foreknown predestinated and called effectually according to the purpose of his Grace shall fall away either totally or so as not to be finally glorified 5. That Faith Repentance a holy Conversation or any Act or Work whatever done by us or wrought by the Spirit of God in us are any part of that Righteousness for the sake of which or on the account whereof God doth justify any Man or entitle him to Eternal Life Then follows a Testimony against the other Extreams viz. Antinomian Errors Again Anno 1696. in a Paper call'd The second Paper sent to our Brethren we thus give our sense 1. Concerning Iustification That altho the express Word of God doth assert the necessity of Regeneration to our entring into the Kingdom of God and require Repentance that our Sins may be blotted out and Faith in Christ that we may be justified and Holiness of Heart and Life without which we cannot see God yet that none of these or any Work done by Men or wrought by the Spirit of God in them is under any Denomination whatsoever any part of the Righteousness for the sake or on the account whereof God doth pardon justify or accept Sinners or entitle them to Eternal Life that being only the Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone 2. Of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us As we are to consider our Lord Jesus Christ in his Obedience and Sufferings as God and Man invested with the Office of Mediator so it is apparent this Commutation of Persons with us was not natural in respect of either Nature by which his individual Substance should become ours and ours his nor moral in respect of Qualities or Actions whereby he should become inherently sinful and we immediately sinless nor was it any change whereby his Office of Mediator should be transferred on us but it is to be understood in a legal or judicial sense as we may call it viz. He by Agreement between the Father and him came into our room and stead not to repent and believe for us which the Gospel requires of us as our Duty tho he hath undertaken the Elect shall in due time be enabled thereto but to answer for our Violation of the Law of Works he being made Sin for us that knew no Sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5. 21. 3. Of God's being pleased or displeased with Christ as standing and suffering in our stead We judg that God was always pleased with Christ both in his Person and Execution of all his Offices which is exprest most particularly in that of his Priestly Iohn 10. 17 18. Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my Life and no otherwise displeased than as having a dispassionate Will to inflict upon him the Punishment of our Sins which he had undertaken to bear that God might without Injury to his Justice or Honour pardon and save penitent Believers for his Satisfaction and Intercession founded thereon Note It was declared that by the words under any Denomination we exclude all Righteousness from being meritorious or atoning yea or a procuring Cause of these Benefits none is at all so but the Righteousness of Christ But we intended not to exclude what the Gospel requireth in order to our Interest in those Benefits given for the sake of Christ's Righteousness We also in 1697 delivered our Iudgment in this Proposal to our Brethren 1. That Repentance towards God is commanded in order to the Remission of Sins 2. That Faith in Christ is commanded by the Gospel in order to the Justification of our Persons before God for the sake of the alone Righteousness of Christ. 3. That the Word of God requires Perseverance in true Faith and Holiness that we may be Partakers of the Heavenly Glory 4. That the Gospel promiseth Pardon through the Blood of Christ to the Penitent Justification before God to the Believer and the Heavenly Glory to such as persevere in Faith and Holiness and also declareth that God will not pardon the Impenitent justify the Unbeliever nor glorify the Apostate or Unholy 5. That justifying Faith is not only a Perswasion of the Understanding but also a receiving and resting upon Christ alone for Salvation 6. That by Change of Person is meant that whereas we were condemned for our Sins the Lord Jesus was substituted in our room to bear the Punishment of our Sins for the Satisfaction of Divine Justice that whoever believes on him may be acquitted and saved but it is not intended that the Filth of Sin was upon Christ nor that he was a Criminal in God's account 7. That by Christ being our Surety is meant that Jesus Christ our Mediator obliged himself to expiate our Sins by his Blood and to purchase eternal Life for all that believe and Faith and every saving Grace for the Elect but it 's not intended that we were legally reputed to make Satisfaction or purchase eternal Life 8. That by Christ's answering for us the Obligations of the violated Law of Works is intended that whereas the Law obliged us to die for our Sins Christ became obliged to die in our stead and whereas we were after we had sinned still obliged to yield perfect Obedience Christ perfectly obeyed the Law that upon the account of his Active and Passive Obedience Believers might be forgiven and entituled to eternal Life but it is not intended that the sense of the Law of Works should be that if we or Christ obey'd we should live and if Christ suffered we should not die tho we sinned nor that Believers are justified or to be judged by the Law of Works but by the Gospel altho the Righteousness for the sake of which they are justified be as perfect as that Law of Works required and far more valuable CHAP. III. The State of Truth and Error published in the Congregational Ministers Declaration against Antinomian Errors about December 1698. Error 1. THat the eternal Decree gives such an Existence to the Justification of the Elect as makes their Estate whilst in Unbelief to be the same as when they do believe in all respects save only as to the Manifestation and that there is no other Justification by Faith but what is in their Consciences Error 2. That the Elect considered as in their natural Estate or as in the first Adam are not under the denunciation of Wrath by the Law as well as other Unbelievers and impenitent Sinners Truth 1. That there is a difference between the state of the Elect whilst in Unbelief and when Believers besides what is manifestative to their Consciences p. 13. Truth 2. That before they believe they are not personally and actually justified in the Court of Heaven p. 13. and none may expect to be pardoned in a state of Unbelief and Impenitence p. 47. Error 3. That pardoned Sin is no Sin and therefore God cannot see Sin in his People to be displeased
Life yet these with all other saving Benefits were merited by Christ. Note The Socinians are as much for absolutely unlimited free Grace as even our Antinomians would pretend to be if not more Error 2. Faith in Christ is accepted under the Gospel as a perfect Righteousness for a perfect sinless Obedience And as this Faith expresseth it self in our Works our Justification is in it self firmer and surer Crell vol. 1. p. 110 612 613. 474. Truth 1. Tho true Faith be a Gospel Righteousness yet it is not accepted for sinless Obedience nor doth the Gospel entitle us to Salvation upon our believing as the Law did upon a perfect sinless Obedience for the Law entitled us to Life as of Debt for our Obedience as the immediate Merit of that Reward by the adjustment of governing Iustice. Whereas the Gospel of meer Grace tho in a way of Government entitles the Believer to Life as what was merited by the Lord Jesus and not by our Faith or Works Truth 2. Tho a dead Faith cannot justify us and our believing Consent must be executed if we survive it yet are we as truly and firmly justified and in Christ's Right entitled to Glory when we first believe as when those genuine Fruits of it are produced which are contrary to that Barrenness Ungodliness and Apostacy that would subject us to Condemnation We shall provide against Limborg's and some other Arminians Notion of Justification tho it be none of the five Points which constitute Arminianism and that we in the former Papers opposed each of the said Points in concurrence with our British Divines in the Synod of Dort Error 3. By Faith being imputed for Righteousness is meant that God graciously for Christ's sake will account our Obedience which we yield him by Faith as if it were perfect tho it be imperfect As if a Creditor having a Debtor who ows him 1000 Gilders should upon this Debtor's paying him 100 forgive him the rest and graciously impute to him this part of Payment for the Payment of the whole Lib. 6. cap. 4. § 39. 17. Truth Tho we are justified by Christ believed on and Faith in him be accounted a Gospel-Righteousness as it is the performed Condition upon which we are by the Gospel-Promise adjudged to have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us as our pleadable Security against the Curse of the Law by which Righteousness of Christ alone our Right to Pardon and eternal Life wherein we are personally invested by the Gospel is merited as well as the Blessings themselves Nevertheless our Faith in Christ is no part of the Debt we owed to God by the Law of Innocency nor is it or our sincere Obedience proceeding from it either in themselves or Divine Acceptance a full Conformity to the Gospel Precepts much less doth God impute to us this Faith or that Obedience for the payment of the whole Debt owing by the Law or Gospel tho he grant us thereupon that Pardon Favour and Acceptance Christ hath procured so as to deal with us as righteous Persons and these he doth not suspend until Faith produceth the said Fruit of Obedience but grants them upon our first true purpose to turn from Sin to God and our acceptation of and trust in Christ for doing this and for obtaining all Salvation by him The common POPISH Notion of Justification as stated by Andradius in his authorized Explication of the Decree of the 6th Session of the Council of Trent whereto Bellarmine and the generality of the Papists agree Error 4. The first Justification is the Renovation of an ungodly Man by the infused habit of Love the infusion of which is merited by Christ. The second Justification is this habit of Love producing goods Works by the Merit whereof we are further justified and ex condigno deserve eternal Life but neither the first nor second Justification consists in the forgiveness of Sin Note By preparatory Work the Council intend with the School-men that our Wills moved by the Spirit do by their natural Power prepare themselves to obtain the habit of Grace and ex congruo merit the Infusion of it which Habit is that justifying Righteousness for the Merit whereof the Sinner is at first absolved from Guilt and accepted to eternal Life Truth 1. Neither this first nor second Justification is the Justification described usually in the Gospel which is not the Conversion of a Sinner or the progressive Holiness of a Convert but a forensick Act viz. God's judicial absolving us from the Curse due for Sin and adjudging us entitled to Glory for the Merits of Christ according to the Gospel Truth 2. It is not true that preparatory Works do any way deserve from God the Habit of Grace at first infused tho ordinarily the Divine Spirit doth by Knowledg and humbling Convictions abate the Obstacles to Grace in our Hearts and put us upon seeking help from Christ all which are as truly owing to his more common Operations as saving Grace is to his special Truth 3. Neither the first infused Habit of Grace nor its Acts do merit further Grace or Holiness nor yet any degree of that Pardon or Acceptance which by Divine Ordination ensue thereupon Error 5. Christ hath merited that the Habit of Love should by its virtue extinguish Sin in us by good Works and we by these Works merit Reconciliation with God Forgiveness of Sin and eternal Glory as what do appease his Anger satisfy for our Guilt and are part of the Price of eternal Glory Note The Popish Error concerning Satisfaction leads them to this Error about Justification and when Justification is considered in a Protestant sense viz. as a forensick Act the true Controversy between the Papists and us is about the Doctrine of the Merit of good Works Truth Neither Repentance Faith Love nor any good Work proceeding therefrom do in the least merit Reconciliation Pardon or eternal Life neither did Christ merit that we might merit But Reconciliation Pardon and eternal Life were merited only by Christ's atoning satifying and meriting Sufferings and Obedience And therefore the Righteousness of Christ is accepted and reputed the only meriting Righteousness in God's justifying Act altho this Act terminates on none Adult besides the penitent Believer and on all such by the Ordination of the Gospel Note 1. It 's one thing for Christ to merit that we might by our Works merit Salvation it 's another thing for Christ to merit that Salvation it self which he gives and applies to Men on Gospel-terms the first is Popish the last is Protestant Doctrine 2. It 's one thing what our Judg in his justifying Act accounts to be the thing which appeaseth his Anger for Reconciliation makes Compensation to Justice for Pardon and to be the meriting Price of eternal Life to which Reconciliation Pardon and eternal Life he now adjudgeth the penitent Believer to be entitled Now the thing which our Judg accounts to be that which appeaseth his Anger c. is
atoning Righteousness 2. They who say it 's by Faith alone that we apply this Righteousness do also grant that Faith is not alone in the person to whom God applies the Righteousness of Christ and when they apply it to themselves Repentance Love c. are Concomitants with Faith And they who think we are justified by Works as they think its God's applying Christ's Righteousness to us and not our applying it to our selves that is the great justifying Act so they grant God justifieth us as soon as we repent and believe with the heart and suspends not a justified State till Works meet for Repentance or the Effects of Faith are produced yea should a man dy then he would be certainly saved 3. They who say it s by Faith alone acknowledg that justifying Faith will certainly produce good Works and if good Works and persevering Holiness do not follow it was a dead Faith and because dead it never was a justifying Faith however men flatter'd themselves Also that Mens Faith tho not their Persons is justified by their Works yea the most Judicious own that if Sin should reign in Believers and they apostatize they would be condemned tho the Promise of Perseverance make that impossible and therefore persevering Holiness and good Works so far continue their justification as they prevent what would bring them into Condemnation and Faith is the Condition of the Continuation of Justification See Dr. Owen of Iustification p. 207 208 306. On the other hand they who say we are justified by Works do account Works to be no more but the executing the foederal consenting Act of Faith and so its Faith exerting it self by various occasions and considering that the Believer's not only forgiving his Enemies but his persevering in Faith and Holiness are plain Conditions in many Promises made thereto and God pronounceth to Believers that he will have no pleasure in any Man who drawerh back and he shall die if Sin reigneth in him Heb. 10. 38. Rom. 8. 13. Mat. 6. 14 15. They conceive that by Perseverance in Faith and true Holiness they are kept from being chargeable with final and total Apostacy and from Obnoxiousness to the Evils denounced by the Gospel against Apostates as such and are adjudged to be under the Influence and Safeguard of the Promises made to Believers as persevering nevertheless they abhor a thought that Perseverance in Faith and Holiness or any good Work is any meriting Righteousness or the least Compensation for Sin or entitling Price of the least Benefit nor exclude they the need of multiplied and continued Pardon or make they any Blessing due of Debt but they rely wholly on Christ's Merits for these things as the only procuring Cause tho they are affected and governed by these places of God's Word which are directed to Believers as part of his Rule of Iudgment well knowing that whatever Sentence the said Words pass in this Life God executes in part now and more at Death but at the great Day it will be solemnly pronounced and perfectly executed These respective Concessions duly weighed secure those who say we are justified by Faith alone from the danger of Licentiousness and those who say we are justified by Works also from detracting from the Honour of Christ's Righteousness as having the sole meriting atoning Virtue and Efficacy in Justification and do not only grant Perseverance but think these conditional Promises and Comminations are apt and designed means of it in Subjects capable of moral Government and whose Warfare is unaccomplished However such different Sentiments may appear to others I lay so little stress upon them that I had not thought it worth my labour to have printed a Sheet against any man who confessed the necessity of saving Faith as described in the Gospel to Justification Repentance and Love still accompanying that Faith in the Object on whom God's justifying Act doth terminate and the Uneffectualness of Faith to save any who neglected to perform good Works and to persevere in Faith and Holiness Such as granted but these things I had never wrote against for scrupling the conditional respect of them to the gospel-Gospel-Law But Dr. Crisp's Notions I apprehended dangerous and they so greatly prevailing my Brethren thought my confuting them necessary at that time whereas I had no purpose when I wrote against Dr. Crisp to intermeddle with these other points but some Congregational Brethren in their Attempts against my Book did from a very few occasional Expressions therein accuse us of Socinianism Arminianism and Popery and that they might have some pretence to fix that Charge they turned the Controversy into these lesser Matters whereby I was necessitated either to insist on them however against my Will or else abide under the foresaid severe Imputation to the prejudice not only of my own Ministry but also of most of my Brethren 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
Government resulting from a Dominion acquired as Redeemer and therefore may well be called a Law yea and that by which he will judg us 2. The Historical Account of Christ's Offices Fulness Love Death and of Man's Misery the Displays of Covenant Benefits present and eternal Revelations of Divine Truths and Mysteries Gospel-Institutions and Directions whence to derive Grace c. are all to subserve our due acceptance of this Offer 3. If Christ had not proclaimed Pardon and Life to Sinners we had not known that these were to be obtained by any of us If he had not declared that he gave Pardon and Life to such as have Faith and none else we had not been certain whether it were the Believer or Unbeliever were pardoned If he had not told us he gave Faith and then Pardon there had been no known Order of these Gifts If by his Gospel God had not offered Pardon to all if they would accept it commanding their acceptance in order to it promising it upon their acceptance and determining to judg Men as they accepted or refused then there had been only an order in giving Faith and then Pardon but Acceptation had been no Condition nor Righteousness nor had Man been justifiable by it or condemnable to the want of Pardon for rejecting it 4. Acceptance of offered Salvation tho a Righteousness supposeth a meritng Righteousness of Christ and can be no higher a Righteousness than a performed Condition of a Law of Grace by which Benefits already impetrated are given Which Law differs not from a Deed of Gift but that the Donor expresseth a governing Authority in the method of applying these Blessings and resolves to judg them to whom that Offer is made by their acceptance or nonacceptance 5. Our Right adjudged upon our acceptation is a Right of Grace and Mercy and tho infallible it can infer no Claim of Debt 6. This Acceptation is described by the Gospel and nothing is an Acceptation upon which we shall receive the offered Blessings if it be not in its Principle Nature Extent Operativeness and Duration such an Acceptation as the Gospel doth promise its saving Benefits to 6. Tho this Acceptation merit nothing yet Christ's Righteousness being ordained to merit Salvation for such as shall accept of it and this Acceptance being the Gospel-ordained Condition of our personal Interest in that merited Salvation we can be saved without neither of them 7. To prevent Mistakes I add the Elect shall infallibly be brought savingly to accept of this Salvation 6. I consider God applying Pardon Peace Adoption c. to Men that have accepted of this Salvation according to the Gospel-offer 1. He acts herein as a Iudg. 2. The Relations he stands in are as Creator and Redeemer the first ceaseth not tho the other is superadded 3. The Cause is adjusted by the Rule of Judgment described in § 8. and this Cause partly refers to what satisfied the offended Creator for this Sinner's Fault and merited Salvation for this forfeiting Rebel Here Christ's Righteousness is the only justifying Righteousness Faith hath no place in God's regard who as Creator judgeth in this matter The Cause is partly also Is this a true Accepter of Salvation for whom Pardon Peace and Glory were promised in the Covenant of Redemption to Christ in reward of his satisfying meriting Death and Obedience and to whom these were promised in the Gospel Here Acceptation is a Righteousness the want whereof Christ's Righteousness is not appointed to supply and the adjudging a Man a Believer intitled to Pardon Peace and Glory upon the Satisfaction of Christ I call Justification active or the Judg's justifying Sentence 7. I call it a Justification at the Creator's and Redeemer'S Bar at the Creator's Bar as far as the Sentence refers to what vindicated the Honour of God's violated Law secured his governing Authority as our Maker and merited the Blessings before which there was no Pardon Peace or Glory for the Sinner tho a Believer none to be offered none to be had by accepting Nor is it a needless thing that the justifying Sentence have an express regard to what that refers to viz. Christ's Righteousness for as it was the alone Condition of Christ's Impetration of Pardon Peace and Life for Sinners so when these are to be adjudged to the Sinner the Honour of the Creator of the violated Law and of Christ's Satisfaction is wisely provided for by an express acknowledgment of and reference to that Righteousness I call it a Justification at the Redeemer's Bar as far as the Sentence refers to our Acceptation or Faith as a Righteousness for the unsatisfied Creator who governeth and judgeth by the Law of Works could make no Offers of Pardon and Glory to Sinners if they would accept nor admit Faith to be a Righteousness and yet considered as a Redeemer as God was when he had received Satisfaction he could not again demand a satisfying meriting Righteousness to acquit the Believer now upon no nor unless under the Notion of a Redeemer require Faith as a proper Condition of Pardon c. because in the Covenant of Redemption it was promised to Christ for Sinners as meerly described by Faith But God in Christ as Redeemer could make the Gospel-offer of Pardon upon condition of Acceptation injoyning that acceptance and promising thereto the Pardon impetrated by Christ and so that Acceptation is referred to in the justifying Sentence of God in Christ as Redeemer as what discriminates one Man who obtains the Pardon according to the Gospel-Promise from him who is judicially debarred of it 8. I think they who are altogether for Faith as the only imputed Righteousness in Justification do too much contract the justifying Sentence by excluding that distinct Respect which ought to be to the Satisfaction and meriting Obedience of Christ whereby God as our governing Creator can admit the Absolution of a Sinner And they who are altogether for the Righteousness of Christ as only imputed in Justification do also too much limit the justifying Sentence by excluding the Gospel-Righteousness of Faith which the Redeemer regards and by which he judicially discriminates who among them to whom Salvation was offered shall obtain it and who of them shall not obtain it May these Hints contribute to an Agreement between these worthy Persons at least encline all to Christian Forbearance I shall reckon it worth all my Labour and Sufferings O that the God of Peace would give us Peace by any just means FINIS a Crell vol. 2. in 2 Cor. 5. 14. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. par 2. b Crell vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9 10. c Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. d Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 10. Socin de Servat lib. 2. c. 13. e Tom. 1. Prael cap. 21 p. 580. f Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 1. par 11. g Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 7 8. h Crell vol. 2. in 2. Cor. 5. 14. Slicht Tom. 2. in 2 Cor. 5. 31. a Slicht in Rom. 3. 24. Phil. 2. 9. Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 2. par 1. cap. 4. par 7. b Idem ubi sup ad cap. 5. c Crell Resp. ad Grot. 215 198 199. d Ubi supra cap. 7. cap. 1. e Crell vol. 1. 612 613. f Socin Tom. 1. 596. Crell vol. 620 621. g Crell vol. 1. 612 614 616. h Socin Tom. 1. 578 579. cap. 21. p. 580 599. i Crell Tom. 1. 619. Wolz. vol. 1. Pralect cap. 2. k Socin 1. Tom. 590 594. Slicht Tom. 2. 37. Crell vol. 2. in Heb. 9. 13 14 15. l Socin Tom. 1. p. 667. Crell Tom. 1. 618. m Socin Tom. 1. 575 596. n Socin Tom. 1. 577 588. o Socin Tom. 1. 586. Crell vol. 2. par 2. p. 285.
transacts still as Mediator but he obliging himself to these great Performances in order to our doing what we are personally obliged to do and our receiving what we are necessitated to receive if ever we be saved even in a Gospel-way tho it supposeth him already crucified he is properly called a Surety of the New Covenant yet still connoting him a Mediator I need not suggest that if in this new Covenant Christ's Suretyship will not infer our being one foederating Party with Christ and hence that we covenanted in him it will far less follow we did so in the Covenant of Redemption which treated of things so improper to be once propos'd to us as undertaking Parties much less as Principals which to strictly legal Sureties always are supposed But of this I have treated in Man made righteous and in Answer to the Report and P. S. to Gospel-Truth THE OTHER SIDE think Christ with the Father's consent came into the Covenant of Works considered as a Bond as unviolated say some as violated say others and therein became one foederating Party with us as Elect some say as Believers say others even such a Surety as made the Covenant of Works run thus If thou Christ my Son or you the Elect or Believers do obey all the Law you shall live But if they sin thou or they shall die or they having sinned thou shalt die And they conceiving Christ to be as a strict pecuniary Surety in this one Bond with us they esteem him one legal Person and Representative in such a sense as that we did covenant in him and are legally esteemed to do and suffer what he did and not only secured of Salvation in his right and for his sake This may be accounted by some a dangerous Difference and so it were on our part if we did not own that Christ's fulfilling of the Law was an Article in the Covenant of Redemption and that we are as fully assured of Salvation if we accept of Christ as if we had covenanted in him and that he hath engaged the Elect should accept of him tho they did not covenant in him and that Believers have as inviolable an Interest in the Benefits of Christ's Death both in his right and by the Gospel-promise as if they were legally esteemed to suffer what he did suffer But all this we acknowledg It would be as dangerous on our Brethrens part to say we covenanted in Christ and obeyed in him if they did not renounce all proud assuming Boasts as if they were as righteous as Christ or stood on terms with God needing no more Acts of Mercy than that one of appointing Christ to be Mediator but after that they are on terms of strict Justice and above Forgiveness c. The like Danger would ensue their Position if they did not acknowledg the necessity of Faith to Justification and this Faith to be always accompanied with Repentance and persevering Holiness But our Brethren renounce the former and own the latter Matters standing thus will afford no ground to hereticate each other We think a mediating Surety obliged in a distinct Bond to perform the utmost which our Brethren affirm Christ to have done doth as well secure our State and support our Faith as if in the same Bond and better account for the sapiential Methods of Divine Government towards Man since the Fall with God's judicial Procedures towards Man as under Gospel-offers and his suspending Christ's merited Benefits till Men believe as also his recorded Pleadings with Sinners The Brethren think not that Christ did more for our Salvation than we allow but that we did more in Christ and thence judge our Faith more supported and the Law of Works more honoured in their way But did each side perceive all the aforesaid respective Ends alike provided for and evil Consequences equally avoided the Notion in debate could for its own sake admit no Dispute on either side And is it not pity to hate each other for mistaking the best Scheme to avoid the same Evils which both would prevent and secure that same Good which both honestly aim at by their respective Hypotheses Forbearance is the juster in this point because it turns upon a Solution of this Question When Adam is called a Figure of Christ Rom. 5. 18. is there not some disparity in their Representation of Men as well as in those other things there instanced Our Brethren think Christ so fully prefigured by Adam as a Representative that we as truly obeyed and suffered in Christ as we sinned in Adam We think the Figure as to Representation is to be explained thus As no man becomes a Sinner or dieth whose Depravedness and Death were not procured and merited by Adam's first Sin and tho the Pagan Sinners who died did not actually sin against a revealed positive Law as Adam did yet he was the Root of Death to them as well as to the Jews under Moses's Law So no men are quickned justified sanctified or saved but Christ is a Root of Life Grace Justification Holiness and Glory to them in all these by his Merits in some also by his Spirit and Power But yet we conceive Christ may as well answer Adam's Figure here intended by our being quickned justified and saved by Christ's Obedience imputed to us without our being esteemed to have obeyed and suffered in him as Christ was condemned and died for Adam's Sins imputed to him tho he was not esteemed to have sinned in Adam As he was condemned by our Disobedience so we are justified by his Obedience viz. the first by his own Compact with the Father the last by that and the Gospel too He was not condemned by any imputation that made him by the Law a Sinner unless he sinned in Adam neither are we justified by being legally judged Sufferers or Obeyers in him It avails not to say Christ was legally a Sinner and yet not reputed to sin in Adam because Christ was our Root for tho he was our Root as to Grace Acceptance Pardon and Glory and whatever else did proceed from him to us as our Saviour nevertheless if he was a Sinner he could not as to this be our Root unless we derive Sin from him but surely that Denomination must have its Root not in him but in those that were Sinners before him and whose Sins were imputed to him they must denominate that one legal Person into which he came a sinful guilty Person as he doth that one obeying satisfying Person into which we are admitted which Terms our Brethren espousing I argue from Finally we are enclined to set the foresaid Limit to Christ's Representation by this among many other Reasons for in that Rom. 5. 18. where Adam is called a Figure the Death of those Heathens was merited by their own personal Transgressions as well as by Adam's Disobedience But the Elect even when Believers do not merit Life by their own personal Obedience and therefore we are not represented altogether in the
shall be absolved tho you have sinned therefore we rather conceive the justifying Sentence to be the Sentence of the gospel-Gospel-Law yet connoting the Law of Mediation and presupposing a Satisfaction made to the Law of Works which we conceive to be to this purpose Thou believing Sinner I judicially esteem and pronounce thee to be one that I promised to my Son in the Covenant of Redemption to pardon adopt and glorify in Reward of his perfect Obedience to my Law and Satisfaction to my Justice which I acknowledg he hath performed As also to be one of those Persons to whom I made a Promise of Pardon Adoption and eternal Glory when I offer'd these Blessings to all Sinners who would believe on him Thou art therefore in the virtue of the Promise made to Christ and the Promise made thee adjudged to receive Forgiveness Adoption and Glory and to have a right to plead the Righteousness of Christ for thy safe and comfortable Enjoyment of them in the prevailing Efficacy of his Merits who alone procured both these Blessings and that Faith upon which thy Estate is so much altered Charity obligeth me to think that some well-meaning Persons who talk of eternal Justification in Christ intend no more than this Promise made to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption and by not distinguishing between this Promise that all who should believe on him should be justified and that other Article all the Elect shall believe on him which is a distinct thing they consider not that by the first no Man can be justified till he be a Believer and the last Article only assures that the Elect will be Believers and by the Consequence of the first that they shall all be justified but yet not before they are Believers Isa. 53. 10 11. He shall see his Seed and by his Knowledg or Faith in him he shall justify many are not the same thing The former ascertains the Elect shall believe the latter that they shall be justified when they believe nor could it be otherwise even when Christ upon the Cross paid that for the sake of which these Promises were made to him he must then pursuant to the Compact die that Believers might be justified and the Elect become Believers otherwise the Articles of the Covenant of Redemption must be altered and not direct his engaged Performances and Rewards nor can I chuse but wonder to see our Divines in their Dispute against the Papists proving that Justification is a forensic or judicial Act and yet find many using terms so improper to such an Act and omitting yea condemning those which are proper But to digress no further you see what is this part of the difference about Justification yet remember our Brethren do not say we our selves did personally obey or suffer or are reputed so to do but are reputed to have done it in Christ who was one legal Person with us in the account of the Law nor do they deny the Pardon of Sin but own it whatever others think of the difficulty of reconciling such things they do deny also that we can be said to satisfy in Christ tho we died in him or that we merited in him tho he merited Further there 's no difference about the Effects of the imputed Righteousness of Christ nor yet about the Righteousness it self as including both his active and passive Obedience nor the time of its Imputation viz. when we believe And shall we condemn each other notwithstanding this Agreement in almost every thing besides the manner of Imputation and this is about what God accounts us to have done in Christ and not what Christ hath done for us Shall Men rend each other because one thinks there can be no Imputation beyond what he grants the other suspects it is not an Imputation unless it be in his words and yet both grant an Imputation effectually available to all the same real Purposes viz. the Honour of Christ and Grace the Accomplishment of God's Decree and the Acceptance and Salvation of Believers as if they had never been unrighteous with ground of believing hopes about it equally strong and quieting 2. The other Point undecided is what Title or Name we should give to that Faith which is required in the Person on whom God's justifying Act doth terminate our Brethren scruple our calling it a Qualification a Condition or a Righteousness Others of us think each of these properly ascribed to it a Qualification as it distinguisheth one Man described by the Word which declares who shall be justified from another who according to the Rule of the Word and the Incongruity of the thing is not to be justified unless the Divine Perfections and the Methods of Grace should be reflected on for by the Gospel-Rule he that hath not Faith is to abide under Wrath. And how unbecoming and of ill Consequence would it be to entitle a Man to Glory and receive him to favour for Christ's sake while he rejecteth Christ and is resolved to tread under foot his Blood tho it 's from God's Promise and not any Merit of Congruity that the Accepter of Christ should be justified They call it a Condition not to signify any Merit or Compensation which they abhor but to connote God's Offers of these Blessings to more than do accept of them as also a Divine Authority injoyning a Compliance with the Terms on which the Blessing is offered tho that be no more than a meet Acceptance And to shew the manner of God's conferring them upon that Acceptation they think it may be called a Gospel-Righteousness not as meritorious of the Blessing no nor a full Conformity to the Gospel-Precept but as it is the performed Condition of the offered Benefit according to the Tenor of the Gospel Promise which always supposes Christ's Satisfaction and his paying the impetrating Price of all such offered Blessings And they are more induced to account the performed Condition a Gospel-Righteousness because the Gospel so very often speaks of a subjective Righteousness in us and denominates imperfect Men righteous so expresly with respect to that Righteousness they also think that this cannot be from Obedience to the Law of Works unless it were perfect which it is not nor yet from full Obedience to the Precepts of the Gospel which enjoyn no less as a Duty than doth the Law it self therefore they can find no ground of that Denomination besides a Conformity to what the Gospel-Promise appointeth as a Condition of the Good it entitles a Person to yet still as a means of giving us in a way of governing Grace what was promised to Christ for us as a Reward of his full Satisfaction to Legal Iustice. But our Brethren think these Terms too high and prefer calling Faith an Instrument as many Protestants do who also call it a Condition Some chuse to call it a means I suppose to note a physical Influence in opposition to what 's moral and expressive of any Law both which by the
way we apprehend an ascribing much more to Faith than we dare because it makes Faith efficacious from its natural Aptitude and Activity without a Divine Ordination of it to that end by any Promise The Reason of any Debate concerning these Expressions lies in this Our Brethren consider all the Gospel-Duties and Benefits as a mere physical Order of Blessings decreed by God to the Elect and so one is given before the other according as the Gospel describeth that Order We grant the said Order and should insist on no more were not the Benefits offered to more besides the Elect and still used as Motives to induce Men to submit to those Duties and this by Promises of the Benefits if the Duty be performed and Threatnings of withholding the Benefits with additional Misery to be inflicted if they be not performed with an account of judicial Proceedings towards Men with respect to their performance or non-performance of the said official Terms But things being thus and so very apparently the Indications of governing Methods and the Aptitude of our Ministry for Conversion and Perseverance so much depending upon the affecting of Mens hopes and fears we are forced to own that the Gospel is not only a description of the foresaid Order but that it is a Law of Grace subordinate to the Covenant of Redemption Yet that none may suspect the difference above what it is I shall recite what our Brethren grant in their Declaration They say p. 13. We are true Owners of Iustification at the instant when we believe P. 15. It must be said that even in foro Dei in God's Court and according to the Iudgment in that open Court which God hath set up in his Word and according to the Proceedings of his Word which is the Rule he professeth to judg Men by and therein he keeps to the Rule of his Word as Christ saith I judg no Man but the Word that I speak shall judg you Ioh. 12. 47 48. God doth judg and pronounce his Elect ungodly and unjustified till they believe All these are the words of Dr. Goodwin which they approve of and note that he in vol. 2. of the Creatures lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 51 to 63. proves at large that Faith in Christ is of another kind than the Faith required by the Law of Works They also say p. 46. God in the Covenant of Grace freely offereth unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Iesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved Note the Assembly of Divines in Westminsier larger Catech. Q. 32. add requiring Faith as the Condition to interest them in Christ. And less Cat. to escape the Wrath and Curse of God due to us for Sin God requireth Faith in Iesus Christ Repentance unto Life c. And in the Savoy Confession as well as theirs Cap. 18. S. 2. The true Believer's Certainty of Salvation is not a bare conjectural and probable Perswasion grounded upon a fallible hope but an infallible assurance of Faith founded upon the Divine Truth of the Promises of Salvation the inward Evidences of those Graces unto which these Promises are made c. Of all which our Brethren have approved To add no more they declare p. 47. it 's an Error That continued Repentance and Holiness are not in the nature of the thing nor by the Constitution of the Gospel necessary to our being possessed of eternal Life And may it not be supposed that nor is put for and Also that necessary by Constitution of the Gospel as distinguished from necessary in the nature of the thing Some of them may mean an authoritative or rectoral Constitution i. e. this Order is appointed by Christ as our Ruler wherein he hath enacted this Connexion and requireth our Compliance These things being put together must acquit our Brethren from the imputation of rendering Faith Repentance or Holiness needless or useless to Salvation tho they scruple to call it a Gospel-Righteousness and we hope it may encline them to a forbearance towards us who think these Concessions contain for substance all that we intend by the Terms Condition and Gospel-Righteousness which we make use of as 〈◊〉 do more exactly comprehensively and to some purposes more safely express what we conceive to be the true import of these Passages when connected and which we approve of Yet to put things in a fuller Light I shall represent the matter as it stands by the forecited Passages to all which they declare their Assent p. 63. The Brethren affirm God in his Covenant offering Life and Salvation to Sinners and requiring Faith in him that they may be saved and this Faith in a Mediator commanded by the Gospel and not by the Law of Works as Dr. Goodwin saith with Gospel-Promises of an Interest in Christ and his Benefits and these are made to this Faith as a Condition saith the Assembly of Divines and this in such a manner that the Believer may have an infallible assurance of the Benefits upon an inward evidence of his having this Faith as that Grace to which the Promise was made wherein the said Benefits were included And also that this Gospel includes that Word which is the Rule of Iudgment by which Rule God judgeth that Man tho Elect who hath not this Faith to be a Christless unpardoned Child of Wrath and him who hath this Faith to be a true Owner of Christ and Pardon Also that Repentance is of such necessity to all Sinners that it as well as Faith is required that they may escape and none may expect to be pardoned in a state of Unbelief and Impenitence yea continued Repentance and Holiness are necessary to our possession of eternal Life And all this to be necessary not only from the nature of the thing but also by the Constitution of the Gospel I apprehend this Account is so equivalent to a Gospel-Law of Grace for all its great purposes that I shall not be offended at what name they please to give it and did not a fear of offending them prevent me I would prove it to be all the Law of Grace which we assert especially if they would allow that when they say God requireth Faith that Sinners under Offers of Life may be saved it 's upon his Throne tho a Throne of Grace that God in Christ requireth it and from thence directs his Offers of Salvation to Sinners and thence sentenceth them who live under Gospel-Offers by their asserted Rule of Iudgment However we have no reason to contend especially when both agree the Debate is about the Instrument of Donation and the Qualification of the Subject to receive a Gift and not about any thing that meriteth the Gift freely bestowed on God's part and thankfully and humbly received on our part A low degree of Charity would make allowances on both hands when the Difference is so minute They seem jealous of the Honour of Free-Grace yet owning Christ's Merits we are for Free-Grace in opposition to
all Merits besides Christ's but not exclusively of all governing Methods in applying the effects of Free-Grace They grant Faith in Christ is required that we may be saved we more expresly say it 's by a rectoral Authority they grant it so by the Law of Works we say it 's by a Gospel positive Law tho we grant when this positive Law requireth it we are obliged also by the general Law of Nature to yield Obedience yet not by the Law of Works as specified by Adam's Covenant which Faith in Christ was inconsistent with from the essential Nature of that Covenant Our Brethren are watchful against any inherent Righteousness of man mingling with Christ's Righteousness We besides avoiding of that are solicitous lest men come short of Salvation by the Righteousness of Christ through a neglect of what he requireth in all those who shall be saved by it and yet we declare against all things besides Christ's Righteousness to be any impetrating satisfying atoning meriting or compensating Righteousness and as Faith hath no share or place in this Office so Christ's Righteousness tho the sole meritorious Cause is not that which God by the Gospel requires of Sinners that they may be saved by the Righteousness of Christ. Faith is that commanded Requisite and no more than that its place is thereto confined and therefore here 's no mingling of our Righteousness with Christ's because their Use Place and Offices be so very distinct They seem most afraid of Popery and Arminianism and therefore keep to this sense of being justified by Faith alone viz. we are justified only by Christ believed on or the Object of Faith only is imputed to us for Righteousness We are truly afraid of Popery and Arminianism but not only of these but of Antinomianism too and therefore are intent to maintain two great Truths included in that one Sentence We are justified by Faith viz. 1. That the Believer is absolv'd from Guilt accepted into God's Favour and entituled to eternal Life in and for Christ's Righteousness and neither Faith nor any Grace or Act of ours make the least recompense to God or is the least Price or Merit of Pardon or Life or any motive inclining divine Justice to promise or accept us into his favour or to treat us as righteous Persons This from our heart we own and know that this is what sound Protestants intended by it against the Papists 2. Yet as God promised to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption all Belivers should be absolv'd c. so in the the Gospel Offer of his Grace to Sinners he promised to Men that he would in and for the Righteousness of Christ absolve accept treat as righteous Persons and give eternal Life already purchased by Christ to every true Believer commanding Sinners to believe and threatning that if they believed not they should remain condemned yea become subject to sorer Punishments And that he would judg them by this Gospel Rule of Iudgment Whence we are attentive to a second Truth viz. That God accepts and accounteth Faith a performed Condition of this Gospel-Covenant and upon it acquits the Sinner from the Charge of damning Infidelity and adjudgeth the Believer qua such in opposition to Infidels to be in Christ's Right and by his Gospel Promise entitled to a present personal Interest in the foresaid Absolution Acceptance and Gift of eternal Life yet as procured by Christ's Righteousness alone and applied for his sake To add no more our Brethren in the Doctrine of Justification almost confine their Regards to the Satisfaction of Christ wherein Christ transacted with the provoked Justice of God We besides that consider a propitiated God in Christ applying the effects of his Redemption to Men in a Method of governing Grace but without any real difference in the Doctrine of Satisfaction and withal sincerely granting the Condition is performed in the Strength of Christ freely dispensed Yet upon the whole they provide against carnal Security and we against carnal Boasting They are far from designing to eclipse the Glory of Christ as King Lawgiver and Iudg and we as far from intending the diminution of his Glory as a Priest How unreasonable and unhappy would perpetuated Contests by where the Grounds pretended are of so little weight Thus I have insisted on what seems most like a Difference in the Doctrine of Satisfaction and Iustification Some weak persons may think there is a great Controversy where I see nothing worth our notice they will say Some think we are justified by one Act of Faith viz. Reliance Well but they say justifying Faith is receiving Christ c. as well as a Reliance Ay but a Man sees only with his Eye tho more is of the Essence of a Man But I say no Man sees without that which is of the Essence of his Eye Another thinks justifying Faith as such receives Christ only as a Priest others say it receives him also as a King and Prophet yet the last say the convinced Sinner hath an especial respect to Christ's Priesthood as most agreeable to his present case and the former will say its but an hypocritical Faith that receives not Christ as Prophet and King as well as Priest Nay it s not the true Christ the anointed Messias who is received unless it be as Prophet King and Priest even Christ Iesus the Lord. Ay but some say Repentance is an effect of Iustification but there be very few of our Congregational Brethren of that mind and I suppose they mean Works meet for Repentance and not a change of the purpose of the heart Nay but several say Faith alone is the instrument of Iustification others make Repentance the Condition of Forgiveness What then seeing the first grant there is no justifying Faith without Repentance and the last grant the aptitude of Faith to receive and acknowledg Christ which I suppose they mean by instrument is far greater than Repentance But when both sides consider Faith as an ordained Condition as well as an Instrument they 'l scarce dispute but that Repentance is a Condition of Pardon as well as Faith unless they would agree to join them together by calling Faith a penitent Faith or Repentance a believing Repentance connoting at once a Sinner's purpose to return to God by Christ the Mediator and his closing with Christ the Mediator that he may return to God by him tho I think the end is first agreed to before the way or means to that end is resolved on or made use of Obj. But sure there is a vast difference between those who think we are justified by Faith only and those who think we are justified by Works as well as by Faith Answ. 1. Not so very great when both mean that we are justified neither by Faith nor Works as the word justified is commonly taken for both agree that we are absolved accepted as righteous and entitled to eternal Life only for Christ's Death and Obedience as the only meriting satisfactory and
whatever is included in the justifying Sentence yet in the way time manner and limits which the Gospel declares § 9. The Consideration of the Rule of Iudgment as before explained led me to affirm that the Justification of a believing Sinner is equivalent to a twofold Justification the one at our Creator's Bar the other at the Redeemer's the first by the imputed Righteousness of Christ the other by that of Faith which I have insisted on in PS to Gospel-Truth p. 276 279 c. 3d Edit And being desirous to prevent Mistakes in this Point which I think is probable to prevent furious Debates concerning the Doctrine of Iustification I 'll give a few hints of fuller Thoughts about it premising only that I hoped none would think that I said there is a twofold Justification for I make the Sentence to be but one tho that includes what 's equivalent to a twofold Justification Nor yet that I denied Christ as of one Essence with the Father to be Creator or said there be two actually existing Bars But these are things too low for many words 1. I consider God at our first Formation as our Creator governing Men by a Law suted to their rational innocent and perfect Natures by which Law he promised Life to sinless Obedience and threatned Death for all Disobedience God considered in this relation cannot be apprehended to enact a Gospel-Law with a Promise of Pardon and Life to the imperfect tho sincere Faith of Sinners 2. I consider this Creator offended by Man's Violation of his holy Law Under this Notion 1. He condemns the Sinner unless Satisfaction be made and excludes him from Life unless purchased by one capable of meriting it 2. He would reject Faith and every Work of a Sinner as satisfactory or meritorious this Offendor being incapable to satisfy for the least Fault or merit the least Blessing 3. I consider our Mediator transacting with our offended creating Lawgiver in the Covenant of Redemption wherein 1. Our governing Creator demands of Christ if he would save Sinners that in their Nature he must obey the violated Law and endure Death and what was equivalent to its threatned Punishment in their stead 2. He declareth that this Obedience and those Sufferings of this Mediator considering the Dignity of his Person should be accepted for Satisfaction for Sin and the Merit of eternal Life and of whatever subserved Sinners obtaining thereof 3. He promiseth Christ as a Reward of his Obedience and Sufferings that whoever of fallen Men should believe on him should be absolved pardoned accepted as righteous and eternally glorified for the sake of what he was to do and suffer and that a certain number should believe on him and so be absolved c. to his Glory and he have all Power Authority and Iudgment committed to him 4. Christ our Mediator covenanteth to do and suffer what was proposed and accepts of the said Rewards 5. In due time Christ porforms his Undertaking and becomes entitled to the said Rewards and invested in a right thereto with respect to which he is said to be justified 6. His Undertaking is allowed to operate as if performed at least from Adam's Fall and thereby his Kingdom and the saving Effects of his Obedience and Death antecede his obeying and dying 7. Whatever concerned the Sinner's Salvation was to be founded upon the satisfactory and meritorious Death and Obedience of Christ our Mediator 8. Man is to be considered under the first Head as an innocent Subject in a state of Trial according to the Law of Works and under the second Head as a Sinner obnoxious to the Curse of the Law past Relief by his own Merit and yet upon Christ's Satisfaction pursuant to the Covenant of Redemption in this third Head as savable notwithstanding the Curse of the Law 4. As an Effect of this Transaction I do not consider only Christ our Mediator under the Notion of a Redeemer as all will grant him to be in an especial manner because he alone paid the redeeming Price But I consider also the Creator to be Redeemer as he gave his Son to be a Saviour accepted the Satisfaction made by him promised to him the foresaid Rewards and so far executed them as to invest him in his Office of an accepted authorized Mediator admitting his Kingdom to commence as well as his Death to operate to saving Effects before he actually dy'd c. Upon these and the like accounts I apprehend the blessed God considered essentially tho the Father eminently bears the Title of Creator and sustains the Dignity of the Divine Essence and Government in proposing the Terms and receiving Satisfaction to stand towards us in the relation of a Redeemer who hath received Satisfaction and transacting with us in and by our Mediator in whom he is well pleased Our Creator being considered thus as God in Christ who is satisfied as to the Violations of his Law the Honour of his Government vindicated and the Ends of it secured tho Pardon and Life be granted to Sinners it will follow that in a consistency with rectoral Iustice he can so far suspend the Curse of the Law towards sinful Man and exert his Mercy as 1. To be willing to admit to Peace and Favour all whom Christ shall present to him 2. To be ready to forgive our Offences 3. To make Offers of Peace Pardon and Salvation to lost Sinners begging them to be reconciled c. 4. To return his expelled forfeited Spirit to strive with and work on dead Sinners in order to their acceptance of this offered Salvation 5. To be long-suffering and waiting to be gracious in the use of fit Methods and Means to conquer their Resistance These and the like immediately ensue upon Christ's Satisfaction and if Men intend but Instances of this kind when they say God was reconciled to us by the Death of Christ before Conversion we should allow it yet intreating them to note that the Curse suspended thus far and the Curse removed by an actual Interest in saving Blessings are very distinct as be Forgiveness with God and Forgiveness bestowed on us and yet I fear many do detract from this Benefit viz. that there is Forgiveness with God for guilty Sinners and Salvation for undone Apostates this is in it self a higher thing than that this or that Man is Partaker of it tho our personal Advantage consisteth in the latter 5. I consider God in Christ Redeemer making his offers of Salvation to Sinners and stating the Conditions upon which he will give the merited Pardon and eternal Life personally to them commanding their acceptance with a Promise of applying Christ's Satisfaction in those Effects upon their Compliance and denouncing their abiding under Guilt and Misery with sorer Punishments if they finally refuse This is by the Gospel To explicate which Note 1. Compliance is injoined by a governing Authority tho with a display of Grace it supposeth Christ's Sacerdotal Offering over and is an Instrument of
signs of Regeneration And he adds such Power to the Testimony of Conscience for the Truth and In-being of these Graces as begets in the Soul a joyful sense of its reconciled State and some comfortable freedom from those Fears which accompany a doubting Christian and according to the Evidence of these Graces Assurance is ordinarily strong or weak Error Assurance is not attained by the Evidence of Scripture-Marks of Signs of Grace or by the Spirit 's discovering to us that he hath wrought in our Hearts any holy Qualifications But Assurance comes only by an inward Voice of the Spirit saying Thy Sins are forgiven thee and our believing thereupon that our Sins are forgiven Truth 16. The Sins of Believers have the loathsomness of Sin adhering to them which God seeth and accounteth the Committers guilty thereby and they ought to charge themselves therewith so as to stir up themselves to Repentance and renew their Actings of Faith on Christ for Forgiveness Nevertheless they ought not thereby to fear their being out of a justified State further than their Falls give them just cause of suspecting that Sin hath Dominion over them and that their first believing on Christ was not sincere Error God seeth no Sin in Believers tho he see the Fact neither doth He charge them with any Sin nor ought they to charge themselves with any Sin nor be at all sad for them nor confess repent or do any thing as a Means of their Pardon no nor in order to assuring themselves of Pardon even when they commit Murder Adultery or the grossest Wickedness Truth 17. It 's true of Believers that if Sin should have Dominion over them they would thereby be subject to Condemnation And tho the Grace of God will prevent the Dominion of Sin in every elect Believer and so keep them from eternal Death yet true Believers may by Sin bring great hurt upon themselves in Soul and Body which they ought to fear and they may expect a share in National Judgments according as they have contributed to common Guilt Error The grossest Sins that Believers can commit cannot do them the least harm neither ought they to fear the least hurt by their own Sins nor by National Sins yea tho themselves have had a hand therein Truth 18. Tho God is not so angry with his People for their Sins as to cast them out of his Covenant-favour yet by their Sins he is so displeased as for them to correct his Children tho he speaks Instructions by his Rebukes Error None of the Afflictions of Believers have in them the least of God's Displeasure against their Persons for their Sins Truth 19. Tho the present sincere Holiness of Believers be not perfect according to the Precepts of the Word nor valuable by the Sanction of the Law of Innocency nor any Atonement for our Defects and we still need Forgiveness and the Merits of Christ for Acceptance thereof yet as far as it prevails it's lovely in it self and pleasing to God and is not Dung or Filth Error The greatest Holiness in Believers tho wrought in them by the Holy Ghost is meer Dung Rottenness and Filthiness as in them Truth 20. Gospel-preaching is when the Messengers of Christ do publish to fallen Sinners the good News of Salvation by Christ to be obtained in the way which he hath appointed in his Word freely offering Salvation on his Terms earnestly perswading and commanding Men in the Name of Christ to comply with those Terms as ever they would escape the Misery they are under and possess the Benefits he hath purchased directing all to look to him for Strength and acknowledg him as the only Mediator and his Obedience and Sufferings as the sole Atonement for Sin and meriting Cause of all Blessings instructing them in all revealed Truth and by Gospel-Motives urging them to obey the whole Will of God as a Rule of Duty but especially to be sincere and upright pressing after Perfection Error Gospel-Preaching is to teach Men they were as much pardoned and as acceptable to God always as when they are regenerate and while they were ungodly they had the same Interest in God and Christ as when they believe neither can Sin any way hinder their Salvation or their Peace nor have they any thing to do to further either of them Christ having done all for them and given himself to them before any holy Qualification or Endeavour Truth 21. Legal Preaching is to preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency or Works or to preach the Mosaick or Jewish Covenant of Peculiarity But it is not Legal Preaching to require and perswade to Faith Holiness or Duties by Promises and Threatnings according to the Grace of the Gospel and direct Men to fear and hope accordingly Error Legal Preaching is to call People to act any Grace or do any Duty as a required Means of Salvation or inward Peace or to threaten them with Death or any Affliction to cause Fear if they commit the grossest Sins and backslide and fall away or to promise them any Blessing upon their Obedience to the Commandments of Christ or urge the Threatnings to perswade Sinners to believe and repent CHAP. II. A Renunciation of sundry Errors Anno 1696. A Paper called The second Paper 1696. A Proposal made by us 1697. ALtho we hoped the Caution used in the foresaid State of Truth and Error would prevent the Imputation of Socinianism and other hurtful Errors yet finding our Brethren dissatisfied we subscribed with them Anno 1692. about seven Months after the State of Truth was published certain Doctrinal Propositions collected out of the Assembly's Confession which we printed Anno 1693. with this Title An Agreement in Doctrinals c. but that being too long to be here inserted we shall confine our selves to the more material Parts of what further Account we have given of our Judgment concerning the Doctrines of Satisfaction and Iustification which may be seen at large in our Answer to the Report p. 3 11 27 33 c. Anno 1694. In a Paper sent to our Congregational Brethren it 's thus declared We the united Ministers in and about London do renounce and testify against these following Opinions 1. That there is no definite number of Persons elected from all Eternity whom God will by his appointed Means certainly save and bring to Eternal Life leaving the rest who fall under a just Condemnation for their Original and Actual Sins especially for their Neglect and Contempt of the Means of Salvation 2. That Christ died equally for all Men not intending the final Salvation of some more than others 3. That Men have in their own Power by the use of the natural Faculties of their Reason and Will unassisted by the special Light and Grace of the Holy Ghost to perform all that is necessary to Salvation or that his special efficacious Light and Grace is not necessary to their Conversion Perseverance and final Salvation 4. That any of them whom God hath
Libertinism in Practice 3. As it hinders a well-grounded Assurance and encourageth Presumption 4. As it reproacheth Christ our blessed Redeemer Against each of which our Brethren bear their Testimony 1. The hurtful Antinomian Errors which render the Ministry unapt to its proper Ends are 1. Unduly limiting the Offers of Salvation and decrying Arguments to excite Sinners to use their Endeavours under the Assistance of Gospel Means and common Grace Against this see Error 10. and from p. 41 to 47. 2. Forbidding and branding as legal the preaching of Duties and Threatnings and the applying of promised Benefits as Motives to Faith and other Duties whereto those Benefits are promised Against which see Error 9. and p. 36 39. Error 6. and p. 25 26 45. 3. Denying that the Elect whilst unconverted are under the Curse of the Law and affirming they are united to Christ and justified before God and pardoned whilst impenitent Infidels Against which see Errors 1 2 11. and p. 12 to 18. and 47 58. 2. The hurtful Antinomian Errors tending to Libertinism in Practice besides the Impediments to a Sinner's Conviction and Conversion under the fore-mentioned Head of the Ministry are such as these 1. That God seeth no Sin in his People accounts them not their Sins but Christ's and is not displeased with his People nor afflicts them for their Sins Against which see Error 3. and p. 19. 2. That Repentance is not necessary to Forgiveness nor are Believers to mourn for Sin or to beg Pardon nor to confess it unless it be to shew for Christ's Glory how many the Sins are which are become his Against which see Error 4. and p. 19 20 21 47 58. 3. That their Sins can do Believers no hurt Against this see Error 5. p. 22 23. 4. That we ought not to intend our own Benefits by our Duties neither are bound to perform Duties unless excited thereto by the Spirit nor are any Acts of our Obedience rewardable and that continued Repentance and Holiness are not by the Constitution of the Gospel necessary to our being possessed of Eternal Life Against this see Errors 6 10 11. and p. 25 26 27 47 58 59. 5. That justifying Faith is a Perswasion that Christ is mine and that my Sins are pardoned in Christ. Against this see Error 8. and p. 30 31. 3. The hurtful Antinomian Error which hinders a well-grounded Assurance and Peace and also encourages Presumption is that besides the last description of Faith we are not to try our State by marks and signs of Sanctification Against this see Error 8. and p. 32 33 34. 4. The hurtful Antinomian Errors reproachful to Christ our Redeemer are such as these that Christ is as sinful as we and we are as righteous as Christ. Against which see Error 11. p. 48 57. If the Reader consult these places and compare them with our State of Truth and Error in the first Chapter he cannot but rejoice in our Brethrens Agreement with us in a Testimony against Antinomianism CHAP. V. SOCINIAN Errors concerning Christ's Satisfaction Also LIMBORG's with some other ARMINIANS concerning Christ's Satisfaction SOCINIAN Errors as to Justification LIMBORG's with some other Arminian Errors about Justification With a state of Truths opposite to each of these as also to Popish Errors FInding our Brethren suggest in the Preface to this Declaration that after all we have said in Cap. 1 and 2. yet still we ought to do more to discharge our selves from hurtful Errors about Christ's Satisfaction and our Iustification we shall to promote Peace renounce several more Errors about those two Doctrines wherein we are suspected and tell them what we think to be Truths Error 1. Punitive Justice against Sin is no Property of God but only an Effect of his Will and therefore there was no need of any Satisfaction to be made by Christ for Sin nor is it less than ridiculous to say God was at once just as well as merciful in bringing about our Salvation by Christ Socin opera Theol. Tom. 1. Praelect cap. 16. Tom. 2. de Servator par 1. cap. 1. Prael cap. 16. Wolzog. in Mat. 19. 28. Crel Resp. ad Grot. cap. 1. Truth God is essentially just and so zealous for the Honour of his Law when enacted and his Government that Sin must not go unpunished and therefore if Sinners be saved from the Punishments threatned by the violated Law for Christ their Mediator's sake it was necessary that he made Satisfaction to Punitive Justice by enduring the Penal Effects of God's Wrath. Error 2. Jesus Christ is not the true eternal most High God of the same Substance Authority and Power with the Father Socin Tom. 2. Respons ad Iac. Vujeki cap. 1 c. Truth Jesus Christ is the true eternal most High God of the same Substance Authority and Power with the Father and in time assumed the Human Nature and remaineth God-Man for ever more Note This Article is inserted because the Value of Christ's Obedience and Death for Satisfaction and Merit was deprived from the Dignity of Christ's Person as God And therefore tho the Socinians faintly argue that if Christ were the eternal God it would not render his Death a Satisfaction yet it 's evident their great Concern in denying Christ's Satisfaction is to prevent the unanswerable Argument this would be for his Deity The like is also to be seen by their Notion of the Lord's-Supper Error 3. Christ did not by his Blood acquire or purchase the Gospel-Covenant nor was his Death an impulsive Cause of God's promising to Men the Blessings of that Covenant nor did it move him to make such Promises But Christ was only the Mediator that is Sponsor of it who assured Men that God would accomplish it and who in God's Name and by his Command performed such things as belonged to the confirming and executing of the said Covenant Socin Tom. 2. 168 199. Crell Vol. 1. p. 612. and Vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. p. 19 128 171. Vol. 1. 612. Truth Christ did not only confirm the Gospel-Covenant to Men and do such things as belonged to the execution of the Gospel Promises but God as Governor made those Promises in consideration of the Death of Christ as what vindicated the Glory of his Government in offering and promising such Blessings to condemned Sinners altho as our absolute Lord and Proprietor he freely purposed within himself that those Blessings should be granted in what method he judged fit Error 4. Christ was for no other cause a Mediator nor so call'd but that he was appointed by God a middle Person between himself and Men not that he should appease God towards Men but that he should declare God already pacified to them and most evidently confirm the same by himself And as for Men who were Haters of and Enemies to God them he was to reconcile to God i. e. convert and be our eternal Lawgiver and faithful Interpreter of the Divine Will to them by whom they might
any thing which we owed for our Sins but when he is said to have died for our Sins as they were laid on him nothing else is meant but that he died by occasion of our Sins to take them away i. e. he died to reclaim us from our Sins and to assure us that if we did leave our Sins we should be forgiven and besides this that we might perceive and obtain the fruit of that Forgiveness c. Socin Tom. 2. 153. Tom. 1. Prael Theol. cap. 18 20. Crell Vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. Truth When it 's said Christ died for our Sins as being laid on him it 's not only to bring about the forementioned Ends and such other Purposes as are assigned by the Socinians but they were imputed to him as what he had for our Salvation engaged to make Satisfaction for And he did by his Death make a real full and proper Satisfaction to God's Justice vindicating the Honour of his Justice and Government and of the violated Law as fully as if the pardoned Sinner had endured the utmost Punishment threatned by the said Law Error 11. God did not inflict Death on Christ our Mediator to express his hatred of Sin and deter us from it by his Death as any instance of Divine Displeasure against our Offences and therefore our Sins were not punished in Christ. Socin Tom. 1. 577 578 581. Tom. 2. 194. Crell vol. 1. de Morte Christi p. 611. Truth God did punish our Sins in the Death of Christ by shewing his real Hatred against Sin in all the Extremities Christ did endure which Extremities and Death thus inflicted were not only fit but truly design'd to deter us from all Disobedience against which God thus testified his high Displeasure Error 12. Christ did not by his Death properly merit Salvation or any other thing for us nor did he by the Merit of his great Obedience appease God's Anger Socin Tom. 2. de Servat Part. 3. cap. 6. p. 205. Ruari Epist. 164. Smal. Disp. 2. contr Frantz Truth Christ by his Death and Obedience did properly merit our Salvation and the Reconciliation of God to us his Death being to be considered first as satisfactory and hen meritorious and his Obedience first as meritorious and then satisfactory Error 13. By Christ's dying for us or in our stead as some of them sometimes word it tho they expresly dispute against it is not meant that Christ was substituted to die in the room of us who were condemned to die that God might be pacified nor that his Death was instead of our Death that we for the Merit of it might be delivered but the meaning is that Christ for our good did by his Death come to be crowned with Glory and Power whereby he is able to make us meet for Pardon and authorized to give that Pardon to us Socin Praelect cap. 20 21. de Scrvat cap. 8. Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. Par. 1 c. Truth By Christ's dying for us and in our stead is meant that whereas we Sinners were condemned to die for our Sins our Lord Jesus tho he became not a Sinner in our stead yet as Mediator he was substituted to die in our stead that by his Death God might be inclined to forgive us who otherwise must have died and by virtue of his Death as a Satisfaction to Divine Justice we are delivered from Death This Parenthesis I add to the Description Grotius gives of Christ's dying in our stead De Satisf cap. 9. LIMBORG's Opinion of Christ's Satisfaction consonant to EPISCOPIVS and some few other Arminians Error 14. Vindictive Justice required not Satisfaction to be made in order to the remission of Sin Limbor Theol. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 18. § 4. Truth Vindictive Justice for the Honour of the Divine Law required Satisfaction in order to the remission of Sin at least after the enacting of Adam's Covenant Error 15. Christ's Sufferings were not a full Satisfaction to Justice nor was the Price of our Redemption fully equivalent to the Misery we deserved But God might accept as a redeeming Price much or little as himself judged fit and might be satisfied with any sort of Affliction laid on Christ. Nor did Christ satisfy the Rigor of Divine Justice but the Will of God considered at once merciful as well as just i. e. Mercy abated to Christ in the terms of Satisfaction what Iustice demanded Lib. 3. cap. 2. § 8 9. cap. 22. § 2. cap. 23. § 6. Truth Tho the great Mercy of God appeared in his being willing to admit accept and provide Christ our Mediator to make Satisfaction for our Sins yet God our just Governor would have it that the terms of Satisfaction proposed to our Mediator should be such as strict Iustice demanded for the Honour of his violated Law and securing the Ends of his Government which terms were no lower than that he should suffer what was fully equivalent to the Punishments they whom he was to redeem deserved to endure And as our Lord Jesus did suffer in kind much of what we deserved to suffer so he suffered considering the Dignity and Innocency of his Person what was in the intrinsick Value fully equivalent to such of our deserved Punishments as he was not capable of suffering in kind Nay the Price of our Redemption paid by him was not only equivalent to what the Law of Works required of us but it was supralegal that is it far exceeded what any Sinners were thereby obliged to nor see we how a full Satisfaction for all our Sins could be otherwise made Error 16. Our Faith and Regeneration were not merited by Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 22. § 3. Truth Considering that our New-birth and Faith are the Fruits of the holy Spirit whom by Sin we had expelled his return to regenerate and make us Believers must be for the sake and with respect to the Merits of Christ as what vindicated the Honour of God who restored him to us Truth No Penance Pilgrimage Fastings or good Works of our own or other Men can make proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice for the least of our Sins as to any part of their Fault or Guilt This last we add in opposition to what POPISH Opinions seem to militate against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Socinian Notions of Iustification Error 1. In our Justification by Christ our Sins are blotted out not by Christ's Death and Obedience as any Compensation or Satisfaction to God for them but only by God's simple Forgiveness and Pardon absolutely free in all respects without any Merit of Christ's or our own Socin Tom. 1. Praelect Theol. cap. 15 16. Crell vol. 1. in Phil. 3. 9. in Rom. 3. 24. Truth In Justification upon our penitent believing our Sins are pardoned and our Persons accepted for the sake of Christ's Death and Obedience as what compensated and made Satisfaction for our Sins And tho neither our Graces nor Works do merit our Pardon Acceptance or eternal
depends not on any such mere words But was Christ appointed and did he consent to endure what the Sinner was to suffer that in virtue thereof the offended God might be appeased and the Sinner delivered This is the thing they oppose Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. par 14. explaining this very Phrase 3. Nor is with them the Question Whether Christ's Sufferings were in part the Idem and in other respects a full Equivalent to the Punishments the Sinner deserved No their Arguments run against the Equivalency and on that account deny that his Sufferings could be a full Price of Redemption or a Satisfaction and well they may when they call him a mere Creature Crell Resp. ad Grot. c. 4. par 2. c. 6. par 18. It 's the Proportion in the Value they most directly militate against 4. Nor whether Christ was a Sinner in judicial Esteem or was he reputed the innocent Mediator making amends to Iustice for our Sins that we the Offendors might be redeemed by his merits who to make Satisfaction submitted to be dealt with as if he had been a Sinner The last is enough for their Abhorrence and tho Socinus took all Advantages to expose the Orthodox in representing their Opinion as to the Imputation of Sin to Christ yet grants they hold that Christ was truly innocent and reputed so by God even when he was punished as if an Offender De Servat cap. 6. It 's true sometimes they would force some such Consequence on the words of the Orthodox as if Christ must be legally reputed a Sinner but that is to furnish themselves with an Argument to ridicule the true Doctrine of Satisfaction And note they deny that 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made Sin to be Christ was made a Sacrifice for Sin yea some render it he was made a Sinner as Slicht c. God dealt with him as a Sinner Socin in loc 5. It 's far enough from the Socinian Controversy whether Christ was immediately obliged by the Law of Works to die i. e. Did God thus sentence him Thou Christ hast sinned and therefore thou shalt die Or was he immediately obliged to die by the Govenant of Redemption and mediately by the Law of Works i. e. the Sentence is to be thus apprehended Whereas thou my Son the Mediator hast with my Consent declared thy willingness to expiate Sin and ransom Sinners justly condemned by the Curse of my Law to die And whereas my Vindictive Iustice the Honour of my Law and Government required that I the Rector should exact Satisfaction and Reparation for the Crimes of these Sinners by thy Death if I agreed to thy redeeming and saving them and thou hast obliged thy self to die in their stead to redeem them therefore thou shalt die this accursed shameful Death This I say is no part of the Dispute with the Socinians for the last account doth as directly oppose their Notions as the former nay much more for it asserts the Compact before his Incarnation and consequently the Divinity at least Preexistence of Christ. 6. Nor yet is it of any moment with them whether Men say Sin would be in a more proper sense the immediate meritorious Cause of the Sinner's dying who committed the Sin than of Christ's dying who did not commit the Sin tho he obliged himself to make Satisfaction for it in the Sinner's stead that the provoked God might be reconciled to him The Point with them being this Did our Sins notwithstanding God's merciful Disposition retain that Demerit in his account as rendered Satisfaction for it by Death necessary to reconcile him to Sinners and consequently did Christ suffer Death to make that Satisfaction which was become thus necessary by Sin and yet impossible for the Sinner to make 7. It 's true the Socinians usually say our Sins were the occasion of Christ's Death yet oft they call them the antecedent Cause but occasion being more common and agreeable to their Hypothesis I wish others had waved that word to prevent Abuse Nevertheless the mere using of that word is far from arguing any Man to Socinianize so that he apply it to a sense opposite to what Socinians do This will appear if we consider in what sense the Socinians use it they say our Sin was an occasion of Christ's Death as Sin was that which we were to be reclaimed from and our hope supported against And the Death of Christ was that way in which God who was not unreconciled before did appoint Christ to reclaim us from our Sins as his Death assureth us of the Truth of his Doctrine and Promises manifesteth God's prior Reconciliation and so his Death became an Argument to encline us to believe and repent and also a causa sine qua non both of a strong Motive to Holiness viz. the endless Glory designed in Heaven for us which was before shut up and of that Power Authority and Care of Christ at God's Right-hand to bring us into the Possession of it But when others shall call our Sins an occasion of Christ's Death and explain it thus That it was an occasion of Christ's Death as a penal Satisfaction to the Iustice of God and that he endured it to pacify God to Sinners that God's hatred of Sin and his Justice yea punitive Justice might be no less demonstrated in Christ's Satisfaction than if the Sinners had been damned And his Obedience and his Punishments wherein Vindictive Iustice was thus glorified did merit the Pardon of our Sins and eternal Life such an Explication doth as much oppose Socinianism as if they had used the word meritorious Cause instead of occasion That no Person may pretend the Reverend Mr. Baxter's Authority in favour of Socinianism because he sometimes calls our Sins an occasion of Christ's Death I do assure the Reader that he explains the word occasion in the last sense and in the most direct opposition to Socinianism nor can any pretend but the reason he useth this word as also pro causa meritoria or instead of a meritorious Cause is only to distinguish Christ the Sponsor making Satisfaction to Justice for our Sins from the Sinner himself when suffering for his own Sins To evidence which I have repeated his own Assertions under this seventh Head and could easily cite his own words which agree exactly to what 's Antisocinian in the six foregoing Heads See Method Theol. par 3. cap. 1. determ 11 12 15. Need I add that he says God declared to the feeling of Christ his Displeasure against Sin which was the Cause of all the Miseries which he endured i. e. saith he Christ bare those Punishments which the Anger and Displeasure of God against Sin and Sinners caused to be inflicted on him our Sponsor Vbi sup Disp. 4. and all this in our stead Det. 10. He made Satisfaction for our Sins to God as Rector and as the injured Party Determ 14. Christ's Death answered all the Ends of the most proper Punishments and
of the Threatning of the Law Determ 12. When he calls Sin an occasion of Christ's Death he there calls it also a remote meritorious Cause Determ 5. And as for a proper meritorious Cause as when Children are punished for their Parents Sins Determ 5. His Safaction yielded to our most just Rector a sufficient ground on which to forgive penitent Believers spiritual and eternal Punishments Disâ— 2. Nay he sees not supposing the Law of Works how God could forgive our Sins without the Penal Satisfaction of Christ Disp. 2. Determ 15. It were endless to produce the Instances demonstrating the Orthodoxness of this great Man as to the Satisfaction of Christ against Socinianism And by the way such as say Christ's penal Satisfaction was not necessary to the forgiveness of our Sins do a thousand times more favour Socinianism than Mr. Baxter's Notions or Words can be wrested to Perhaps others who follow Episcopius and some other Arminians when all must acquit him of Socinianism may surmise he favoureth their Notion of Christ's Death as if it were a Satisfaction only to the Will of God and not a full Satisfaction to the Iustice of God To this I answer Mr. B. distinguisheth Satisfaction into that which is the fulfilling the Will of a Person and that which is the Payment of what was owing by an Equivalent otherwise not due And he affirms that Christ's Satisfaction was not a mere fulfilling the Will of God tho it supposeth his Consent but it was a full Equivalent to what Punishments we deserved in that it better answered the Ends of Divine Government than the Sinner's Punishment would have done it more fully demonstrated the vindictive Justice of God than if the Sinner had been damned and it was a full Satisfaction to governing Justice and the End of the Law Vbi supra Determ 10 11 12 15. I thought this account necessary not only for the forementioned End but also that our Agreement in opposition to Socinianism might not exclude Mr. B. and such as approve of his Scheme which would add strength to that Heresy and be injurious to many worthy Persons nor ought a few words so fully explained be pressed to brand them with that odious Title who could more plausibly fix the same Character on Persons from things plainly asserted in the Socinian sense and subserving their Hypothesis As Christ's Death was not necessary to the remission of Sin the Promise of Forgiveness is no Effect of Christ's Death Repentance under the Gospel is an Effect of justifying Faith in Christ. The preaching of Reconciliation to Sinners is only to publish to them that God is already reconciled to them and to call them to be reconciled to God Many others might be instanced but I think it were unjust even upon such grounds to call any of these Socinians CHAP. VII An Enquiry into what Difference seems to remain concerning the Satisfaction of Christ and Iustification of a Sinner And this Difference reduced below any Cause of Discord I Think both sides are acquitted from all dangerous Errors concerning the Satisfaction of Christ and Justification of a Sinner nor can I doubt but the impartial Reader must apprehend the remaining Difference doth not lie in Opinions about these Doctrines themselves but in accommodating some words in opposition to other Errors which either Side have more especially applied their Minds to confute unless he should also ascribe it to a Zeal for sundry received Phrases on the one part and an apprehension in the other part that more accuracy is become needful since those Phrases were received 1. In both these Doctrines the visible Spring of what Difference remains is a different Notion of Christ's Suretiship For by this the word Imputation as used in both these Doctrines is governed viz. how our Sins were imputed to Christ when he satisfied and how Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us when we are justified both which depend upon the various Conceptions of the Suretiship of Christ and the manner of his representing us which I will begin with One Side thinks him a mediating Surety and distinguishing both as to the matter engaged and Instrument wherein he voluntarily engaged himself as also the respect he had to us therein 1. In the Covenant of Redemption they consider Christ agreeing with his Father the Terms of Satisfaction to Justice and Impetration of Life for Sinners and obliging himself to assume our Nature and therein perfectly to obey the Law die an accursed Death with whatever was equivalent to what by the Covenant of Works our Sins deserved Here they think Christ did not covenant strictly in our stead or as our Proxy tho he covenanted to die in our stead even strictly so He transacted as a free Interposer tho for our Salvation we were no federating Party tho we were the Persons whose Salvation was his promised Reward And therefore we have more reason since we are become his Members to say we intercede in Christ now than to say that we covenanted in Christ then Finally they account his Act of engaging so peculiar to himself that his non-performance of what he engaged which was impossible had not made us more guilty tho it would have left us miserable for our own Sins there being no other way to redeem us 2. They find Christ called a Surety in the Gospel-Covenant made with fallen Man Heb. 7. 22. and no where else This Covenant supposeth the former yea supposeth Christ's having executed his Engagements by the Covenant of Redemption to make Satisfaction to Justice i. e. it was at first accepted as if executed for this Covenant with Man doth not adjust the terms of Redemption but the way of conveying the Effects of that Redemption and is called the Testament of our Lord Jesus whereby he bequeaths the Blessings he acquired by his atoning Death In this Covenant Christ is such a Surety as not only assures us all will be performed which is promised to us on God's part but that undertakes to bring in the Elect and for the Perseverance of Believers unto eternal Life by his exerting that Power and Authority he hath received But here also they apprehend Christ a distinct federating Party A Mediator treating and obliging himself to make the Covenant stand sure and effect the Ends it was designed for but he binds not himself to believe repent or persevere for us but that we shall repent believe and persevere nor doth his Engagement that we should do so prevent our personal Engagement by Covenant to do it our selves tho in his Strength Now our Act of engaging is not his engaging Act but an Effect of it nor is our repenting his repenting Act but the Effect of his engaged Assistance nor is that Assistance of his reckoned to be legally our assisting our selves nor can we say that we covenanted in Christ to bring in the Elect or that Believers shall persevere By which with other Reasons we are induced to think that in covenanting he
imputed to us in Justification against the Popish Doctrine the generality of the Learned among them do only exclude every thing besides that Righteousness of Christ from being meritorious of Acceptance Pardon Life and any other Blessing and from being any Satisfaction or Compensation for any Sin affirming that this alone can atone the Anger of God for the sake of this alone will he absolve us and nothing below this is perfect enough for us to stand in before the Bar of his Justice And therefore the Work of Faith it self can be no justifying Righteousness in that sense they took justifying Righteousness all which we heartily own and hence they oft appropriate the justifying Aptitude and Office of Faith mostly to a Reliance on that sole meriting Righteousness of Christ and its receiving Forgiveness Acceptance and a Right to Life of meer Mercy for the sake of Christ's alone Merits All which is justly and truly spoken as they accommodate it to the defence of Christ's Righteousness as the only thing appointed or fit for the fore-described Purposes and in opposition to the Popish Doctrine of Merit The Dispute they had with the Popish Church was about this meriting atoning satisfying Righteousness and you I find them often propose that if the Papists would grant that this Righteousness was that of Christ alone the great Controversy about Justification was at an end But at the same time most Protestants and our Homilies do fully grant that Repentance was necessary and required to Forgiveness and Faith to Justification and these Blessings promised to those Graces tho they were not led to dispute whether these were to be called a Righteousness as qualifying the Subject on whom God's justifying Act terminated But whether in that Act God regarded any thing as a meriting absolving satisfying Righteousness any thing as a Satisfaction to Justice any thing as an impelling Motive or valuable Consideration besides the Righteousness of Christ. To this their Debates were confined in their day and this they were intent to maintain as all Christians ought to be Whereas the reason of debating the Name of that by which the Subject of Justification was determined in opposition to such whom God did not justify was not so much before them as before others of later years assaulted by such as went into another Extreme from the Doctrine of Popish Merit Nor was this matter otherwise stated by our able Divines who contend against such Arminians as affirmed the Tò credere to be our justifying Righteousness for by Righteousness such Arminians mean the Righteousness which is part of Payment and stands in the place of and answers the same Ends in our Justification as perfect Obedience served for to sinless Man which we have before stated and renounced Were there need abundant Testimonies offer by which this Head is easily proved tho I grant some Men may be found to vent some Inconsistent Expressions Having premised these things I reassume the Difference about Justification that seems to continue which lies 1. In the manner of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Both agree it is imputed but how is not so universally assented to One side thinks the sense of imputing Christ's Righteousness to be that God reckons us to have legally done and suffered what Christ did and this to the full Satisfaction of Justice and the Law of Works and therefore are reputed to have perfectly obeyed the Precepts of this Law and fully endured its Curse and for our legally doing so God judgeth and pronounceth us righteous in full Conformity to the Law and therefore entituled to Pardon Adoption and eternal Life If you ask Is this justifying Sentence the Sentence of the Law of Works viz. it s premiant Sanction applied to us by God as the righteous Judg judging us by the Law of Works They answer It is the Sentence of the Law of Works but it is of Gospel-Grace that God allowed Christ to be one Person with us in the Covenant of Works whereby we are thus accounted to obey and suffer in him But others think that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in the following manner viz. 1. They consider that the Father promised to Christ in Reward of his Obedience and Suffering that they who believed on him should be pardoned adopted dealt with as righteous Persons who had not sinned and be eternally sav'd Hence the Lord Iesus has a right to Believers obtaining these things And as Faith describes the Persons in this Covenant who shall obtain them so when we become Believers we are accounted and adjudged to be such Believers and such as are to obtain those Blessings in Christ's Right 2. They consider God in Christ for sapiential Ends making in the Gospel an Offer of Pardon Adoption and eternal Life to poor Sinners if they believe and promising these Blessings when they believe and still as Blessings bought by Christ's Obedience and Sufferings and promised to him for Believers tho withal used in his Gospel as Motives to inforce his Command of Faith and Calls to it These things thus considered we apprehend that when God in Christ justifieth us he doth not only give us Pardon Adoption and Life but he adjudgeth and sentenceth us to be the Persons that by the Covenant of Redemption were to be pardoned adopted and saved in the right of Christ and to whom the Gospel by its Promise gives a personal Right to that Pardon Adoption and Life as purchased by Christ And he esteems and adjudgeth that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ in their full virtue is our pleadable Security for the enjoyment of them whereby we have a right to plead his Death and Merits with God as what procured these for us as well as God's Fidelity who promised them to us in his Gospel You see by this account that we rise not so high as to say we are accounted to do and suffer what Christ did and to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the Law of Works nor fall we so low as a mere Participation of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness but assert an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self relatively to those Effects Christ's Right is applied and his very Obedience reckoned to us as what pleads with God for those Effects and secures us against all condemning Obstacles and Challenges The justifying Sentence is not the Sentence of the Law God saith not You have perfectly obeyed therefore you shall live you have satisfied the Curse therefore you shall not die Yet the Righteousness which procured our Salvation and is our adjudged pleadable Security of enjoying this promised Salvation includes an Obedience as perfect as that to which the Law promised Life if we had not sinned and Sufferings equivalent to what the Curse pronounced against us when we sinned But because we apprehend not where this Law includes such a Sentence as this viz. because Christ obeyed you shall live tho you obeyed not and because Christ who sinned not did suffer for your Sins you
without what it confineth its promised Absolution or Benefits to seeing the Lord our Judg doth sentence us as this revealed Rule takes hold of us § 5. I find nothing plainer than that on the one hand we are made righteous by Christ's Obedience Rom. 5. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. and accepted in the Beloved Eph. 1. 6 7. and washed from our Sins in his Blood Rev. 1. 5. and we receive the Atonement Rom. 5. 11. And on the other hand that Faith is imputed for Righteousness Rom. 4. 9 11 22 24. and we are justified by Faith Rom. 5. 1. chap. 3. 30. and by our words Mat. 11. 37. and by our Works Iam. 2. 24. and Men are called righteous with respect to their Graces and Actings short of Perfection and that Christ's judicial Proceedings are upon Mens Temper and Behaviour Mat. 22. 25. chap. 10. 32. and Promises of Pardon and Life are made still to Repentance Faith and Perseverance and the Gospel denounceth Death against impenitent Ones Luke 13. 3. Infidels Iob. 3. 36. Disobedient Rom. 2. 8. Barren Heb. 6. 8. Apostates Heb. 10. 38. and Workers of Iniquity Luke 13. 27. Nor can it be overlook'd that Perfection is not intended in what the Gospel-Promise is made to nor is the Gospel threatning of Damnation levell'd against any Offences consistent with Sincerity Hence I conclude that when God justifies a Sinner the Rule by which he judgeth requires a judicial regard to inherent Faith c. § 6. By one Rule of Judgment the same justifying Sentence in all respects could not be pronounced upon Christ's Righteousness and upon that of a believing Sinner unless that one Rule did either 1. Originally promise Life to perfect Legal Obedience and also to that which was not a perfect Obedience to the Law But if I suppose this I must admit that the Law did not denounce Death for the least Sin for to condemn to Death for the least Sin and to promise Life to imperfect Obedience consist not yea I must then consider God to enact that Rule of Judgment as in his first relation to innocent Man viz. as Creator governing by virtue of his absolute Propriety in Man as his Creature But if God be considered only in that relation it was inconsistent with his Perfections to enact a Rule of Judgment which promised Life to any thing short of perfect Obedience to the Law he delivered and which Man was originally capable to obey And moreover we find in the Rule of Judgment by which he now justifies Men a direct respect to many things which that first Law was inconsistent with as the Death of a Redeemer for our Sin Faith in this Redeemer Pardon of Sin and Absolution from the Curse which condemned us as Sinners c. 2. Or unless that one Rule of Judgment were the Gospel-Promise of the Redeemer viz. He that believeth shall be saved Hereby indeed the justifying Sentence would directly pass upon Man as a Believer and adjudg him to a right in whatever the Gospel promised to Believers qua such And considering the chief design of the Gospel is to induce fallen Sinners to believe upon a supposition and assurance given that Satisfaction is already made by our Redeemer and not now to be made or adjusted Many are apt to confine their thoughts of Justification to this as the alone Rule of Judgment and the account of the final Judgment generally states it in this manner nor can I deny but this is in some respects a safe as well as easy method But I cannot agree that the justifying Sentence is by this Rule so abstractedly taken For 1. This would too much confine the Influence of Christ's Merits to the mere procuring of the Gospel-Promise whereas we find it more immediately and fully connected with Pardon and all other saving Benefits 2. We must be made righteous by Christ's Obedience in some way less remote than this 3. The Satisfaction of Christ is not hereby sufficiently acknowledged nor applied in our Justification Many other Reasons might be given why I am convinced that when God ustifies a believing Sinner the Sentence respects him under some further judicial Consideration than merely a Believer and consequently the Rule of Judgment extensively taken required somewhat more to constitute him a justifiable Person § 7. I therefore take the Rule of Judgment to be the gospel-Gospel-Law in a subordinated Connexion with the Law of Mediation wherein the Honour of our Creator governing us by the Law of Works is provided for and the Ends of that Law fulfilled and so the Sentence will respect the imputed Righteousness of Christ and the Righteousness of Faith too the first as satisfactory and meritorious with our injured creating Lawgiver the latter as the performed Condition of the Redeemer's Grant of the blessed Effects of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits and whereby this Man who believes is discriminated from such who rejected the Offer of Salvation In the first Justice is satisfied that a Rebel should be absolved and glorified in the last the Rule enacted by governing Grace is answered by the Believer so that the Judg is no more a Respecter of Persons in applying these Benefits as Redeemer than he was regardless of governing Justice in the Condition upon which they were procured by our Saviour § 8. The Rule of Iudgment then must be this That the Believer tho a Sinner whose Absolution Pardon Acceptance as righteous and Salvation were promised to Christ by the governing Creator in reward of his Obedience and Sufferings and promised to himself for the sake of Christ in the Gospel upon his believing with that Faith which it appoints is to be absolved pardoned accepted as righteous and saved From this Rule of Judgment is easily inferr'd that justifying Sentence on which our State is changed viz. Thou art that true Believer whose Absolution Pardon Acceptance as righteous and Salvation were promised to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption and to thy self personally in my Gospel and therefore thou art adjudged absolved pardoned accepted and an Heir of Glory by virtue of that Promise made to Christ and the Gospel-Promise made to thy self and hast a Title to plead Christ's perfect Obedience and Sufferings for thy certain enjoyment thereof which will also be continually pleaded by Christ thy Advocate In like manner we see Constitutive Justification is our being made such Believers through the Influence of the Spirit of Christ as fall under the foresaid Promise made to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption and the Gospel-Promise made to our selves and so are conformed to the Rule of Judgment but yet considered as not judicially sentenced according to it Again Passive Iustification is no other than our Persons and State considered as affected by that Sentence as already past upon us viz. absolved pardoned accepted as righteous and intitled to Glory Finally Executive Iustification is no other than God's dealing with us as Persons so absolved pardoned accepted and entitled to Glory and his performing