Reatus culpa physically or metaphysically is indeed Impossible; for it will be alwayes true, that such & such persons did sinne: but this Reatus culpae may and must be nullified legally and juridically, otherwise never shall man be justified: for in justification this Reatus culpae is declared to be taken away; for the man is declared non reus, & accepted as not-guilty, or Righteous; not physically, or Metaphy…ically, but legally: a man must be legally Righteous before he be justified, according to equity; & he cannot be legally Righteous, as long as the Reatus culpae doth legally remaine; for a man legally guilty, is not legally Righteous. Now, Mr. Baxter must yeeld to this, or he shall destroy his own ground, and take away all pardon, as well as justification: for as it will be eternally true, that Peter & Paul did sinne, & so were rei culpae; so it will be eternally true, that punishment was due unto them, that is▪ they were rei poenae: & therefore, if because it will be eternally true, that Peter & Paul sinned, therefore the Reatus culpae cannot be annulled; so because it will be eternally true, that Peter & Paul were obnoxious & liable to punishment, therefore also the Reatus poenae cannot be annulled. But the truth lyeth here, that though neither the Reatus culpae nor poenae can be annulled physically, or metaphysically, that is, so taken away, as if they never had been; yet both are taken away legally & juridically, and a pardoned man is legally and juridically non puniendus, & thus the Reatus poenae is taken away: and a justified man is legally and juridically, not-guilty of the offence charged against him, & thus the Reatus culpae is taken away. As it is inconsistent with pardon, to say, that the person pardoned doth legally remaine obnoxious to punishment, though it will be eternally true, that he is the man, that did contract that dueness & onbnoxiousness: so it is inconsistent with justification, to say, that the person justified is legally chargable with the offence, though it will be eternally true, that he is the man, that did contract that guilt & sin.
He saith. 2. Therefore if by Reatus culpae, you meane an obligation to punishment for that fault, this, being in deed the reatus poenae, is done away. So that we are, I think, all agreed de re; & 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. Ans. The Reatus culpae is the ground of the obligation to punishment, & not the same with Reatus poenae; it is a being chargable with such a crime & offence; and this, as we said, much be as well done away, in a legal sense, as the obligation to punishment: Nay, in our case, the obligation to punishment cannot be taken away, untill first this chargableness with the sin be removed. The Lord will not declare that man non-obliged to punishment, who remaineth legally and Juridically reus culpae & chargable with the crime. And so long as we differ herein, we are not agreed de re, nor de nomine. The Reatus culpae, in se, is as well nullified, in a legal sense, as the Reatus poenae; and neither the one, nor the other can be otherwayes nullified. But I see, Mr. Baxter is so for pardon, as to destroy all Justification, or he thinketh that Pardon and Justification are all one thing, and by both nothing is taken away, but the obligation to punishment; and thus the pardoned and justified person is still chargable with the sin; & the obligation to punishment is taken away, where the charge of guilt remaineth: and thus God is supposed to justifie a person, that is not justifiable, except by an iniquous sentence. Yea, hereby we have the Socinian pardon owned, but not the orthodox pardon: for the Socinian-Pardon can well consist with this chargableness of guilt, because they acknowledge no Satisfaction, to remove the Reatus culpae: but the orthodox pardon doth presuppose the removal, in a legal sense, of the guilt or chargableness of sin, and is a Native consequent thereof: for because of Satisfaction made by the Surety, Christ, and the same now imputed to the sinner, and made his, guilt is taken away, & he is no more chargable with that guilt, but looked upon as Righteous; and therefore all obligation to punishment is actually removed, & he is no more obnoxious thereto in Law, being rectus in curia.
Object. 7. You have said, that though we are 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 beleevers; for Christ being the second Adam & publick person, we have our part in His Righteousness, as truely, and as much, as in Adam's sin. His answere to this is long. He saith. 1. Our Covenant Union & Interest supposeth our Natural Union & Interest, & it is an adding to God's word & Covenant, to say, that He Covenanted, that Adam should personat each one of his posterity, in God's Imputation, or account, any further than they were naturally in him, & so that his innocency or sin should be reputed theirs, as far, as if they had been personally the Subjects & Agents. Ans. If the Covenant Union & Interest supposeth the Natural Union & Interest, then there is a Covenant Union and Interest here to be considered: and therefore it can be no adding to God's word or Covenant, to say, That Adam did personat each one of his posterity foederally, as well as Naturally: Yea, to deny this, were a corrupting of truth, & a denying of all Covenant-Union & Interest. Whence it is manifest, that in a Federal or legal sense, we must needs say, that Adam's Innocency, or sin is reputed ours, as far as if we had been personally (not physically, but legally) the Subjects & Agents. If Mr. Baxter shall prove, that the Foederal Union & Interest, which he saith is superadded to the Natural, will admit of no other Consideration of the posterity Interessed, than what is physical & Natural, & followeth upon the Natural Union, he shall then lay a ground for what he would say here, but till then he shall but beat the aire; & when he hath done that, he shall destroy what he hath granted, viz. all Foederal Union & Interest: for a Foederal Union & Interest will ground a foederal & legal Consideration of the persons interessed; as well as a Natural Union and Interest will ground a Natural and physical Consideration of the same persons. And Mr. Baxter's not adverting to this, confoundeth all; for hence it is, that he will have all things here considered only physically, and according to Aristotle's notions, with which we have nothing to do, while speaking of a Foederal Union and Interest, and of what followeth thereupon. This being premitted, we may quickly dispatch the rest.
The person of Peter (saith he) never was in reality, or God's reputation, the person of Adam (nor Adam's person the person of Peter) but Peter being virtually & seminally in Adam, when he sinned; his person is derived from Adam's person; & so Peter's guilt is not numerically the some with Adam's, but the accident of another Subject, & therefore another accident, derived with the person from Adam, & from neerer parents. Ans. All this is only true, in a physical Natural sense; but notwithstanding, if we consider Adam and his posterity, in a legal & foederal sense, as we must, if there be (as is granted) a foederal Union & Interest, then all runneth in another channel. The person of Peter is foederally and legally, in the person of Adam; yea God reputeth them both to be one Federal person: and the person of Peter was thus actually in the person of Adam, and not virtually and seminally: for these notions have no place here. And hence Peter's original guilt is numerically the same with Adam's: and in this sense Peter had as neer a Relation to Adam, as Abel had; for here Adam is considered, as the Head & Center, and all his posteri…y, as equal members of this Political & Foederal Body, and as Lines coming equally from the same Centre.
He addeth. The fundamentum of that Relation (of guilt) is the Natural Relation of the pe…son to Adam (& 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 Sones & Daughters, is the fundamentum next following his personal fault & guilt, charged on him by the law. So that here is a long series of efficient causes, bringing down from Adam's person & guilt, a distinct numerical person & guilt of everyone of this later posterity. Ans. 1. The fundamentum of that relation of guilt is more properly & proximely, the foederal relation of the person to Adam, than the Natural relation: and the fundamentum of this foederal relation is not Generation, but the free Ordination and Constitution of God. (2) What he meaneth by these words, 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, I do not know: If his meaning be, that the Communication of a guilty Nature, by the peccatum originale originatum, is the fundamentum of the following personal fault and guilt, by reason of the peccatum originale originans; that is, if he say, that the corrupted Nature is the ground of the Imputation of Adam's transgression, it is not consonant to truth, nor to what himself said above pag. 34. against Placeus. But if he meane, that Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature, is the fundamentum, that next followeth his personal guilt, charged on him by Law, I must say, I do not understand what he would be at, though the words seem to express some such thing. But the truth, that I shall lay down, is this; That all Adam's posterity, being federally in him, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression; by vertue whereof, when they come physically, by natural Generation, to partake of his Nature, they are first, in order of Nature guilty of Adam's transgression, and then have a corrupt Nature communicated, as a punishment and consequent of the other; & this Corrupt Nature being sin, hath its own guilt attending it also. (3) Though this long series of Efficient causes be requisite to the production of a distinct numerical person from Adam's person, in a physical and natural sense; yet every one of these physically distinct numerical persons do immediatly derive from Adam their legal and foederal personalities, that is, these same persons, considered foederally, are equally and alike neer to Adam, their federal Head and Representative: And therefore the guilt of Adam's sin cometh from him immedratly to each one of them, foederally considered; and is consequently, the same numerical guilt: and all this is founded upon their Federal Union with, and Interest in Adam.
He saith. 2. And it is not the same sort of guilt, or so plenary, which is in us, for Adam's act, as was on him; but a guilt Analogical, or of another sort, that is, he wes guilty of being the wilfull sinning person, & 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 makes it just with God to desert us, and to punish us for that & our pravity together. This is our guilt of original sin. Ans. (1) Hereby that original sin, whereof we are speaking here, viz, Adam's breach of Covenant, seemeth quite to be taken away: for not only is it said, that original sin, as in us, is another sort of thing, than what it was in Adam; and so not only not the same numerically (as he formerly said) but not the same specifically: but moreover it is said to be only an Analogical guilt: yea in end it is made just nothing; for it is said, that we are guilty of being persons, whose being is derived from the wilfull sinning persons, and this is no guilt at all; no mans simple being, let it be by generation from the most prodigiously guilty and wicked persons, that can be, can be imputed to him for guilt; for his receiving a being is contrary to no Law. And beside, when he addeth by way of Explication, that the Relation is such, which our persons have to Adam's person, as makes it just with God to deserte us, he must either make the simple Relation to be the guilt, or the ground of guilt, and its Imputation. The Simple Relation, without some guilt following it, and founded upon it, cannot make it just with God to desert us &c. For sin only can do this, & that Relation is not sin. If he say, That guilt is Superadded, & upon this account, it is just with God thus to punish. I would ask, what is this guilt: It is not Adam's sin, but some analogical thing, which Scripture knoweth nothing of, and Reason can give us no account, whence it came. He cannot say, that it came from Adam's sin, for if we be federally united to & Interessed in Adam (as we are, & as he confessed we were) and if upon that account we be reputed guilty, the same Individual guilt, which was on Adam, must be upon us; and if our guilt be of another sort, he must give us another Adam, from whom that other analogical sort floweth. The Scripture saith, that we all sinned in Adam Rom. 5: 12. which were not truth, if his individual sin were not ours, or if ours were of another sort, and only analogical. But this is the fruit of Mr. Baxter's casting all these things in Aristotle's mould. But moreouer (2) It hath a foule aspect towards Pelagianisme, to make our guilt another, than Adam's, because that Adam was the wilful sinning person, and so are not we: for this is to confirme the Pelagians, who say, that that sin was only Adam's, because he was the only wilfully sinning person, & we had no will therein.
3. He saith. And this guilt cometh to us by Natural propagation, and resultancie from our very Nature so propagated. Ans. It is true, we come to be actually charged with this guilt, & to have it imputed to us, when we partake of our beings by Natural Generation or propagation; and that because of our federal Union with & Interest in Adam; and exclusive of this, it cannot be said to come to us by resultancy from our very Nature so propagated: for the guilt of all Adam's after-Transgressions should as well be said to come to us, after this manner, as the guilt of that one Transgression & Disobedience, of which only the Scripture maketh mention Rom. 5.
He cometh next to consider our contrary Interest in Christ, & tels us 1. Our persons are not the same as Christ's person (nor Christ's as ours) nor ever so judged or accounted of God. Ans. Physically this is true; but it is not true legally: for when he came in the Law-place of the Elect, & become Surety for-them, they and he became one person in Law. He saith 2. Our persons were not Naturally seminally & virtually in Christ's person (any further than He is Creator & Cause of all things) as they were in Adam's. Ans. Adam was a natural Head, our Lord is a Spiritual & Supernatural Head: & as to this, we willingly grant a difference; but both were Federal Heads & Publick Persons, & their agreement in this satisfieth us. He saith 3. Therefore we derive not Righteousness from Him by Generation, but by His voluntary donation and contract. Ans. We derive it from Him by Regeneration; that is, as we partake of Adam's guilt, when by Generation we partake of a Natural being; so we partake of Christ's Righteousness, when by Regeneration we partake of a spiritual being in Him. And there is no new formal contract made here anent, but what is sutable to the Nature of this privilege, in order to its conveyance. He saith 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 & by Him. Ans. We say only (and we seek no more) that Christ was our Federal Head; and our persons Federally (not physically) were in Christ, when He obeyed: we are reputed to be in Him not Naturally, but Foederally, and so to have obeyed in & by Him.
He saith 5. If Cbrist & we are reputed one person, either He obeyed in our person, or we in His, or both; if He obeyed, as reputed sinner, in the person of each sinner, His obedience could not be Meritorious, according to the Law of Innocency, which required sinless perfection; & He being supposed to have broken the Law in our person, could not so be supposed to keep it. If we obeyed in His person, we obeyed as Mediators, or Christ's. Ans. Aristotle's Notions, to which Mr. Baxter, contrary to all sense & reason, will have this whole matter restricked, in its explication, are the cause of all this ridiculous Confusion. But for answere, I say, Christ & we are reputed one person, not physically, but in Law-sense & federally; & therefore both he obeyed; as taking on our Law-place, & coming in to our Law-condition: and to say, that therefore His obedience could not be Meritorious, is ridiculous: as if forsooth His coming into our Law-place, would make Him to be supposed, to have broken the Law, in His physical person, as if one would say. The Surety cannot pay the debtor's debt, because by coming in to his Law-place, he becometh a bankrupt. Himself saith, that Christ suffered in our stead; & this cannot be in our Physical stead, but in our Law-stead; now will it not as well hence follow, that He suffered as a sinner▪ & then, how could He, who suffered, as being supposed to have broken the Law, make Satisfaction for us; or how could His death be Meritorious? Thus indeed good service shall be done to the Socinians, but bad service to the Truth. Finally, we obeyed, as Federally in Him, & yet were no Mediators, or Christ's, but redeemed Saints; as the debtor satisfied the Creditor, in Law-sense, when his Surety did it; and yet became no Surety thereby.
He saith 6. But as is oft said, Christ our Mediator undertook in a middle person to reconcile God and Man (not by bringing God to judge erroneously, that He, or we were, what we were not, or did whas we did not, but) by being, doing and suffering for us that, in His own person, which should botter answere Gods Ends & Honour, than if we had done and suffered in our persons, that hereby he might merite a free gift of pardon & life (with himself) to be given by a Law of Grace, to beleeving penitent Accepters. Ans. I doubt there be one word here said, to which a Socinian will not subscribe. But for answer, I say, Christ our Mediator so undertook, in a middle physical person, to reconcile God & man, that He became our Surety, & came in our stead & Law-place, to do and suffer what we were obliged unto by the Law: and when God judged Him to be, and to do thus, He judged not erroneously, but truely, according to His own gracious Appointment, and Ordination, making Him a Publick person, representing all such, as He gave Him to save. We have shown elsewhere, that Christ merited something else, than a Law of Grace, to Convey a free gift of pardon & life upon New Conditions, otherwise His death could not be called a Ransome, a Redemption, or a price; nor could He be said to have died in the stead of any person, or to have born their Iniquities, or the punishment thereof; far less to have been made sin for us. But more of this hereafter.
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. To this he saith. 1. Christ's person was not the subject of our personal relative guilt, much less of our habites, or acts. 2. God did not judge Him to have been so. 3. Nay Christ had no guilt of the same kind reckoned to be on Him, else these unmeet speaches, used rashly by some, would be true, viz. That Christ was the greatest murderer, Adulterer &c. and consequently more hated of God, for God must needs hate a sinner, as such. Ans. (1) Mr. Baxter will understand nothing here, but according to his Philosophical & Metaphysical Notions: & in this sense, we may grant him all that he saith: And yet adde, That Christ was the legal, juridical, and federal subject of our guilt; for our sins did meet together on Him, and He was made sin (2) and God doing all this, could not but judge Him to have been so. (3) Christ inherently had no guilt neither of the same kind, nor of any other: but that our very sins were imputed to Him, & reckoned upon His score, must be granted, or we must deny, His dying or satisfying in our stead; & so plainely embrace Socinianisme (4) Those speeches are but unmeet to such, as mistake them, as Mr. Baxter doth here, who supposeth that their meaning is, That He was the greatest sinner Inherently (which were indeed blasphemy, but far from their thoughts) for he inferreth, that consequently he must have been more hated of God; while as God's hatred (if we take it not for meer punishing of sin) is only against such, as are inherently sinners. What saith he moreover?
To be guilty of sin, as we are, is to be reputed truely the person, that committed it. But so was not Christ; & therefore not so to be reputed, Christ was but the Mediator, that undertook to suffer for our sins, that we might be forgiven, & not for His own sin, really or justly reputed. Ans. No man saith, that Christ was guilty of sin, as we are, that is, Inherently. But if He undertook to suffer for our sins, unless we turn Socinians, in expounding this sentence, we must say, that the guilt of our sins was laid upon Him, otherwise He could not suffer for them, in our place & stead; & we must say, that He, so suffered for them, as that all they, in whose stead He suffered, should certainly be forgiven; & not have a bare may be of forgiveness, by a New Covenant, offering the same upon new termes. What next?
Expositors (saith he) 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 (left the wranglers make a verbal quarrel of it) our Reatum culpae, non quâ talem, & in se, sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae. Ans. Yet some Expositors will say more, and that in full consonancy with the Scriptures, as Esai. 53: 6. And however, all we say, is hereby sufficiently confirmed; for if He be made a sacrifice for our sins, our sins must necessarily be imputed to him, as the sins of the people were typically laid upon the Sacrifices: and therefore Christ must have taken on Him, not physically but legally, our very numerical guilt, without which he could not be accounted reus poenoe, or obnoxious to our punishment. What he meaneth by the reatus culpae qua talis, & in se, he would do well to explaine: If his meaning be, that Christ was not legally accounted guilty, this is denied; for then he could not have been a Sacrifice for our sins, to have died in our stead. Wrangling is not good: Yet Turpe'est Doctori, &c.
He addeth, 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 to us at all. Ans. Though Christ's numerical Righteousness be not ours physically; yet that same is made over to us legally: as it is one & the same Individual payment, that is made by the Surety, and made over in Law unto the debtor. And therefore what he addeth is to no purpose. But (saith he) His Righteousness is the Meritorious cause & reason of another Righteousness or justification, (distinct from His) freely given us by the Father & Himself by His Covenant. Ans. Righteousness and justification are not one and the same, more than the cause is the same with the Effect. As Christ's Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification, so it must be legally made ours, in order to our Justification, otherwayes we cannot be accounted Righteous, and legally free of the Charge, brought in against us. And this is not granted us by a Covenant with new Conditions, in Mr. Baxter's sense, as hath been evinced already. Therefore he is in a great mistake, when he concludeth, that they that will not blaspheme Christ, by making guilt of sin it self, in its formal relation to be His own; & so Christ to be formally as great a sinner, as all the Redeemed set together; & they that will not overthrow the Gospel, by making us formally as Righteous, as Christ, in kind & measure, must needs be agreed with us, in this part of the controversie. For we have shown, how far we are from Blasphemy, & how groundless his Insinuation is, founded only on his Physical or Metaphysical acceptation of things here, which we understand only legally and juridically, according to all right and reason. And as for subverting of the Gospel, it is one of our choise grounds of Reason against his way, because by it the Gospel is indeed changed, and the true and native Gospel-way of Salvation is indeed removed, and a Sociniano-Armintan Gospel substitute in its room, which is daily more and more confirmed, by books coming out, wherein Mr. Baxter's grounds are owned, and more Socinianisme & Arminianisme vented, than Mr. Baxter himself hath yet had the confidence to express in his own books; witness Mr. Allens discourse of the two Covenants, ushered in with Mr. Baxter's preface; and others of that kind much commended, and cryed up by Mr. Baxter.
9. Object. When you Inferre, that if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ, we cannot be againe bound to obey ourselves afterward, nor be guilty of any sin: you must know, that it is true, that we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends, as Christ did (which is to redeem us, or to fulfill the Law of works) but yet we must obey to other ends viz. in gratitude and in love to God, and to do good, and the like. Though I think the objection is not so favourably proposed, as it might be, seing that end to Redeem should not here be mentioned; for though it was the end of Christ's coming in to our Law-place, yet it cannot be said to be properly the end of that Obedience, he performed, while he was in our Law-place, proximely. Let us see how ever, what he saith to it. 1. Hence (saith he.) it clearly followeth, that Christ obeyed not in each of our persons legally, but in the person of a Mediator, seing His due obedience & ours have so different ends, and a different formal-relation (His being a conformity proximatly to the Law, given Him, as Mediator) that they are not so much as of the same species, much less numerically the same. Ans. I think rather, that hence it clearly followeth, that Christ did indeed obey the Law, as it was the Condition of the Covenant of works, in each of the Elect's person legally: for though His Obedience and ours now, after faith, have far different ends; yet His Obedience, as Obedience to the Law of works, had the same end that our Obedience should have had by that Law, viz. the fulfilling of the same, in order to the obtaining of a Right to Life; and if not, to lose all. The Law, given Him as Mediator, taken in its latitude, is not the Law, whereof the objection speaketh; for it speaketh of the Law of works, under which Adam was, and all his posterity in him, and under the breach of which we lay. And Christ's obeying, in the person of a mediator, doth not hinder His representing His own legally; for He was such a Mediator, as was a Sponsor and Surety, and came in our Law-place, and undertook our debt. Therefore, though Christ's Obedience to the special Law, given to Him, as Mediator, was not of the the same kind, with the obedience, required of us; yet the obedience He performed to the Moral Law, in our place & stead, and as our Surety and Sponsor, was the very same debt, we were oweing.
He saith 2. Either this Obedience of Gratitude, is a duty, or not; if not, it is not truely 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 so ever) 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 & once by ourselves, is to say, that we were bound to do it twice, & then Christ did not all, that we were bound to, but half. Ans. We distinguish betwixt the Law, as the Condition of the Covenant of works; and as a Rule of Obedience: A duty may be duty now, as required by the Law still in force, as to its commanding regulating power, and yet not be a part of the Condition of the Covenant of works, wherein we had failed, which Christ fulfilled, by giving perfect obedience to that Law, as the Condition of Life, to which we neither did, nor could give perfect Obedience: and all our Obedience now, though commanded by the same Law, is no fulfilling in whole, or in part, of the Condition of the Covenant of works; and therefore can not be said thus to be done twice, but once, and that by Christ alone. He addeth, But what man is he, that sinneth not? Therefore, seing it is certaine, that no man doth all, that he is bound to do by the Gospel (in the time & 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, & because he is a sinner for not doing of it. Ans. As there is a difference betwixt obedience to the Law, and the performing the Condition of the Covenant of works; so there is difference betwixt sin or failing in Obedience, and Violation of the Condition of the Covenant of works: as our Obedience now is not the performance, so our sinning is not the Violation of the Conditions of the old Couenant. Beleevers performed the Conditions of the Covenant only in Christ, which they could not do in themselves; and therefore their sins now, though transgressions of the Law, are not counted Violations of the conditions of the Covenant of works, under which they are not.
He saith 3. Yea the Gospel bindes us to that, which Christ could not do for us, as to beleeve in a Saviour, &c. Ans. And what then? were these part of the Conditions of the Covenant of works? If they were, Christ hath performed them, for He gave perfect Obedience; and thereby hath freed us from that obligation. If they were not, neither can they now be required, as part of that Condition.
He saith 4. 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 ourselves) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency, & 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 & Life by Him freely given to beleevers, Ans. The truth expressed in the Objection, is very far different from this Sociniano-Arminian Scheme of the Gospel, which we have had often times proposed to us by Mr. Baxter, but never yet confirmed; nor do we expect ever so see it confirmed. We have also, at several occasions, given our reasons against it, and need not therefore here repeat, or insist upon it.
Last object. The same person may be really a sinner, in himself, and yet perfectly Innocent in Christ, and by Imputation, How or upon what occasion, this objection is used, Mr. Baxter doth not show, and therefore we cannot certainely know the true meaning and Import thereof. In one sense it may be very true, and yet in another sense it cannot be admitted. It is true, in this sense, The same person may be Inherently a sinner, and yet legally Innocent, through the Imputation of the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But it cannot be admitted in this sense, The same person is legally Innocent in Christ by Imputation; for this were a Contradiction. What saith Mr. Baxtor to it? Remember (saith he) that you suppose here the person & Subject to be the same Man; & then that the two contrary relations, of perfect Innocency or guiltlesness, & guilt of any (yea much) sin can be consistent in him, is a gross contradiction. Ans. There is no contradiction, unless the matter be ad idem: & here it is not so; for he may be guilty Inherently, as to himself, and yet innocent legally, as to his Surety. But if both be understood of a person, legally considered, I grant, it is a Contradiction; for he, that is legally Innocent, cannot be legally guilty, in so far as he is legally Innocent, whether the Charge be particular for one sin, that is brought in against him, or for moe, or for all.
He saith 2. But if you meane, that God reputeth us to be perfectly Innocent, when we are not, because that Christ was so, it is to Impute error to God. Ans. This cannot be their meaning: for they know, that God reputeth no man to be other-wayes, than he is. But yet it must be said, that God reputeth Beleevers, who have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them, Innocent, as to the Violation of the Covenant of works, I mean, legally Innocent, and so, not guilty of the charge of sin, & death upon that account, brought in against them; for they are so, being justified; & therefore there is now no condemnation to such Rom, 8: 1. & none can lay any thing of that Nature to their Charge vers 33.
He addeth, But He (i. e. God) doth indeed first give, & then Impute a Righteousness evangelical to us, in stead of perfect Innocency, which shall as certainely bring us to glory. Ans. That God doth indeed Impute, that is, give & put upon our score an Evangelical Righteousness, that is, the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ, revealed in the Gospel, in stead of our perfect & personal Innocency, which we neither had, nor could attaine to, & which shall certainely bring us to glory, being the Meritorious Cause thereof. But Mr. Baxter's sense hereof is a manifest Perversion of the Gospel: for thus he senseth it. And that is, He giveth us both the Renovation of His Spirit (to Evangelical obedience) & a Right by free gift to pardon & glory, for the Righteousness of Christ, that merited it, & this thus given us, he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us. Ans. Now that this is a clear perversion of the Gospel is manifest from these particulars (beside several others else where touched) (1) Hereby the Covenant of Grace is changed into a Covenant of works, only with a Mitigation of the Conditions. (2) Christ's Surety-righteousness is not Imputed to us, neither as our legal Righteousness, nor yet as our Evangelick-righteousness; for at most it is only granted to be Imputed, as to its Effects. (3. We have no other Righteousness hereby properly imputed to us, but our own Inherent Righteousness. (4) Christ is hereby made of God unto us Righteousness, by being made of God Sanctification to us. (5) Hereby the immediat ground of our Pardon & Right to Glory, is not Christ's Surety-righteousness, but our own Inherent righteousness. (6) Christ hereby me…ited neither Pardon, nor Glory to be granted, as the Immediat fruites of His merites; but He only merited the New Covenant, wherein these favours are offered upon new Conditions. (7) Thus Christ is made only a far off Mediating person, procureing new and easier termes (which yet are as Impossible to us, till we be renewed by grace, as the old) but no Redeemer, or Surety, suffering and obeying in the room and stead of any. (8) Thus are we justified by our own works of Evangelical Obedience (9) God is made hereby to repute a Right to Pardon & Glory, & our Imperfect Evangelical Obedience, to be an acceptable Righteousness, & the all of our Righteousness: all which are against the Gospel of the Grace of God, revealed to us in the Scriptures, as hath partly been discovered already, & will further appear by what will hereafter come to be spoken unto.