on a contrary Judgment let us appeal to one that can tell us Justification says Mr. Baxter taken actively as the Act of the Justifier hath one Form Justification passively taken for the State of the Justified hath another Form And each of these are subdivided into many Acts and many Effects which have each their Form End of Contro p. 263. This was the reason of the variation in what I writ When I first propounded this Objection and thereby discovered this Consequence you wrote to me thus This distinction is a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts where the Form I apprehend to be the same only applyed diversly as the Subject is actively or passively taken But in your very next Letter you revoke this and say That upon further consideration Justification Active and Passive are two Things in earnest and have two Forms Seeing therefore this is that you stick to I will try my skill to drive you out of this hold 1. How t can Faith be the material Cause of one and the formal of the other t Very well Faith as infused and a part of our Regeneration is the Matter you agree to this Faith imputed for Righteousness is the Form I say of our Passive Justification 2. What u is the Efficient and Material Cause of Justification Passive u The Efficient and Material Cause is the same in Justification Active and Passive I say both but the Form is diverse and must be so long as they differ from one another 3. You x are certainly in the right when you make Justification Active and Passive to be but a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts and that they have the same Form Therefore the Subject is the same only diversified by its different respects to its Agent and Object x You are certainly in the wrong in your understanding this thus In a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts the Subject is one and hath one Form Vnius rei unica forma and the Adjuncts partake of that Form but their own Forms are diverse and must be as that by which they differ from one another I am sorry here I gave you occasion to be confirm'd in your mistake But this good shall come of it I will shew my Reason why I admit of two Justifications Active and Passive and not two by the Law and by the Gospel Justification by the Law and by the Gospel is a distribution of a Genus into its Species But Justification Active and Passive is a distribution of a Subject into its Adjuncts only When I can admit but of one kind of Justification only that is by the Gospel I may allow that to have diverse Considerations 4. When y I say God justifies Paul and Paul is justified of God can any one be so void of sense as to say these are two Things Is not the Act the same tho' the Agent and Object be different When I say the Sun enlightens the Air and the Air is enlightned by the Sun is not the enlightning the same in both The Propositions indeed are distinct in a Grammatical Construction but they are the same in a Physical Sense For y When you say God justifies Paul and Paul is justified of God here is a Justificare and a Justificari that is Justification Active and Passive and they must have two Forms But seeing the Matter is the same wherein you and I agree they are formally two but materially one and the same Justification 5. Justification z is only of a Person The Person to whom this Act of God is applyed is the Subject or Object of Gods Act about whom it is conversant Justification cannot possibly be considered but as referring to some Person and therefore there cannot be two Justifications z The Subject the Efficient the Material Cause are the same but the Form different in Active and Passive Justification I pray turn to my Determination at first I had not then thought enough and I did not think it so necessary as now you make it to determine this in my Cursory Letters which you must forgive You see then Brother where the deficiency of Sense does lye which seeing you have been able to say so much for and have so much presumption for may be excused even with some applause though you have been mistaken in it There is one thing in the forgoing Discourse that perhaps will need a little farther Explication and that is where Faith is said to be the (†) It is worth our Observation that in this Notion that our Faith or inchoate Grace is the Materal and Imputation the formal Cause of our Justification you and I should both in our Letters coincidere without any Item one from another material Cause of our Justification Those Terms in Matters of Morality are subject to much uncertainty as appears by the Learned in assigning the Material and formal Causes of Justification I apprehend it thus When Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness here Imputing is the Act and Faith the Object Now we agree that this Act of Imputing is the Form and this Act falling upon this Object is the Form falling on the Matter as you express it very well or introduced into it The Act applyed to the Object is the Form introduced into the Matter For why may not the Act and Object in Morality correspond or be the same with the Form and Matter in Naturality I know some make the Righteousness of Christ to be the Material Cause of Justification but against that Assertion I have this Argument The Meritorious cannot be the Material But Christs Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause none can deny that Therefore it cannot be the Material The Major I prove thus The same thing cannot be both an External and Internal Cause But the Meritorious is an External Cause for it belongs to the Efficient as you have also observed the Material is an Internal Cause Therefore the Righteousness of Christ which is certainly the Meritorious cannot also be the Material And this Argument will also hold against its being the Formal Cause Mr. Banter seems to make Faith to be the Material Cause End of Cont. p. 250. This I have long inclined unto which may be illustrated thus When a Malefactor is Arraigned and Tryed the Law is the Efficient Cause of his Acquittal or Condemnation the Sentence pronounced by the Judge is the Formal Matter of Fact or what hath appeared upon Tryal is the Material So here Gods judging us righteous according to the Law of the Gospel is the formal Cause of our Justification and our Gospel-righteousness or Faith which is as it were Matter of Fact seems to be the Material But as I said there is no certainty in affixing or appropriating these Logioal Term in Morality at least in all Cases and therefore for my part I will contend with no Body about them I will add but one word more about this point Justification is Gods judging us righteous there 's the
be loco nostro as it is the paying the price the making Satisfaction and so the impetrating the Benefits we have by it but it can be onely bono nostro as to any Benefit it self which is all one as bono nostro only in the Application Pray see Pacif. P. 30 31 32. Upon which words Repeated Right of God P. 35 36. I have desired Mr. William's and Mr. Clark's and now beg the Bishop's fuller Consideration The Arminians upon the Point of Satisfaction are cautious in what they grant as Mr. Baxter is in both and they will have Christs sufferings to be a Vice-punishment or Vicarious Punishment rather than a proper and formal Punishment Which Expression ought not to offend Mr. Lobb nor any worthy Person because when the Scripture says Christ died for us and we understand by for us Vice nostri in our room or stead the Death or Punishment it self must be in our stead that is a Vicarious Punishment how can it be otherwise And because there is nothing can be urged more effectually against the Doctrine of Socinus than this that the Justice of God requiring a Punishment to be inflicted according to his Law for our breaking it God was contented or satisfied with a Vicarious Punishment inflicting one though not all that was in the Obligation on his Son The Punishment in this sense being Vicarious the Meritorious Cause our sins are accordingly said Pro-meritorious loco causae meritoriae or an Assumed Meritorious Cause as Mr. Baxter before and the infliction as Personal be Materially not Formally Punishment If this offends any when said by Episcopius Curcellaeus Limborch whom they suspect as favouring Socinianism it oâ—â—ght â—n when said by Mr. Baxter whom none can suspect Nay though there be some Socinians who under such Expressions do shelter themselves and by appearing Orthodox seduce others which may raise some zeal in Mr. Lobb against them not considering their end and ours in such Expressions theirs being as hinted before at last to deny ours to own Satisfaction Yet is not this sufficient to conclude against the same because there is more of Antidote than Danger by them For seeing all proper Punishment is for sin and sin causes Punishment as hath been said by way of Merit and no otherwise the Merit of our sins as well as our sins in the Punishment must be laid on Christ or else it is no proper Punishment and if the Merit of our sins as well as the Punishment be granted to be laid on Christ we are then ingulph'd into Antinomianism according to this excellent Bishop the worthy Dr. Edwards and Mr. Lobb himself assenting to them and what Mr. Lobb hath to say to this he must consider The Case therefore being this that either we must admit that our sins in the Merit were laid on Christ as well as the Punishment or else that Christs sufferings was no proper formal Punishment I suppose Mr. Lobb will rather fall in with Mr. Baxter than Dr. Crisp and yield in some sense at least that it was no proper Punishment which is verily true as proper is opposed to Vicarious for a Vicarious Punishment it was for certain being inflicted on Another and not the Person or Persons that sinned and being also not the same for that should have been Hell to them but an Equivalent that so it might be Satisfaction not Payment which would preclude Remission And seeing it was not the same infliction nor inflicted on the sinner himself the Obligation to undergo it could not arise from the Law which punishes only the Transgressor of it and consequently tho' Materially yet Formally was not Punishment as laid on the innocent Person of Christ All this Mr. Baxter says and it must be said as true plain undeniable and nevertheless there being a Punishment due to us for our sins and our sins the Meritorious Cause of it and the Obligation to the suffering it arising from the Law as broken by us here is consequently a proper formal Punishment to be inflicted Impersonally as Grotius before And it being not against the Justice of God to take this Punishment Impersonally considered and lay it either on Another or the Person or Persons that sinned so long as no dishonour to his Law nor prejudice to his Government comes thereby Severity being shewen against sin as pitty to the sinner and Christ Jesus being willing to take on him the Punishment no wrong being done to the willing it being his Fathers and his Own Appointment that he who was the Second Person in the Trinity should become Man to be a fit Person for the Work it pleased God and him that he did actually take on him this Punishment in such a manner as he was capable of it that is not in regard to the Merit or that he should be held longer than he was under it and suitable to such a Person which made his Temporal suffering an Equivalent so that by enduring the same in our behalf Satisfaction was made and God thereupon relaxes his Law of Works by passing a New Law or remedying Law of Grace whereby Deliverance and Life Pardon and Salvation is to be had on the Terms of the Gospel This is that Doctrine which whosoever imbraces be he Arminian or Calvinist let him be Episcopius or Baxter Mr. Williams or Mr. Lobb it is all one for that Bring us the Test let us see their Books and if we find in them a constant acknowledgment that the sufferings of Christ was a Punishment for our sins and a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them let them differ as they will in accuracy we are at Unity in the Point Only let not any one that is more accurate about it despise him that is less accurate nor he that is less accurate be scandalized at him that is more accurate and cautious lest by denying or contradicting what is reasonable to be granted he should harden the Adversary and blunt his own Faith Knowing this that be he as cautious as he can he will hardly be out of danger of one of the Extreams and also that as I humbly think he must however be more accurate than to go the Common way of the ordinary Protestant or by avoiding the extream of Socinianism on one hand he will fall into Antinomianism on the other into which many are already fallen that disclaim it In short The sufferings of Christ may be considered Personally in Relation to himself or Impersonally in relation to us Personally in relation to himself there being no Merit of his own and no Merit of ours imputable to that Holy Person his sufferings could not be formally Penal Impersonally in relation to us the Punishment being in our room was ours and consequently must be a formal proper Punishment and this Commutation only thus construed is enough for the explaining and upholding the Doctrine of Satisfaction And yet again that this Business this difficult Business the reconciling Mr. Baxter and Grotius be dispatched and thoroughly
him the Obligation to suffer for our sins but not Our Obligation He bare the Punishment of our sins let me say yet Personally not Our Punishment When Christ is said to be made under the Law Gal. 4.4 I understand it of the Law of Moses as a Jew born for redeeming the Jews from it Yet as one of Mankind was he also under the Law of Works as to the Precept and fulfilled it for freeing us from that perfect Performance as the Condition of Life and from its being to us the Rule of Judgment but he was not under the Penal Sanction nor could be being innocent He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3.13 made a Curse but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3.10 under the Curse which none but the Transgressor is And seeing Mr. Lobb is come already to see he must part with the Common Doctrine somewhere or fall into Antinomianism he is so rational and fair a Man I believe as his own Genius when once he can be cool and consider will suggest to him that it is better not to set out at all than to halt by the way and not to go quite home If he be convinced that the Personal Guilt of our sins could not be translated on Christ so as to make him a Legal Sinner which is all that the Crispian as well as the Common Protestant Doctrine ever meant then will he see that the Personal Righteousness of Christ cannot be translated neither on us so as that we should be Legally Righteous in him and consequently agree with Mr. Baxter and me leaving Mr. VVilliams if he wont come on behind in the Doctrine both of Satisfaction and Justification I must add as a Corollary that the Phrases my Friend does stand so much upon of Christs suffering in our Person or in our stead if they be used as the same and signifie no more but that Christ being a Divine Person did suffer a Temporal Death as an Equivalent to save us from suffering Eternal Damnation they are equally to pass But if either of them be made to bear such a Sense as that Christ did Legally personate us so as we are to be accounted to have done or suffered in him that which he did or suffered or what may seem less that this Commutation of Persons did put Christ under Our Obligation of the violated Law of VVorks so making him to be accounted of God a Sinner and dealt with as a Sinner to the end that his sufferings may be maintained to be a proper Punishment the Phrase or Phrases are stretch'd beyond the Staple become dangerous the Sense Antinomian and to be disallowed And now to dismiss Mr. VVilliams and Mr. Lobb both The summ of Mr. Lobb's Appeal comes to this Syllogism That Person who holds that the sufferings of Christ was not a Proper Punishment but a Vicarious Punishment Not Formally but Materially Punishment That our Sins were not the Proximious Meritorious Cause but the Remote the Pro-meritorious Cause or Occasion of them That they arose not from the Obligation of the Law or from the Sanction of the Law of VVorks which includes with Mr. Lobb that Commutation of Persons as makes Christ Guilty taken judged and executed in our Person but from his voluntary Sponsion or submission to his Fathers Commandment proper to him which implies with Mr. Lobb that the inflicting of Sufferings on Christ could be no act of Gods Rectoral Justice but of Dominion when I take it to be an act of God both as Rector and Supra Leges together and such a Relaxation of his Law as Zaleucus Fact was That consequently the Law in the Threat was not fulfilled by him such a Person is a Socinian and denies the Doctrine or denies that which is necessary to explain the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction But Mr. VVilliams is such a Person Ergo Mr. VVilliams is one that denies that which is necessary to this Explanation Here Mr. Lobb makes it his business to prove the Minor which he hath effectually done in quoting Mr. Baxter in many places and many more might be added saying these things and then producing Considerations and Passages out of Mr. VVilliams to prove that he must be of the same Opinion Now if Mr. VVilliams denies the Minor and goes to vindicate himself as to that he may be ashamed for Mr. Lobb has done his Work But Mr. VVilliams I suppose as well as I will deny the Major And what hath Mr. Lobb to say for that but all Gratis Why here is a Supposition presumed that the Satisfaction Christ made for our sins was to be such and such as they have fancied or else it must be no satisfaction when the mistake is so great that if all that were necessary thereto which they pretend the Lord Christ was a Person uncapable to make it and so there must be none and we be all Socinians I have therefore two Answers to give Mr. Lobb The First shall be from himself who when Mr. Williams is arguing That if we may very properly be said to be punished in Christ for our sins then must it be granted that we made satisfaction in Christ and are our own Redeemers He answers No because the satisfaction arose not says he from our sufferings in Christ nor indeed from Christs Sufferings considered absolutely and in se but from the Fathers acceptation of the Sons sufferings This is judiciously said The words he adds as they were Ex obligatione Legis and an Equivalent to the demerit of our sins are Petitio Principii for he might put in 〈◊〉 well as our sins were the Proximous Meritorious Cause of them and as they were a proper Punishment I answer him therefore accordingly That seeing the Satisfaction Christ made was not indeed a Satisfaction of the Law it self but of the Law-giver who though Rector is also Supra Leges the Law indeed which requires Supplicium delinquentis being not executed but Satisfaction made that it might not be fulfilled on the Sinner and seeing the Satisfaction lay Fundamentally in the Acceptation of the Father or as perform'd according to the Will of both What if it pleased God to appoint and accept of a Vicarious Punishment instead of a proper Punishment who is there can have any more to say against it I will add in regard to some fresh Sheets of Mr. Lobb come out called A further Defence which in setting forth Mr. Baxters Doctrine as opposite to that which is commonly Received according to Dr. Edwards and others has done Mr. Baxter Right and Honour as I account That for as much as God acts according to him and Truth both as Rector and Lord also Supra Leges and the great Ends of Government in general such as the Demonstration of Gods Righteousness his hatred to sin the deterring the Sinner by exemplary Punishment and even his greater Glory might be attained in the way which God took without fulfilling the direct end of the Law in a proper punishment on the Sinner or on Christ as a Sinner It is such a Satisfaction as Mr. Baxter offers that is a Satisfaction of the Law-giver and not that Mr. Lobb stands upon a Satisfaction of the Law which is to be maintained For this being Socinus fundamental Errour That True Satisfaction lies only in a full payment of the Debt and Eternal Death being due to every Sinner the Doctrine of Satisfaction seems to him apparently False Christ suffering not that Punishment and those Divines now that fall in with him into that Conception have not an Answer to give Socinus whereas Mr. Lobb hath set out Mr. Baxter's Doctrine in the several branches to be so tight and uniform that the light thereof though wrapt in his Clouds of Blame about it does appear most â—onvictive and irresistible and I cannot but think that Mr. Lobb himself when he can be cool and lay by opposition must be ready to embrace it It is Mr. Baxter's Satisfaction which can be justified against Socinus Mr. Baxter's Doctrine is such as does force even the Socinians to yield and acknowledge themselves overcome by it This is such Doctrine as needs no more but the same more friendly display of it See Mr. Baxter's own 18 Determinations together for Mr. Baxter's Vindication and Mr. Lobb's Reduction The Second Answer I have is made already in these Sheets and that is that there is one Word and that taken from Grotius himself which hath done it The word Impersonaliter does reconcile Grotius and Baxter Mr. Williams and Mr. Lobb the Bishop and us all and that word therefore without any thing more is enough to solve the difficulty and consequently to explain and make good this Great Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction FINIS ERRATA PAg. 9. line 27. my read your p. 14. l. 21. r. existimare p. 22. l. 9. Premium r. Praemiant p. 74 in the Margin deliti r. debiti THE BOOKSELLER TO THE READER Reader THese Letters and Animadversions put thus together by my Appointment were intended to come out asunder the Animadversions as a second Part of the Friendly Interposer and the Letters as the finishing Work to that Doctrine proposed by Mr. H. in his Middle Way and confirmed in his Righteousness of God unto which Book he would have had them annex'd alone by themselves But in regard that the several Papers of his concerning the late Difference among the Nonconformists in Doctrinals whereof the Point of Justification is the chief will come with these to forty Sheets I have thought best my self and have found good Cause so to do to bind the whole in one handsom Book that any that will so long as each of a sort holds out may have it T. P.
just by bestowing Faith is Regeneration which I distinguish from Justification as you and all Protestants do Justification makes just otherwise In the next place you tell me of Relative Grace being founded on Real Grace but I see not wherein that serves you or opposes me Real Grace I take it is that which makes a change on the Person but Relative Grace only on the State giving right to the benefits which belongs to the Person I apprehend so of that Distinction and if I do not apprehend you right you must help my Understanding Well now Regeneration I count with you must precede Justification that is Real Grace Upon this Real Grace then is founded that making us righteous which is Relative There is Faith already wrought and presupposed and God in justifying us does by his Gospel-Law I count constitute or make that Faith to be a Righteousness which otherwise it was not that gives right to the benefits that a perfect Righteousness if performed would give The Regenerate Man I say believes Upon his believing the Gospel-Law or God by that Law does impute that believing to him for Righteousness By which Imputation be is made accounted and used as a righteous Person and so reaps the benefit All which together is his Justification Let us here set our Horses together There is a Righteousness or the Grace of Regeneration or a Righteousness or the Grace of Justification One is Real Grace and the other Relative you say and therefore two Nevertheless when you say the Righteousness that makes us just is Regeneration you do not see that this Righteousness must not therefore be that which justifies us or that which I say is the formal Cause of our Justification It is true that our Righteousness or Faith wrought in us by Vocation Regeneration or Sanctification is the same Righteousness materially but not the same formally with this Righteousness of Justification for if a Man were the most righteous Person upon Earth there were no reward due to it being imperfect and it could not be this Righteousness in Gods sight giving right to the benefit that is this Relative Grace but for the Law of Grace and his Institution by it A right to Impunity and Life is Righteousness and that is not the Righteousness of Regeneration You say God Regenerates us and that makes us righteous Very well and I tell you that this is the Righteousness of the Person which justifies not and so I am no Papist but it is a Righteousness of the State the Righteousness I say which is made so by the Gospel-Law or that Relative Righteousness which does give right to the reward or benefit when the other imperfect cannot is the Righteousness we intend When a Man then is made righteous by God or by his Law upon his believing who was made righteous before by Regeneration or when a Man hath Faith bestowed on him in his effectual Vocation and that Faith after is imputed to him for Righteousness it is not his Faith and Righteousness as inherent but as so imputed is that Righteousness which justifies him or that Righteousness that is the Form or formal Cause of his Justification You may see here how by going to avoid Popery by denying that we are made just by Justification you take away that Medium which by the granting and maintaining we must obtain our purpose God says Mr. Baxter as Law-giver above his Laws maketh us just by his pardoning Law or Covenant and as determining Judge be justifies us by Esteeming and Sentencing us just and as Executioner he uses us as just All know such things are spoken in order of nature not of time which I need not mention before or now but to avoid Cavil You deny this Constitutive Justification but what say you to the Matter Does God by his Law of Grace make a Man just upon his believing To be made righteous is to be justified in Law-sense and justifiable by Sentence If God do so as the Law is general then must a particular Man believing be in the applying only that Law to him made righteous made so in order to his being accounted and used as such And if God by that Law applyed to him makes the Person righteous it is that Righteousness must be and is the formal Cause of his Justification This my dear Brother you did not perceive nor as I think Mr. Baxter quite who came so near it He never let the right understanding of the Righteousness of God preceding actual Pardon sink into his Thoughts if he had he would have set it into such a Light as there would have been no need of my Book and if he had roundly told you as I what is the formal Righteousness that justifies the Believer notwithstanding other Protestants say it not you might have received it Though as to that Particular Justification or Part of Justification against the Gospel-charge that a Man is an Unbeliever and Impenitent and hath no right to Pardon and Life he accounts that his Faith and Repentance is that Subordinate Righteousness which justifies him and that must be formaliter as I say And to satisfie Mr. Baxter fully there is and there can be no charge but this against any for the Gospel-Law it self the Universal Pardon or Grace of the Gospel it self which in the Righteousness of God as to Gods part is included does alone take off or answers all others But now seeing I am yet in doubt that your fear of me and therefore of other Friends is not yet gone in regard to my allowing that we are justified by a Righteousness within us or by our inherent Grace for that I percieve it is you fear even as rank Popery under the present apprehension when Justification yet by Works you maintain without scruple I will endeavour over again to deliver you and them out of it Faith you know and conceive to be Grace inherent and a Righteousness in us and you are not afraid I hope to affirm that we are justified by Faith Well then there is according to your Self before and the Truth a double Grace Real Grace and Relative Grace and Justification you say is Relative Grace Regeneration Real I say again accordingly there must be a double Righteousness the Righteousness of Sanctification or Regeneration and the Righteousness of Justification 0103 0 The one entitles to no Reward being short of perfect the other through the imputation of Christs Merits entitles to Impunity and Life for the imputing Christs Merits to our Faith or inherent Grace to make it accepted as hath already been intimated for Righteousness which else were none is to be understood in Gods imputing our Faith for Righteousness It is the Righteousness of the last now be it known and not of the former by which we are justified It is the Righteousness of the last not of the former which is the formal Cause of our Justification Here then do I at once discharge you from your Fear The Papists say
say thus but not others Our Divines say Faith is the Condition or the Instrument but not the Form or formal Cause of our Justification This I acknowledge and Answer that the Reason is apparent because our former Divines did apprehend that it is by the Law of Works that we are to be justified and there being no Righteousness but Christs which Answers that Law it must be his alone that can justifie us But this being a mistake the fundamental mistake of our Divines formerly Protestant and Papist and it being not by the Law or according to the Law of Works but by the Law of Grace or according to the Gospel that we are to be judged and justified it is impossible that Christ's Righteousness which is a Righteousness according to the Law should be that Righteousness that justifies us according to the Gospel It is impossible that Christs Righteousness should be that Righteousness of God which in opposition to Works does justifie us according to the Apostle or that Righteousness of God which without the Law is manifested seeing this is a Righteousness with the Law being perfectly conformable to it And it is impossible Logically impossible but Faith which is that which the Gospel requires as the Condition of Life instead of the perfect Obedience of the Law when performed and imputed for Righteousness should be and must be that Righteousness which is the Form or formal Cause of our Evangelical Justification I will now speak to a Passage that put me to many Thoughts in another Letter in regard to our speaking of Justification as passively taken You seem say you to make Justification Active and Passive two things The former Gods imputing the latter Faith imputed for Righteousness If they are different you make two Justifications which you condemn in me If they are one they must both have the same Form or formal Cause But Justification is Gods Act and it is impossible Faith or any thing should be the formal Cause of Gods Act it may be the Condition not formal Cause As for this Passage I did wonder to see you so much in earnest which may be objected against Christs being the meritorius Cause as well against our Faith being the formal Cause and against its being the Condition of our Justification What Because I am not for making a double Justification which are of two kinds one by the Law another by the Gospel do you think I may not therefore distinguish Justification into Active and Passive when we mean nothing else by it but that Justification may be Actively and Passively taken And as for the Metaphysical Point you are concern'd alike with me It is the Will of God by giving us his Law of Grace that when a Man believes he shall by that Law be Made Accounted and Used as a righteous Person and so be free from Punishment and Saved Of this Will of God now ex parte Agentis we must know there is nothing without him can be Cause or Condition God is Actus purus God acts only by his Essence and his Essence is immutable yet does that Will which is one and the same cause all Diversity and he that is immutable cause Mutations And as that Act of his Will or Will which is all one is terminated on the Object and recipitur in passo it causeth its effects and is extrinsecally denominated by them In these Effects there is an Order and one thing the cause of another according to that of Aquinas Deus vult hoc propter hoc tho' propter hoc he does not velle hoc Now when in our Justification which is Gods Act the Will of God by his Law of Grace does make that Change of State in a Believer or of his Relation toward God so as to have thereby a Right conferred to Pardon and Life there are Causes of that Change and Right which being new in the Object Ex connotatione Objecti Effectus denominate Gods Act. It is impossible say you that Faith or anything should be the formal Cause of Gods Act. Very good that were absurd indeed But what is Gods Act here His Act here is exprest in the word Imputing and who thinks Faith the Form of that Nothing in us can be the cause of Gods Act it 's true but something in us may be the Object upon which Gods Act is terminated and that here is our Faith as he imputes it for Righteousness and this being the Effect of that Act in passo this Faith so imputed is the formal Cause of our Justification so effected As for the Question Whether Justification Active and Passive Justificare and Justificari be one or two Justifications it is a nicer Matter I thought than need be answered but seeing it falls in and must I say There is no distinction without a difference and where things differ and are diverse their Form and Definition must be diverse Justification Active and Passive therefore must have two Forms but the Matter is the same Faith in the Imputation of it and in its being imputed to us for Righteousness is the same So that formally they are two materially they are one and the same Justification Well Justification to proceed upon what hath been said tho' Gods Act yet passively taken as other things in the sense shewn must have its Causes Sanctification is an Act of Gods Grace as well as Justification and you will not deny our inherent Grace to be the formal Cause of Sanctification for all that But how Not as Actively but Passively taken As for the Causes then of Passive Justification Of the Efficient the Final the Meritorious there is no dispute but of the Material and Formal there is and it is fit to be considered Mr. Baxter hath taught that Christs Righteousness is not only the Meritorious but Material Cause of our Justification And you have cited Mr. Anthony Burgesse holding Christs Active Obedience as well as Passive to be the Matter but denying that we are formally justified by it Where he speaks after Amesius I suppose seeing it is upon the same Reason that if it were so we must be as righteous as Christ which I have mentioned before as Bellarmine's Objection against that Doctrine and which by Ames his waving it he acknowledges unanswerable when yet we know that Doctrine to have been the Common Protestants formerly as Davenant before tells us and some more weighty Divines than Mr. Burgesse tells us yet thus much further Mirum hic videri non debet Christi justitiam non Meritoriae solum sed Materialis immo formalis causae rationem habere cum id fiat diversimodè nempe qua illa est propter quod in quo sive ex quo per quod justificamur So the Leiden Divines For my own part I have in my Book taken up with Mr. Baxter upon trusting to his profounder Judgment but I will now shew also my Opinion The Meritorius Cause comes under the Efficient and is the
Efficient Protatarctick or Impulsive Cause according to my first Oxford-Learning and the Efficient Material Formal and Final Causes being the different Species of Cause in general I cannot but think they are to be so held in this Point of Justification The Efficient Cause then I say is God The Meritorius is Christs Righteousness The Material is not the same with that coming under the Efficient but is I count our inherent Grace or Faith as infused in our Regeneration The Formal then is the imputing this Faith or Grace inherent as the Evangelick Condition is performed by it to us for Righteousness when being imperfect otherwise it were none Inherent Grace is the Matter and the Form is brought into it by this Imputation This I have before though transiently fuller explained I think and as for my giving way to Mr. Baxter I am sensible that he understanding how nothing ab extra not Christs Merits is possible to move God or be impulsive to any Act in him who is uncapable of Mutation did apprehend Christs Merits to fall under the same Cause as our Merits would if we had them which is only a Dispositio Recipientis according to him and so the Material Cause because there can be no impulsive Cause in regard to God But seeing our Divines do commonly and the Holy Scripture speak of God Justifying Pardoning Saving and continually Blessing us for the sake of Christ or his Merits for all that there is nothing indeed ab extra can move him and this kind of speaking is warranted by the extrinsick denomination of Gods Law yea his Will by meer Connotation of the various and new Effects it causes it was I think but an over deep curiosity in this excellent Man which turn'd him from the obvious and right Notion as commonly received that it is per modum Causae Efficientis Protatarcticae when we say Meritoriae and not per modum Materialis or Formalis that Christs Righteousness does conduce to our Justification It is true I will say again that Ex parte Volentis what Christ himself hath done for us procures no new Act of Grace toward us because the simplicity of the Divine Nature is not capable of any but Ex parte rei volitae to say it procured no new Effects of his Grace for us but only disposes and qualifies us for the receiving those Effects is a mater so nice so subtle and out of the way that if it were true it could not be taught and is most likely to be untrue both therefore and because it seems derogatory to Christs Satisfaction and Merits to his Sufferings and Obedience which the Scripture speaks of as a Price as a Ransom a Purchase not to dispose us for but to obtain for us our Redemption and consequently those other Effects of his Grace likewise our Justification and Salvation I have now no more to answer and it is time for me to have done Only I must summ up what I have here wrote as to the matter between us You and I my dear Brother agree in the main Doctrine of Justification by Faith but have been differing in two Points about it which you say are but little but I say are very momentous Matters The two Points are these One is Justification I say makes us just and does not only sentence us so You say or have said Justification is the accounting but not making us just The other Point is this As Justification makes us righteous I say there is a Righteousness within Faith or our Evangelical Righteousness which justifying us must therefore be and is the Form or formal Cause of our Justification And this you receive not or have very hardly received I will speak it more short Justification I say makes us righteous and that righteousness whereby we are made righteous is and must be the formal Cause of it Here are both Points wrapt together and you do or have questioned both I will offer you therefore one Argument and that is Ad hominem for your conviction You maintain Justification by Faith as our Evangelical Righteousness as I do Now if Justification do not make us righteous then must we be justified by that inherent Righteousness which is the Righteousness only of Regeneration there being with you no other And then are you the strongest Papist as to me as ever writ for here is a most convincing Book of yours which is all almost Scripture and yet maintains Justification by inherent Grace and Faith as the Papists do Here then you can by no means extricate your self from them when I thus say we are made righteous by Justificationâ— and by that Righteousness only justified do escape As for the Consequence now of these two Points I think fit before I come to it that it be first considered how these consist how necessary they are to and indeed sustain and infer one another For if Justification makes us just then must there be a Righteousness so made that is the Form of our Justification and the Righteousness which is that Form is the Righteousness that constitutes us just or justifies us This being asserted there are these two things then as the consequence of these two Points appears and has been shewn in this Letter One is for I must recal them that whereas our late Protestants who have been more wary and come to see the Absurdity of our former Divines who in opposition to the Papists making our inherent Grace the formal Cause of our Justification would put Christs Righteousness in its room so making the Righteousness of another our formal Righteousness are convincedly brought off from their Opinion they have been and are ever since at a loss and must be to pitch upon that which is indeed the formal Cause of our Justification And when you or I or you and I together have been so happy to have found out that Righteousness even the Righteousness of God which is this formal Cause for them Is this in earnest with you but a little matter What! And is the clearing the difference of your and my way from the Papists which was the great difficulty lay upon you before a little matter also It was otherwise at your first writing to me and it is an Archeivement now worthy our mutual Letters The other Consequence is That when the Protestants I say and have said and our Brethren are among themselves at difference so much about this Great Article there is by this means some thing found out yet further as may reconcile them and that as it were I say in my first Letter by a Word For if we can but tell any thing in such short Terms as does Characterize or is a Characteristical Note to distinguish the Sound Protestant from the Unsound then may the Sound presently Unite and Drop the other if they still will be Absurd Now here is such a Characteristical Note and let the World that please know the same Justification by Christs Righteousness and not our
Gods Act is conversant and that here is Faith as he imputes it for Righteousness and this being the effect of that Act in passo this Faith so imputed I say is the formal Cause of our Justification so effected Answ The Object of Gods Act is Faith or the Believer The Effect of it in us Justification Imputation is the formal Cause as has been (d) And already satisfied already said 5. The Arguments which you produce for the proof of it I have gathered together out of the several places of their dispersion and they are these Argu. 1. All our Divines both Protestant and Papist do agree upon it that that Righteousness whatever it be that denominates and makes us righteous in Gods sight is and must be the Form or formal Cause of Justification And certainly these Divines understood this Metaphysical Term better than you or I. And when wee use it in their Sense and no otherwise there can be no fear But neither Regeneration nor Christs Righteousness nor Pardon is that which justifies us per modum causae formalis and therefore it must be (e) As imputed for Righteousness that is with Luther Faith and Gods Imputation together not Faith of its self Faith Not Christs Righteousness for that is the meritorious Cause Not Regenerating Grace for that must precede Justification not Pardon for that comes after it And therefore if Justification has any formal Cause which it must have or it is nothing for forma dat esse it must be one of these or something else What is that Why the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel as that Righteousness alone which justifies the Believer Answ It is something else viz. Gods f Imputation f To this and the former Answer I say that is true it is Imputation as to Active Justification or as to God justifying us Therefore something imputed must be the formal Cause of the Persons being Justified And what is that Christs Righteousness or the Righteousness of Faith We agree as to the last Argu. 2. As Adam if he had perfectly obey'd his Obedience had been his formal Righteousness in regard to the Law so is this ours in regard to the Gospel Right of God p. 20. So again Works were the formal Righteousnest of Justification by the Law Therefore Faith is the formal Righteousness of Justification by the Gospel Right of God p. 20. Again presently after Two things go to this formal Righteousness Faith and the Imputation of it To these I answer in order Answ To the first and second 1. It 's without doubt that Adams Obedience was g formal Righteousness and so Faith is now but so it might be and yet not be the Form of his Justification as I at first said The formal Cause of Adam's Justification was Gods owning accounting or judging him righteous upon the account of his perfect Obedience as Gods Imputation of Faith for Righteousness is the Formal Cause of our Justification g To be our formal Righteousness and to be the Righteousness and to be the Righteousness that is the Form of our Justification is all one so spoken and understood by Divines Gods accounting Adam perfectly righteous was Active Justification Adam's being righteous and so accounted was Justification Passive and Gods imputing our Faith for Righteousness and our Faith imputed is the same likewise Here is nothing but what is prevented already 2. I deny the Consequence in the first Assertion That if Adam's Law-obedience was his formal Righteousness then our Gospel-Obedience is our formal Righteousness because though Faith comes in the room of Law-Works in some respects yet not in all for it doth not h merit the reward as Law-Works would have done h Whether the reward be of Grace or Merit that is nothing to the purpose so long as Faith is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace as perfect Obedience was of the Covenant of Works The Performance of the Evangelick Condition is the formal Righteousness of the one The Performance of the Legal was the formal Righteousness of the other The formality lies in the Condition performed not in the Meritoriousness or Nonmeritoriousness of the Performance Answ To the third If Faith and Imputation i both go to this formal Righteousness then Faith alone is not the Form of it i By this you see that we are agreed I say and you say that Faith is the Matter as will appear more hereafter and Imputation that which brings the Form into the Matter so that it is not Faith alone but Faith as imputed for Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification Argu. 3. If Justification has a Form and that Form must be some Righteousness Justificationis formam justicia constare certum est What Righteousness is that It is Gods counting or judging us Righteous say you But is this an Answer to the Question What Righteousness is it whereby we are justified When I ask What Righteousness it is whereby we are justified or what Righteousness that is which is the Form of Justification I ask What Righteousness that is whereby or wherewith or by reason of which God accounts or judges us righteous It is not regenerating Grace infused but regenerating Grace imputed that is Faith imputed for Righteousness That which makes a Man righteous in Gods sight according to the Gospel is that which justifies us so as to be the Causa formalis of it Per formalem Justificationis causam justi constituimur What then is that Righteousness which makes or constitutes us just It is Gods imputing this Faith before infused that makes us righteous and consequently is the Causa formalis of our Justification Answ 1. I say the Causa formalis of Justification is Gods counting or judging us righteous so say you too Your Words are these Gods judging us righteous upon believing is the k Form k The Form of a thing does constitute and denominate the thing If Gods judging us righteous or imputing our Faith for Righteousness does actually make and denominate God our Justifier then must our being judged righteous and our Faith imputed for Righteousness make and passively denominate us justified There is the same Efficient and Material Cause in both but the Form double Answ 2. I answer directly The Righteousness whereby we are justified as the meritorious Cause of our Justification is the Righteousness of Christ The Righteousness of Faith the material Cause But the formal is l Gods judging us righteous as you agree l Here you are plainly gone I ask what Righteousness that is and you Answer Gods judging There is some Righteousness as all our Divines agree that does make and denominate us righteous and that which so makes and denominates us according to the Gospel is that which justifies us When you don't tell this you are gone I say as I have said It is true that Gods judging or imputing something to us for Righteousness is the Form of Gods justifying Act but that something that is judged and imputed to
had performed it all and of Faith whose Office it is to embrace that Righteousness so imputed there is not one word in the Sacred Letters says the Learned Grotius If the Bishop before praised dare follow that leading Man in the one Point as in the other I will come now therefore to this new Book of Mr. Lobb which he calls An Appeal that is from the Presbyterian Brethren to the Bishop of Worcester as Moderator between them They produce the Bishops Letter in their Vindication and Mr. Lobb sticks to that Letter as vindicating him and both are in the right for when they agree to the Bishop they must agree also with one another In this Appeal Mr. Lobb looking on Mr. Williams as in the Chair of Mr. Baxter to maintain his Doctrine does collect many Pussages out of Mr. Baxter which are approaching to the Socinians and supposes such Doctrine to be inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Bishop that he maintains against Crellius in his Book of the Sufferings of Christ We shall see if the Bishop writer whether he judges as Mr. Lobb or rather shall see cause of Agreement not Difference with Mr. B. in this Point That which I have to say is this There is a vast difference in the account that must be given of two Men speaking the same things about a Doctrine which is in Controversie between them when one does bring them by way of Objection for Confutation of it and the other by way of Explication for the better clearing and maintaining it in Answer to those Objections And there is a double Answer to an Objection One is by Negation when the matter is false and the other is by Concession when the matter is true and reasonable but shewing that it affects not that Doctrine which remains firm notwithstanding that Concession This is the Case of Mr. Baxter in regard to the Socinian The Socinians say many things rationally and which are true and Mr. Baxter in such matters spares not to say the like but the one says them for the Enervating the other for the Elucidating the Doctrine of Satisfaction It is most certain that Mr. Baxter holds the same Doctrine which Grotius does and follows him in the Explication shewing the consistency of it with Gods Free Grace in the remission of sin which two things Socinus thinks incompatible To wit in that when it is alius that suffers it is aliud solvitur and also it being not the Idem but the Tantundem which Christ suffered and that it was not therefore the Law it self but the Law-giver he satisfied Upon which accounts the Satisfaction was in it self refusable a Solutio recusabilis as he after Grotius does call it that is such as God in Justice was not bound to accept but in Mercy through Grace he did accept it and what is more found out this way of Satisfaction himself for us which makes it so much more of Grace so that a Free Pardon I say appears notwithstanding this Satisfaction as in the Sacrifices of the Jews for sin there was an Attonement made by their Blood in order to the Remission That Mr. Baxter does maintain this Doctrine of Grotius this Doctrine that is the Marrow of the Old and New Testament to wit the Doctrine of Pardon upon Satisfaction against the Socinian it is apparent I say as that Mr. Lobb does hold Justification upon believing against Dr. Crisp And if it shall farther appear that there is nothing of all that he hath alledged against Mr. Baxter is dissonant to the mind of Grotius and Bishop Stillingfleet he will I hope come off at last To this end let us observe that this Learned Bishop in his Letter speaking of Christs bearing our sins and distinguishing the desert of punishment from the Punishment and affirming rightly that though Christ took on him the Obligation to undergo the Punishment the Desert could not be transferr'd upon him he hath these words No Man can cease to deserve Punishment for his own Faults nor Deserve that another should be punished for them This Saying is so true plain and reasonable that though Socinus Crellius or any of their Followers shall stand upon it never so much it is not to be denied but granted for all that Upon this Foundation it follows If no Man can deserve that another be punished for him then cannot we by our sins deserve Christs sufferings We deserved the Punishment it was a deserved Punishment but we deserved not that he should bear it If our sins then deserved not that Christ should suffer they are not the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings If not the Meritorious Cause no proper Cause but the Occasion as Mr. Baxter is cited by Mr. Lobb And to go on the reason appears It was not from the Law his Obligation to suffer did arise for the Law punishes only the Transgressor Noxu caput siquitur It was not our Obligation therefore he took on him for our Obligation is an Obligation of desert Obligatio Criminis as it is call'd but his only Ex contractu And seeing it was not Obligatio ex Lege it follows that the Sufferings he bore were Materially not Formally Punishment It was the sins of Mankind says Mr. Baxter that were the Occasion of Christs Sufferings called by some an assumed Meritorious Cause because by his consent they were loco causae Meritoriae End of Contro C. 13. In which Words and all other Passages collected by Mr. Lobb what is there to be found fault with unless an over perspicacity tightness and consonancy of Judgment in all his Pieces alike made good all by the reason of that undeniable Concession that One Man cannot deserve that another should be punished for his Faults as the Bishop has it And now to come from the Bishop to Grotius It must be acknowledged that Grotius hath made it his business to shew that our sins were the Impulsive the Meritorious Impulsive Cause of Christs Sufferings in his dying for us which he hath proved no less substantially than critically by the Prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 15.3 Heb. 11.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 3.18 Gal. 1.4 Pro peccatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum accusativo Rom. 4.25 Propter peccuta and Isa 53.5 Ob peccata nostra which all denote the Impulsive Cause says he and not the Final against Socinus Upon this it is supposed by Mr. Lobb that what is mentioned before as said by Mr. Baxter is contrary to this Doctrine and he hath cited such Passages therefore as Heterodox But Grotius himself must be the Man to Answer and Reconcile what he says with what is said by Mr. Baxter which he does very sufficiently with one word that Mr. Lobb hath not observed at least to make so good an use of it For Socinus in opposition to the Doctrine of Satisfaction denying that Christ could dye for sin as the Meritorious Cause of his Death which he will have to be only the Final Cause
in turning us away from it because this must make him as he argues a sinner and one deserving to die Grotius takes him up and tells us that it was for sin but Impersonaliter This he explains in that our sins did deserve that Punishment should be exacted but such was the goodness of God to spare us and lay it upon his Son who was wounded for our Transgressions and through his stripes are we healed Now that God might do so without Injustice Grotius brings many Instances from David from Ahab from the Gibeonites from the second Commandment What God himself does or allows must be just David sins and his Child dies Ahab is wicked and his Punishment is deferred to his Sons Days Saul is cruel to the Gibeonites and his Grandchildren are put to death The Fathers sin and God visits their sin on the Children to three or four Generations Here is Merit as the Antecedent Cause of the Punishment in all these Instances and yet not the Merit of the Person or Persons that suffer it And what if I shall add here this great thing a thing wherein Divines are put so hard to it in giving their account even the greater Instance of Death passing on all Men with their innocent Babes among them for Adam's Transgression It is said of Grotius and that solidly in another place Peccata paenae causa sunt non aliter quam per modum Meriti which being true Socinus does indeed seem to argue strongly that therefore prater Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moriretur This Grotius I say takes up and Answers thus Inest quidem in antecedente causa Meritum sed Impersonaliter From hence then we must distinguish there is a double Merit of Punishment Personal and Impersonal When Grotius tells us that in Christs sufferings there was truly Punishment because that though God laid it on his Son our sins required the infliction and Mr. Baxter says no formal proper Punishment because not only without desert in Christ but which is more because our desert could not be transferr'd on him though the Punishment was they both say true but rightly understood only the one Personaliter the other Impersonaliter as Grotious hath decided it And what is this in good earnest any other but what the Bishop hath in effect determined likewise No Man can deserve that another should be punished for him and yet because the Execution of Punishment depends on the wisdom of God a Change of Persons that is of Christ to bear it in our room Christ being willing and the thing just may intervene says the Bishop in more words and all apposite If Mr. Lobb then can but reconcile the Bishop to himself unto whom he seems heartily to subscribe he must reconcile Mr. Baxter and Grotius and be also reconciled to both And that he may be so the more easily the Bishop hath given a Test for the discovery of the Orthodox from the Socinian and Mr. Baxter shall thereby be tryed The true Controversie says he between the Socinian and us is Whether the Sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for our sins and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them or only as an Act of Dominion over an innocent Person in order to his Advancement to Glory The same is affirmed after him by our Presbyterian Brethren and who is there can imagine ever Mr. Baxter denied that Christs sufferings was a Punishment for our sins and his death a Propitiatory Sacrifice for them He hath made him sin for us says Paul 2 Cor. 5.21 Upon which God hath made Christ a Sacrifice for sin says Mr. Baxter as others which Socinus denies Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree says Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 Upon which It was the punishment of our sins which as a Sacrifice he bare in his sufferings on the Cross says Mr. Baxter But what need I quote any such particular Sayings when there is no Book of his that is great that can be without such a Testimony over and over What then you may ask shall we judge here of Mr. Lobb's great Industry Shall we look on him as the Fly upon the Axle-tree that hath raised all this Dust for nothing I will not say so seeing Dust there is that must be raised if our Wheels do but go and our Chariot drive to its designed end the quiet of the Brethren It is not enough that we are agreed indeed in this Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction though we are unless we also understand and know it Besides that when we are agreed there is need of some Anthority yet to tell us we are so that our selves may believe it The Composing a Controversie by Silence is but covering the Fire as Mr. Lobb observes not extinguishing it If the Matter be such wherein we indeed do agree the Ventilation of it must shew us the seeming Difference to be nothing and so compel a Concord If the Matter be such wherein we really disagree there is still need of beating it out that the Corn may be discovered from the Chaff by the threshing There are two Points we know among us both very great Pâ—â—â—…ts and the one made difficult through the Intanglement of it with the Other One is of Christs Satisfaction wherein indeed we differ not The other is of our Justification wherein we do differ and there are two ways of Explication Mr. Baxter's and the Common Protestants Upon the Account now of this Difference in the latter Point there are many are stumbled in their Explication of the former As for Mr. Lobb he has verily given occasion for an Accomodation between the Brethren by his Appeal to the Bishop as to the Point of Satisfaction for seeing indeed there is therein no difference he is like to effect it But as for the other of Justification Mr. Lobb is behind and it will be a harder matter for any to moderate in it One thing in his strowing his way hereunto is to be preparatively considered He has read I suppose Socinus de Servatore as well as Grotius upon him and Crellius then against Grotius with other Socinians as also Dr. Crisp and other Antinomians and he is not ignorant where the Water sticks between us and them both The Socinian accounts Christ to be a good Man that taught us Holy Doctrine and dyed to bear Testimony to the Truth of it to the end we might believe it and live according to it and so be saved and upon this account is our Saviour But as for his dying for our sins any otherwise than for turning us away from them by his Doctrine and Example which is making our sins the Final Cause of his Death he understands not when as for the making it the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of an innocent Man and thereby satisfactory to the Justice of God
of following Truth hereafter wheresoever he finds it but this that God did look on Christ as appearing in our Person and so judged and condemned him for a sinner as one I say being in our Person that deserved his Wrath and Curse and therefore laid it on him whereby our full and proper Punishment was Born the Law Executed and Justice Done and if any will add with Ravensperg farther that the torments of Hell in his Agony and Suffering on the Cross when he cried Eli Eli lamasabacthani were laid on his Soul that nothing of the very Punishment may be abated him who does not see that such a satisfaction is so strait laced as will not fit the Person of Christ and that such Divines do more to drive Men to Socinianism than Socinus himself could while they stand upon such a Satisfaction as no reasonable Man can * Vera satisfactio est plenâ— deliti persolutio Vnusquisque nostram mortem aternam divinae isti justitiae debelat says Socinus De Ser. l. 3. c. 3. receive And whereas Mr. Lobb therefore and other such more considering Persons do see a necessity to come off and allow that it was not and could not be our very Punishment it self it being enough that Christ was surrogated under the Primordial Nature of the Puuishment to use his words though not under the horrid Circumstances we our selves were to suffer and does yield moreover that though the Punishment yet the Desert of our sins could not be laid on Christ because that would run him into Antinomianism which Concessions do draw after them such other suitable Notions as Mr. Baxter offers so that at last we must come to this that the Ends of Gods Law and Government being secured it must be left to the Wisdom of the Father and Son to agree upon what satisfaction pleased them for demonstrating Divine Righteousness against Sin and Mercy toward the Sinner and that be sufficient for us to believe For I must add that so long as we agree in our belief that Christs Death was a Ransom for our Redemption and a Sacrifice for our Sins in the Sense of the Types of old where the sin of the Sacrificer was laid on the Beast and the Blood thereof an Expiation for it to the end he might be forgiven it what matter is it tho' one holds this Death to be Formally another only Materially our Punishment or that one says our sins were the proper Meritorious Cause and the other the Remote Cause or Occasion of it they both hold it Satisfaction and intend the maintaining the Doctrine thereof Proper Punishment is an infliction of a Natural Evil on a Person for Committing a Moral Evil But Christ that endured the Natural Evil never committed any Moral Evil and how can that be proper Punishment The Punishment laid on him was not due to him but to us The Punishment dâ—e to us was Hell but his Sufferings only Temporal Death Is not here then one Punishment in the room of another as one Person suffering in the room of another And what Legerdemain can cover the Eye of any as not to see this a Vicarious Punishment Again when all proper Punishment is for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it and Christ sinned not and our sins cannot according to the Bishop deserve that another should be punished for them so that here is Punishment without Desert how is this proper Formal Punishment The Law by vertue of its Sanction punishes none but the Breakers of the Preceptive Part and how then can these sufferings arise Ex obligatione-Legis If they did arise from the Obligation of the Law then was the Law executed in Christs suffering but Christ suffered that the Law might not be executed but the Penitent Believing Sinner be pardoned I might go on and offer other Positions according to what is said by Mr. Baxter in his Eighteenth Deterininations Math. Theol. Part 3. Cap. 1. before quoted and Mr. Lobb the Dr or Bishop may as well deny that two and three makes five as fundamentally to deny any of them and therefore I shall forbear more being come already to the Composition which Grotius in that one word before hath made for us Impersonaliter these sufferings as due to us may be said to be properly formally Punishment Punishment for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it Punishment arising from the Obligation of the Law upon our breaking it punishment that was the Curse of the Law and which he bare when if we had our selves born it it had been the Execution of the Law the Execution whereof these Divines who are for the Common Doctrine apprehending as Socinus to be proper Satisfaction wherein they are perfectly out for that according to the Schools is contrary to it it makes them so extream as before mentioned in their Doctrine of Satisfaction as no Man unprejudiced can abide it But Personaliter on the other hand as these sufferings are laid upon Christ instead of us that is instead not as in our Person but instead that we might escape them they are Nominally and Materially indeed but they are not they cannot be Formally and Properly Penal They arise not from sin as the Metitorious Cause nor from the Obligation of the Law and are no Execution of it Why should I go on to say the same things over and over I will make bold to conclude with Mr. Baxter against any if there be any that think they have more sagacity herein than he to oppose him and say As the Person that suffered was loco nostri the sufferings were loco paenae our sins loco causae meritoriae his Sponsion loco obligationis ex Lege an Equivalent loco Debiti and loco solutionis here is at last effected proper Satisfaction Let Mr. Baxter's Adversaries be who they will and let them do what they can they shall never make more of it Another thing which Mr. Lobb observes of Mr. Williams that I must also take notice of is this As he does hold that the Obligation which lay on Christ to do as he did arose altogether from the Mediatorial Law so does he hold that the Righteousness which consists in his Performance of that Law is that which is imputed to the Believer for his Justification wherein there does manifestly appear that slip of Mr. Williams which I have before mentioned for seeing that Law and the Righteousness thereof did belong only or was proper to the Mediator it is impossible it should be imputed otherwise to us than in the Effects which when Mr. Baxter saw and asserted and Mr. Williams does follow him in what he says else and yet leaves him in this I cannot but give him again friendly Warning to retract that slip for otherwise the whole Doctrine he is engaged in which he hath knit together out of Mr. Baxter and endeavours to maintain by this one Stitch let fall if it be not amended must unravel and come to nothing The Argument I have used in