The Life of Justification Opened, Chapter 16

The Life of Justification Opened · Chapter 16

p. 226CHAP. XVI.

Mr. Baxter's Further opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness examined.

WHat Mr. Baxter's opinion is, about the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, in order to our justification, we have hitherto been enquireing; & though, in his book against D. Tully, while he is giving an historical relation of the Controversie, he plainely enough declareth, that he is of the judgment (as to the maine) with Iohn Goodwine: yet he there (as we have heard) so stateth the question, against which he disputeth, as the Orthodox will not owne it; wherein he dealeth not so ingenuously with us, as Mr. Goodwine did. He will not deny, that there is a midway betwixt the Socinians, Papists & Arminians, on the one hand, & the Antinomians on the other; though the Middle way, which he hath se… down in his Confess. pag. 152 153. &c. seemeth to me not be the just & orthodox way, but to incline more unto the Socinians &c. for all the Imputation, which he seemeth to owne, is nothing else, than what Papists, Socinians & Arminians, will subscribe unto: for (beside what we have seen & examined above Chap. XIII. & XIV.) in his book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 179. he hath these words. I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, sanosensu. And what found sense is, he tels us in a parenthesis, that is (saith he) 1. per Donationem ejus fructus and 2. per adjudicationem justitiae nobis inde promeritae, that is to say, by giving us the fruits thereof & 2. by adjudging to us Righteousness, thereby purchased: which two seem to me, to be but one, the last being comprehended in the first: & so all the Imputation by him granted, is only in respect of the fruits thereof, which are given. And will not Papists, Socinians & Arminians yeeld unto this Imputation: Nay doth not Bellarmine come a further length, in the words formerly cited?

Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. part 2. of Moral morks, giveth us here & there, while speaking of other things, without any apparent Connexion (choosing this way rather, than to give us his whole sense of that matter, in one place together, which might have been some' ease to such, as were desirous to know the same: but I know, he is at liberty to follow his own wayes & methods) some hints of his mind; and that rather of his dissatisfaction with the orthodox, and their manner of expressing their Thoughts & Conceptions, in this matter, than any full & positive declaration of his own Thoughts about the question. We shall, having seen & examined his own judgment, shortly here examine what he is pleased to say, in one place or other of that Book, so far as we can finde, & may be done without repetition, against our doctrine.

p. 227Only we shall premit some few of his own words, in the Appendix to the Premonition p. 2. whereby we may see, how small the difference would appear to be; & how little cause he had to write so much against the Orthodox, as he doth. He there saith. [14. No man is saved or justified, but by the Proper Merite of Christ's perfect obedience; Yea and His habitual holiness & Satisfactory Sufferings, advanced in dignity by His Divine Perfection: 15. This Merite, as related to us, supposeth that Christ, as a Sponsor, was the Second Adam, the Root of the justified, the Reconciling Mediator, who obeyed perfectly with that Intent, that by His obedience, we might be justified; & who suffered for our sins, in our room and stead; & so was, in tantum our Vicarius poenae, as some phrase it, or Substitute, & was made a curse for us, that we might be healed by his stripes; as He was Obedient, that His Righteousness might be the reason, as a Meritorious Cause, of our justification, which Supposeth the relation of an Undertaking Redeemer in our Nature, doing this, & in our stead, so far forth, as that therefore, perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by ourselves. And Righteousness therefore is Imputed to us, that is, we are truely reputed Righteous, because we, as beleeving members of Christ, have right to Impunity & life, as merited by His righteousness, & freely given to all penitent beleevers. And Christ's own Righteousness may be said so far to be Imputed to us, as to be reckoned & reputed the Meritorious cause of our Right & justification, as aforesaid.] One might think the difference now to be little, or none; but all this is but Sutable to what is already examined, and what might here further be animadverted upon, will occurre hereafter.

He beginneth Sect. 8. n. 119. to speak against the Doctrine of Imputation, taught by the Orthodox. I shall yeeld to him, that Christ's personal Righteousness, Divine or Humane, Habitual active, or Passive, is not given to us, or made ours, truely and properly, in a Physical sense; as if the same were transfused in & upon us. Yet, the same, being imputed to us, is made ours, more than in the meer Effects: for according to the Gospel methode, beleevers, being by Faith interes…ed in Him, have an Interest in His Surety-righteousness, as to its vertue, force and efficacy, or as the cause, and that morally and legally; so that Christ and beleevers are one person in Law. No… do we hereby say; That Christ's Merite & Satisfaction are reput…d by God, to be inherent in us, or done by us, in our own proper persons; or that in a sence Natural we did all these things ourselves, or that God judgeth us so to have done, or that all the Benefites of Christ's Righteousness shall as fully and Immediatly be ours, as if we bad been, & done & Suffered, merited and Satisfied, in and by Christ. But we say, that Christ being a Surety, & putting himself in our Law-place, & putting (as it were) His name in our Obligation, being thereunto Substitute by, and accepted of the Father, His Satisfaction & obedience, being performed by Him, in our Law-place, as a Surety voluntarily taking on the obligation, is accounted, in Law and justice, to be ours, who beleeve in Him, to all ends and uses, that is, in order to justification, pardon, and Right to Glory; and that, as effectually, as if we our selves, in our own persons, had done and Suffered all. When Mr. Baxter p. 228confoundeth and jumbleth these together, as if they were the same, he neither befriendeth Truth, nor us.

Nor will it follow from our assertion, (as he suppseth n. 123.) that then we could need no Pardon: for though he, who is reputed to be Innocent, by fulfilling all the Law, in his own physical person, be reputed never to have sinned by Omission, or Commission; & consequently to need no pardon: yet he, who is a transgressour, & consequently hath forfeited all right to the Reward, & is obnoxious to the Penalty, hath need of a Remission, through his Suretie's making Satisfaction; & of a new Title to Glory, through his Suretie's Obedience. So that the Non-necessity of Pardon will no more follow from our doctrine of Imputation, than from our doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ, whatever Socinians think, who plead as vehemently from free Remission against this, as Mr. Baxter doth, upon the same ground, against Imputation.

But when any say, that Christ's Sacrifice satisfied for all our sins, that they may be forgiven; & His Righteousness is Impu…ed, that we may also be accounted just, he thinketh, (n. 122.) that this is but either ambiguity; or the fore-detected gross contradiction. And why so: for (saith he) if by justice, they meane reputed sinlesness, or perfection, then these two cannot stand together; for he that is supposed a sinner is supposed not sinless, or perfect; & he that is supposed sinless, cannot be supposed pardonable. Ans. By justice, or being accounted just we mean Righteous, or rectus in curia, in order to the Reward promised: and when full obedience is imputed to this end, we do not say, that God reputeth such sinless, that is, such as, in their own physical persons, gave perfect obedience; for such indeed need no pardon: but that now God reputeth them such as are Righteous, and have Right to the Reward, through the perfect Righteousness of Christ Imputed: and this carrieth no shew of Repugnancy to pardon of sins, through the Satisfaction of Christ.

But (n. 123.) he tels us, that some think to avoid the Contradiction by distinguishing only of the moments of Nature, & double respect of the same Mans Actions, saying, that we are first in order of Nature supposed to be sinners & pardoned, & then to be such, as moreover need the Reputation of Innocency, or Righteousness, which is added to pardon. What necessity there is for this curious distinguishing of Order & Priority, whether in respect of Nature or of Time, I do not yet see. And whether we say, we are first pardoned, & then reputed Righteous; or first reputed Righteous, & then pardoned (which would seem most rational of the two) it is all one to Mr. Baxter, who equally argueth against both. But though I see no necessity of asserting any of these orders (Save that though the first thing, that a wakened sinner is pardon & freedom from the Curse; Yet it is more rational to say, the Reatus culpae first taken away, and not the Reatus poenae) yet I see a necessity of asserting both the Imputation of Christ's Satisfaction, in order to our pardon; & of His Obedience, in order to our obtaining Right to the Inheritance (and both these Mr. Baxter comprehendeth in justification, as we shall hear) or of both His Satisfaction and obedience, or of His compleat p. 229Surety-righteousness, in order to our obtaining compleat justification, & its Effects, or consequents, Remission of sins & Right to the Crown. But saith Mr. Baxter 1. He that is pardoned of all sins of Omission & Commission, is accounted Innocent & Righteous, as to any guilt of punishment, either of sense or loss. Ans. True he is accounted Innocent, or Righteous, as to guilt of punishment of sense; yea or of loss, in so far as it is a punishment, or belongeth to the punishment threatned. But he is not accounted Innocent, that is, one that hath never sinned; or one that hath never lest right to the reward: & therefore beside this pardon, he must have a Righteousness, in order to the Reward promised. He saith 2, He that is after accounted Innocent & just from his first being to that houre, is judged never to have needed Pardon. Ans. But by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, there is no such account made, as if the man were reputed, or accounted one, that never sinned, from his first being to that hour; but that now hath as good right to the Reward, as he could have had, if so be, he had never siuned, not only from his first being to that hour, but from the first to the last moment of being. We need not then notice what followeth, when he saith. And so they make God come with an after act, and condemne His own foregoing act of errour & injurie; or at least to contradict it, and in the first instant to say [I pardon this sinner] & in the second to say, [I now repute him one, that never sinned, nor needed pardon] for, as we have seen, the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness hath no such Import.

He tels us (n. 125.) of some, that say, that the Law, since the fall, obligeth us both to obey & to suffer, & not to one only; else a sinner, bound to suffer, should not be bound to obey. Therefore Christ must do both for us. And this would seem to be a very Innocent assertion, & consonant to truth: yet he saith, This is too gross for any man to utter, that ever know what Law or Government is. Ans. And I had thought, that it had been too gross for any Christian to have denied this, who would not outstripe all the Antinowians, that ever were: for if it be thus, one of two must follow; either that now after the fall, Adam & all his posterity are loosed from all obligation to obedience to the Law of God; or that they are not under the curse. Neither of which, I suppose Mr. Baxter dar say: But, what saith he: do they mean, that as to the same act & time, the Law bindeth us to obey and suffer; or for diverse acts and Instants of time? Ans. In regard that, since the fall, nothing can be done, in perfect conformity to the Law, both may be said. Do they mean (saith he further) that the Law bound man both to perfection, & to suffering for perfection, or to suffering for sin? Ans. We are speaking of the Lawes obligation now, since the fall: & it is certaine, that because the Law is now broken, we are obliged to suffer; & that, because of that constitution, do & live, no man can have life, untill that Law be perfectly obeyed: but because this is Impossible for man, therefore it must be done by his Surety. He querieth againe, did the Law binde Adam, to obey & suffer, before he sinned? Ans. No. Did it binde him (saith he againe) both to obey & suffer for his new sin, the next Instant? Ans. What himself addeth is a sufficient answere to this, viz. That it did binde him to suffer for his old sin (adde, & p. 230also for his new sin) & yet the obligation to obey for time to come remained. But all this is beside the purpose; for the maine thing is not yet noticed by Mr. Baxter viz. That Adam by his sin was obliged to suffer, & that yet there was no way for him to come to the promised Crown, but by perfect obedience to that Law: & that therefore neither he, or any of his posterity, can enjoy life, untill their Surety fulfill that Law for them, or undertake to do it: as they cannot be freed from Suffering, untill their Surety suffer the penalty for them, or undertake to do it. We need not speak so unaptly, as he supposeth we do, that is, say, that the Law commandeth lapsed man, not to have sin, or imperfect man, to have been perfect; for we know, that were to binde to an Impossibility in Nature; for sin existent cannot but be existent. But this we say, That by vertue of that Law & constitution, there was no way for lapsed man, to enjoy the Reward-promised, but by yeelding perfect obedience unto that Law; and as this was Impossible in Nature; so was it impossible for lapsed man to enjoy the Reward, & therefore the Lord provided a Surety, who should yeeld perfect obedience unto that Law; & this perfect Obedience is made over unto the Beleever, & put upon his score, as well as the Sureties Sufferings are. But saith he, if Christ's perfect Obedience and holiness be imputed unto them from their first being, then they are reputed not lapsed, nor sinners from the beginning, & so not pardonable. Ans. There is no necessity for such a Reputation; for this is not the end of that Imputation: It is Imputed, in order to their obtaining a Right to the Reward, which was lost; & by vertue hereof, they do obtaine the Reward, as certainly, as if they had never sinned.

Others (he saith n. 126,) would come neerer the matter, & say, that we are reputed Righteous, as fulfillers of the Law; & yet reputed sinners as breakers of the Law: & that though there be no medium in Naturals betwixt light & darkness, life & death; yet there is betwixt a breaker of the Law & a fulfiller of it, viz. a Non-fulfiller; & between just & unjust, that is, not just. … Ans. I Finde Wolls bius in his Compend. Theol. Lib, 1. Cap. 30. § 15. full & plaine, as to this, who, in order to prove, that in justification, there is a Remission, or Abjudication of sins, & Imputation or Adjudication of a perfect Righteousuess: & that though these two benefites be the same, as to Time & Subjects; yet they are really distinct, both as to their proper definitions, their proxime Causes, & proper Effects: & in clearing of the difference, as to their definitions, he tels us, that there is a difference betwixt not just & just; not just & unjust; not unjust & just: & that not just & just are contradictory; that unjust & just are partly privative, & partly contrary; & that not just, & unjust; & unjust & just are diverse: as also, that unjust & just are not immediatly contrary; for there is Medium betwixt them viz. Innocent, who is such an one, as is neither unjust, nor yet just: and that though now these two do not differ, as to Subjects; yet of old they did; for Adam in Paradise, before he fell, was innocent, but was not just; for he was to obtaine this by perfect Obedience. Now. what saith Mr. Baxter to this?

He saith, this is meer darkness. As it seemeth all things are, that agree p. 231not to his Notions. But why? There is (saith he) a Medium negative in a person, as not obliged, but none between positive & private, in one obliged as such, A stone is neither just, nor privatively unjust, nor a man about a thing never commanded or for bidden him. But what is this to the matter? God's Law is presupposed: we talk of nothing, but Moral Acts. The Law forbideddeth omissions and Commissions; both are sin. Ans. Though there be no medium betwixt positive and privative, in a person obliged, as to particular acts commanded, or forbidden; yet there is a Medium, in such a person, in reference to the Reatus poenae, & meritum praemii. In reference to every moral act, Adam was either just, or unjust, i. e. either one, that obeyed, or one that transgressed; but in reference to the punishment threatned & to the Reward promised, before he fell, he was neither unjust, that is, one that was a Transgressour, & reus culpae & poenae nor was he just, that is, one that had purchased the Reward; but was in his way thereunto: & himself saith little less (as I judge) in his premonit p. 19. saying [3. But that Law giving life eternal only to obedience to the end of his time of trial, he merited not that life by Initial obedience. This was Initial Imperfect Righteousness, wanting perseverance; but not a Medium between just & unjust, except as just signifieth the merite of life by persevering Righteousness to the last. And so, I never denied, but in a disobliged Subject, there is a Medium: Adam was not bound to do a yeers work the first hour; & so was neither just, nor privatively unjust, as to the future yeers work; but as to what he was presently obliged unto, he was either Righteous, or a sinner.] Here upon the matter, is almost all I desire, or say. When a command is given to a person, to run so many miles in an hour, & a Reward is promised in case he do it, & a punishment threatned, in case he do it not; while he is running, as to his present acting, he is not disobedient, but obedient; & so, in so far is just, & not unjust; yet in reference to the Reward, he cannot be called just, untill he hath finished the course, in the time appointed. So Adam, while standing, though he sinned not, yet he had not merited the Reward. Mr. Baxter replieth 1. He merited what Reward he had, viz. the Continuance of his blessings first freely given. Ans. That was not all the Reward, which was promised, whereof we are speaking; for Adam was not yet in Patria: & howbeit himself was not clear, as to this, when he wrote his Aphorismes; yet afterward, in his Book against Mr. Cartwright, pag. 19. he tels us, he became convinced hereof. 2. He raiseth dust to darken the aire by saying. That it is yet unresolved, what that was, by which Adam must merite Immutability & Glory: whether 1. Once obeying or Consent to his full Covenant. 2. Or once loving God. 3. Or conquering once. 4. Or eating of the tree of life. 5. Or persevering in perfect obedience to the end, that is, till God should translate him. But this dust falleth to the ground, when he addeth. That this last is most likely. And indeed it were much of his concernment, to prove, if he could, that all that was required of Adam, by vertue of that Covenant, was only one single act of obedience: for then his Notions about just & unjust, as to Adam, would have some ground: but till this be done, all he hath said is to no purpose.

p. 2323. He saith, That he maintain…th, as well as we, that Christ hath not only satisfied for sin, & merited pardon; but also merited immutable Glory. Ans. But we say further, that He merited pardon & Immutable glory, not by His death & sufferings only, but by His whole Surety-righteousness, consisting in Active & Passive Obedience, whereby He paid our whole debt. But he willeth us to consider. 1. That Adam's not doing that which was to merite glory, was sin of Omission, and to pardon that Omission is to take him as a Meriter of Glory. 2. Therefore it must be somewhat more, than he forfeited by that Omission and his Commission, which cometh in by Christ's merite above forgiveness. 3. That Christ merited all this by his active, Passive & habitual Righteousness, by which he merited pardon. 4. That it was not we, that merited in Him, but He to give it to us only, in the termes of a Law of Grace. Ans. (I) To pardon that Omission in Adam, was not to take him, as a Meriter of Glory; but only to take him, as one that was free of the obligation to punishment for that Omission. It is false then, to suppose or say, that one pardoned, as such, is taken to be one that never sinned; for the contrary is manifest; & to take Adam, as a Meriter of Glory, is to take him for one, that never sinned; yea, & for one, that fulfilled his course of obedience; which can never be supposed of a pardoned man, as such. (2) That by Christ's Merites the Elect obtaine more, than what Adam forfeited (to speak so) I shall easily grant; but notwithstanding thereof we stood in need of more, than of meer forgiveness, even of a Right to what Adam lost the expectation of; and in order to this, the Law was to be fulfilled (3) I yeeld the 3d. (4) Though we need not say, that we Merited in Him, yet we say, That Christ merited, as a Publick Person, representing His own, & as a Sponsor and Surety, coming in their Law-place, and taking on their whole debt, both as to punishment deserved, and Duty required. And I see no warrand to say, that Christ only merited to give it to us, only on the termes of a Law of Grace: for this would make Him no Sponsor, or Surety, nor to stand in the room of any (which yet he granteth n. 130.) but only hold Him forth, as a third unconcerned person, no wayes related to them; & like a man buying a Bond or Obligation from a Creditor, whereby he may be in case to distress the debtor, and call for payment in his owne way and time. Whereby the whole tenor of the Covenant of Redemption, between Jehovah & the Mediator, is altered; the Mediator's Place & Relation to those, for whom he died, is changed; His Righteousness of Active and Passive Obedience is made to have no necessary respect unto the old Covenant & Man's Obligation. He is supposed to have merited & bought all for Himself immediatly: He is supposed to have died for all: & that the New Covenant, or Caw of Grace is wholly of Him. To none of all which, I can assent.

He saith next (n. 127.) that some come neerer & say, that to punish and not reward are all one; & so the respect, that sin hath to the deserved punishment needed Pardon and Satisfaction; but our deserving the Reward needed Christ's perfect obedience to be Imputed. What saith he to this? He granteth, that there is some what of truth here; but (saith he) there are errors also that lye in the way; and so he willeth us to remember 1. (without a 2. or 3.) p. 233that man can have nothing from God, but what is a meer gift, as to the matter, though it be a Reward, as to the Order & Ends of Collation. Ans. True; what then? And in this case (saith he) punishment is damni, as well as sensus; & so the loss of the Reward is the principal part of hell, or punishment, Ans. That there is poena damni, as well as sensus, I grant; but I am sure, the punishment, threatned to Adam, was more than the meer want of what was promised; otherwayes we must say, that Adam was punished before he fell; because even while he stood, he had received the Reward promised; so that poena damni is some other thing, than the meer want of the Reward; even the want of that, which man had already in his possession, together with the hopes of what was promised. The faithful, yet living, are not pof…essed of the Reward of Glory; yet it may not be said, that they have the principal part of hell, being delivered there from. So that all this is but loose Sophistrie from the word loss. What more? So that (saith he) if Christ's death hath pardoned our sins of Omission, we are reputed to have done all our duty. Ans. Passing the Impropriety of speach here, we say, that it is manifestly false, as appeareth from what is said. And if so (saith he again) we are reputed to have merited the Reward. And. This is also false, as is shown. And if he pardon our sins (saith he more-over) as to all punishment of sense & loss, he pardoneth them, as to their forfeiture of heaven, at a gift, if not as a Reward. And. Neither can this be granted; for there is more required to the taking away of the forfeiture of heaven, if by this nothing else be meaned, than a giving of a Right to heaven, whether as a Gift, or as a Reward, than to the taking away of all punishment, whether of Sense, or of Loss, as such: as for example, when a King covenanteth with his own Servant, whom he hath already advanced to great honour & dignity, and promiseth him far greater honour, if he will work one day to end, in sueh an Imployment; & if not, threatneth to deprive him of all he hath, & to cast him in prison, untill he die: This servant faileth & performeth not the condition, and therby hath both forfeited what he was in hope of, and what he had, and is now obnoxious to perpetual Imprisonment: when the King's own Son goeth to prison for some time, to make Satisfaction, and thereby deliver the Servant from perpetual Imprisonment, he doth not thereby deliver him from his loss, so as to give him a right to the far greater honour promised: though he deliver him from the punishment of constant Imprisonment: Yea it may be a doubt, if he thereby procure his restauration to his former state: but in order to this, and to the end, the servant may get the Reward promised, beside his going so long to prison in the servants room & stead, that he may be delivered from the punishment, he must also, in his room & stead, performe that daies work.

We say that Remission of sin is a consequent, or at most, but a part of justification; because a man may be for-given, & yet not reputed never to have broken the Law. To put away guilt, and to make one Righteons, are two things. This is most clear; yet Mr. Baxter saith (n. 128.) Still confusim. Which is wonderfull; where, I pray, must the confusion lye? Is it in this, that we say, Remission of sin; is, at most, but part of justification? p. 234Doth not himself say as much hereafter (n. 208.) when he saith, that our first constitutive justification, is in its (own Nature, a right to Impunity, & to life, or glory? Now this Right to Impunity, is the same with Remission; but a Right to life, or glory is something more. Is it in this, that we say, a man may be forgiven, and yet not reputed one, who never broke the Law? That, I am sure, can be no confusion and contradiction: for it is a contradiction to say, that a man is pardoned, and yet reputed one, that never broke the Law; for pardon is of a breach of the Law. What saith he, to make out this alleiged Confusion? Guilt (saith he) is either of the fault, as such, or of the punishment, & of the fault only as the cause of punishment: If all guilt, both culpae & poenae, were done away, that person were reputed positively righteous, that is, never to have omitted a duty, or committed a sin.] Ans. But do we say, That pardon taketh away the Reatus culpae, in it self? His own following words, may partly be our answer. But indeed (saith he) when only the Reatus poenae (& culpae quoad poenam) is done away, the Reatus culpae in se remaineth. And this Christ himself never taketh away, no, not in heaven, where for ever we shall be judged, once to have sinned, & not to be such, as never sinned. Where is now the Confusion Mr. Baxter spoke of? But yet, I suppose, he is in a mistake, when he saith, that the Reatus culpae cannot be taken away; for it must be taken away, legally, or there shall be no justification, though it can never be taken away Metaphysically; & the same may be said of the Reatus culpae it self, seing it will alwayes be true, that they did once deserve punishment, & are not such, as never deserved punishment.

He addeth (n. 129.) that, which to him, is the Core of our errour, [That we …hink, we must be justified in Christ, by the Law of Innocency, which justified Christ Himself: & that we are quite, or washed simply from all guilt of fault as well as Obligation to Punishment.] But neither of these do we say, as hath been frequently shown. We are justified by the Law of Grace, & by faith; yet we say with Paul, that the Law is not made void by faith, but established: the Law of Innocency must be fulfilled, but it is not fulfilled by us, but by Christ; & His Righteousness is Imputed to us, and received by faith; and we thereupon are justified, & receive Remission, and Right to Glory. We do not say. That Adam's Law meant, do this by thyself, or by Christ, & thou shalt live: yet we say, that that Constitution of God, do this and live, must as well be established, as this; Cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things written in the Law and that, as by vertue of this Christ our Surety was to die the cursed death; so by vertue of that, He was to fulfill all Righteousness.

He … next (n. 130.) that the truth, which we grope after, and must reconcile us all, is as followeth.] As if all the Reformed divines almost had been hither to but groping after the truth, like blinde men groping for the wall; and he and possibly two or three moe, had their eyes opened to see the truth. His discourse here is too long to be rehearsed, that it may be examined; a few observes upon it may suffice. (1) He saith, Christ, in His sufferings did stand in the room of sinners, as their Sponsor. Ans. Then His Satisfaction p. 235to justice must, in due time, be reckoned on the score of such, in whose room He suffered. Why will he not say this also of Christ's Obedience; seing both were performed by Him, in His estate of Humiliation, & as the Surety of the Covenant? Was He not made under the Law, as well as under the Curse? And was He not made of a woman, given and born to us? But neither can we say, That Christ stood in the room of all sinners, as he supposeth. (2) We saith. That Christ acquired a Right first to Himself of giving out the purchased benefites, to sinners, by a new Law, viz. by what He suffered & did. Ans. This is denied, as not yet being confirmed; and it destroyeth His being a Sponsor and Surety, and saith, He was not born to us, nor died for us; but to and for Himself, And yet I deny not, that Christ hath gote all power, and is the General dispensator of the blessings of the Covenant purchased. (3) He saith, Had Christ antecedently done all, that He did in our person, & we in Him, in Law sense, the thing its self, with its inseparable consequents & effects, had been all ours, ipso facto. Ans. There is no necessity for this; seing Christ was not thereunto appointed by us, or conjunctly obliged with us, in the first Covenant; but after we were broken, did, of His own accord, put His Name in our Obligation, and came in our Law-place, & so was made sin for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him. (4) He speaketh of these benefites being given us, upon termes & Conditions. But we shew before, and here-after will have occasion to do it more fully, of what Nature, these termes and Conditions were; and that they are not such, as He meaneth. (5) He saith. What is given by the New Covenant, we have title to upon this account, because it was purchased by the perfect merite & sacrifice of Christ; & so given us by Him, and by the Father. Ans. According to Him, the Right, that is had thus, is but remote & common to all, even to such as perish; & therefore can hardly be called a Right; but the only Right is had, is by our performance of the termes and Conditions: for he saith (n. 137.) that Glory is given as a Reward for our beleeving, and performing the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace. (6) He saith, we deserved punishment & Christ was punished in our stead, that we might be forgiven: we had forfeited life by sin, & Christ merited life for us by His perfection. Ans. And why will he not say, that Christ did this last, as well as the first, in our stead, seing hereby the freedom of the Gift can no more be weakened, than pardon by the other. What followeth hath been spoken to already.

He granteth (n. 132.) That not to punish, & to reward are different: yet he saith, not to have the Gift is to be punished; & so, non-donari here is puniri materially: & that it is the same Righteousness of Christ, which meriteth our Impunity, quoad damnum & sensum, & which Meriteth our Right to the Gift of life, both sub ratione doni, as a Gift, & sub ratione Condonations, as a forgiveness of the forfeiture, & of the poena damni: And then addeth, That so there is here no room for the conceite, that Christ's Death was only to purchase pardon, & His Righteousness: to merite life] Ans. We have said before, that we need not be so curious here in distinguishing, if both be granted to make up a Compleat Righteousness, to purchase both, we have all we desire: and p. 236from what hath been said formerly, it is manifest, that both are requisite; & Mr. Baxtor granted as much before, as we see in the foregoing paragraph Note 6. Nor saith Mr. Baxter any thing here, to invalidate what we have said. Sure, not to have this Gift was no punishment to Adam, before he sinned, what-ever it might be said to be after his sin. Nor is forfeiture of that properly, which a Man never had, neither in Right, nor in possession: And therefore Adam could not be said properly (nor we in him) to have forfeited glory; but only that blessedness and felicity, wherein he was created, and that Righteousness, that was concreated: So that beside the taking away of this forfeiture, there will be a Righteousness of Obedience requisite, according to that Constitution, do this & live, in order to the obtaining of a Right for us unto the life of Glory. And to this he assenteth in end, when he saith, That the same Merites of Christ's Active & Passive & Habitual Righteousness, do causo our Glory. For we do not separat them: Nor need we curiously enquire, whether Christ's Suffering were first Satisfactory, & then Meritorious; & His Obedience first Meritorious, and then Satisfactory, as he speaketh: it being sufficient to us, that both made up a compleat Righteousness performed for us, by Him, as our Surety, coming in our Law-place, whereby justice was satisfied, and life merited. Nor need I say (as he supposeth n. 135. too many hold) That heaven is our Reward, for our perfection of Holiness and Obedience in and Christ; more than that pardon is our Reward for our Satisfaction in & by Christ. Yet as Christ satisfied as a Sponsor, in the stead & room of sinners, as he confessed; so it may be said, that Christ obeyed, as a Sponsor, in their room & stead: & that as the one was requisite for purchase of pardon; so the other was requisite for purchase of Glory: and that as we must be Interessed in the one, imputed to us & received by faith, to the end we may be pardoned; so we must be Interessed in the other imputed to us, and received by faith (both being Integral parts of one compleat Surety-righteousness) to the end, we may have a Right to Glory. Nor can I say with him (Ibid.) That eternal life is ours, by Christ's free Gift as a Reward to Christ, for His own Merites: for then, we could not say, that Christ suffered properly in the roome of any, as their Sponsor; and this would take away that fundamental relation betwixt Christ & the Chosen ones, that were given to Him of the Father; and for whose sake He sanctified Himself & was made a Curse, & made under the Law, and became the Father's Servant, and was made a Surety Blessings came through Christ, as the appointed Mediator, not from Him, as the principal Donor (speaking of Him, as Mediator) The blessing of Abraham cometh on the Gentiles, through Iesus Christ Gal. 3: 14. The God & Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, blesseth us with all spiritual blessings, in Christ, according as He hath chosen us in Him; & hath predestinat us unto the Adoption of Children, by Iesus Christ; & hath made us accepted in the Beloved Ephes. 1: 3, 4, 5, 6. It is God, who saveth us according to His mercy, by the washing of Regeneration, & the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly, through Iesus Christ, our Saviour, that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs, according to the hop of eternal life Tit. 3: 5, 6, 7. p. 237Christ is the way to the Father Ioh. 14: 6. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself 2 Cor. 5: 19. Yet it is true, that Christ is now exalted as King and Prince, and giveth the Crown of life, Revel. 2: 10. as the great Administrator and Executor of His own Testament; yet not as if He had purchased all these things firstly, or primarily to Himself, and were now become the Sole or Principal Donor: for this doth overturn the tenor & forme of the Covenant of Redemption.

He tels us (n. 141.) That Christ's Righteousness is made ours, as our sinnes were made his. Which is all that we desire. We grant that Christ never had the Reatum culpae, in it self: & he saith, that sin was Imputed to Him, as to the punishment deserved, that is, He assumed the Reatum poenae. But sure, the Reatus poenae, being a dueness of punishment, because of sin, He could not come under this Obligation, unless the Reatus culpae had been Imputed to Him, not in it self physically, but juridically, in ordine ad poenam. And accordingly we must have the Righteousness of Christ, in order to its Effects; and this is more, than to have the meer Effects themselves, as he saith: & we shall grant to him, that we have it not, in the relation of a Meritorious cause to all uses; if he will grant to us, that we have it, in the relation of a meritorious Cause, to those uses, which God accepted it for; & hath assigned to it in the Gospel; as he seemeth to grant ibid.

Though we do not assert such an Imputation, as he calleth the rigide sense thereof (n. 142.) whereby God is supposed to repute us to have done that in & by Christ, which we never did by Him: yet we see no reason, why we may not say, that God judged Christ, to be the publick legal person: yea himself in the appendix to his Premonition, yeeldeth that Christ may be called, our Vicarius poenae, or Substitute; And when we say, He is a Publick legal person, we say not, that He is as many persons, as there be redeemed sinners in the world, as Mr. Baxter speaketh; but that He was such a publick legal person, as did represent in Law all that were given to Him, as their publick Head & Surety. And what he saith (n. 143.) of the various sorts of Sureties (some of which are very Impertinent, as the 3… for no man calleth an Agent a Surety; & the 5. for no man calleth a pay-master, who is the debtors Instrument, servant, or delegat, a Surety) doth not much help him, seing there are no such Sureties among Men, nor no manner of Suretyship, that can quadrat with Christ's Suretiship, in all things: and therefore it is to no purpose to say, Christ is not such a Surety, as is among men, in this, or that, or in the other respect, therefore He is no Surety at all. He is such a Surety, as is not in all things like Sureties among men; & yet in some things, every sort of Surety among men, may carry some resemblance to Him. See for this Mr. Gillespie's late piece on the Covenant of Redemption; where the Reader will finde much Satisfaction in this matter.

I finde no more spoken to the Doctrine of Imputation, in this place, by M. Baxter, that calleth for any particular Notice: for we say not, as He hinteth ibid. that Christ was our Instrument, or Delegate: yet we may say, He was our Surety, that did all in our legal person: for He did substitute p. 238Himself in our Law-place, & in so far suffered, in the Law-person of beleevers, as well as in their Nature.

We come next to Sect. 9. pag. 73. Where Mr. Baxter proposeth an objection, that those of his minde do use viz. If we had fulfilled all the Law reputatively by Christ, as our legal person, we could not be bound to further Obedience to it. This is founded (if it be directed against the Orthodox, & not meerly against the Antinomians) upon the mistake of the true meaning of these words, as our legal person & Reputatively. When we speak of Christ's being our legal person, we mean His becoming our Surety, and putting His name in our Bond, and satisfying the Law, as our Surety, in our room & stead: and that therefore, all His own, being now united to Him by faith, are dealt with, as if they had fulfilled the Law themselves; Christ's fulfilling of it, being now imputed to them, and received by faith, unto the ends, for which it was ordained; that is, to be accounted theirs, and reckoned on the… score, in order to the obtaining of the Reward promised to Adam, on Condition of perfect obedience. This being so, it is manifest, that hence it will not follow, that beleevers are not now bound to obedience to the Law.

What saith he we answere hereunto? That we are not bound to obey to the same ends, as Christ; that is, for Righteousness, or justification, or Merite: but in gratitude. It is true, Beleevers are not now bound to obey the Law, for that end, that Adam was obliged to, that not being now possible, and the Lord not requiring it, for that end & purpose, that we should purchase the reward of life to ourselves thereby, & have a Righteousness, whereby we may be justified, by the Righteous judge, and purchase or merite to ourselves the Reward: but, among other ends, to declare our Thankfulness unto God, & to set forth His Glory. What saith he to this answere?

He judgeth it to be a yeelding of the Cause, & ignorantly to destroy our own, for 7 or 8 reasons. 1. This is to say, that when a Man is reputed to have fulfilled all the Law; yet it is to be reputed unfulfilled, as to certain ends; as if he fulfilled all the Law, that fulfilled it not to all due ends. Ans. This is, as if one should reason from our saying, that Christ bore the whole Curse, and yet beleevers are not freed from Fatherly chastisements; that this is to say, That he bore all the Curse, that did not bear it under all Considerations, & as to all effects, that might passe under other Considerations, & accordingly be endured for other ends & Advantages. (2) Beleevers are reputed in Christ to have fulfilled the Law, in order to the obtaining of the Crown; and in reference to that, to have fulfilled the Law to all due ends, but not to have done it in themselves, or in their own Natural persons. Nor is the fulfilling of it by their Surety imputed to them, to exeem them from under the Authority of God & of His Law; far less particularly to exeem them, from testifying their Love & Gratitude, by endeavouring after Obedience to the Law, upon Gospel-Principles, & Grounds, & upon Gospel-motives, & for Gospel-ends.

2. Or (saith he) as if the Law obliged one man to fulfill it twice over, for the same lefes time; once simply, & in all its obligations, & another time for other p. 239ends. Ans. This is denied; neither followeth it from what we say. Because we cannot fulfill the Law once, to which we were obliged; there-for must Christ fulfill it for us, to the end we may enjoy the promised Reward: And His fulfilling of it for this end, doth not make us Law-less, far less exeem us from Obedience for other Gospel ends, to which Adam in Innocency was not obliged. Or 3 (saith he) as if the Law required any more than absolute perfection, Ans. We do not say, that it doth: But all our Obedience, with all the superaddition of new ends, is most Imperfect. 4. Or (saith he) that absolute perfection had not been in Christ's holy Obedience. Ans. Neither doth this follow-from what we say, more than from what himself saith; Yea not so much: for he maketh our Gospel-Obedience, a perfect Righteousness, which we may lean to, & plead for our justification & Salvation upon.

Or 5. (saith he) as if there were any Obedience, whose end is not Righteousness & justification, against the charge of the contrary disobedience. Ans. This is but vanity, for neither is it denied, nor is it any thing to the point; because the Righteousness spoken of is a perfect Righteousness, answerable to the Covenant of works, as the condition of life: And who ever performe Obedience, with such an eye & designe, & for such an end, shall in end meet with a sad disappointment, be their diligence & attainments what they will. 6. (saith he) And is not gratitude an end, & a thing commanded by the Law? If we obeyed perfectly in Christ, we were perfectly thankful in Christ. Ans. It will only follow, that we were perfectly thankful in Christ, in order to the obtaining of the reward; but not so, as if we in our own persons, were no more obliged to endeavoure thankfulness.

7. (saith he) But if they say, That Christ fulfilled the Law only made to Adam for us, & not his own Law of Grace, & therefore, that he obeyed for us only to the ends of that Law. Sure this is the thing that himself will say, or he must say, that Christ fulfilled no Law for us, in our stead. But what answereth he? If the ends (saith he) & matter of that Law be fulfilled by us in Him, our Obedience to any other must be needless; for he that is supposed never to have sinned, needeth not use any meanes for pardon or remedie. Ans. We say not, That the Law was fulfilled by us, in Him; but that He fulfilled the Law, as a Surety, willingly putting His Name in our obligation, & undertaking our debt: And from the Imputation of this to us, it will never follow, that we are thereby, or can be, supposed never to have sinned. What next? By this rule (saith he) Christ only fulfilled the Law for Adam & Eve; & for us only as we were in them, which is only virtually, & not actually at all, but not at all for us, according to any obligation, that ever fell upon our persons. How proveth he this? For 1. (saith he) we were never personally bound to perfect, personal, perpetual Obedience, as the Condition of life for that Covenant, as to the promise & condition, ceased before any man was born. Ans. That Covenant, I grant, ceased to be the way to life, as it was to Adam at first; because it became a thing impossible; yet, as Adam fell under the Curse of that broken Covenant, so did all his posterity fall with him & in him: hence when his posterity come to be existent persons, they are Children of wrath, p. 240& are under the Curse of that Covenant; and all their Actions, afterward committed, are further sins & violations of that Covenant: for we may not think, that Adam, after his first sin, was not in case to violat that Covenant any more: And though before any man was born, the new Covenant, or Gospel was promulgat; yet, notwithstanding thereof, all men were born under the Curse of the first Covenant, and were never delivered from under that, untill they closed with the termes of the second Covenant, or Covenant of Grace. But he saith 2. All the duty in the world, which we are bound unto, is to be done for Euangelical ends, for recovery, grace & unto gratitude. Ans. And was not Adam before the fall also bound unto gratitude? But he possibly meaneth gratitude for Redemption, yet he hath proved, that all the world, Heathens, I meane, & such as never heard of the Gospel, are obliged to Gratitude, upon the account of Redemption: or that all, that is required of them, is to be done for Gospel ends. But in all this, I am little concerned, who see no necessity of restricking Christ's obedience so.

8. He saith. That we see not, that our own answere implieth the truth, of what he and others assert; and is the same which they give but our cause is uncapable of. What then saith he & his? We say (saith he) that Christ did indeed most perfectly obey the Law of Innocency, so far for us, & in our stead (though not in our persons) as doing that, which we should have done & did not; & hath merited for us a better Covenant, which obligeth us not at all to obey for the ends of the first Covenant viz. that our perfection might be our Righteousness, or the Condition of life; but only to obey for the ends of the New Covenant, for the obtaining & improving of recovering grace & Salvation by Christ freely given us, which we ourselves must do, or perish. Ans. (1) If Christ obeyed for us, and in our stead, I see not, why he may not be said to do it, as our Surety, and so in our Law-person, seing, according to our Common discourse, the Surety & Principal debtor are one person in Law. But about ambiguous termes, we need not debate. It is of greater moment to differ, as to this, that he thinketh the us compr…hendeth all persons, Elect & Reprobat. (2) That Christ did merite the New Covenant, is no where said in Scriptur…; & yet this is all, that Mr. Baxter here mentioneth, as merited by Him. (3) I think, he is as much concerned, as we are, to loose his own difficulties, formerly proposed: for. 1. How can He be said, to have fulfilled all the Law for us, that did not fulfill it to all due ends? 2. Can the Law require more than absolute perfection? 3. Was not absolute perfection in Christ's holy Obedience? 4. Is not gratitude an end required in the Law of Innocency? 5. If Christ fulfilled only the Law of Innocency, did he not fulfill the Law for Adam & Eve only, or for us, as in them &c. Let him answere these himself, and he shall help us.

Next (n. 190.) he bringeth some in saying. That we may as wel say, that man must not die, because Christ died for us; as not obey because Christ obeyed for us, & then tels us, that we strangely use their reason against ourselves, & know it not. But what if this be his mistake? Let us hear his reason. For we say (saith he) that we must die, because we did not perfectly either obey the Law, or suffer all its penalty, by Christ, as our legal person; but he suffered p. 241only to satisfie justico in tantum, to this end, that man himself suffering death & temporal afflictions, & obeying the Law of grace, might be saved from all the rest of the punishment. But if we had so fulfilled the Law, as afore said, by doing or suffering, we could not have died, or suffered the least affliction, as a penalty; for all punishment, in the essence of the relation is for sin. Ans. Though I had rather say, That Christ Suffered & Obeyed for His own, & in their stead, as their Surety, willingly undertaking the debt, that they were under, than that we Suffered & Obeyed in Him: yet it may be, they who speak so, are far from that meaning, that Mr. Baxter putteth on their words: & when they call Christ our legal person, they mean no more, than that he was a Surety, or a publick Person. (2) Though he suffered not to deliver His own from temporal death; yeth he did bear the Curse, & satisfied Vindictive justice, and left nothing of that for them to suffer: & what chastisements they meet with, yea & death it self is made to work together for their good.

He bringeth them in againe (n. 190.) saying. It is more Inconvenient to say, that Christ was perfect in our person, than that He satisfied in our pe… son, & we by Him] And here possibly the same mistake is but continued. But, as he taketh it up, he thinketh that hereby the Gospel is subverted. Ans. The whole dependeth upon the Explication of these words, in our person. Mr. Baxter thinketh that these words, in our person in a Law sense, import, that we payed all in Christ, as a man payeth a Summe of Money by his servant, whom he sendeth to carry it; or some such thing. And if this be not their meaning, who use this expression; all this outcry is to no purpose; and is only a fighting against his own imagination, & a meer striving about words: yet he granteth, that we may fitly say, that Christ suffered in the person of a sinner; but he bids us mark the sense, saying 1. Suffering as penal belongeth to a sinner as such; but Satisfaction is an effect of Christ's Suffering, which resulteth not from the meer suffering, nor from the person of a sinner; but from the will & Covenant of God, made to that excellent person, who was God & perfect man, Well, what next? 2. Note 2. (saith he) that it is not any other mans person, that we mean, that Christ suffered in, but His own. Ans. And no man ever dreamed, that He either did, or could suffer, in any other man's physical person. But seing He was made sin for us, & so died in our room & stead, why may He not be said to have died in our Law-person? If a pledge, or hostage, suffer for those he standeth for, may not he be said to suffer in their Law-person? If a Surety be put in prison for the debtor, may he not be said to suffer in the debtor's Law-place, & in his person in Law-sense? He addeth. And we mean that He took upon Him the person of a sinner; in as much as He consented to suffer for sin. Ans. This is good, & we accept of it cheerfully in tantum, for it explaineth to us, in part, the meaning of these words, He made Him sin for us▪ And so (he addeth) personating here is not meant beco…ing any other mans person in Law-seuse; so as that other legally suffered what he did; but it is only his own persons becoming a sufferer, in the stead of sinners, for their sins. As the Apostle saith. He was made sin for us; that is, so far by Imputation, as that he undertook to suffer what sinners suffer, & for their p. 242sins. Ans. But when Christ came in the Law-place of sinners, & did substitute Himself, in their room, & suffered what they were obliged to suffer; sure, He took on their person, in a Lawsense, & they, for whom He suffered, can be said, in His, & in His Fathers designe, so far legally to have suffered, what He suffered, as never to be made to suffer the same themselves.

But he seeth, that this is but a wordy Controversie; & therefore to free the matter of ambiguity of words, he (pag. 77.) addeth several things, as 1. That as we hold, that Adam was the Natural Root or parent of Mankind; so also that Christ was the foederal root of all the saved, & in several respects (though not all) a second Adam. Ans. We hold, that Adam was not only the Natural Root, but he was also the federal Root of all mankinde: for the Covenant was made with him, and with all his posterity in him: and hence it was, that all sinned in him, & fell with him, in his first transgression. Rom. 5: 12. 1. Cor. 15: 20, 21.

He addeth. 2. Adam was but one single Natural person, nor did God (by err…ur, or arbitrary reputation) esteem or account Him to be any other, than he was. None of our persons were distinct persons in Adam, nor those persons, that now they are. Therefore we were not so personally in him, at his fall. But all our persons are in time & mediatly by our progenitors derived lineally from him, not as having been persons existent in him, but being persons caused remotely by him. Ans. Adam, it is true, was but one single Natural person, in a physical sense; yet in a Law-sense, as he was constitute the federal Head & Root, we were all that one Adam, or he was us all, representing all; & so did God esteem, or account him, not by errour, but by a Right Reputation, founded on His own Constitution. (2) None of our physical persons were distinct persons in him, yet our legal persons were in him, when he represented us all, as a federal Head. (3) We know, that our physical persons were only seminally, or virtually in him; & we grant also, that to be only virtually in Adam is terminus diminuens, as to personal inexistence; but I know not, how we could be personally in-existent in him, even when existent in a physical sense. But all this taketh not away that federal inexistence, whereby, in a Law-sense, we were in him, as our federal Head & Root. But, it seemeth, Mr. Baxter doth not acknowledge this, because he maketh our Natural relation to Adam to be the only reason of out partaking of his sin. We do not deny our Natural Interest in Adam, but we superadde to it this federal Interest. He saith. It is our Natural relation to Adam, supposed in God's Law, which is the reason of our participation in his sin & not any will or judgment of God, without or beyond our Natural Interest; for else it should be God, most properly, who by His arbitrary Imputation, should either make us sinners, or repute us such, when we are none. Ans. I have granted, that we have a Natural relation to Adam, but I adde, that that is not the sole ground or reason of our participation in his sin; but the federal relation, with the Natural relation. And hence it doth no way follow, that God doth properly make us sinners, or repute us such, when we are not, by His arbitrary Imputation: for this Imputation, being founded upon this double preconstituted relation, cannot be called p. 243meerly arbitrary; nay, nor could it be so called, though it were said to be solely founded upon this federal relation, more than when it is said to be grounded upon the Natural relation. Though in another sense, it might be so called as well, when said to be founded on the Natural, as when said to be founded on the federal Relation, God being the free Author & Constitutor of both.

3. He addeth. So Christ is, though not the Natural, yet the federal Adam & Root of Beleevers: When he satisfied & merited, we were not in Him, either as in Adam seminally, as in a Natural Generator, nor as existent persons; nor did God falsly so repute us to be. But He was then the Cause (materially) or had that virtus effectiva, which would justifie & Sanctifie & Glorifie us in due time. Ans. Christ, it is true, is no Natural; but a federal Root; & so keepeth Correspondence with the first Adam, a federal Root. (2) It is true also, we were not in Christ, when He satisfied, as in Adam, seminally, as in a Natural Generator: but yet the Elect were in Him, in a more noble & supernatural manner, as given of God to Him, & as undertaken for by Him, when He did substitute Himself in their Law-place, & became their Surety. (3) If Christ had only been the material cause, as having that virtus effectiva, how could He be called their federal Head? or how could they be said to be chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world? It was the nature of sinners (saith he) though not a sinful Nature, which He assumed: But that Nature, which He undertook, was existent in His Individual person, & no other individual person was existent in His existent personal Nature. What then? So that (he addeth) when we say it was the common Nature of Man, we mean only specificè▪ that Nature which is of the same species with all other mens, but not that which existed individually, in any, but himself. Ans. Notwithstanding of all this, Christ was a federal Head, & a Publick Person, undertaking for, and therein representing all those, that were given to Him to save; and this his following words confirme, when he saith. But it was individual persons, in whose stead, or place Christ suffered, & whom He undertook to justifie, sanctify & save, & gather into an holy Society to that end; & to that end, He undertook & performed His office, & merited all this by His perfect Righteousness; so that hereby He made Himself a federal Head & Root of an holy society (His Church) & when ever any person doth beleeve, & is united federally to Him, he then receiveth the effects of that, which was before in Christ, as a virtus effectiva. Ans. But Christ, being a federal Head to His own, whom in due time, He was to bring in to an holy Society, beleevers receive the effects of that, which was in Christ, as such a federal Head; which is more, than as a virtus effectiva, & Importeth His Obligation, as a Surety, to work these effects, & speaketh out His representing of them, as a publick Person, and paying their debt, according to His Undertaking, in the Covenant of Redemption.

Thereafter (pag. 78.) from this, That the Law made to Adam did not assigne Christ to this office, nor oblige Him to suffer for sinners, according to it, & that therefore He suffered not by that obligation, which bound us to suffer, but by the obligation of His own consent, he inferreth, that the p. 244Law of works took not Christ for the Civil, or legal person of Beleevers, more than it made Him such. Ans. But this consequence is denied; for when a debtor is lying in prison, a friend, who was not formerly obliged, undertaking to satisfie the Creditor & making satisfaction, is by Law taken for the legal person of the debtor, who is accordingly dealt with, as if he himself had satisfied the Creditor.

In the 4, 5. & 6. places, he tels us, That beleevers, receiving Christ Himself, receive title to His Grace, Spirit & Glory, & are personally & actually His Subjects &c, and have a right to all His conferred benefites; which right followeth not Immediatly to them from what Christ did, or suffered, but from the Covenant of grace; & therefore they have no right before the time, nor any, but on the Conditions specified in the Covenant. Ans. (1) Though they have no full, compleat, actual right, untill such time, as is condescended upon; yet by vertue of the compact betwixt Jehovah & the Mediator, wherein the Mediator undertook particularly, for those given unto Him, these may be said to have a real fundamental right, though that right be not subjected in them, nor pleadable by them, before the time appointed; yet a Right, or something equivalent (for I will not strive about words) must necessarily flow from Christ's Satisfying for them, and paying their debt, according to His Undertaking. As, when it is contracted, that the Eldest daughter of the marriage shall have such a summe of money, when she cometh to be married, or to be of such an age, that daughter hath another right unto that summe, than any other daughter hath, & that fundamentally from the contract & Agreement, though before the time designed, her right be not such, as she can plead it in Law, in order to the possessing of the summe (2.) Therefore the right, that Beleevers have, floweth from the Compact, & Christ's Suffering according to compact, though it be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace, & their possession of the Benefites be immediatly therefrom; as that daughters right to the summe is properly from the contract, though her actual possession according to the contract, be from her Marriage, or coming to that age. Though beleevers right to the actual possession of the benefites be so conveyed; & as to the conveyance, some be granted absolutly, as faith (as himself will confess) some upon condition of faith, that is, in that order, & according to that Methode, that faith shall preceed: Yet, in respect of God, their right to all is absolutly purchased by Christ; & so in a sense theirs, though not subjected in them, nor pleadable by them, till the time appointed come. This whole scheme of Mr. Baxter's seemeth to me to be founded upon, and to flow from his Notion of Universal Redemption, whereby he will have Christ to have died in the room & stead of all; which (to me) is in the room & place of none; & to have purchased the New Covenant, a Common good to all, whereby all that would performe the New Conditions, should have right to the benefites, as having obtained the same, by their performance of these proper Conditions; anteriour to which, there was no difference at all betwixt them & others; but this Scheme and the ground thereof I cannot owne.

7. He tels us, that as none, till he was a person, could be a person guilty of p. 245Adam's sin, nor when he was a person any sooner, than he was also guilty of his own inherent pravity, & none that had the use of reason was guilty of either, or both these only, without the guilt of his own actual sin. So none till he be a beleever is related, as a member of a perfectly Righteous Saviour; & that is done no sooner (in time) then he hath the inherent righteousness of his personal faith & federal consent, & that obligeth him to the further active Righteousness of a holy life. Ans. The Protas…s & Apodos…s seem not to agree, for as upon our personal existence, we become persons guilty of Adam's sin, & that before (as to nature, though not as to time) we have inherent pravity; because this is an Effect, Consequent & Punishment of the former: so upon our faith, which is our personal existing grace, corresponding to our personal existing in Nature, by our Natural being, should follow, as answering to this Imputation of Adam's guilt, the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness: but in stead of this, he mentioneth nothing, but a Relation as a member of a righteous Saviour; which (according to the comparison) should correspond to our relation to Adam, which is, in nature, before our partaking of his sin. (2) As answering to our inherent pravity, he should have named our justification, Adoption &c. as the effects of the Imputation of Christ's Righteous…ess; in stead of this, he nameth the Inherent righteousness of our personal faith & federal consent; thereby Importing that this federal consent is posteriour to our Relation; while as I suppose, he will say, that our Relation is upon the condition of our federal consent: Not to mention here his errour (hereafter discovered) of making faith to be considered here, as our personal Inherent Righteousness. Then he tels us. That all these three conjunct (though not coordinat) make up the total Righteousness of a Saint. viz. 1. our Relation to Christ, in Union, as to a perfectly Righteous Head, who fulfilled all Righteousness for us, to merite our justification (which is called Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, as being thus far reputed ours) 2. our penitent beleeving consent to his Covenant, which is the condition of the foresaid relation to Christ. 3. And our Sanctification. Ans. (1) Here we see, that Righteousness made the second Righteousness, which yet is the condition of the first; as if our Inherent pravity were the condition of the Imputation of Adam's sin to us (2) our Relation to Christ is not one & the same with the Imputation of Righteousness to us; no more than our relation to Adam is the same thing with the Imputation of his sin to us. (3) Thus we see, by asserting the cause, viz. our relation to Christ, he taketh away the effect viz. the Imputation of His Righteousness, as being no distinct thing: as if one should say, we are related to Adam, a sinful Head, who broke the Law for us; & this is called Adam's sin imputed to us, as being thus far reputed ours. But yet Christ's fulfilling all Righteousness for us (if that for us, were understood in the Scripture sense, and not according to the Socinian, or Arminian gloss) would abundantly ground the Imputation, we plead for, and that as a fruit of our Relation to Christ. Passing what he saith 8, as not worth the noticeing.

We come to see, what he saith 9. & lastly. Proposing this objection to himself, if Christ's person be given us, then His personal Righteousness is given us with it. He replieth thus. Yes, as His person is; He is not given us p. 246as proprietors & Lords, to become our own, at our dispose; nor is his person made one Person with each, or any of us. His person is not turned into ours, nor ours into his. Ans. This is all to no purpose; for no man, in his wits, either said so, or dreamed so, at any time. As the husband (saith he) is not the person of the wife, nor the King of each Subject: but as one, that hath a Great, wise, learned, Bountiful, Holy King or Husband, hath also his Greatness &c. as they have him, that is, as his perfections for their good, as far as his relation bindes him; but not as if his enduements were removed from him to them, or falsely reputed to be in them, or his person to be their persons: so here as we have a Christ, so we have a perfect Righteous Christ given us to be our federal head, when we beleeve; and the Righteousness, which is not in us, but in Him, is ours so far as to be for our good, as far as His office & Covenant do oblige Him. Ans. This savoureth of making Christ's dying for us, to be nothing else than His dying for our good, as Socinians say: and if it import more, (as it doth in truth) he cannot but see, that his simile here, hath nothing of a similitude in it; for the objection speaketh of Christ's person given to us, not as a great, wise &c. King is given to his Subjects; but as the Surety is given to the debtor, i.e. as one, whose payment of the debt, must be reckoned on the score of the debtor, in order to his liberation out of prison. He addeth. So that a Righteous Christ and therefore the Righteousness of Christ, are ours, relatively themselves, quoad jus beneficii; so as that we have right to these benefites by them, which we shall possess: and for the merites of His Righteousness, we are conditionally justified and saved, before we beleeve, and actually after. Ans. All this jus beneficii is but remote; for in the foregoing pag. he told us, as we heard, that this right doth not flow immediatly from what Christ did and suffered, but from his Covenant of Grace: and I think, he should have said rather from their performance of the condition: for the Covenant conveyeth no title, but conditionally, he knoweth, and therefore can give no title or Right, untill the condition be performed; upon the performance of which, the conditional Title becometh actual. And further, there is no more here said than what a Socinian will say; and particularly Sclightingius pro Socino. cont. Meisnerum pag. 250. whose words we cited above towards the beginning of our XIII. Chapter.