An End to Discord, Introduction · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
An Attempt to accommodate the difference between such as say Christ's Righteousness is imputed only as to Effects, and not in se; and those of us who think it is imputed in se.
FOreseeing an Objection that will be improved against a peaceable Forbearance towards a number, however small, and that Rigidness may include in that number whomever the Objectors shall disaffect, it's of use to state it.
Object. Granting the forementioned Points to be reduced below a Cause of Dissention, yet the Difference cannot be compromised between such as say the Righteousness of Christ is imputed [in se] for Justification, and them who say it is not imputed in se, but quoad effectus.
Answ. I think it may be accommodated; at least so far as to cut off just Pretences for hereticating and dividing from each other: To which end I will consider these several Opinions, and then reduce the difference.
First, Among them who say Christ's Righteousness is imputed [in se] there be two Opinions most noted, and whereto all others are reducible: Of both these I have already treated so much, that little more is needful.
1. Some think the Elect are judicially, according to the Law of Works, accounted to have done and suffered in Christ all the Law demanded, both as the Punishment of Sin, and the Merit of eternal Life.
Such must hold that Christ's Death and Obedience are the formal Righteousness of the Elect, and the formal Cause of Justification, and that from the first moment of their personal Subsistence; yea, and (except making Christ to be their Representative) without any Gift of that Righteousness, it being imputed not of Grace but of Legal Iustice, as Adam's Obedience had been if he had finally obeyed, and his Offence now is upon his sinning.
There are others who are for this judicial reckoning Sinners to obey and suffer in Christ; but they hold they are not adjudged to have done this, till they are Believers; and then they are legally just before God, and as such entitled to eternal Life. These speak more safely, but less consistently; they limit the time, from a Conviction that the whole scope of the Gospel must be contradicted, if Unbelievers do not remain condemned, and Believers only are justified. But yet it seems hard to apprehend, that God by the Law of Works accounts the Person of a Believer to have suffered in Christ, and therefore to be absolved, whom yet he did not account to suffer in Christ while he was an Vnbeliever, and therefore condemned him, and this by that very same Law which now acquits him. I know, to make this consist, it's offered that the Elect are not Christ's Seed till they become Believers. But this comes short, for it will thence follow that Christ in his Death was a strict Representative, who personated Believers, [qua] Believers, which will induce ill Consequences: And yet further, it is not true, that the Persons of Believers were seminally in Christ when he died, as we were in Adam when he sinned; and so no Argument can be brought from that Instance. I grant that both the Merit and the powerful Virtue whereby our Persons in time obtain Faith, were in Christ before we were born; but that makes not Christ the Root of our Persons at that time, but of that regenerating Virtue whereby we become Believers; and therefore tho as to this change of our Qualification we may be called Christ's Seed when we believe, yet it's not such a Seed as it may be said of, we suffered in him, as we sinned in Adam who was the natural Root of our Persons, and thereupon such a Representative as his Descendents sinned in. What may be said of Christ's adopting Merit will have no place here, for these Authors make Adoption to be an Effect of Justification, and so the Imputation is prior.
2. There be others who are for imputed Righteousness in se, but cannot approve of the former manner of Imputation, among whom there is some variety in wording their Conceptions, but they come to one and the same thing, viz. that God adjudgeth the Believer to be one whose Absolution, Adoption and Glory were promised to Christ in Reward of his Death and Obedience by the Covenant of Redemption, (which are promised also to the Believer himself in the Gospel-Covenant) and for his actual Interest and Enjoyment thereof, as also Acceptance and Treatment as a righteous Person, against all Challenges, God judicially accounts what Christ hath done and suffered to be his pleadable Security: This we take to be Imputation.
Secondly, By the Opinion of those who say Christ's Righteousness is not imputed [in se] but only as to Effects; they in Expressions oppose all the forementioned account, denying that the first Head is true, and that the second is any Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se. Nevertheless they grant that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious Cause of our Justification by Faith, and seem to insist mostly upon its Efficacy to that end, as Christ's Satisfaction was the ground upon which God enacted the Gospel-Covenant, wherein our Faith, tho imperfect, is accounted for Righteousness. Concerning this Opinion I shall offer a few things.
1. None ought to narrow it, as if the Authors meant that Pardon and eternal Life are not merited by the Righteousness of Christ; for they affirm, that these and other Gospel-Blessings are merited by Christ as well as the Gospel-Covenant. Pray say not this; it's not only the Covenant it self, but those very Blessings which that Covenant conveys, that are the merited Effects of Christ's Death and Obedience; they were his deserved Rewards which are dispensed to us upon believing. This I insert, to obviate a Conceit too much improved by some, so stupid, or worse, that they will not own this Distinction, and still cry out as if their Opinion confined the Influence of Christ's Righteousness to the procuring of a Law whereby Men were to purchase Pardon and Life by their own Faith: Whereas they are so far from this, that they affirm these Blessings were already accounted purchased, and Authority in Christ to dispense them before he could enact such a Law.
2. They intend not to exclude Christ's Righteousness from being imputed in any sense; for they say it's imputed quoad effectus, and therefore should not be charged to deny all Imputation, or represented to say, we are pardoned and saved for our own Works, without any Imputation of Christ's Death and Obedience at all.
3. In all which they affirm concerning Justification, they still suppose Christ's complete Satisfaction, and are sound therein: None can accuse them to differ from the Orthodox as to Christ's expiating Sacrifice, or impetration of eternal Life.
4. I could wish a very worthy Person of this Opinion would review his own account of Justification, wherein he saith, it's that Act whereby God imputes to every sound Believer his Faith for Righteousness upon the account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits, and gives Pardon and Life as the Benefits of it, i. e. of Justification, which he further explicates, —Through Christ's Sacrifice the Defects of this Faith, which is our Righteousness, are pardoned, and by his Merits that imperfect Duty is accounted or imputed to us for Righteousness, which it is not in it self. Had I thus stated this Point, I should ask my self, Do not I set Pardon too remote from Christ's Sacrifice as the meritorious Cause? And how can Pardon be the Effect of imputing Faith for Righteousness, (which is Justification,) and yet God cannot impute Faith for Righteousness unless he first pardon its Defects for the sake of Christ's Sacrifice? But the cause of my mentioning this Account follows.
5. They do affirm what amounts to a real Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se, at least what supposeth this Imputation, and infers it to be necessary: For how by Christ's Merits can a Righteousness in it self imperfect be reckoned before a just God for our perfect Righteousness, and yet those Merits, for which it is so reckoned, not be imputed at all for Righteousness to us who have that Faith? Would Faith be no Righteousness, except the Divine Mind did apply the Merits of Christ to Faith to make it a Righteousness, upon which I am accounted righteous by this Faith, and yet the Divine Mind not apply to me that Righteousness of Christ, without which my Faith had left me still unrighteous? whereas it seems undeniable, as far as Christ's Righteousness is necessary to make my personal Faith my Righteousness in God's account, that same very Righteousness is necessary to make my Person righteous in God's account. Moreover, they own that God promised to Christ in reward of his meriting Sufferings and Obedience, that all Believers should be absolved and glorified, and can they be adjudged to this Absolution and Glory without a judicial acknowledgment that they are to be absolved and glorified in that Right of Christ which resulted from that Promise made to him? And can that be without an Imputation of those Sufferings and Obedience of Christ which are rewarded in that Right of Christ, and thereby in those Blessings wherein Believers have this judicially acknowledged interest? They also abhor a thought that our Faith can be presented to God as any Righteousness in Satisfaction to Justice, Atonement for our Sin, or the meriting Price of our Salvation: withal they grant there must be such a Righteousness, and that this was Christ's Righteousness, and that our Sins are satisfied for, we receive the Atonement, are reconciled, and obtain the Salvation so purchased. Now is it possible that things should stand thus, and Christ's Righteousness not be imputed to us? Can our righteous Judg declare himself satisfied, atoned, and reconciled to us Sinners for the Righteousness of Christ, and not impute to us that Righteousness in se, as what he accounts a Plea for us in his account? Can we enjoy the merited Effects of Christ's Death, and that Death not be reckoned what secures to us those Effects against the Challenges which the Merits of it were designed to answer? Finally, Do not these Divines oft rest on and plead with God the Merits of Christ more immediately and directly than a denial of Imputation will admit? when they rest on Christ's Righteousness, and plead it with God for Pardon, (tho it's true we could not expect Pardon for it, were not Pardon promised for the sake thereof.) I think their Minds oft act more directly and fully towards the Righteousness of Christ, than to intend it thus, viz. I trust in Christ's Merits for Pardon, as that Pardon is the Effect of that Justification wherein our Faith is accounted through Christ's Satisfaction a Righteousness according to the Gospel-Covenant, which Covenant was procured by the Merits of Christ's Death.
I. grant there may be use of this progressive manner of arriving at Christ's Death for support of our Faith as we confine its regards to the Gospel-Covenant, and examine our Interest thereby as a Rule of Judgment. But I humbly think that when we plead with God for Pardon for the sake of Christ's Merits, we have a more direct Eye to the Covenant of Redemption, wherein a Pardon was promised to Christ for Believers in reward of his Death, and which the Gospel distinctly expresseth in this, viz. That Pardon is granted for the sake of Christ's Death, as what procured it in se, as well as what merited the Gospel-Covenant, which is the Instrument of the Donation of it. And so by keeping our Eye on the Covenant of Redemption, we plead Christ's Right as more immediately imputable; and by keeping our Thoughts on the Gospel-Connexion between Pardon and Christ's Death as the procuring Merit of it, we plead Christ's very Performances mediately imputed, viz. as our pleadable Security for our certain obtaining and safe enjoying the said Forgiveness.
6. The Reasons why these venerable Persons are so intent to deny an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se, are, 1. An apprehension that there's no such Imputation, unless we are accounted by God to have done and suffered what Christ did, which would unavoidably induce the Antinomian Scheme as most consistent. But that I deny to be the only import of that Phrase; for when that Righteousness it self is imputed relatively to the special Effects of it, it's truly an Imputation of it in se; and whereas they of the other Extreme say, that its being a pleadable Security for our Pardon, is but an Effect; I answer, This Righteousness it self being that Security is an Effect of the Compact between the Father and the Son, and it's not this Effect is imputed, but the Righteousness it self, as such; and by the same Rule, as they can deny it to be imputed in se, because it's imputed as a pleadable Security, they may better say it's being imputed for Justification and for Atonement, &c. would make it to be no Imputation of it in se, for those are but Effects, and that by virtue of the same Compact. 2. A Zeal for the Gospel-Righteousness of Faith: But that is very consistent with the imputed Righteousness of Christ; and tho both meet in our Justification, yet it's under very distinct Considerations, of which afterwards.
Nor can I forbear again to inform the World that both Extremes arise from too much disregard of the one or the other Covenants, wherein the Salvation of a Sinner is adjusted. These Brethren, forgetting the Covenant of Redemption to which the Gospel-Covenant is subordinate, too little mention the Righteousness of Christ; the other Brethren overlook the Gospel-Covenant, and darken a Gospel-Righteousness of Faith: Whereas a distinct respect to the Rule of Satisfaction and Impetration on the one hand, and to the Rule of the Application of impetrated Benefits on the other hand, would put a Period to their principal Disputes.
From this Representation of the several Sentiments of the Brethren concerned in the Point before us, a mutual Forbearance seems no unjustifiable thing between them who differ most; and no considerable Disagreement remains between the others. 1. They who think the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se, is God's reckoning we did and suffered what Christ did, claim a tender regard from them who say it's imputed only as to Effects, for they disown the Antinomian Consequences of it, and abhor all Abuses of it to carnal Boasts and profane Libertinism, of which before: How unreasonable then were it to perpetuate Contests about this Point from the ill Consequences of it, when those Consequences are denied? On the other hand, it appears too like uncharitable Rigidness for them to condemn as intolerable, such who say Christ's Righteousness is imputed only as to Effects: For whatever is the sound of their words, they ascribe nothing to Faith or Works which belongs to Christ's Righteousness; nor do they detract from the Honour of Christ's Righteousness any thing which these Brethren ascribe thereto, and are Orthodox in the Doctrine of Satisfaction against Socinianism and Popery. When they say Faith is an accepted Righteousness, mean they that it's a Satisfaction either to atone for Sin, or merit Life? No, they abhor it, and confine both to Christ's Righteousness entirely: But they do not say Christ's Righteousness is imputed, that's not true, for they say it is imputed; Ay, but not in se. But should that be so, would not it be far from a Christian Spirit, to be implacable for not using a Phrase which the Spirit of God makes no use of, who surely knew how to express Truth as properly as fallible Men should pretend to? Yea, but the Scriptures speak what amounts to this Phrase. And so do they in granting Christ's Righteousness to be the only Atonement and meriting Cause of Pardon and Life, and Acceptance with God as righteous Persons. But do not they think we stand before God only in this Righteousness of Faith, and not of Christ? No; they assure us, that what Righteousness Faith is, it's so by Christ's Sacrifice and Merits, and it's only a Righteousness as a performed Condition of the Gospel, describing the Persons who obtain that Salvation which is the Effect of the Righteousness of Christ; and whose Satisfaction still interposeth between the Justice of God and a believing Sinner: Neither are they backward to ascribe to efficacious Grace that Virtue whereby we are enclined and enabled to believe. Men may expose each other by fiery Debates after such Concessions, but he who expresseth most Heat, discovers the more ungospel Spirit, if not the weaker Cause, and weaker Judgment.
2. As for such who own Christ's Righteousness in se to be imputed in the second sense, and those who say it's not imputed in it self but as to Effects; if they contend, the first must quarrel the other for denying in words what he grants for substance; and the latter must be warm against the former, because he will not join with him in offending the weak, and hazarding Truth by rejecting a Phrase, which, well explained, doth properly express what both intend.