Letters Between Humfrey and Clark, Part

Letters Between Humfrey and Clark · Part

p. 51The Animadverſions.

THere was a Sheet called The Report, which I read, and four or five called A Rebuke of that Report, which I read likewiſe. I ſuppoſe the Author of the firſt thought it neceſſary to inform the Country of the true State of the Difference about Doctrinals there was in the City, and made that Report according to his Conſcience: I ſuppoſe alſo that the Author of the ſecond thought it fit in conſcience to rebuke that Report, as giving wrong Information: And if any have been offended at either, it is that ſuppoſed neceſſity muſt excuſe both. There were four Sheets I wrote as a Friendly Interpoſer between them, and theſe I write now, I intended as a Second Port, in regard to that Title. Since theſe, there came out a Defence of the Report, and more lately a Vindication of the Rebuke, which Books having not the excuſe of ſuch neceſſity are faulty, and their fault being openly committed, is openly to be reproved, and that is, that they knowingly (ſometimes) abuſe one another. Mr. Rebuke upon an Objectors ſaying, In our place and ſtead, with ſome does ſignifie no more than for our good, anſwers, It is impoſſible they ſhould. Mr. Report takes up this paſſage and exagitates it as a piece of Socinianiſm, when it is manifeſt that Mr. Rebuke ſpeaks it as a piece of Wit, not meaning that Chriſt dyed only for our good, but becauſe what he did and ſuffered in our place and ſtead was for our good. On the other hand Mr. Report, ſpeaking of the particular matter he was concern'd about, ſays, This is the ſubſtance of the Goſpel: Mr. Rebuke hereupon tells him of Regeneration, Repentance, Faith, Good Works, that are parts of the Goſpel, and thereby endeavours to expoſe him for Antinomianiſm, as one that excludes theſe things out of the Goſpel; and in the end of his Vindication he cites ſome words out of Mr. Report's Appeal, and congratulates his return to himſelf, that now acknowledges Repentance neceſſary to Pardon, and Faith to Juſtfication, in ſome ſuch words, which are all manifeſt Abuſe on both ſides, for neither does Mr. Report believe Mr. Rebuke a Socinian, nor Mr. Rebuke believe Mr. Report an Antinomian; they may as well ſay they are two Dears or p. 52two Birds, as to ſay that either is a Socinian or Antinomian. I muſt confeſs there is one Chapter in the Vindication, about Chriſts dying in our ſtead, that is ſo well, ſo ſolid, ſo appoſitely ſcriptured, ſo brief and convincing againſt the Socinian, that (excepting all Application, to his Adverſary) I have been ſeldom pleaſed and ſatisfied with any thing more; and I muſt confeſs moreover my pleaſure in reading the Book, that I left not, though it be ten Sheets (unleſs for a ſpirt) till I had done: Yet does not all his Wit, nor his Erudition recompence ſo ill an Example as the rendring evil for evil, that is, Abuſe for Abuſe, which is not only a fault as to Men, but a ſin as to God; and I pray God forgive them both, and I pray them to forgive me the telling them of it. I ſhall let alone therefore theſe Books mentioned, and take notice only of theſe two more, that is, the Anſwer of our Presbyterian Brethren to Mr. Lobb, ſet out by Mr. Williams, and the Appeal of Mr. Lobb to the Biſhop of Worceſter, and ſhall offer a few Animadverſions upon ſome Paſſages, which others it is like would not, at leaſt with that impartiality (whether they offend or not) as I do.

A great part I perceive of theſe Books is about the Phraſe Commutation of Perſons, for Explication whereof the Presbyterian Brethren diſtinguiſh of a Natural, Moral and Legal Change (p. 12.) and tell us that there is no change of Chriſts Natural Perſon into Ours, or Ours into His, and that Chriſts Qualities likewiſe are not made Ours, nor Ours His, which is moſt true without doubt, but who ever thought otherwiſe? Who ever queſtioned any ſuch thing, that there is need of ſuch a diſtinction? If any think that Dr. Criſp, by Chriſts taking our Quality and Condition, and we his, did underſtand theſe Brethrens Moral Change, as if the Accidents of one Subject could migrate into another, they abuſe the Doctor, ſuppoſing him ſuch a Blockhead as no Scholar is to be ſuppoſed. No, when he tells us that Chriſt was as compleat a ſinner as we, and we as compleatly righteous as he, it muſt be conſtrued only by way of Imputation: We muſt not wreſt any words of his to make him think otherwiſe. It is true now here, that in this Imputation of our ſins to Chriſt he underſtands it not only quod reatum paenae, but Culpae alſo, which is his Error, but as for this diſtinction of a Moral Change, it does not affect him any more than the Brethren themſelves; ſo that they do thereby only beat the Air, not him; It is no more to the confuting Antinomianiſm than might be ſpared: And as for the word Legal Change, upon which they pitch, they do it not without fear of danger, as themſelves acknowledge, and have reaſon, ſo p. 53that indeed in the Explication of this Phraſe [Change of Perſons] they ſhould not have diſtinguiſh'd upon the word [Change] but the word [Perſon.] The word [Perſon] is a foreign, lyable to a diverſe Acceptation; the word [Change] to none: Change is Change, but Perſon is not Perſon. There is a Natural Perſon, and a Legal Perſon, which are two of their three Terms; but the Term [Moral] as to Perſon, hath no place here. And it is Chriſt Natural Perſon (tho' there be no Natural Change) which comes in the room of our Natural Perſons, to bear the Puniſhment of our ſins, that is, the Commutation of Perſons, as is neceſſary to the Explication of the Doctrine of Satisfaction. If there be any change of Perſon elſe, in regard to the Term [Legal Perſon] let any of the Brethren that can make it our.

By this Diſtinction mentioned, it is one thing with them for Chriſt to take on him our Perſon, and another our Quality, State or Condition, and our Brethren therefore do impugne Mr. Lobb's ſaying, That Chriſt put himſelf into our Place, State and Condition, (P. 31.) when even theſe words are, and may be uſed as well as ſuſtaining our Perſon, and ſuffering in our ſtead, giving them the ſame Orthodox Conſtruction. Such Expreſſions muſt be taken not ſimpliciter, but ſecundum quid, not in regard to every thing, but to one thing. Chriſt did take on him our State, Condition or Quality, as we were lyable to Puniſhment, or as obnoxious to the Curſe for our ſins, and ſo became a Curſe and Sacrifice for us: But when Mr. Lobb ſays further, that we were Sinners and deſtitute of Righteouſneſs, he muſt be conſtrued to ſpeak ſo alſo in regard to the Puniſhment due to us thereupon, and that Chriſt took upon him that Condition, only whereby he was lyable, in our ſtead: But to preſs him therefore with the conſequence, that Chriſt muſt be a ſinner and deſtitute of Righteouſneſs. is to preſs him too hard, for he is one we know, that denies the Criſpian Senſe of Change of Perſons, as well as the Brethren: And tho' they do here but take him on the hip upon a ſlip of Words, they by and by do him plain wrong, when upon the right Interpretation they make, they ſay, This will not content him, for it will and does content him, and he means no otherwiſe than they; and as for their making him hold, That Chriſt was changed to be a ſinful Perſon, deſtitute of Righteouſneſs, as they go on in the place, A lapſus linguae is no Error mentis, and the arguing him into what he abhors, is not doing as good Men would be done by themſelves. They are in good earneſt here too heavy upon him.

p. 54In theſe Papers of the Brethren, there is a Letter from the Biſhop of Worceſter, and part of ſome Letters from Dr. Edwards. That which is quoted out of the Dr. ſeems to me open, obvious, and edifying. That which is ſaid by the Biſhop is writ with Prudence and Caution, with Ability and Authority, but not with that openneſs altogether as I, who ſpeak as a Fool, could wiſh.

The Commutation of Perſons between Chriſt and us, according to his Lordſhip, may have a threefold ſenſe. One which implies Chriſt being appointed to Act in our behalf, for our benefit, which the Socinians will grant. Another, which implies not only his acting for our benefit, but his being ſubſtituted in our ſtead, in bearing our Puniſhment, to become an Attonement for us, that is, to ſatisfie Gods Juſtice, that ſo by an Act (or New Law) of Grace he might grant us Pardon and Life, upon the Conditions of the Goſpel, which is the ſound Senſe of this Change of Perſons, according to Grotius, this Learned Biſhop, our Presbyterian Brethren and Mr. Lobb alſo, which he will not gainſay, tho' whether he will have more to it, let himſelf tell. For,

There is a third Senſe of this Commutation, which implies a tranſlation of our ſins upon Chriſt and of his Righteouſneſs upon us, which admits of a double Senſe, one of Dr. Criſp and the Antinomians, and the other of ſuch we call Orthodox, embracing the Common Proteſtant Doctrine of Juſtification. This third Senſe, as owned by Dr. Criſp, the Biſhop hath in ſhort words ſet out right, which is in two Points differing from the Orthodox. One is, that Dr. Criſp accounts our ſins to be tranſlated on, or imputed to Chriſt, not only as to the Obligation of Puniſhment, but in regard to the guilt of the Fault: The other is, that Chriſts Righteouſneſs is tranſlated on the Elect before they believe, and conſequently they are juſtified without Faith. Now the Biſhop ſets himſelf againſt this third Crispian Senſe and beſtows a great part of his Letter to confute this known exploded Error; ſo that as I have ſaid of our Brethrens Diſtinction before, that they did but beat the Air, and confute no Body, I muſt needs ſay of the Biſhop, that he does indeed beat ſome Body, that is, confute the Criſpian, but his beating is beſides the Cuſhion. This excellent Biſhops Work were to conſider, whether he ſhall admit or confute Mr. Lobb, Dr. Owen, and thoſe that hold ſuch a tranſlation of our ſins on Chriſt, and his Righteouſneſs on us, as is maintained without either of theſe Criſpian Errors. To prove that a Man muſt believe before he is juſtified, needs no more than theſe words of the Apoſtle, We have believed, that we may p. 55be juſtified: The elaborate proving ſuch Doctrine to be againſt the Scripture, is but a prudential declination of that difficult Task, that calls here for his undertaking.

The common Proteſtant I will ſuppoſe when the Scripture ſpeaks of our ſins being laid on Chriſt, or Chriſt bearing our ſins on the Croſs, or the like, do underſtand no other thing than the Biſhop, that is, he took on him our ſins, in regard to the Legal Guilt, not Perſonal, to uſe his words, underſtanding by thoſe Terms reatum paenae, not culpae, in the ordinary diſtinction (for when the Biſhop makes Legal Guilt to imply deſert of Puniſhment, as well as the Obligation to it, his perſonal Guilt is one with Legal, beſides the term [Legal Guilt] is dangerous, leſt any thereby ſhould underſtand Chriſt to be our Legal Perſon, ſo as to be in us Guilty, and we righteous in him) or to ſpeak ſureſt, he took on him our Puniſhment without the deſert of it, and ſo neither I or the Biſhop, or our Presbyterian Brethren differ in the leaſt, as to this part of the Tranſlation, which is to be granted as neceſſary to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction: But as to the other part of this Tranſlation, which is the transferring his Righteouſneſs on the Believer (not on the Elect before Faith, for that is Antinomianiſm) in ſuch a ſenſe as is neceſſary to the making out the Doctrine of Juſtification, according to the Common Proteſtant, here is the Point which requires the Determination of this moſt Learned Biſhop: whereof if he dare venture his Credit, ſo as to tell his Judgment plainly (which would tend to the eſtabliſhment of many) he ſhall do a great thing, a daring matter, wherein yet he is thus far advanced, that he hath in this Letter, made an on-ſet on the greateſt ſtrength of the Antagoniſt, which is That, they raiſe upon the words of the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him ſin for us, who knew no ſin, that we might be made the Righteouſneſs of God in him: Unto which Text the Biſhop anſwers, That by Chriſts being made ſin, is meant a Sacrifice for ſin, according the Scripture Senſe: And we are made the Righteouſneſs of God in him, in that God, upon the account of his Sacrifice and our Reconciliation to him, does treat us as Righteous Perſons, or receive us into his Grace and Favour upon our believing. I add, upon our believing, as what is underſtood by him. And this is all (he ſays) that he can find St. Paul underſtood by this Expreſſion. Here we ſee this Text brought off ſo cleverly, as that there is no Arrow hath toucht him, but withal, ſo cautiouſly and prudentially for fear of ſhot, that I cannot but take notice of that Learned Gentleman that hath wrote on this Subject, Sir Charles Wolſeley's greater Reſolution, who hath p. 56ſaid the ſame thing upon this Text with the Biſhop, but without dread of the Bullets. The meaning is (ſays he) this, Chriſt that was without ſin was ordained of God to be a Sacrifice for ſin, that we might thereby be made righteous with the Goſpel-Righteouſneſs, for that is the general meaning every where of the Righteouſneſs of God. Sir C. W's Evan. Juſt. p. 64. The direct anſwer to this Text is this, That the Righteouſneſs of God in him, is not the Righteouſneſs of Christ, according to our Common Proteſtant Divines, which is manifeſt, becauſe God and Him are two, as I have it (in my Right. of God. P. 11.) with this Argument, Juſtitia Dei eſt finis ſive effectum ex eo quod Christus peccatum pro nobis factus eſt. Hoc autem ipſum eſt Chriſts obedientia. E'go juſtitia Dei non eſt Chriſti Obedientia. Wotton.

The Common Proteſtant Opinion accounted Orthodox, is that we are juſtified by Faith Objective, that is by Chriſts Righteouſneſs, which is its Object, received by Faith as the Inſtrument making it ours, ſo that God looks upon us as righteous in his Righteouſneſs, or accounts us ſo, which is our Juſtification. The Opinion I hold (as what I think thoſe that go Mr. Baxter's way, are to come to) I declare to be, that we are juſtified by Faith Formaliter, and through Chriſts Righteouſneſs,Si juſtitia eſt opus Dei, quomodo erit opus Dei ut credatur in eum, niſi ipſa ſit juſtitia, ut credamus in cum? Aug. in Jo. 6.29.John 6:29 as the Meritorious Cauſe only. The Scripture is manifeſt, that by Faith we are juſtified. Was not Abraham juſtified by Faith? The juſt ſhall live by Faith. This is ſtedfaſtly atteſted by the Apoſtle. By Faith; ſo that Faith is the id per quod, as the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt the id propter quod, the Believer is juſtified. The Meritorious Cauſe is the Efficient Protatarctick, and cannot be the Formal. That Chriſts Righteouſneſs therefore, is not the Believers formal Righteouſneſs, I muſt lay down among the ſet of Notions, as certainly appertaining to Mr. Baxters way of Juſtification, ſo that the Maintenance of, or Departure from that Aſſertion, does aſſuredly make, or marr, the right conception of that Article.

There is no Point of moment, but hath its ſet of Notions (as I ſay) belonging to it, and whether the Biſhop will go the Common way of the Proteſtant, or a way of his own altogether, or the way of Mr. Baxter, which I and Mr. Williams do go, as to the main, I ſuppoſe that excellent Perſon, who is able to perceive that Concatenation of Notions, belonging to the way he takes, will lay them ſo together, as to make the whole agreeable, knowing well, that if he break one of the Set, one Link, he breaks all, the p. 57whole Chain. The fundamental Notion in the way that Mr. Baxter, and I, and Mr. Williams go, is this, That it is not by the Law, but the Goſpel, not by the Law of Works, but the Law of Grace, that we are to be judged, and conſequently juſtified or condemned. One other Notion of his, near to this, is, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not, cannot be imputed to us (that is, reckoned to us as ours) any otherwiſe than in the Effects. The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is a Righteouſneſs that anſwers the Law, and if that be imputed to us in ſe, for our Juſtification, then we are juſtified by the Law. When Mr. Williams therefore ſays with us, that it is by the Goſpel (not the Law) we are to be judged, and yet that Beſides the effects, the very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to the Believer, that thereby he may be juſtified (which muſt be underſtood) it is a plain Inconſiſtency, a perfect Tergiverſation. As for what Mr. Williams offers in Made made righteous, p. 76. to 83. I have anſwered, Pacifica. p. 35, 36. Let me ask him upon it, when he ſays, The very Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to the Believer, does he underſtand by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, that which his Brethren do, or not? If he does, he is held under this Inconſiſtency, and can never come off: If he do not, then the Brethren are deceived in him. He appears to be of their Judgment, about the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and yet underſtands by Chriſts Righteouſneſs another thing than they do. What Man before him, ever ſaid or underſtood that Chriſts Right to his Reward, is the Righteouſneſs which is imputed to a Believer? I argue againſt him. The Righteouſneſs which is imputed to a Believer, is that Righteouſneſs which is the Meritorious Cauſe of his Juſtification: But it is not Chriſts Right to his Reward, but the Obedience of his Life and Death (which two things he diſtinguiſhes, and makes a double Righteouſneſs, and brings himſelf off with the firſt, inſtead of affirming the laſt) which is the Meritorious Cauſe of our Juſtification. And as for what he ſays in affirming, Chriſts Right to his Reward, to be the Believers, His own Right, and the Believers to be the ſame Right, it is impoſſible according to the Rule of Accidents, as I anſwer him in my Pacification.

There is another Diſtinction of Mr. Williams, which Mr. Alſop uſes in his Rebuke, directly contrary to him in the Terms, yet Neither, differing in the Doctrine of it, that I will take this occaſion to remember. Dr. Criſp's Phraſe of Change of Perſon, Mr. Williams impugnes, but yet grants a Change of Perſons. By Change of Perſon, I doubt not but the Dr. meant a Change on both ſides, as appears by his Explication, that Chriſt became a ſinner as we, and p. 58we righteous as he, and that is a Change of Perſons. There is a Change of Perſon on one ſide, and a Change of Perſon on both ſides. A Change of both ſides is all one with a Change of Perſons. When Mr. Williams then upon this, diſtinguiſhes between a Change of Perſon, and Change of Perſons, it is his own Diſtinction, when the Doctor never thought of any; and when it is his own, he may make what Conſtruction of it he pleaſe, and that he puts on it be ſure ſhall be Orthodox; for by the one he will have Dr. Criſp's Commutation underſtood, and deny it; by the other, the Biſhop's Commutation, and hold it. Here is his Doctrine found, but his Diſtinction, as he uſes the Terms ſo forced, ſtrained, unnatural, that it is uſeleſs altotether, but to bring himſelf off, and ſerve his occaſion: Whereas the Diſtinction, as uſed by Mr. Alſop, is ſo appoſite, eaſie, proper, natural in the Terms, that if it be ſtood to, no Diſtinction can be of more uſe for deciding the Controverſie of our Brethren. By Change of Perſon, Mr. Alſop underſtands, One coming in the room of another; By Change of Perſons, Both coming in the room of one another; and when Mr. Williams grants a Change of Perſons, and denies a Change of Perſon, he (Mr. Alſop) does hold a Change of Perſon, and denies a Change of Perſons, and yet both agree (I have ſaid) in the Doctrine they make of it. Mr. Alſop's Diſtinction then fuller explained, is between Chriſts ſuſtaining or putting on our Perſon, his taking our State and Condition, or his obeying and ſuffering in our room or ſtead, and Our ſuſtaining or putting on Chriſts Perſen, taking on us his Quality or Condition, or coming in his room or place. The one he maintains, and denies the other. I will add, he does hold, and it is to be held, that Chriſt ſtood in our room and ſtead, and ſo may be ſaid to put on our Perſon in obeying and ſuffering for us, as neceſſary to the Doctrine of Satiſfaction; but he denies, or I do, (as that which is to be denied) that we take on us Chriſts Perſon, or come in his room or ſtead, as neceſſary (which others affirm) to our Juſtification.

To make this appear (as to the right ſenſe of it) we muſt know, that to take anothers Perſon, or to do or ſuffer any thing in, the room or place of another, is to do or ſuffer the thing, to free the other from the doing or ſuffering. When Chriſt then is ſaid to dye for us, or for our ſins, which is all one as taking our Perſon, or ſuffering in our room, place or ſtead, it ſignifies that he obeyed the Law, and ſuffered the penalty, that we might not be bound to that perfect Obedience, as the Condition of Life, and that we might not ſuffer the Curſe of it, and this is neceſſary to the making God Satisfaction, p. 59that we may be pardoned and eſcape the ſame: But for us to put on Chriſts Perſon, or come in his room or ſtead, does ſignifie our doing and ſuffering in him, as our Legal or Civil Perſon, what he did and ſuffered, and ſo be look'd on as having fulfilled the Law, both in obeying and ſuffering; ſo that his Obedience, both of his Life and Death, is imputatively ours, and we in ſenſu forenſi, as righteous as he in the ſight of God, and juſtified by the Law as Chriſt was. This Commutation of Perſon therefore we deny, as that Doctrine which ſubverts the Goſpel.

It was a deep miſtake in the much reading of Mr. Report, to apprehend that the Commutation of Perſons, in the Senſe of Grotius, is conducive to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Juſtification, according to the Common Proteſtant, as it is to that of Satisfaction. There was a Surrogation of Chriſts Perſon in our room, for his making Satisfaction; there is no Surrogation of our Perſons in his room, for receiving Juſtification. Of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to us, as if we had performed it all, and of Faith whoſe Office it is to embrace that Righteouſneſs ſo imputed, there is not one word in the Sacred Letters, ſays the Learned Grotius: If the Biſhop before praiſed, dare follow that leading Man in the one Point, as in the other.

I will come now therefore to this new Book of Mr. Lobb, which he calls An Appeal, that is, from the Presbyterian Brethren, to the Biſhop of Worceſter, as Moderator between them. They produce the Biſhops Letter in their Vindication, and Mr. Lobb ſticks to that Letter, as vindicating him, and both are in the right; for when they agree to the Biſhop, they muſt agree alſo with one another. In this Appeal, Mr. Lobb, looking on Mr. Williams, as in the Chair of Mr. Baxter, to maintain his Doctrine, does collect many Puſſages out of Mr. Baxter, which are approaching to the Socinians, and ſuppoſes ſuch Doctrine to be inconſiſtent with the Doctrine of the Biſhop, that he maintains againſt Crellius, in his Book of the Sufferings of Chriſt. We ſhall ſee, if the Biſhop writer, whether he judges as Mr. Lobb, or rather ſhall ſee cauſe of Agreement, not Difference, with Mr. B. in this Point. That which I have to ſay is this.

There is a vaſt difference in the account that muſt be given of two Men, ſpeaking the ſame things about a Doctrine, which is in Controverſie between them, when one does bring them by way of Objection for Confutation of it, and the other by way of Explication, for the better clearing and maintaining it, in Anſwer to thoſe Objections. And there is a double Anſwer to an Objection, One is by Negation, p. 60when the matter is falſe; and the other is by Conceſſion, when the matter is true and reaſonable, but ſhewing that it affects not that Doctrine, which remains firm notwithſtanding that Conceſſion. This is the Caſe of Mr. Baxter in regard to the Socinian. The Socinians ſay many things rationally, and which are true; and Mr. Baxter in ſuch matters ſpares not to ſay the like; but the one ſays them for the Enervating, the other for the Elucidating the Doctrine of Satisfaction. It is moſt certain, that Mr. Baxter holds the ſame Doctrine which Grotius does, and follows him in the Explication, ſhewing the conſiſtency of it with Gods Free Grace, in the remiſſion of ſin, which two things Socinus thinks incompatible. To wit, in that when it is alius that ſuffers, it is aliud ſolvitur, and alſo it being not the Idem, but the Tantundem, which Chriſt ſuffered, and that it was not therefore the Law it ſelf, but the Law-giver he ſatisfied: Upon which accounts the Satisfaction was in it ſelf refuſable, a Solutio recuſabilis as he, after Grotius, does call it, that is, ſuch as God in Juſtice, was not bound to accept, but in Mercy through Grace he did accept it, and what is more, found out this way of Satisfaction himſelf for us, which makes it ſo much more of Grace; ſo that a Free Pardon, I ſay, appears notwithſtanding this Satisfaction, as in the Sacrifices of the Jews for ſin, there was an Attonement made by their Blood, in order to the Remiſſion. That Mr. Baxter does maintain this Doctrine of Grotius, this Doctrine that is the Marrow of the Old and New Teſtament, to wit, the Doctrine of Pardon upon Satisfaction againſt the Socinian, it is apparent I ſay, as that Mr. Lobb does hold Juſtification upon believing againſt Dr. Criſp. And if it ſhall farther appear, that there is nothing of all that he hath alledged againſt Mr. Baxter, is diſſonant to the mind of Grotius, and Biſhop Stillingfleet, he will I hope come off at laſt.

To this end let us obſerve, that this Learned Biſhop in his Letter, ſpeaking of Chriſts bearing our ſins, and diſtinguiſhing the deſert of puniſhment from the Puniſhment, and affirming rightly, that though Chriſt took on him the Obligation to undergo the Puniſhment, the Deſert could not be transferr'd upon him, he hath theſe words; No Man can ceaſe to deſerve Puniſhment for his own Faults, nor Deſerve that another ſhould be puniſhed for them. This Saying is ſo true, plain and reaſonable, that though Socinus, Crellius, or any of their Followers, ſhall ſtand upon it never ſo much, it is not to be denied, but granted for all that. Upon this Foundation it follows: If no Man can deſerve that another be puniſhed for him, then cannot we p. 61by our ſins deſerve Chriſts ſufferings. We deſerved the Puniſhment (it was a deſerved Puniſhment) but we deſerved not that he ſhould bear it. If our ſins then deſerved not that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer, they are not the Meritorious Cauſe of his Sufferings. If not the Meritorious Cauſe, no proper Cauſe, but the Occaſion, as Mr. Baxter is cited by Mr. Lobb. And to go on, the reaſon appears, It was not from the Law his Obligation to ſuffer did ariſe, for the Law puniſhes only the Tranſgreſſor: Noxu caput ſiquitur. It was not our Obligation therefore he took on him, for our Obligation is an Obligation of deſert (Obligatio Criminis, as it is call'd) but his only Ex contractu. And ſeeing it was not Obligatio ex Lege, it follows that the Sufferings he bore were Materially, not Formally, Puniſhment. It was the ſins of Mankind (ſays Mr. Baxter) that were the Occaſion of Chriſts Sufferings, called by ſome an aſſumed Meritorious Cauſe, becauſe by his conſent they were loco cauſae Meritoriae. End of Contro. C. 13. In which Words, and all other Paſſages collected by Mr. Lobb, what is there to be found fault with, unleſs an over perſpicacity, tightneſs, and conſonancy of Judgment in all his Pieces alike, made good all by the reaſon of that undeniable Conceſſion, that One Man cannot deſerve that another ſhould be puniſhed for his Faults, as the Biſhop has it.

And now to come from the Biſhop to Grotius; It muſt be acknowledged that Grotius hath made it his buſineſs to ſhew, that our ſins were the Impulſive, the Meritorious Impulſive Cauſe of Chriſts Sufferings, in his dying for us, which he hath proved no leſs ſubſtantially than critically, by the Prepoſitions foreign, 1 Cor. 15.3. Heb. 11.12. foreign, 1 Pet. 3.18. Gal. 1.4. Pro peccatis: foreign, cum accuſativo, Rom. 4.25: Propter peccuta; and Iſa. 53.5. Ob peccata noſtra; which all denote the Impulſive Cauſe (ſays he) and not the Final, againſt Socinus. Upon this, it is ſuppoſed by Mr. Lobb, that what is mentioned before, as ſaid by Mr. Baxter, is contrary to this Doctrine, and he hath cited ſuch Paſſages therefore as Heterodox: But Grotius himſelf muſt be the Man to Anſwer and Reconcile what he ſays, with what is ſaid by Mr. Baxter, which he does very ſufficiently, with one word, that Mr. Lobb hath not obſerved, at leaſt to make ſo good an uſe of it. For Socinus in oppoſition to the Doctrine of Satisfaction, denying that Chriſt could dye for ſin, as the Meritorious Cauſe of his Death, (which he will have to be only the Final Cauſe in turning us away from it) becauſe this muſt make him (as he argues) a ſinner, and one deſerving to die, Grotius takes him up, and tells us, that it was for ſin, but Imperſonaliter. This he p. 62explains in that our ſins did deſerve that Puniſhment ſhould be exacted, but ſuch was the goodneſs of God to ſpare us, and lay it upon his Son, who was wounded for our Tranſgreſſions, and through his ſtripes are we healed.

Now that God might do ſo without Injuſtice, Grotius brings many Inſtances, from David, from Ahab, from the Gibeonites, from the ſecond Commandment. What God himſelf does, or allows, muſt be juſt. David ſins, and his Child dies. Ahab is wicked, and his Puniſhment is deferred to his Sons Days. Saul is cruel to the Gibeonites, and his Grandchildren are put to death. The Fathers ſin, and God viſits their ſin on the Children, to three or four Generations. Here is Merit, as the Antecedent Cauſe of the Puniſhment, in all theſe Inſtances, and yet not the Merit of the Perſon or Perſons that ſuffer it. And what if I ſhall add here this great thing, (a thing wherein Divines are put ſo hard to it, in giving their account) even the greater Inſtance of Death paſſing on all Men (with their innocent Babes among them) for Adam's Tranſgreſſion. It is ſaid of Grotius, and that ſolidly in another place, Peccata paenae cauſa ſunt non aliter quam per modum Meriti; which being true, Socinus does indeed ſeem to argue ſtrongly, that therefore prater Dei & ipſius Chriſti voluntatem non poſſe ullam legitimam cauſam reddi mortis Chriſti niſi dicamus Chriſtum meritum fuiſſe ut moriretur. This Grotius, I ſay, takes up and Anſwers thus; Ineſt quidem in antecedente cauſa Meritum, ſed Imperſonaliter: From hence then we muſt diſtinguiſh, there is a double Merit of Puniſhment, Perſonal and Imperſonal. When Grotius tells us, that in Chriſts ſufferings there was truly Puniſhment, becauſe that, though God laid it on his Son, our ſins required the infliction; and Mr. Baxter ſays, no formal proper Puniſhment, becauſe not only without deſert in Chriſt, but which is more, becauſe our deſert could not be transferr'd on him, though the Puniſhment was, they both ſay true, (but rightly underſtood only) the one Perſonaliter, the other Imperſonaliter, as Grotious hath decided it.

And what is this in good earneſt any other but what the Biſhop hath in effect determined likewiſe? No Man can deſerve that another ſhould be puniſhed for him, and yet becauſe the Execution of Puniſhment depends on the wiſdom of God, a Change of Perſons (that is, of Chriſt to bear it in our room, Chriſt being willing, and the thing juſt) may intervene, ſays the Biſhop, in more words, and all appoſite. If Mr. Lobb then can but reconcile the Biſhop to himſelf, (unto whom he ſeems heartily to ſubſcribe) he muſt reconcile p. 63Mr. Baxter and Grotius, and be alſo reconciled to both. And that he may be ſo the more eaſily, the Biſhop hath given a Teſt for the diſcovery of the Orthodox from the Socinian, and Mr. Baxter ſhall thereby be tryed. The true Controverſie (ſays he) between the Socinian and us, is, Whether the Sufferings of Chriſt were to be conſidered as a Puniſhment for our ſins, and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them: or only as an Act of Dominion over an innocent Perſon, in order to his Advancement to Glory. The ſame is affirmed after him by our Presbyterian Brethren, and who is there can imagine ever Mr. Baxter denied that Chriſts ſufferings was a Puniſhment for our ſins, and his death a Propitiatory Sacrifice, for them? He hath made him ſin for us, ſays Paul (2 Cor. 5.21.) Upon which, God hath made Chriſt a Sacrifice for ſin, ſays Mr. Baxter, as others, which Socinus denies. Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own Body, on the Tree, ſays Peter, (1 Pet. 2.24.) Upon which, It was the puniſhment of our ſins, which as a Sacrifice, he bare in his ſufferings on the Croſs, ſays Mr. Baxter. But what need I quote any ſuch particular Sayings, when there is no Book of his that is great, that can be without ſuch a Teſtimony, over and over?

What then you may ask, ſhall we judge here of Mr. Lobb's great Induſtry? Shall we look on him as the Fly upon the Axle-tree, that hath raiſed all this Duſt for nothing? I will not ſay ſo, ſeeing Duſt there is, that muſt be raiſed, if our Wheels do but go, and our Chariot drive to its deſigned end, the quiet of the Brethren. It is not enough that we are agreed indeed in this Doctrine of Chriſts Satisfaction, though we are, unleſs we alſo underſtand and know it: Beſides that when we are agreed, there is need of ſome Anthority yet to tell us we are ſo, that our ſelves may believe it. The Compoſing a Controverſie by Silence, is but covering the Fire, as Mr. Lobb obſerves, not extinguiſhing it. If the Matter be ſuch, wherein we indeed do agree, the Ventilation of it muſt ſhew us the ſeeming Difference to be nothing, and ſo compel a Concord: If the Matter be ſuch wherein we really diſagree, there is ſtill need of beating it out, that the Corn may be diſcovered from the Chaff, by the threſhing.

There are two Points we know among us, both very great P…ts, and the one made difficult through the Intanglement of it with the Other. One is of Chriſts Satisfaction, wherein indeed we differ not: The other is of our Juſtification, wherein we do differ; and there are two ways of Explication, Mr. Baxter's, and the Common Proteſtants. Upon the Account now of this Difference in the latter p. 64Point, there are many are ſtumbled in their Explication of the former.

As for Mr. Lobb he has verily given occaſion for an Accomodation between the Brethren by his Appeal to the Biſhop, as to the Point of Satisfaction, for ſeeing indeed there is therein no difference, he is like to effect it: But as for the other, of Juſtification, Mr. Lobb is behind, and it will be a harder matter for any to moderate in it. One thing, in his ſtrowing his way hereunto, is to be preparatively conſidered. He has read (I ſuppoſe) Socinus de Servatore, as well as Grotius upon him, and Crellius then againſt Grotius, with other Socinians; as alſo Dr. Criſp, and other Antinomians, and he is not ignorant where the Water ſticks between us and them both. The Socinian accounts Chriſt to be a good Man, that taught us Holy Doctrine, and dyed to bear Teſtimony to the Truth of it, to the end we might believe it, and live according to it, and ſo be ſaved; and upon this account is our Saviour: But as for his dying for our ſins, any otherwiſe than for turning us away from them by his Doctrine and Example, which is making our ſins the Final Cauſe of his Death, he underſtands not; when as for the making it the Meritorious Cauſe of the Sufferings of an innocent Man, and thereby ſatisfactory to the Juſtice of God (he accounting the whole Office of his Prieſthood, that which did not reſpicere Deum, but Ʋs, not reconciling God to us, but us to God) for the obtaining our Impunity, this ſeems to theſe Men not reaſonable. On the other hand, the Antinomian, upon this Satisfaction as made to God by Chriſts ſufferings, underſtands our ſins to be ſo laid on Chriſt, as that it was not only our Puniſhment that he bare, but our Guilt, our Fault our Deſert: And whereas we are apt to ſay this is blaſphemous, becauſe Chriſt hereby is made a ſinner, and the greateſt of Sinners; they ſay No; for this is to ſay but what Luther, and our Orthodox Divines have ſaid before them, and there is no hurt in it, underſtanding it only (as they all do) by way of Imputation. For as in the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to us, we are accounted of God righteous as he, for our Juſtification; ſo in the Imputation of our ſins, he is made as ſinful as we, for making God Satisfaction. This they take up as the Common Doctrine of our former Proteſtants, which Mr. Lobb will do well to turn over, and examine, whether they who have wrote before Baxter among us, do not ordinarily ſay thus. That our ſins were imputed to Chriſt ſo as to be counted his. That he was not made only a Sacrifice for ſin, but even ſo ſin for us, that is, by Imputation, as we are made his Righteouſneſs. For p. 65ſeeing this is the perpetual rule of Gods Juſtice, that the ſame Soul that ſinneth ſhould dye, how can it ſtand with Gods Juſtice that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer for our ſins, if they were not in ſome ſort annexed to him? The Scripture evidently affirms, (Iſa. 53.6, 11, 12) That Chriſt bare not only the puniſhment of our ſins, but our ſins alſo; what aileth then the Jeſuite, ſo boldly to deny, that our ſins are imputed to Chriſt? Seeing then (again) the Scripture ſo ſpeaks, why ſhould we doubt to ſpeak as the Scripture does, that Chriſt was for us counted a Sinner or Tranſgreſſ…r, yet in himſelf remained Holy, Juſt and Righteous ſtill? So we in Chriſt are verily reputed righteous, though by nature we are Unjuſt and Unrighteous. This I quote out of Willet's Synopſis, being Paſſages lying near together, (See Cont. 19. of Juſtification) ſuppoſing the like to be common in others.

In ſuch Paſſages then as theſe, which we ſhall find in former Divines, we ſee no ſuch Diſtinction made, between our Merit of the Puniſhment, and the Puniſhment, as we now make, with the Biſhop, to whom Mr. Lobb does ſubſcribe. It is eſſential to Puniſhment, that it be inflicted for ſin, but not eſſential that it be inflicted on the party himſelf that ſinned, ſays Grotius; and in another place before quoted, that ſin is the cauſe of Puniſhment no otherwiſe but per modum Meriti. Now Chriſt having himſelf never ſinned, if the Merit of our ſins was not laid upon him together with the Puniſhment, how was it per modum Meriti that he was puniſhed? Mr. Lobb knows whether Crellius does not urge ſomething to this purpoſe againſt Grotius, and if he can ſolve the difficulty, to defend Grotius, that which he muſt grant to do it, will defend Mr. Baxter againſt him. But as for the Antinomian, who ſtands upon this, as no leſs neceſſary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction, than that Chriſts Righteouſneſs be ours, as neceſſary to the Doctrine of Juſtification, and accounts it to be no other but the Common Opinion of the Proteſtant, it does appear that ſome bank or bound muſt be ſet to this Sea, leſt the opinion formerly received as Orthodox over-flow into Antinomianiſm; and I muſt give notice to Mr. Lobb, and thoſe that retain and uphold it, that if they perſiſt, they muſt come thus far, as to ſay that on one ſide the Believer is by Imputation as righteous as Chriſt himſelf; and on the other that Chriſt by Imputation is a ſinner as we, which to put in Dr. Criſp's words, is that Chriſt was as compleatly ſinful as we, and we as compleatly righteous as he, wherein, as before, they conceived no hurt, becauſe underſtood by them only by way of Imputation. If Mr. Lobb will recede from the Common Opinion here, he muſt recede from all thoſe Notions that are concatenated together in the Explication of it.

p. 66And what is meant by this Imputation, in the Senſe of our Common Proteſtant? The Imputation of a thing to a Perſon, is the accounting it his, in regard to our dealing with him. In Gods imputing our ſins to Chriſt, he does account (as they ſay) him to be a ſinner, or them to be his, and does ſo deal with him, in laying our Puniſhment upon him. In Gods imputing to us Chriſts Righteouſneſs, he accounts his Righteouſneſs to be ours, and ſo deals with us in juſtifying us by it. So they. But how can God account our ſins to be Chriſts, and his righteouſneſs Ours, when really they are not ſo, and Gods Judgment is according to Truth? They muſt Anſwer, If by really we mean Phyſically, it is indeed impoſſible that our Qualities ſhould become Chriſts, and his ours; there is none that underſtands it ſo: but if by really we mean only legally, in ſenſu forenſi, in conſpectu fori, or in Law-ſenſe, as Divines expreſs it, it is really ſo (they will ſay) that our ſins are laid on Chriſt, and his righteouſneſs made ours, or elſe that neither could Chriſt have ſuffered, or We be juſtified. But what yet is this Legally, or in Law-ſenſe, which is to be conceived by a Quatenus, as God deals with us according to Law? Why our Divines ſuppoſe that Chriſt did take on him our Perſon, and ſo our Sins, and as acting in our Perſon, what he did and ſuffered in our behalf, is accounted of God to be done and ſuffered by us, even as what my Attorney at Law does for me, it is in Law, or as I am to be dealt with according to Law, all one as if it were done by me. Here then we muſt make a ſtand, and conſider whether Chriſt indeed was ſuch a Repreſentative, as that in him as our Legal or Civil Perſon, we are accounted of God to have fulfilled the Law, both in Obedience to the Precept, and bearing the Puniſhment, ſo as to be perfectly righteous, in his Righteouſneſs, and accordingly juſtified. We muſt come thus home, or ſay nothing.

There is another Explication therefore that is made of this Imputation by Mr. Baxter. There is a double ſenſe of it. There is an Imputation, or accounting a thing to a Perſon as his, either in ſe, or in the Effect. Mr. Baxter denies not Imputation, but explains it. An Imputation of our ſins to Chriſt, and his righteouſneſs to us in this Law ſenſe mentioned, is the Imputation in ſe, which as the former commonly received Doctrine, and unſound, Mr. Baxter diſowns: But an Imputation in regard to the Effects, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, being truly the Meritorious Cauſe of our Remiſſion, Juſtification, Adoption is imputed (imputatur datur adjudicatur, ſays he) to us, as the price given to the Victor, is imputed to the Captive in his Deliverance, is that which he ſays, with Bradſhaw and p. 67Grotius (I'll add Forbes modeſtae Queſtiones) he does maintain. Meth. The. Part 3. P. 54. The Scholaſtically Learned and Induſtrious Mr. Wotton, has this Diſtinction in other words; for ſpeaking of Chriſts being made ſin, and Chriſts righteouſneſs ours, he tells us, it muſt be underſtood not Formaliter, but Effectivè. This is all one as not in ſe, but in the Effects. Thus our ſins are imputed to Chriſt in his bearing only the Puniſhment, when by an Imputation in ſe, or formaliter, he muſt bear the merit alſo: And thus ſhall Chriſts Righteouſneſs become ours (Effectivè) though we are but Meritoriouſly, and not Formally juſtified by it.

As for Reaſons againſt Imputation in the Common Senſe before mentioned, to wit, that God does not look on us to have obeyed and ſuffered in Chriſt as our Legal Perſon, and what follows, there are ſo many in Mr. Baxter's Books, that I need not bring any; Only one, among the other Antinomian Conſequences, I will mention, as what is moſt obvious and convincing, which is, that if this were ſo, then ſhould the Elect be immediately freed from Puniſhment, and immediately juſtified, before they believed or repented, or without Faith and Repentance, for no terms could be impoſed on them, in order to their Juſtification and Glory, if they be accounted already to have fulfilled the Law in Chriſt. This being a Doctrine therefore ſo directly, as dangerouſly contrary to the Goſpel, it is to be diſcarded.

And yet for once I will thus argue, and call Mr. Lobb to hearken to me. There is nothing can be imputed to us, but either that which we have not, and then it is imputed that we may have it, that is, to have it made ours, or reputed as ours: Or elſe if we have it, it muſt be imputed to ſome other end than to have it, or for ſome other thing than that it ſelf, which is imputed. Now if Chriſt did obey and ſuffer in our Perſons, or as our Legal Perſon, ſo as in Lawſenſe we have, and are accounted to have obeyed and ſuffered in him, then can his Righteouſneſs (conſiſting of his Obedience and Sufferings) be neither imputed to us, that we may have it, or to be made ours, or reckoned to us as ours, ſeeing we have it already, It is ours, it is reckoned as ours, in that it was performed in our Perſons: Nor can it be imputed to us to any other end, or for any other thing, but Ad Juſtitiam, for Righteouſneſs, (juſtifying Righteouſnes) which is to the ſame end and for the ſame thing, and can be no other. Mr. Lobb here is a Man of Senſe, and can ſee Reaſon, and of Ingenuity (if any other be) ſo as if it convince him, to acknowledge it. If he keep to the Common Opinion he cann't Anſwer to Socinus. There can p. 68be no Imputation upon this account, of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to any. But if he come off, and ſay Chriſt ſuffered not for us, in the Senſe of in our Perſon, ſo as in Law-ſenſe, we muſt be reckoned to have ſuffered and ſatisfied in him, but ſuffered for us, in our ſtead, in the ſenſe only, as to ſave us from ſuffering, then is there room for an Imputation of his Satisfaction to us, that it may be made ours, or accounted to us as ours, which otherwiſe is Chriſts only. But how then ours, or accounted ours? Not ours in ſe, (for that brings us back to having ſatisfied in his Perſon) but ours in the Effects. This, as I take it, is a matter of deep Conſideration: I appeal to Mr. Lobb's, as well as to Mr. W's, own impartial Judgment.

One thing remains, as yet not ſuggeſted by any other. I have intimated that the entanglement of the two Points, [Satisfaction and Juſtification] in our diſcourſing of them one with another, does give occaſion of clouding them, and that it will be an edifying matter to endeavour to ſever them ſo, by putting a right difference between them, in relation to the Controverſie, as we may bring ſome light that will clear our Underſtandings in the Doctrine of them both. To this end then let us know, that when the Scripture rells us of Chriſts dying for us, and bearing our ſins, with the like Expreſſions, and we are agreed againſt the Socinians, that what Chriſt did and ſuffered for us, was not only bono noſtro, but loco noſtro, in our ſtead, our room, our place: Here is the thing I offer to Conſideration, that what is done by Chriſt loco noſtro, muſt be applied to his making God Satisfaction for us, not to the Point of our Juſtification. For explaining this, let us farther know (as ſignified before) that to do or ſuffer any thing in anothers ſtead or room, is to do or ſuffer it to ſave the other from doing or ſuffering. Now in the Point of Satisfaction, there is nothing that we do, or is required of us to do in order to make it, or procure it to be made, ſo that what was done or ſuffered, in order thereunto, muſt certainly be in our room or ſtead, we being perfectly free from doing or ſuffering our ſelves any thing towards it: But as for the Point of Juſtification, it is as certain that there is our Duty required, our Faith and Repentance, and ſincere Walking in order to it, and there is nothing done or ſuffered by Chriſt, that frees us from it. It is true, that the perfect Obedience of Chriſt to the Law of Works, is to be accounted (in my apprehenſion, I have ſaid) to be perform'd in our place, ſtead, or room (and not only in regard to his own Perſon as Juſtitia perſonae) becauſe we are freed we know from that Obligation, as the Condition of Life, which we were by nature under, p. 69and that therefore his Obedience, as well as Sufferings, I do account, does go into his Satisfaction: But as for that Evangelical Obedience that is required of us, our believing, our repenting in order to our Pardon and Juſtification, there is nothing done by Chriſt in the room of it. The fulfilling the Law by Chriſt (which he did both in regard to the Precept and Sanction) was in our room, place or ſtead, in order to his Satisfaction, but his fulfilling the Law was not in our place, ſtead or room, in order to our Juſtification. It was in order to it, for obtaining Pardon and Juſtification upon the Goſpel Conditions; but it was not in our room, place or ſtead, in order to it. Whether in ſaying this, I ſay ſomething to the purpoſe, or no, I appeal to the Judicious Biſhop. Only I muſt add thus much, that this is that which (in effect) I have ſaid in former Books, ſpeaking to that Commutation of Perſons, which Dr. Owen hath ſtood ſo much upon, and now Mr. Lobb, that it is to be acknowledged, as to the Impetration, but not to go into the Application of our Redemption.

The Death of Chriſt muſt be loco noſtro, as it is the paying the price, the making Satisfaction, and ſo the impetrating the Benefits we have by it; but it can be onelyonly bono noſtro, as to any Benefit it ſelf, which is all one as bono noſtro only in the Application. Pray ſee Pacif. P. 30, 31, 32. Upon which words (Repeated, Right. of God. P. 35, 36.) I have deſired Mr. William's, and Mr. Clark's, and now beg the Biſhop's fuller Conſideration.

The Arminians upon the Point of Satisfaction are cautious in what they grant, as Mr. Baxter is in both, and they will have Chriſts ſufferings to be a Vice-puniſhment, or Vicarious Puniſhment, rather than a proper and formal Puniſhment: Which Expreſſion ought not to offend Mr. Lobb, nor any worthy Perſon, becauſe when the Scripture ſays, Chriſt died for us, and we underſtand by [for us▪] Vice noſtri. in our room or ſtead, the Death or Puniſhment it ſelf muſt be in our ſtead, that is, a Vicarious Puniſhment, how can it be otherwiſe? And becauſe there is nothing can be urged more effectually againſt the Doctrine of Socinus than this, that the Juſtice of God requiring a Puniſhment to be inflicted, according to his Law for our breaking it, God was contented or ſatisfied with a Vicarious Puniſhment, inflicting one (though not all that was in the Obligation) on his Son. The Puniſhment in this ſenſe being Vicarious, the Meritorious Cauſe, our ſins are accordingly ſaid Pro-meritorious, loco cauſae meritoriae, or an Aſſumed Meritorious Cauſe, as Mr. Baxter before, and the infliction as Perſonal, be Materially not Formally Puniſhment. If this offends any, when ſaid by Epiſcopius, Curcellaeus, p. 70Limborch, whom they ſuſpect as favouring Socinianiſm, it o…ght …n when ſaid by Mr. Baxter, whom none can ſuſpect. Nay, though there be ſome Socinians who, under ſuch Expreſſions, do ſhelter themſelves, and by appearing Orthodox, ſeduce others (which may raiſe ſome zeal in Mr. Lobb againſt them, not conſidering their end and ours in ſuch Expreſſions, theirs being (as hinted before) at laſt to deny, ours to own Satisfaction): Yet is not this ſufficient to conclude againſt the ſame, becauſe there is more of Antidote than Danger by them. For ſeeing all proper Puniſhment is for ſin, and ſin cauſes Puniſhment (as hath been ſaid) by way of Merit, and no otherwiſe, the Merit of our ſins, as well as our ſins in the Puniſhment muſt be laid on Chriſt, or elſe it is no proper Puniſhment, and if the Merit of our ſins as well as the Puniſhment, be granted to be laid on Chriſt, we are then ingulph'd into Antinomianiſm, according to this excellent Biſhop, the worthy Dr. Edwards, and Mr. Lobb himſelf aſſenting to them, and what Mr. Lobb hath to ſay to this, he muſt conſider.

The Caſe therefore being this, that either we muſt admit that our ſins in the Merit, were laid on Chriſt as well as the Puniſhment, or elſe that Chriſts ſufferings was no proper formal Puniſhment: I ſuppoſe Mr. Lobb will rather fall in with Mr. Baxter than Dr. Criſp, and yield in ſome ſenſe at leaſt, that it was no proper Puniſhment, which is verily true, as proper is oppoſed to Vicarious, for a Vicarious Puniſhment it was for certain, being inflicted on Another, and not the Perſon or Perſons that ſinned, and being alſo not the ſame (for that ſhould have been Hell to them) but an Equivalent, that ſo it might be Satisfaction, not Payment, which would preclude Remiſſion: And ſeeing it was not the ſame infliction, nor inflicted on the ſinner himſelf, the Obligation to undergo it, could not ariſe from the Law, which puniſhes only the Tranſgreſſor of it, and conſequently, tho' Materially, yet Formally was not Puniſhment as laid on the innocent Perſon of Chriſt. All this Mr. Baxter ſays, and it muſt be ſaid as true, plain, undeniable: and nevertheleſs there being a Puniſhment due to us for our ſins, and our ſins the Meritorious Cauſe of it, and the Obligation to the ſuffering it, ariſing from the Law as broken by us, here is conſequently a proper formal Puniſhment to be inflicted Imperſonally, as Grotius before. And it being not againſt the Juſtice of God to take this Puniſhment Imperſonally conſidered, and lay it either on Another, or the Perſon or Perſons that ſinned, ſo long as no diſhonour to his Law, nor prejudice to his Government comes thereby, Severity being ſhewen againſt ſin, as pitty to the ſinner, and Chriſt Jeſus being willing to take on him the Puniſhment (no wrong being done to the willing) it being his Fathers and his Own Appointment, that he who was the Second Perſon in the Trinity, ſhould become Man, to be a fit Perſon for the Work, it pleaſed God and him, that he did actually take on him this Puniſhment, in ſuch a manner as he was capable of it, (that is, not in regard to the Merit, or that he ſhould be held longer than he was under it) and ſuitable to ſuch a Perſon (which made his Temporal ſuffering an Equivalent) ſo that by enduring the ſame in our behalf, Satiſfaction was made, and God thereupon relaxes his Law of Works, by paſſing a New Law, or remedying Law of Grace, whereby Deliverance and Life, Pardon and Salvation is to be had on the Terms of the Goſpel.

This is that Doctrine, which whoſoever imbraces, be he Arminian or Calviniſt, let him be Epiſcopius or Baxter, Mr. Williams or Mr. Lobb, it is all one for that: Bring us the Teſt, let us ſee their Books, and if we find in them a conſtant acknowledgment that the ſufferings of Chriſt was a Puniſhment for our ſins, and a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them, let them differ as they will in accuracy, we are at Unity in the Point. Only let not any one that is more accurate about it, deſpiſe him that is leſs accurate, nor he that is leſs accurate be ſcandalized at him that is more accurate, and cautious, leſt by denying or contradicting what is reaſonable to be granted, he ſhould harden the Adverſary, and blunt his own Faith: Knowing this, that be he as cautious as he can, he will hardly be out of danger of one of the Extreams, and alſo that (as I humbly think) he muſt however be more accurate than to go the Common way of the ordinary Proteſtant, or by avoiding the extream of Socinianiſm on one hand, he will fall into Antinomianiſm on the other, into which many are already fallen that diſclaim it.

In ſhort, The ſufferings of Chriſt may be conſidered Perſonally, in Relation to himſelf; or Imperſonally, in relation to us. Perſonally, in relation to himſelf, there being no Merit of his own, and no Merit of ours imputable to that Holy Perſon, his ſufferings could not be formally Penal: Imperſonally, in relation to us, the Puniſhment being in our room, was ours, and conſequently muſt be a formal proper Puniſhment, and this Commutation only, thus conſtrued, is enough for the explaining and upholding the Doctrine of Satisfaction.

And yet again, that this Buſineſs, this difficult Buſineſs, the reconciling Mr. Baxter and Grotius, be diſpatched, and thoroughly p. 72diſpatch'd, I muſt ſay this over. Here is Puniſhment, and deſerved Puniſhment, deſerved by our ſins as the Meritorious Cauſe of it, and therefore Puniſhment, not Pain only, but proper Puniſhment, and that to be inflicted ſed Imperſonaliter, with Grotius, and there is our Point maintained: But that this Puniſhment is inflicted on Chriſt and not on the ſinner, there is no Cauſe (beſides the fitneſs of the Perſon) can be rendred but only the will, the good will of Father and Son in pitty to Mankind, which is ſaid alſo by Grotius, and (in effect) acknowledged by the Biſhop, when he ſays, That One Man for his ſin cannot deſerve anothers Puniſhment; and therefore when Mr. Baxter ſays, our ſins were the Occaſion of Chriſts ſufferings, with thoſe other Expreſſions, the Occaſion, and Occaſion only, but of what the Occaſion only? Of the Puniſhment? No, (there was Cauſe of that, an Impulſive Cauſe, that is, an Efficient Protatarctick or Meritorious Cauſe, to wit, our ſins) but of the laying it on Chriſt, and not us; take it ſo, and there is nothing to be found fault with in what Mr. Baxter ſays, (unleſs it be that his deeper Judgment than others (I have ſaid) be faulty) by Mr. Lobb or any other ingenuous Man, any more than there was in what Grotius, ſays, by Revenſperg, who falls upon him as Socinianizing againſt the Orthodox; becauſe he did not maintain, that Chriſt underwent the very infernal Pains which we were to ſuffer, ſeeing Calvin, and ſome others after him, did ſo teach and conſtrue Chriſts deſcent into Hell, by his enduring ſuch Pains in his Agony, as thoſe are there, which is a private Opinion, and Grotius accounts Chriſts ſufferings not the Idem, but Tantundem; and thereupon (I ſay) did Ravenſperg fall upon him, as one that did but betray our Cauſe, and agree with Socinus (which he hath ſo ſubſtantially defended againſt him) in his excellent Book of Satisfaction.

There remains two or three Notes more, I muſt have upon Mr. Lobb.

One is, that whereas he obſerves, that Mr. Williams does make the Obligation that lay upon Chriſt to ſuffer for us, or to make Satisfaction by his ſufferings to ariſe from the Mediatorial Law only, the Law of Redemption, or Commandment of his Father, which was proper to him, through his voluntary Sponſion or Submiſſion to it, and not from the Law of Works which was a Bond that he never was in, neither at firſt, as Mr. Lobb grants, nor at laſt, in regard to his ſufferings, becauſe he never brake it, he argues from thence both ſagaciouſly as induſtriouſly, that Mr. Williams muſt hold therefore with Mr. Baxter, that the ſufferings of Chriſt was not properly or p. 73formally penal, and when this is the only Accuſation in theſe Sheets, which he aims at, if Mr. Williams denies the Accuſation, Mr. Lobb hath carried his Cauſe, for the Accuſation is true, the Conſequence being irrefragible. But will Mr. Williams deny that he herein agrees with Mr. Baxter? I ſuppoſe he will not. What, though Dr. Edwards, and Biſhop Stillingfleet, by whoſe Letters he is vindicated, do ſay that Chriſts ſufferings were a proper Puniſhment, and ſtand upon it ſo much, as if the holding thereof was neceſſary to the maintaining the Doctrine of Satisfaction (if Mr. Lobb be not miſtaken in his Conſtruction of them) will he for all that ſtand by Mr. Baxter? Yes: I think he will, becauſe he muſt, the Conſequence does hold him. I muſt confeſs, Mr. Lobb hath put theſe three Perſons here hard to it. He hath put Mr. Williams to it, who muſt either forſake Mr. Baxter, and ſo himſelf, or elſe diſagree here with thoſe two worthy Men, his Vindicators. He hath put the Biſhop to it, who muſt forſake his Reaſon in what he hath ſo clearly and truly aſſerted, That one Man cannot deſerve that another ſhould be puniſhed for his Faults, or elſe he muſt conſent with Mr. Baxter, and conſequently acknowledge, that ſeeing Chriſt himſelf never ſinned, and our ſins in the Merit of them, could not be laid on him, his ſufferings were Materially, but Formally no Puniſhment. And he hath put the worthy Dr. to it, who being willing to ſhew his kindneſs to Mr. Williams, in bringing him off, is carried, whether he will or no, to ſtand by Mr. Lobb.

And notwithſtanding this, there is no hurt done, unleſs the giving occaſion of letting out more Light be any hurt, for Mr. Williams and Mr. Baxter, as well as Mr. Lobb, Dr. Edwards, and the Biſhop, and Grotius do all maintain the Doctrine of Satisfaction againſt Socinus, one as well as the other. That Mr. Williams does, the Doctor, the Biſhop, and his Preabyterian Brethren, do quote ſuch Paſſages as juſtifies him, beſides his own conſtant Profeſſion. That Mr. Baxter does, I ſhall quote one Paſſage only in his Methodus Theol. In his Aphoriſms he propoſed the Queſtion, (as I remember) What is that which is the firſt immediate, or chief End or Benefit of Chriſts Death? And he ſpeaking then with Heſitancy, he does here (in his 17th Determination, Part 3. Cap. 1.) after ſo long ſtudy give this peremptory Reſolution, Proximum mortis Chriſti Effectum ſeu finemeſſe ſatisfactionem Deo offenſo per Juſtitiae ejus demonſtrationem: Remotiorem, peccatorum nostrorum remiſſionem & ſalutis donum ſub conditione fideist paenitentiae per foedus Gratiae. That Man who underſtood himſelf ſo well as he did, that does declare this for his ſettled and determined p. 74Judgment, that the chief and moſt immediate End, Effect Fruit or Benefit of Chriſts Death, is the ſatisfaction of an Offended God, through the demonſtration of his Juſtice thereby, muſt be acquitted from Socintaniſm, by all the World that know what Socinus wrote: And that Man (I will add) that does maintain the Doctrine of Election, according to Auguſtine and the Synod of Dort, however free and conciliating he be otherwiſe in the five Points, muſt be acquitted alſo from Arminianiſm, by all thoſe that know what Arminius, Epiſcopius, Curcelleus, Limborch and the Antiſynodaliſts have wrote. And therefore I do acknowledge here the Honeſty, that is, Truth and Candour, of Mr. Lobb in his Epiſtle, where he diſcharges Mr. Baxter from ſuch Accuſations; and though he looks in his Sheets like one that read Mr. Baxter only to carp and find fault with him, (when in my Reading the ſame things, I muſt confeſs I did look, and do ſtill, on all as light and Inſtruction) I do yet, for all that apprehend and hope a better end in it, to wit, that upon his propoſing theſe Expreſſions to ſuch worthy and ingenuous Perſons, as the Doctor and the Biſhop, he may, by their return, in time have ſuch a moderated and ſmoothed State of the whole Matter (they taking in the light Mr. Baxter offers with them) as ſhall be reconciliatory both to himſelf, and to his Brethren with him.

If by Chriſts dying for us, and for our ſins, there is nothing will ſerve the Common Doctrine (which is that Mr. Lobb upholds, in the behalf of his Brethren, reſerving, I will ſuppoſe, the Liberty of following Truth hereafter whereſoever he finds it) but this, that God did look on Chriſt, as appearing in our Perſon, and ſo judged and condemned him for a ſinner, as one (I ſay, being in our Perſon) that deſerved his Wrath and Curſe, and therefore laid it on him, whereby our full and proper Puniſhment was Born, the Law Executed, and Juſtice Done: and if any will add with Ravenſperg farther, that the torments of Hell in his Agony and Suffering on the Croſs, when he cried, Eli, Eli, lamaſabacthani, were laid on his Soul, that nothing of the very Puniſhment may be abated him, who does not ſee that ſuch a ſatisfaction is ſo ſtrait laced, as will not fit the Perſon of Chriſt, and that ſuch Divines do more to drive Men to Socinianiſm than Socinus himſelf could, while they ſtand upon ſuch a Satisfaction as no reaſonable Man can**Vera ſatisfactio eſt plen… deliti perſolutio: Ʋnuſquiſ que noſtram mortem aternam divinae iſti juſtitiae debelat, ſays Socinus. De Ser. l. 3. c. 3. receive.

p. 75And whereas Mr. Lobb therefore, and other ſuch more conſidering Perſons, do ſee a neceſſity to come off, and allow that it was not and could not be our very Puniſhment it ſelf, it being enough that Chriſt was ſurrogated under the Primordial Nature of the Puuiſhment (to uſe his words) though not under the horrid Circumſtances, we our ſelves were to ſuffer; and does yield moreover, that though the Puniſhment, yet the Deſert of our ſins could not be laid on Chriſt, (becauſe that would run him into Antinomianiſm) which Conceſſions do draw after them ſuch other ſuitable Notions, as Mr. Baxter offers; ſo that at laſt we muſt come to this, that the Ends of Gods Law and Government being ſecured, it muſt be left to the Wiſdom of the Father and Son to agree upon what ſatiſfaction pleaſed them, for demonſtrating Divine Righteouſneſs againſt Sin, and Mercy toward the Sinner, and that be ſufficient for us to believe. For, I muſt add, that ſo long as we agree in our belief, that Chriſts Death was a Ranſom for our Redemption, and a Sacrifice for our Sins, in the Senſe of the Types of old, where the ſin of the Sacrificer was laid on the Beaſt, and the Blood thereof an Expiation for it, to the end he might be forgiven it; what matter is it tho' one holds this Death to be Formally, another only Materially our Puniſhment, or that one ſays, our ſins were the proper Meritorious Cauſe, and the other the Remote Cauſe or Occaſion of it, they both hold it Satisfaction, and intend the maintaining the Doctrine thereof.

Proper Puniſhment is an infliction of a Natural Evil on a Perſon, for Committing a Moral Evil: But Chriſt that endured the Natural Evil, never committed any Moral Evil, and how can that be proper Puniſhment? The Puniſhment laid on him, was not due to him, but to us: The Puniſhment d…e to us was Hell, but his Sufferings only Temporal Death: Is not here then one Puniſhment in the room of another, as one Perſon ſuffering in the room of another? And what Legerdemain can cover the Eye of any, as not to ſee this a Vicarious Puniſhment? Again, when all proper Puniſhment is for ſin, as the Meritorious Cauſe of it, and Chriſt ſinned not, and our ſins cannot (according to the Biſhop) deſerve that another ſhould be puniſhed for them; ſo that here is Puniſhment without Deſert; how is this proper Formal Puniſhment? The Law by vertue of its Sanction, puniſhes none but the Breakers of the Preceptive Part, and how then can theſe ſufferings ariſe Ex obligatione-Legis? If they did ariſe from the Obligation of the Law, then was the Law executed in Chriſts ſuffering, but Chriſt ſuffered that the Law might not be executed, but the Penitent Believing Sinner be pardoned.— I might go on and offer other p. 76Poſitions, according to what is ſaid by Mr. Baxter in his Eighteenth Deterininations (Math. Theol. Part 3. Cap. 1. before quoted) and Mr. Lobb, the Dr, or Biſhop, may as well deny that two and three makes five, as fundamentally to deny any of them, and therefore I ſhall forbear more, being come already to the Compoſition which Grotius, in that one word before, hath made for us. Imperſonaliter theſe ſufferings as due to us, may be ſaid to be properly, formally, Puniſhment, Puniſhment for ſin, as the Meritorious Cauſe of it, Puniſhment ariſing from the Obligation of the Law, upon our breaking it, puniſhment that was the Curſe of the Law, and which he bare, when if we had our ſelves born it, it had been the Execution of the Law, the Execution whereof theſe Divines, who are for the Common Doctrine, apprehending (as Socinus) to be proper Satisfaction (wherein they are perfectly out, for that, according to the Schools, is contrary to it) it makes them ſo extream, as before mentioned, in their Doctrine of Satisfaction, as no Man unprejudiced can abide it: But Perſonaliter, on the other hand, as theſe ſufferings are laid upon Chriſt, inſtead of us (that is, inſtead, not as in our Perſon, but inſtead, that we might eſcape them) they are Nominally and Materially indeed, but they are not, they cannot be Formally and Properly Penal. They ariſe not from ſin, as the Metitorious Cauſe, nor from the Obligation of the Law, and are no Execution of it. Why ſhould I go on to ſay the ſame things over and over? I will make bold to conclude with Mr. Baxter againſt any, if there be any that think they have more ſagacity herein than he, to oppoſe him, and ſay, As the Perſon that ſuffered was loco noſtri, the ſufferings were loco paenae, our ſins loco cauſae meritoriae, his Sponſion loco obligationis ex Lege, an Equivalent loco Debiti, and loco ſolutionis here is at laſt effected proper Satisfaction. Let Mr. Baxter's Adverſaries be who they will, and let them do what they can, they ſhall never make more of it.

Another thing which Mr. Lobb obſerves of Mr. Williams, that I muſt alſo take notice of, is this. As he does hold, that the Obligation which lay on Chriſt to do as he did, aroſe altogether from the Mediatorial Law; ſo does he hold that the Righteouſneſs which conſiſts in his Performance of that Law, is that which is imputed to the Believer for his Juſtification, wherein there does manifeſtly appear that ſlip of Mr. Williams, which I have before mentioned, for ſeeing that Law, and the Righteouſneſs thereof, did belong only, or was proper to the Mediator, it is impoſſible it ſhould be imputed otherwiſe to us, than in the Effects, which when Mr. Baxter ſaw p. 77and aſſerted; and Mr. Williams does follow him in what he ſays elſe, and yet leaves him in this: I cannot but give him again friendly Warning to retract that ſlip, for otherwiſe the whole Doctrine he is engaged in, which he hath knit together out of Mr. Baxter, and endeavours to maintain by this one Stitch let fall (if it be not amended) muſt unravel, and come to nothing. The Argument I have uſed in my Pacification, (Pag. 40.) which Book I expected to have been anſwered by him, or the Truth (as to what concerns him) acknowledged, before this.

The laſt thing I will Note in Mr. Lobb is, Though a righteouſneſs (he ſays) which Anſwers the Obligation (in the plural, that is therefore both of the Preceptive and Comminatory Part) of the violated Law of Works, be neceſſary to our Juſtification, yet we are not juſtified by the Law, becauſe we did it not our ſelves as the Law required; but by the Goſpel he apprehends, in that the Goſpel provides us ſuch a Righteouſneſs (that is, Chriſts Righteouſneſs, made ours by Faith) as anſwers the Law, that we may be juſtified. Here is that apprehended, which is as clearly thought, as any one that will maintain the Common Doctrine can ſpeak: but I muſt Anſwer him, That if the Goſpel muſt provide us ſuch a Righteouſneſs as anſwers the Law, that we may be juſtified by it, then muſt that neceſſarily preſuppoſe, that it is by the Law we are to be judged: but when indeed that is not ſo, for if it be by the Goſpel, and not the Law (as himſelf accounts) that we are juſtified, it is by the Goſpel we muſt be judged (for to be judged is either to be juſtified or condemned) and accordingly it is not the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which anſwers the Law that the Goſpel provides for us, but it is the Righteouſneſs of God, that is manifeſted without the Law, a Righteouſneſs revealed in the Goſpel, in oppoſition to the Works of the Law, that it hath provided, for the Sinners Juſtification.

To be more full and ſatisfactory, as we draw to an End. The Law is ſometimes taken ſtrictly, as it requires perfect Obedience to its Precepts, that we may live in them, and ſo it is oppoſed to the Goſpel: Or it is taken largly, for the whole Doctrine of the Old Teſtament, which contains Promiſes of Pardon and Life, upon Mens Faith and Repentance, as well as the Goſpel. In the firſt Senſe St. Paul ſays, the Righteouſneſs of God is manifeſt without the Law: In the ſecond, that yet it hath the witneſs of the Law. and the Prophets. For Moſes tells us, that God is Gracious, Merciful, forgiving Iniquities, Tranſgreſſion and Sin, and the Prophets call on the People to Repent, and caſt away their Tranſgreſſions, that they may live and not die, p. 78which is all one with what the Goſpel Teaches. It is ſtrange now that when this Doctrine of Faith and Repentance, which is ſo plain in both Teſtaments [The juſt Man ſhall live by his faith] ſhould be obſcured by the Doctrine of Imputation, which is a deviſed Doctrine, not in Scripture; I mean the Imputation of Christs Righteouſneſs, in the ſenſe of per modum formae, or formalis cauſae, when in the ſenſe of per modum Meriti, it does but explain and confirm the ſame: Inſomuch as thoſe Scriptures, which are uſually brought for ſuch Imputation, do effectually prove the contrary to it. I mean, that it is not Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed to us, but our Faith or Evangelick Righteouſneſs imputed to us, for Righteouſneſs, that juſtifies us. This may appear by the Explication of ſuch as theſe Scriptures following.

The Jews, being ignorant of Gods Righteouſneſs, and going about to eſtabliſh their own, have not ſubmitted to the Righteouſneſs of God: That is, not to that way of becoming Righteous, which God hath founded or inſtituted, and ſo declared in the Goſpel, which in oppoſition to their Righteouſneſs, is by Faith in Jeſus Chriſt, For Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs, to every one that believeth. The Law in general was an Inſtruction, in order to the coming of the Meſſiah, that we ſhould believe in him, and obey him when come, and thereby be juſtified and ſaved. So the Apoſtle otherwhere, Wherefore the Law was our School-Maſter unto Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by Faith. By Chriſts being the end of the Law then, we may underſtand, either, The end, or deſign of the Law, requiring perfect Obedience, which no Man does or can perform, is to drive us to Chriſt. But how drive us to him? Is it to his Righteouſneſs, to be made ours? No, there is no ſuch thing ſaid any where, but to him for Righteouſneſs, through believing: Or, and for, Chriſt is the end of the Law in that he, by the Obedience of his Life and Death, fulfilling the ſame in our behalf, hath freed us from the Condition thereof, requiring only our Faith inſtead of That, and ſo Righteouſneſs now (or Juſtification) is to every one who without the Works of the Law, does perform the Terms of the Goſpel.

There is no Condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus, who walk not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit. That is, They that are in Chriſt by Faith, and their Faith is ſound, ſo as it cauſes them to walk ſincerely before God, they are freed from Condemnation. For the Law of the Spirit of Life in Jeſus Chriſt, hath made me free p. 79from the Law of Sin and Death. That is, for the Law of Grace, which is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Chriſt, doth free ſuch from the Curſe of the Law of Works. For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Fleſh, God ſending his Son in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh, and for ſin condemned ſin in the Fleſh. That is, The Law being not able to free us from Condemnation, or to juſtifie us, ſeeing thro' our Frailty we break it, which elſe would do it, God ſent his Son to take our ſins on him, and by condemning ſin in him, or puniſhing him for them, he hath bereft ſin of its Damnatory Power over the Believer. That the Righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit. That is, that the Juſtification (foreign) which we ſhould have by the Law, if we could perform it, may be had by our performing only the Conditions of the Law of Grace, which is walking not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit, or not after the Law, but after the Goſpel.

Do we then make void the Law by Faith? Yea, we eſtabliſh the Law. The Law taken largely (as before) declares Gods Ordination of a Sinners Juſtification by Faith and Repentance, as the Goſpel does, and thereby is moſt plainly eſtabliſhed or accompliſhed. But to ſay further, The Law is eſtabliſhed (ſays St. Auguſtine) by the fulfilling it. Now Faith, if it be ſound, does work by Love, and Love is fulfilling the Law. But how does Faith and Love fulfil it? Not foreign but foreign, not in the Rigour of it, but the Equity, or according to Acceptation thro' Chriſt. When God then for Chriſts ſake, does accept of our Faith, or our ſincere, though imperfect Obedience, for Righteouſneſs, this is that julfilling the Law, which is all that can be in this Earth, and thereby the eſtabliſhing of it.

As by one Mans Diſobedience many were made Sinners: ſo by the Obedience of one, ſhall many be made righteous. This is true, per modum Meriti, but not per modum formae: To wit, we being all by the Fall of Adam become corrupt, ſo that there is, and can be no Righteouſneſs according to the Law of Works in the World, the Lord Jeſus by what he hath done, hath procured a Law of Grace, and Righteouſneſs thereby, ſo that the ſinner that repents and believes in Chriſt, is by that Law made righteous, and enjoys the Benefits as much as if he were as perfectly Righteous as the Law requires. In this Senſe we may ſay Chriſts Righteouſneſs is imputed to us, that is, (per modum meriti) in the p. 80Effects. For as to impute ſin, is to inflict puniſhment: So to impute Righteouſneſs is to confer the Priviledges to a Perſon, as belongs to him that is righteous, and ſuch the Believer has, Pardon and Life Eternal.

He hath made him ſin, that we might be made the Righteouſneſs of God in him. The Righteouſneſs of God, is the Righteouſneſs of Faith; and to be made the Righteouſneſs of God in him, is to be made righteous thro' him, by believing; or through his merits, to be juſtified by our Faith. As our ſins are imputed to Chriſt; (which, I ſay, is only in the effect of his ſuffering for them) ſo is his Righteouſneſs imputed to us, ſay our Divines. But Chriſt is not made formally a ſinner by our ſins: Nor therefore we made formally righteous, by his Righteouſneſs.

I might proceed to other Texts, and then ſhew how upon this account, though a Diſciple of Chriſt muſt learn to deny himſelf, take up his Croſs and follow him, yet are not his Commandments grievous, but his Yoke eaſie, and Burden light; Becauſe in that ſweet recumbency, truſt, or reſt which the Soul has upon the goodneſs and mercy of God, for Acceptance of his Performance, though but Conatu…et Deſiderio, and notwithſtanding all its Imperfection, unto Life, thro' the Merits of Chriſt, there ariſes unſpeakable Conſolation. The true and ſolid Benefit hereof by the other Doctrine, upon an only pretended ſhew of more, is Ecclipſed. See Pacif. P. 27, 28, 29.

THE Common Proteſtant Doctrine, is that by the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, we are juſtified; where the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is the Matter, and Gods Imputation the Form of our Juſtification, actively taken; and conſequently the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed, the Form of it paſſively taken. The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is the Matter, both of Active and Paſſive Juſtification, but the Form of Active, is the Imputation of it, and the Form of Paſſive, is that Righteouſneſs imputed. So it is ſaid in our Proteſtant Schools, Imputata Chriſti Obedientia eſt formalis cauſae noſtrae. Juſtificationis: My Opinion now is different, that it is not by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, but by the Righteouſneſs of God, imputed to us, that we are juſtified. The Righteouſneſs of God is the Righteouſneſs of Faith, and Faith, or the Evangelick Condition performed is the Matter; and the Imputation of this Faith for Righteouſneſs, is the Form of our Juſtification. Faith is oppoſed to p. 81Works, and the Righteouſneſs of Faith (or Righteouſneſs of God) oppoſed to the Righteouſneſs of Works. Faith then cannot be taken Objectivè for Chriſts Righteouſneſs, becauſe Chriſts Righteouſneſs is not oppoſed to, but is it ſelf a Righteouſneſs of Works. It is not Chriſts Righteouſneſs then is that which is imputed to the Believer for Righteouſneſs; (that is to be his formal Righteouſneſs) but it is that for the ſake of which (or the meritorious Cauſe for which) Righteouſneſs is imputed to him upon his believing. I deny not with Mr. B. an Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to a Believer, tho' there be no text for't, but I with him explain it. Our Explication is, that it is imputed no otherwiſe to us for our Juſtification, than for our Salvation, and other purchaſed Benefits. This is what we intend by an Imputation, not in ſe, but in the Effects; and that is to ſay, imputed per modum meriti only. To be imputed in the Effects only, and not in ſe, Note it at laſt, is in the full meaning this, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is the Meritorious Cauſe, but not the Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification, and that does determine all Controverſie, with the truly underſtanding.

FINIS.