Habits would have been fitly called the matter of his Righteousness that is of the fundamentum Relationis Yet this is the difference Adams Right or Relation of Just would have resulted immediately from his own Acts and Habits câ—â—pared with the Law whereas ours resulteth from Christs Merits or Righteousness not immediately as ours in it self but mediately as paid for us to God and the Benefit of Right and Righteousness given us by the Covenant for the said Merit of our Mediator § 16. Next you say that this Imputation supposeth not the Person to have done and suffered himself what is imputed to him and note their mistake that suppose the Doctrine of Imputation to imply that Christ did commit our Sins and we perform his Righteousness Ans This granteth much towards Concord But I hope you understand that the Question is not whether we did Physically do and suffer what Christ did even in our Natural Persons but whether we did it Morally Legally Civilly Reputatively as a Man acteth by an Instrument Attorney Vicar or Personating Representer â—o that the Law reputeth it his Act. Why did you not note this and tell us whether you deny this also as well as our Physical performance If you deny not this our Legal or Moral doing and suffering in and by Christ you did not fairly in your Description of the Mind of your opposers as far as ever I could understand them But if you deny this our agreement seemeth very feasible But then you must go over the Explication of Imputation and Donation of Christs own Righteousness again and better tell us what you mean by them than these described words do § 1â— Next you tell us of Imputation 1. Ex justitia 2. Ex Voluntaria Sponsione 3. Ex injuria 4. Ex gratia 1. Things imputed ex justitia you say are 1. For Fâ—deral Relation as Adams sin 2. For Natural Relation and that only as to some temporal Effects Ans Here we must suppose by your former explication that by Imputation you mean not Estimative reckoning or accounting that to a man which he before hath but 1. Donation 2. Vsage congruously anâ— will so to use one But Adams sin was no giâ—â— to us and came not by donation Nor is Donation Imputation 2. What you say of Adams sin being ours by Covenant Relation as distinct from Natural Relation is unsound and the matter needeth fuller explication which as aforesaid I have attempted in my Disputation of Original Sin And as unsound is it that Natural Relation brings none but Temporal Evil. It cannot be proved nor is to be affirmed that without natural derivation we derive by meer Covenant the guilt of Adams sin no nor that Covenant derivation is before the natural nor yet that it goeth any further or that we contract any more guilt by Covenant than we do by nature but the Law of nature it self and Gods congruous Covenant is that which virtually judgeth us guilty when natural derivation hath made us guilty as Dr. Twisse oft as aforesaid Do you mean that guilt resulteth from Gods part of the Covenant or from Adams or from his Posterities Not from ours for we exisâ—ed not and made no such Covenant Not from Adams part antecedent to Natural Derivation For 1. No man can prove that ever Adam made such a Covenant 2. Or that God gave him any such power much less Command to bring sin and death on his Posterity by his Consent or Will or Contract further than by the Law of Nature they must derive it from him if he sinned 3. Not by Gods Covenant act For 1. No such Covenant of God can be shewn that made men sinners further than Natural Derivation did 2. Else God should be the Author of sin even of all mens Original sin if his Arbitrary Covenant made them sinners where nature did not Nay more it is not meer Natural Relation much less such Covenant Relation that doth it for Relation doth not so operate of itself but it is that Generation which causeth Fundamentally at once both the Relation of Sons and the adherent guilt And in my foresaid second Disputation I have proved that Natural derivation even from nearer Parents deserveth more than Temporal hurt § 18. II. Your second ex voluntaria Sponsione you exemplify in Onesimus and Judah to Jacob Gen. 43.9 Ans 1. There is no talk of Imputation in either of the Texts as to the receiver Much less of an Imputation which is Donation Indeed Paul undertaketh to pay Onesimus's debt to Philemon and so bids him set the debt on his account that is take him for the pay-master If this be Imputing the debt to Paul we are agreed that so not our reatus culpae but poenae our 〈◊〉 of punishment was imputed to Christ that is he undertook to bear it for us Paul gave not the money to Onesimus but for him by promise He was not an antecedent surety but a consequent He did not promise to pay it in Onesimus Legal person Nor is the payment properly imputed to Onesimus as any way done by him but only the Effected benefit given him And Judah only undertaketh to bring Benjamin again or else to bear the blame for ever No doubt but Christ undertook our ransom and also to effect our actual deliverance If you will call this Giving or Imputing his own Righteousness to us so as that in se it is made the same accident of every believer besides giving them the benefits of that which he gave to God for them I will not imitate you III. That of Bathsheba 1 Kin. 1.21 taketh Imputation as the Scripture doth For accounting and reckoning them to be sinners and using them accordingly and not as you do for making them such by making anothers Fact or guilt to become theirs All these instances are for what I assert None of them mention any such thing as imputing one mans Acts or Habits to another so as to make them or repute them to be really his IV. Your fourth sort of Imputation ex merâ gratiá you say is the imputing of that which before that act we had no right to And you do well to say there is no other instance of it in Scripture But you do not well to say without proof that this is it that 's meant Rom. 4. God maketh us Righteous by donation before he imputâ—th it to us Imputation there is Reckoning Accounting and Judging a man to be what he is Abraham had Faith before God imputed Faith to him for Righteousness And that Faith was such a Righteousness as God imputed it to be To say it was an imperfect one is no wonder Aâ—â—aham had none personally or properly in se but what was imperfect The sum of all our Controversie is what Righteousness believers have You before noted that Righteousness as it is a conformity to the â—â—eceptive part of the Law is one thing and as it relateth to the retributive part and is our Jus impunitatis vitae
Righteousness was thus accepted of God as soon as performed but it was not then as so performed imputed to any singular Person to his personal actual Justification For it was accepted before we were born or believed But it was not so imputed to our actual Justification before we were born or believed Righteousness is imputed to us if we believe Rom. 4.24 And Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness And he that believeth not is condemned already and under the curse when yet Christs Righteousness was accepted long before If they say that there is a new Acceptation of it for every Sinner just when he believeth and that it is this that they mean I answer that as long as men take liberty to make new phrases about supernatural mysteries which are not in Scripture and to use these to the forming of new Creeds or Articles of Faith they will be so long in acquainting the World with their meaning that we shall never come to an end of Controversies nor to the true understanding of one another for few such men understand themselves but when they confound the matter and the readers with their new ambiguous phrases they cry out against those that would search out their meaning as if they did but Cavil with their Words and distinction and understanding were the way of Confusion and not theirs We grant that the Justification of every Believer is a new Effect of Christs Righteousness And if they will call this a new Acceptation by God of Christs Righteousness or use any other new made unmeet or gibberish Words if they will but expound them as they go we shall the better bear them Qu. 40. Whether it follow that Christs sufferings or Passive Obedience did not merit Eternal Life at all for us because it was only Active Obedience which the Law of Innocency so rewarded Do this and live not Suffer and live Ans 1. Their foundation-errour animateth the affirmative They falsly think that it is that Law of Innocency which justifieth us which doth curse and condemn us and not justifie us at all but it is the Gospel or Law of Faith and Grace that justifieth us 2. The Merit of Christs Righteousness is to be reckoned principally as justifying us according to the tenor of the Law or Covenant made only to him as Mediator That Covenant laid on Christ such duty as was made the Condition of the Promise and made him a special Promise upon that Condition or Duty He performed the latter for the former The matter of his undertaken Condition or Duty was threefold 1. To fulfil the Law of Innocency 2. And the Law of Moses 3. And divers Mediatorial acts proper to himself as to satisfie Justice by his sufferings conquer Satan and Death work his Miracles c. To perform this whole Condition of his Covenant was to merit of God-Man Justification and Salvation The part of this was but part of his Merit materially considered justifying himself against any charge from that Law which he fulfilled But his Mediatorial Acts and so his Sufferings were another part by which he was justified and merited Righteousness and Life for us And therefore the Objection falsly supposeth that it is only Adams Law that justified Christ and according to which he merited for us whereas it was the Mediatorial Covenant or Law which made his Suffering part of the Condition of the Promise made to him for himself and us His own Glory was merited by death on the Cross Phil. 2.7 8 9. Therefore also ours By his blood he entered into the Hoâ—iâ—st having obtained eternal Redemption fâ—r us His bâ—â—od not only purgeth our Conscienceâ— from dead works to serve the living God but for this cause he is the Mediatâ—r of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressionâ— under the first Testament they which are called might receive the Promise of Eternal Inheritance Heb. 12.14 15. Heb. 10.10 14. By one offering he hath perfected for ever thâ—m that are sanctified He hath 〈◊〉 us in the body oâ— his flesh through death to present us holy and unblameable and unreprovable in hiâ— siâ—ht Col. 1.22 To â—at Christs flesh and drink in blood is to beliâ—ve his Sacrifice which yet is that which hath the Promise of Life Indeed the reason of this Objection would deny also Christs Active Obedience to merit our Salvation For by the Law of Innocency Christ merited for none but himself For that Law promiseth Life to none but them that personally obey and never mentioned obâ—yâ—ng by another nor knows any Vicarâ—um aut â—bâ—aiertiae aut poenae It is only God Covenant with the Mediâ—tâ—r as such that gave him right to make us righteous to pardon and to save us Anâ— thâ—t Covenant giveth it as is said on the whoâ—e â—ondâ—tiâ—n It is true that Life iâ— oft especialâ—y ascribed to Christs Resurrection anâ— Life and deliverance from guilt to his Death But that is not because hiâ— Death is no part of thâ— Meâ—itâ—rious Cause of our Life or Holiness anâ— Glory nor his Life a Meritorious Cause of our Pardon by fulfilling all Righteousness but because Guilt was it that was to be expiated by his Death as a Sacrifice and so it did but purchase by pleasiâ—g God the gift of our life But his Resurrection and heavenly Intercession did more than purchase even further communicate and perfect our Life Christs Death was in order of Nature first satisfactory for sin and then meritorious of Life and his perfect Active Obedience was first and directly meritorious both of Pardon and Glory I pass by the Controversie which Mr. Gataker most insisteth on Whether to deliver from Death and to give Life be not all one And whether according to the Law of Innocency he that had no sin or guilt of Commission or Omission had not right to the Life there given Qu. 41. Whether Christs being the End of the Law â—or Righteousness doth signifie that he so fulfilled Adams Law in our stead as that it justifieth us by Fac hoc vives Ans 1. The affirmers quite mistake Moses and Paul in thinking that it is the Law of Innocency which the words cited by Paul describe when indeed it was Moses Law of Works which had Sacrifices and Promises of Pardon which the other had not of which before 2. Christ is there said to be the End of all the Law as to its shadows types and conjunct Promises The Law was given by Moses but Grace and Truth that is the things promised and typified came by Jesus Christ The confounding of these Laws confoundeth many in these Controversies Qu. 42. Whether the sufferings of Christ merit our freedom from nothing but what he suffered in our â—tead Qu. 43. And whether hence it follow that his sufferings merit not our deliverance from death spiritual and habitual or actual pravity because Christ suffered tâ—em not Ans To the 42d The affirmation of the first is a corrupting addition to the
Sponsor 3. Yea and a party equally bound 4. Then a Saviour and Grace had been by that Law which is false 5. Then Adam had been no Sinner for it was but He or Christ and not He and Christ that were bound to keep the Law by this Doctrine 6. Then no Death had been due to Adam 7. Then that Law was not broken at all for it bound but disjunctively 8. Then the Law condemneth no man 9. Then our Death and the Curse of the Earth were injuries for we kept the Law by Christ 10. Then the Law of Innocency is it by which we are justified which is false 11. Then there is no place for pardon 12. Nor for a new Law to give us pardon upon terms or new Conditions This is to subvert the Gospel Yet this is commonly said by the adversaries that Adam after his fall was justified by that same Law as saying Do this and Live because he kept it by Christ or Christ in his Name and stead so that it justifieâ—h Adam which Mr. Wotton de Recoâ—â— hath at large confuted If they say that the same Law or Covenant commanded Adam to obey perfectly and his surety also in his stead conjunctly and condemned both Adam for Sin and his Surety for the same then both must suffer as both must obey and each beareth his own part It is a fundamental fiction leading on many other errours to say that the Law of Innocency as it commanded Adam Obediâ—nce or as it threatned Death to him was fulfilled by Christ for him That Law commanded Adam only Personal perfect perpetual Obedience It mentioned or meant no â—â—carius obedâ—â—â—â—ae aut poenae Dum altus solvit aliud solvitur Anothers obeying or suffering was no fulfilling of the Law as it commanded Adam The Law commandeth each subject distinctly and personally Christ fulfilled all the Law as it obliged himself and thaâ— fâ—r Adams Redemptioâ— who had broken it But the same Law aâ— it obâ—â—â—â—d Adam was broken by Adam and not kept by him or any for him It is not that Law that gave man a Saviour but the Mercy of the Offended Lawgiver To say the Hoc fac vives in that Law giveth us right to Life and justifieth us as perfect obeyers and so no Sinners is to deny the Gospel Many say indeed that Christ â—atisfied the Law for us but 1. That proveth that the Obligation of it on us was not fulfilled For satiâ—faction is solutio recusabilis tantidem loco solutionis eâ—usdem 2. But it is an improper speech to say that the Law is satisfied And it meaneth no more but that the end of Government by that Law is obtained And it is properly satisfaction only to the Lawgiver and not to the Law For the Law in it's sence admits not of satisfaction though it hath nothing against it It is only the subjects Obedience that it commandeth and his death as satisfaction for sin that it demandeth It is the Lawgiver as he is above his own Law and hath power to pardon that is satisfied Though as tropically some say that Finis Legis est Lex so we will not contend with them that tropically say Christ satisfied the Law while they mean but that he satisfied the Lawgiver in obtaining the End of the Law But Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law as it obliged himself upon his Sponsion And that Law justified him but no man else It is only the New Covenant that justifieth us II. The second Errour to the same purpose is that though Christ and Adam were two Natural Persons yet they were One â—erson in a Civil Legal or Reputative sense in Christs obeying and suffering and so that what Christ did and suffered in his own Natural Person he did and suffered in Adams and every Elect mans Civil Legal or Reputative Person This is but the consequent of the former Errour He may be called our Râ—prâ—â—â—nter in a limited sense in â—antum ad hoc for there is no hope of holding our opposers to Scriptures phrase But such a strict full personating Representation as is here described denieth the substance of the Gospel There are indeed several Cases in which one in Law or Civil sense doth personate another When the Law alloweth one to do the thing by another that thing is morally done by himself e. g. by my Servant Proxie Attorney Agent in Cases â—o allowed by the Law It is I that pay the debt which my Servant or any Vicarius allowed by Law payeth for me in my name Christ did not thus pay or suffer in our names as our Legal Person but for us and in our stead as a s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t Sponsor in the person of a Mediator so that it cannot be said thâ—t we did it Legally by him else all the forenamed absurdities would follow and specially that Legallâ— we never sinnâ—d and never deserved punishâ—ent nor need either Pardon or the Sacrifice of Christ for Pardon It 's certain that Christ never sinned but obeyed perfectly from first to last And if we did this Legaâ—ly by him we sinned not in Law sense that is not truly at all When we shew that it is a palpable contradiction to say that we were perfectly obedient in and by Christ from birth to death and yet that Christ must suffer for our sins it 's strange to see how some men satisfie themselves with wriggling or huddling out a few insignificant words unfit to satisfie any other And if Christs Habitual Perfection be also so imputed to us in a Legal sense we were habitually perfect from birth to death Whence it is that some assert an equality of such Perfection in all Christians The consequents I will not trouble you with reciting nor stay to enquire whether also his Divine â—ighteousness be ours in such a Law sense and so Man be deified Either Christ was our Legal Person before we were born or from the time of our being or from the time of our believing only 1. Before we had a Being we were no sinners nor bound to obey and therefore needed not to obey or suffer by another 2. When we were born we were not in Christ and perhaps not Believers till old Age And so the Elect should Legally be just while they are Infidels and never sin even in their state of Enmity 3. If only since believing we were so personated by Christ then his Righteousness is not imputed to us for all the time of our unregeneracy and then we never sinned in Law sense after our believing If they say that in suffering he represented us as unregenerate and in his obedience as Believers only then he suffered not for our sins after believing nor obeyed to merit pardon of our sins before If they say that so far as we are sinners we Legally suffered in him and as Believers further to merit glorâ— we obeyed by him the contradiction of this is shewed before If we obeyed so far as to merit glory by the Law of Works then we
Posterity say some as in him that if he stood God would continue him and his Posterity and if he fell God would take it as if all his Posterity then personally sinned in him and so that either we were all then personally in him or God by Imputation would take us to have so been And so that God's Covenant and Imputation made Adams sin ours further than it is by natural propagation not truly distinguishing between our being Personally in him and being but Virtually and Seminally in him And feigning God to make Adam not only the Natural Father and Root of Mankind but also Arbitrarily a Constituted Representer of all the Persons that should spring from him and so that God made them sinners that were none and that before he made them men II. Whence they infer that Christ was by Gods imposition and his own sponsion made the Legal Representative Person of every one of the Elect taken singularly so that what he did for them God reputeth them to have done by him III. Hereby they falsly make the Person of the Mediator to be the legal Person of the sinner and deny the true Mediatorship IV. But they cannot agree when this Personating of the Elect began Some say It had no beginning but was from Eternity because Election was from Eternity and we were Elected in Christ and so were Persons from Eternity in him V. Others say That it began at the making of the World Christ being then the first of Gods Works in a Super-angelical Nature emaning from the Divine which contained all our Persons in it as the Beams are of or in the Sun VI. Others say that this Personation began at the giving to Adam the first Law or Covenant of Innocency and that Christ was a person in the Bond or Covenant And that the meaning of it was Thou or Christ personating thee shall perfectly Obey or Thou or He shall Die the threatned death for Sin VII Others say that this Personation began at the making of the Promise Gen. 3. of the Seâ—d of the Woman c. And so that Christ personated none under the first Covenant VIII Others say that it began at Christs Incarnation when he took the Nature of Man and therewith all our Persons IX Others say that it began on his Cross or at least at his Humiliation and that he only suffered in our persons X. Others say that it begins at our Believing and our Union with Christ by Faith and then he by Union personateth us XI They deny Gods Covenant or Law of Innocency that required our Personal Obedience as the condition of Life XII They forge a Law that God never made that saith Thou or thy Surety shall Obey Perfectly or Dye XIII They falsly say that God justifyeth none that are not really or imputatively perfectly Innocent Obedient and such as never Sinned but kept all that Law XIV They confound Gods Covenant with Christ as Mediator imposing on him his Mediatorial part and the Covenant of the Father and Son with faln Man imposing on them the terms of Recovery and Life XV. They hold that the first Law and some of them also Moses's Law is done away as to all the Elect but is still in force to all the Reprobates and was in force to Christ But whether it bound him to Obedience as our Representative antecedently to mans fall or only consequently they are in their confusion at a loss And they hold that its curse and penalty sentenced after the fall by God fell on all the Reprobate and on Christ but none of it on any of the Elect as having been suffered by Christ fully for them As I have said The promissary part of that Law ceased and so did the condition of the promise by mans sin making it impossible but the threat did transire in sententiam And if Christ was antecedently in the bond of Obedience for us he was bound not to Eat of the forbidden Tree and bound to dress the Garden and bound to take Eve for his Wife c. which are all false If he were bound by it as our representative after the fall it bound him when it ceased and bound not us which is false And therefore it was only the Law of perfect Innocency anew imposed on himself by the Mediatorial Covenant that bound him And if the Penal Sentence and Curse be Executed on all the Reprobate then it is not ceased And then it must be a Penalty and that Curse even on the Elect before they believe because till then they have no part in Christ And after they believe they must bear part of that Penalty called a Curse which was fixed and not reversed and pardoned that is The privation of those degrees of Grace Peace and Joy which they should have had if there had been no sin The Curse on the Earth Sorrow in Child-bearing and Death These cease not now to be Penals but are Sanctified Penalties A Curse turned to a Blessing an Evil made a Medicine to our good Correction is truly Penal tho' profitable Christ suffered to attain his own Ends and not to cross them His Ends was not to free the Elect from his own Government or Correcting Justice XVI They affirm that the Covenant is made only with Christ for us but not with us As it God made none with man and Baptizing and Christianity were not Covenanting XVII They feign God to have made an eternal Covenant with his Son that is God imposing on God the Law of Mediation XVIII They most dangerously affirm that Christ took not only the punishment of our sin and that guilt or Reatum poenae which is an assumed obligation to suffer the punishment deserved by us to be Vicarius poenae but all our very Sins themselves the very Essence of the Sin of all the Elect the Reatum Culpae So that tho' he never did sin himself yet all our sins habitual and actual positive and privative of commission and omission became truly and properly Christs own sins And so that he was truly judged a hater and blasphemer of God and Holiness and the greatest murderer adulterer thief lyar perjured Traytor in all the World the sins of all the Elect being truly His sins Of which Dr. Crisp is positive and large XVIIII They say that God laid these sins of ours on him and made him properly sin for us and not only a Sacrifice for sin And so that God is the Maker of the greatest Sin XIX They say that Gods Imputation being truly but the accounting one to be what he is had not God made him a Sinner his imputing or reckoning him such had been a Lye which is true tho' they nifer Falshood from it taking Imputation of Sin strictly for a true Estimation XX. They that make this Imputation to be before the Incarnation make God to make himself this great Sinner that is Christ while he was meer God And so make us a wicked God When Satan can but Tempt us to sin
Word of God 1. He suffered not many temptations which yet by the merit of his sufferings we are freed from 2. He suffered not many relative evils as bad Parents bad Teachers a bad Wife and all the attendant crosses in buying and selling crosses from bad Tenants or Landlords c. which the merit of his suffering delivereth many from 3. He suffered not the torment of an accusing Conscience 4. Nor Gods hatred or displeasure 5. Nor the many miseries which sin in its own nature bringeth to the Soul as painful cares fears frustrations deceits c. 6. Nor corruption in the grave 7. Nor the final Sentence Go ye cursed into everlasting fire 8. Nor the proper Execution of that Sentence Yet he delivereth some Believers from all these and all from some by the merits of his sufferings For it was not the just same punishment that was due to all Believers that he suffered but that which was fit to make him a meet Sacrifice which was the tantundem vel aequivalens consideratis considerandis Ad 43. The affirmative subverteth our Faith Christs Death merited the full pardon of all pardoned sin But the pardon of sin is the pardon of the deserved punishment of sin and of the sin as related to that punishment But certainly the privation of Gods illuminating sanctifying Spirit and its helps and fruits is a great part of the punishment of sin Psal 81.11 12. Rom. 1.28 2 Thes 2.10 12. To be given up to mens own counsels wills lusts vile affections to a reprobate mind to have eyes and see not hard hearts to believe lies c. Sin is no farther pardoned than this punishment is by sanctifying grace remitted and removed The Scripture doth not ascribe to Christs Sacrifice some part only of our pardon of sin but the whole Rev. 1.5 He washed us from our sins in his blood and so he is the propitiation for them 1 John 2.2 4.3 He made purgation of them on the Cross Heb. 1.3 He died for them and gave himself for them 1 Cor. 15.3 Gal. 1.4 1 Pet. 3.18 Heb. 10.12 9.28 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood for the remission of sins that are past Acts 22.16 13.38 c. And the poena damm is part of the punishment to be forgiven Therefore Rom. 4.7 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. But no man is blessed that is unholy and separated from God As we all sinned and came short of the Glory of God and spiritual Death is by the objecter confessed to be part of our punishment so pardon containeth the remission of that punishment And it is falsly supposed that Christs Death is not secondarily meritorious of more than pardon even of all that his Active Obedience meriteth of which before Pardon is 1. In jure a Remission of the Obligation to punishment giving us Jus impunitatis and this giveth us Right to aâ—l that grace and blessedness which by sin we lost a Right to 2. Declarative by Sentence which giveth us a Jus judicatum 3. Executive which actually freeth us from the poena dâ—mm sensus And so Sanctification is a part of Executive Pardon so far as it giveth what so sin we were penally deprived of This is all plain and sure Qu. 44. Seeinâ— we our selves bear that pâ—rt of the Curse which lieth in Death spiritual doth it follow that Christs Sufâ—erings were not to free us from it when we bâ—re it and not he Ans It is not denied that part of the punishment of sin is born by the Elect themselves which the former Objecters deny And therefore that Pardon is not absolutely perfect at first Death and Divine denials of the Spirit and Grace are such penalties And Christ died not nor obeyed to save us from that which we are not to be saved from but was excepted from Pardon But the Obâ—ecter can never prove that the Merit of Christs Sufferings though he â—uffered not spiritual death or privation of Gods Image doth not free us 1. From so much of spiritual death or pravity as we are freed from 2. And from the duration of it for ever Or else it merited not one half our pardon To be washed from our sins in his blood can be no less than to be freed from the guilt which is the obligation to punishment first and consequently from the punishment it self Qu. 45. Is this the reason of our deliverance from the Law and being dead tâ— it because we suffered everlasting Hell fire equivalâ—ntly in Christs sufferings Ans When men once depart from the Scripture tâ—eiâ— corrupt additions hardly keep bounds 1. It 's well that this Objecter implieth that it was not the Ideâ—â— but the Aâ—quivalens that Christ suffered as to our debt 2. That which made Christs Sacrifice to be aequivalâ—nt to our endless damnation was not that it waâ— as â—â—â—at a proportion of suffering poenae sensus 〈◊〉 â—s all ours â—ogether would have been But because the dignity and perfection of the person made it an apt means for God that would pardon us to accept as a Sacrifice and so as sit a means to the ends of Government as our damnation would have been and sitter This is the aequivalency 3. We suffered not damnation at all in Christ nor doth God or his Law take or reckon us to have done so but only to receive the pardon and other benefits freely given us which he in the person of a Mediator and not in our person merited 4. We are dead to the Law both as a Covenant of Perfection and as the Law of Moses to the Jews because Christ nailed the latter to his Cross or did abrogate it as such to the Jews and to those Gentiles that needed to be Proselytes and the former ceased by the Fall and Promise But it is the Jewish Law that Paul speaketh of And also in our believing acceptance of this liberation and of the Law of Christ Qu. 46. Is it true that Christs Active Obedience only meriteth Heaven for us and therefore it only mâ—â—itâ—th the Spiâ—it or Holiness which is but Heaven bâ—gun Ans Both are false His Active and Passive Rigâ—teousness merit Pardon Holiness and Glory And their proof from Fac hoc vives is upon a great mistâ—ke and no proof Qu. 47. Iâ— iâ— true that because Regâ—neratiâ—n is the bâ—ginâ—ing of Heaven and Christs Obedience imputed â—â—â—eth a riâ—ht to tâ—e whole therefore it giveth a right to the begâ—nning and therefore Repentance which follâ—weth Justification can be no Condition of it Ans It is a fancy spun by a a mistaken mind to oppose the plain Word of God 1. If it would hold it would exclude Faith as well as Repentance from being a Condition or Antecedent to Justification contrary to the Gospel For Faith is as much a grace of the Spirit as Repentance is And it is not true that impenitent Infidels are justified though they may be predestinate
for had we done all this our selves that is kept the Law perfectly from first to last we had never sinned 3. We had never deserved punishment 4. Nor needed a Sacrifice 5. Or a Pardon 6. Nor should we during the time of our unregeneracy have been left under spiritual death or at least after believing be left under remaining sin and a body of death 7. Nor have been penally deprived of any help of the Spirit 8. Nor of any Communion with God 9. Nor so long be kept out of Heaven or the Reward 10. Nor ever have been corrected 11. Nor ever had need of Word Prayer or Sacraments for the helping us to renewed Pardon 12. Nor ever have died and rotted in a grave 13. Nor would the Magistrates Execution of Justice on us for our crimes be owned as Gods Justice 14. All men wouâ—d have the same degree of Innocency and Holiness 15. It would have been a wrong to us when we had perfectly kept the Law of Innocency to suspend our right to Pardon and Salvation upon new Conditions in a new Covenant 16. We having perfectly kept the Law of Innocency as to the death as soon as we believe cannot be under another Law of the Redeemer that hath the true uses of a Law 17. Our own actions besides Christs are not capable of Reward or Punishment 18. All the Texts of Scripture that mention inherent or practical personal Righteousness would contradict our imputed Righteousness or make us supererogate and be more than perfectly righteous 19. We need not fear that any new crime should diminish our Righteousness which is perfect and can neither increase or decrease 20. Whether we should not be as righteous on Earth even under Davids or Peters sin as in Heaven and whether we should be Deified by being divinely righteous and justified by Gods Essential Righteousness as Andr. Osiandâ—r taught I leave to be considered as you further explain your self So much to your Epitome which if I wrong you by judging it all your own it is long of your self that own it as aforesaid in the gross If the Dr. be wronged it is by you and not by me § 21. In the conclusion you do no more peaceably than provedly pronounce us in a manner agreed enumerating the particulars in which we consent But I have told you wherein we are not agreed in words nor in sense if those words be not mis-used whatever we are in latent sense I still grant that Christ suffered yea and obeyed in some sort in our stead though not in our person Civil or Legal so as that we are Legally reputed the doers of it by or in him And that his assuming our Nature and being the second Adam a voluntary Sponsor and Mediator was a necessary reason of the application of the fruits to us and that we are as certainly and happily justified and glorified as if we had been the doers and satisfiers our selves so many as are saved But not on the same reasons nor in the same method or manner of conveyance Nor when in judgment we are accused as having sinned and deserved death can we deny it plead that we were innocent by another or by imputation as we should have been had we been innocent our selves But we must plead pardon and a free gift of life through the merits satisfaction and intercession of a Saviour § 21. And to all before said I may add That they who account all the Laws obligations on each person to be fulfilled by Christ and not only satisfaction given for our not fulfilling them 1. Must suppose that one person of Christ to have been Legally as many persons as he died for or justifieth For the Law laid as many distinct obligations on them as they were persons and laid them only on their persons It said Thou Adam Thou Eve shalt personally obey perfectly or die And the Law of Nature and of Moses said in sense Thou Solomon Thou Manasses and so of all others shalt do all things commanded and not sin Now that in all Christs Obedience he was Legally and imputatively so many several persons Adam Eve Solomon Manasseh and so that none of these broke Gods Law I find not in the Scripture If you say Adam was Legally as many persons as are born of him in sin I deny it He was the Root of all his Posterity and they were in him seminally and virtually but not personally actually or imputatively But by one mans disobedience as their Root and Cause many are made sinners And by one mans obedience as the Root and Cause all Believers are made righteous It is enough that one Saviour and Mediator in a third person of his own did and suffered that which by its merits and value as attaining the Ends of the Law and Government procured our deliverance from a necessity of perfect obeying as the Condition of Life and from guilt and misery and is become the Root Head and Donor of Grace and Glory 2. And if as you say it be the very thing that is imputed to us as ours to all intents as if we had done it why have you not told us whether it be all that Christ did or but some and what and how from Scripture you prove the distribution and whether we have not thus a Righteousness which is both too much and too little I. Too much For we were not obliged by the Law to be born of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost to fast forty days to turn Water into Wine to cast out Devils to heal all diseases and raise the dead to inaite the Gospel and send out Apostles c. If you say that so much only of Christs Obedience is in it self our own as we must else have done our selves I ask the proof of the limitation And II. Is it not then too little if it must be the Idem and not the Aequivalens For some of us are bound to the Offices of Parents and some of Husbands and Wives some of Servants some of Magistrates some of Souldiers some to actions proper to the sick to the old and other conditions which Christ was never in We are bound to mortifie our sinful lusts to pray for pardon and grace to receive a pardon offered to yield to the mortifying motions of the Spirit c. which Christ was not capable of It was enough that he undertook all that was fit for him and necessary by equivalency to satisfie and merit a free gift of grace and glory for us and that he performed the undertaken conditions and duties of all that Law which was laid on him without doing all the same things which were laid on us § 22. And one thing more I desire you to note which Grotius de satisf hath minded us of viz. The great difference that there is between the case of a Rector and a Creditor and between a Subject and a Debtor or a Debt of Obedience or Punishment and a Debt of Money For the name of
will end in their Damnation And so Conscience hath no just Accusation in Hell or here as for any sinning against Mercy nor do they owe God thanks for any XLVI Whereas God hath made through Christ a general Act of Grace or Gift of Christ Pardon and Life eternal to all the World on condition of fiducial Acceptance of it as a Free Gift and commanded the Offer of it to all and will doubly condemn the final Refuser and by this Gospel-gift as his Instrument pardoneth and justifieth the believing accepters These men deny the very being of this Gospel Act They deny it to be either Christ's Law or Covenant or Grant XLVII They hold that Christ in our stead did all that the Law bound us to do as if he had been a Husband a Father a Souldier c. XLVIII They say That Christs satisfaction by Sacrifice was the the sâ—lutio ejusdem the payment of the same debts of suffering that was due to us and not properly satisfaction which is Redditio aequivalentis or tantidem alias in dâ—biti as if he had suffered death Spiritual by loss of Holiness and the torments of Hell by an accusing Conscience and the hatred of God XLIX They say That by the Imputation of his Righteousness habitual and actual we are judged perfectly Just that is such as have no sin yet he suffered in our Person for our sins which we are reputed never to have L. They say That the Inherent and Active Righteousness which consisteth in our Faith Repentance Love and sincere Obedience wrought by Christ in us doth not Constitute us Righteous in Subordination to Christs meritorious Righteousness in any part or degree that is that it is Righteousness that in tantum maketh no man ever the more Righteous than if he had it not q.d. Albedâ— quae non fâ—cit album or Patâ—rnitas quae non constituit Patrem not distinguishng universal and particular Righteousness LI. They talk of Justification in meer ignorant confusion not knowing the various senses of the Word or the divers parts of the Work They deride that distinctions which no reason can deny they confound Justifying Efficiently Justifying Constitutively Justifying Virtually by the Gospel-Gift or Law of Grace Justifying by Eâ—iâ—eâ—ce Justifying by Witness Justifying by Plea and Advocate Justifying by Judicial Sentence and by Execution They set the Causes against each others as if it were a thing that had but one Cause when they meet with the word used for Senâ—e and Justification by decisive Judgment they Exclude all the included and supposed Acts that is making Men just Efficiently constitutive Matter and Form or Subject and Relation the Gospel Donation and Condonation and all such previous Acts And when they have done not knowing what they affirm or deny they only cry up the name of Christs Righteousness Imputed not knowing what Imputation is nor what sort of Cause Christs Righteousness is whether Efficient or Material or Formal by Constitution and and think its true Meritorious Causality is too little And in their description excluded sentential decisive Justification which they had denominated it to be making it to be only the Donation of Christs perfect Righteousness as in its Essence to be ours and so joyning the efficient and constitutive Causes yet leaving out the Instrumental Efficient which is the Gospel Donation or Covenant-Gift and calling Faith the instrumental Cause which is no Efficient Cause but a Moral Reception of the Free-Gift and a Moral Qualification as a Receptive Condition for our Title to the possession And whereas God never Judged a man Righteous till he had made him Righteous they say That to Justify is not to make Righteous but to judge Righteous and yet describe judging by making Yea and exclude the sentential Justification at the day of Judgment thinking that it is all perfectly at our first Justification Sentenced As if God the Father Christ as King or Prophet the Holy Ghost the Covenant of Grace Faith had no hand in our Justification but Christs Righteousness imputed only LII They talk much against being Justified by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere the Act of Faith and when they have done ignorantly are the maintainers of it against those that deny it For when we say that Faith doth not Justify us as that Phrase signifieth Efficiency but that we are only said to be Justified by it as signifying a Receptive Condition or Qualification they say that it Justifieth us as an Instrument which is an Efficient Cause And it is the very Act or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere or nothing which they call that Instrument And thus they make a War against themselves while they ignorantly accuse they know not what LIII They blindly take Paul by Works to mean all humane Acts when as 1. The whole scope of his disputing is against Justification by the Worâ—s which are set in opposition or competition with Justification by Christ and by Free Grace such as the Jews thought the keeping of Moses's Law was which is the Law that he doth all along speak of 2. And he expresly describeth the Works that he excluâ—eth to be those that are supposed to make the Reward to be of Debt for the value of the Work and not of Grace And do they know any Protestant that is either for Justification or Salvation by any such Works or for the being of any such 3. And is not Faith a humane Act And doth not Paul most plainly and frequently say we are Justified by it And did he call Faith Works LIV. But to answer this they erre as grosly saying that by Faith imputed for Righteousness and our being Justified by Faith is not meant the the Act or Habit of Faith but the Oâ—ject Christ's Righteousness not sticking hereby to turn all such Texts into worse than Nonsence Put Christ's Righteousness instead of the Word Faith in all those Texts and try how it will run And why is Faith named if it have no part in the Sense They say That it Justifieth not as a Work I say it Justifieth not efficiently at all much less as a Work in Paul's sense that maketh the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Nor doth it Justify as an Act in genere for then a quatenâ—s ad omne every Act would Justify nor yet as a meer good Act or Work For then every good Act would Justify as it doth But we are Justified by 1. This Faith in specie which is our Fiducial Reception of Christ. 2. And that as it is formally made by God the condition of our participiation of the Gift which is Christ and his Justifying Meritorious Righteousness Christ is not instead of Faith and Faith is not instead of Christ It is Christ believed in and received and not Christ without belief and reception And when they say That it is the Object and not the Act they multiply the Proclamations of their undistinguishing ignorance unskilfully pretending to distinguish For the Object Christ
and the greatest sinner in all the World and yet sinned not himself IV. They deny Gâ—d dwelling in us as Love and Christ living in us by his Spirit by feigning us to be never the better for his Grace and inward Operations as to any furtherance of our Salvation as if the Life of Christ within us were not saving V. They deny the great Ends and use of a Saviâ—ur to save us from Sin as a means to save us from Hell and as the means of our Glorification and as a Prophet by his Doctrine and Example to teach us how to seek and obtain the purchased Salvation VI. They deny the Holy Ghost by denying that his Sanctifying Work and Grace must be esteemed and used as a furtherance of our Salvation Because Christ hath saved us by himself already VII They dâ—ny the Gospel while they deny it to be the Law or Doâ—ation of God which as an Act of Oblivion is his Instrument of our Justification and Pardon our Title to life for Titulus est fundamentum juris And as the Instrument of our virtual Justification VIII They do as Anti-christians deny Christ's Prophetical Offiâ—e by which by Doctrine and Example he teacâ—eth us what wâ— must do to be saved And his Kingly Office by which hâ— maketh Laws to Rule us or to Juâ—ge us by as the imposed term of Life and Death IX They deny the Law of Innocency and forge another of their own instead of it which nameth Christ as instead of us X. They hold all the Elect Lawless and so no Subjects of Christ while they say they are under no Law XI Hereby they deny God and Christ's Government by Law XII They have no humiliation for sin and say they have no sin for since Christ's death it is none of theirs XIII They hold that there is no such thing as sin in the World of the Elect because Christ took it from them before they were born or had it and he hath none now in Heaven XIV They deny all Justification by Faith and say that it is not by Faith but by the Object of Faith only XV. They make Christ no true Mediator but such a surety as was a party in the Bond with us aâ—d suffered for his own sin and was condemned by that Law of Innocency for us XVI They deny Justifying Faith it sâ—lf while instead of it they feign a meer belief that we are Justified XVII They harden ungodly men in their damning presumption oâ—trudiâ—g on them a belief that they are Elect and Justified tho' unâ—odly and telling thâ—m that this is coming out of themselves to Christ and that they cannot believe this too soon and that Christ hath Repented Believed and been Holy for them XVIII They diâ—ectly fight against all mens Salvation by telling them that they ought to do no Duty inward or outward as a means of their Salvation lest it be against Christ and Free Grace which saveth them And that nothing that they do can do them any good nor any sin possibly can do them any hurt because they are already perfect and saved only by Christ XIX They expose Christianity to the scorn of Infidels by telling men that it consisteth in that which every novice in Lâ—gick or Reasoning knoweth to be impossible that one mans Sins and one mans Righteousness should be made anothers Not only so far as that others partake of the Effects Christ of our sins in sufferings and we of the benefits of his Righteousness which we all maintain but that the thing it self is essentially thus transferred And so the Accidents do transire a Subjecto in Subjectum And whereas Sin and Righteousness are Accidents in the three predicaments of Habit or Privation Acts and Relation they feign the Habits Acts and Relation of â—â—â—us deformity of all the Elect to become in themselves the Habits Acts and Râ—latiâ—ns of Christ And the Habits Acts and Relations of perfect Rigâ—teousness in Christ to becomâ— essâ—ntiâ—lly the very Haâ—its Acts and Relatiâ—â—s of every Person Elect. XX. They do like the Papists that hold Transubstâ—ntiâ—tion teach mâ—n to reâ—ounce â— mâ—â—â—â— sâ—â—â—â— and reason in believing that no pain or lâ—ss oâ— Gracâ— is a punishment tâ—â— ' but castigatory tâ— the Elect bâ—cause all punishâ—ent is suffered by Christ As if Câ—rists threâ—tning whâ—m I love I râ—â—â—â—e and chasten were a denying â—f himself XXI Tâ—â—y deny the very essentiâ—l principle of sâ—lf-â—â—â—e wâ—ile tâ—â—y tâ—â—â—h men to do nâ—thing for their Salvatiâ—â— XXII They coâ—sâ—queâ—tly teach men to dâ— nothing for tâ—eir Livâ—s Hâ—alth or any Corporal good to Pioâ— â—r Soâ— or Labâ—ur For if they must do nothing for tâ—â— goâ—d 〈◊〉 the Soul much less of the Body Foâ— Câ—rist is sufficiâ—nt fâ—r bâ—th XXIII Tâ—ey heâ—eby destâ—oy all Preaching and all 〈◊〉 to â—â—hers For we must love others but as â—â—r sâ—lves and if we may do nothing as for our oâ—n â—ood thâ—n not for any othâ—rs XXIV They read in Scriâ—ture aâ—ove Six Hundred Tâ—xts that speaks of Iâ—herent and Acted Personal Riâ—â—tâ—ousnâ—â—â— jâ—yned with the prâ—mises of life and Gâ—ds accâ—ptance and threatnings to thâ—m that have it â—â—t And yet they by putid Contradictioâ— say It is a Rigâ—teousness that maketh no man Righteâ—us tâ—â— ' â—ut in tantum subordinate to the meâ—â—â—â—â—â—us perfâ—ct Righteousâ—â—ss of Christ And that we are Jâ—â—tified never the mâ—re for it than if we had it not And so it is as Learning that makes not Learnâ—d or liâ—eness that maketh not like c. That is It is Righteousâ—ess and no Righteousness XXV Tâ—ey make the Baptismal Covenant and the Lords Supper to be no Covenanting or to have no Condition And yet their own Church-Covenants have Conditions and are of Works XXVI They deny all the Scripture-promises of reward XXVII They deny and reproach Heaven it self a great part whereof is in the perfection of Holiness while they make Holiness here and the Exercise of it to do us no good or save us XXVIII By all this they would make 1. The Concord of Christians impossible as if they must agree in all this Errour 2. They harden Papists in contempt and scorn of Protestants And 3. They notoriously militate for the Kingdom of Satan And now tell me whether there were ever damnable Hereticks in the World if these be none Reconcil Many that hold some of the forementioned Errours yet hold not all the rest All speak not so grosly as some do Therefore lay your charge but where it is due And all are not properly Hereticks that hold the same Errour that Hereticks do If all Errour were Herefy all men were Hereticks Ortho. But he is a Heretick who subverteth the Fundamentals Reconcil If he do it directly and knowingly he is an Infidel For he is not to be called a Christian or a Believer who denyeth any thing Essential to Christianity But you must distinguish between 1. Denying the Words and denying the Thing signified by them 2. Between denying Directly and denying by Consequence 1.
to be first called and then justified and then glorified Rom. 8.30 2. That which goeth before Pardon and that as a Condition goeth before Justification But Repentance goeth before Pardon Acts 5.31 Luke 24.47 3.3 Acts 2.38 3.19 8.22 1 John 1.9 Mark 4.12 But of this I have given large proof elsewhere 3. All the grace of the Spirit is a preparation for Heaven But that eminent gift of the Spirit which in Scripture is called the Seal Earnest and first Fruit is promised upon repenting and believing and therefore followeth them and is 1. The Habit of Divine Love which is the New Nature and more than the first seed of grace 2. And the Spirit related to us as an in-dwelling possessing Agent of Christ to sanctifie us to the end 3. And in those times to many the extraordinary gifts of Miracles Tongues c. 1. Faith and Repentance went before Baptism in the Adult even as a Condition of it and its benefits Mark 1.4 Acts 13.34 19.4 Matt. 3.11 John 1.26 Mark 16.16 John 4.1 Acts 2.38 41 8.12 13 36 37 38. 9.18 22.16 But that gift of the Spirit which is called the Farnesâ— Seal and first Fruit was either given in or after Baptism ordinarily though to Cornelius before but not before Faith and Repentance It is called therefore Baptizing with the Holy Ghost See Mat. 3.11 Acts 1.5 2.33.38 8.15.17 10.2 Rom. 5.5 Tit. 3.5 2. And the Spirit is said to be promised and given to believers after faith and because they were adopted sons Eph. 1.13 Prov. 1.23 Gal. 4.6 3.14 Rom. 8.15 16.30 2 Cor. 1.22 5.5 Therefore our Divines commonly put Vocation as giving the first acts of Faith and Repentance before Sanctification as Rom. 8.30 doth before Justification and Glorification And yet Faith and Repentance are gifts of the Spirit too and so are many commoner gifts in unsanctified men But as the daylight is seen before the Sun rising and as Satan is not said to possess all that he tempteth So some gifts of the Spirit and some motions and operations of it go before the proper giving of the Spirit itself and his possessing us 3. It is no absurdity but the wise order of God that one gift of the Spirit shall be antecedent to another and the reception and exercise of it by us be a condition of that other For God will morally induce us to our duty by suitable motives He that denieth this subverteth the Gospel 4. I have elsewhere at large proved the falshood of this Doctrine that Impenitent Infidels are justified by the imputation of Christs Righteousness It is enough that Christs righteousness is reputed by God to be the meritorious cause of all our grace even of justification before we are justified Qu. 48. How can faith or repentance entitle us to that righteousness of Christ which must first give us a right to themselves and all Grace Ans 1. Faith and Repentance give us not a Title in strict sence but the Covenant or Promise that is the Gospel Donation is our Title and Faith and Repentance are but Conditions of our Title which on several accounts make us morally capable receivers of Right 2. Christs Righteousness did merit all grace of God before it justifieth us and we are reputed righteous by it It is a great error to say that we must be reputed righteous by Christs Righteousness given and imputed to us to that use before we can have any fruits of the merits of his righteousness Even the outward call of the Gospel is a fruit of it Qu. 49. Is it true that we must be practical Antinomians unless we hold that only Christs active righteousness merited grace and glory for us Qu. 50. Is this proved by Rom. 7.4 Ans 1. Some mens words are used to hide the sense and not to open it What is the meaning of Practical Antinomianism Is it to be the opposers of all Gods Laws or only some and which And doth he not mean that the judgment must be first against them How far are we under the Law and how far not 1. The Law of Innocency as a Covenant requiring perfect personal obedience as the necessary condition of life we are not under It ceased by the first sin cessante subditi capacitate We must not suppose that God saith to all sinners You shall be saved if you be not sinners Conditiâ—nâ— prateâ—◠〈◊〉 transit in sententiam We are not under the Law of Mâ—â—â—s as such even that which was written in stone is done away 2 Cor. 3.7 c. If this be Antinomianism I am an Antinomian that â—â—ve written so much against them 3. We are only under the Law of Christ into whose hand all power is given And that is 1. The Law of reprieved and redeemed nature 2. All his supernatural revelation and so much of Moses Law as he hath assumed If the objecter think that we are under any other so do not I except the subordinate Laws of men 2. That Law of Grace which we have and that freedom from the Law of Works are merited both by Christs Active and Passive righteousness Ad. Qu. 50. Rom. 7.4 hath no such thing but only that Christ hath delivered men from the bondage of the Law of works which did neither justify nor sanctify and hath subjected and engrafted us unto himself that we might by him be made holy unto God Conclusion THe Reader may now perceive what abundance of great notional errours some men have corrupted the Doctrine of Justification with by presumptuous spinning webs out of their own fancies raising one errour out of another departing from the Word of God I. A radical errour is that the Law of Innocency made to Adam is it that justifieth us by its â—â—c hâ—c vivâ—s as fulfilling it in Christ II. Another is that is that Covenant of perfection which Paul meaneth by the Law of Works and the fac hoc c. And that the Jews Law was such as made Innocency its condition of life III. That the sense of Adams Law was Do this by thy self or another or else thou or thy surety shall die IV. That Christ did obey and suffer merit and satisfy in so full and strict a representing and personating every one of the Elect as that they did and suffered it in and by Christ in the sence of the Law of Works or in Gods account and that it was not in the third person of a mediator to communicate the Effects freely as he pleased by another Covenant And so that Gods imputing righteousness to us is his accounting us to have done and suffered in Law sense what Christ did This is the root of all the rest subverting the Gospel itself V. And so that God accounteth us to be Innocent and never to have sinned by Omission or Commission from birth to death and to have all that is required to merit Heaven because we did it in Christ and also to have suffered in
Christ for our sins the curse threatned to us and as the last objecter saith eternal damnation equivalently And so we had sin and no sin And Christ must die and we must pray for the pardon of that sin which in Gods account or imputation we never had VI. When the Text tells us that Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness that Righteousness is imputed to believers that is They are accounted righteous according to the justifying Covenant of Grace upon their believing in Christ for his meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice giving them by the new Covenant their gracious relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost with right to further Grace and Glory they tell us that by Faith is not meant Faith but Christs Righteousness and by Righteousness imputed to us is meant God 's accounting us to have done all that Righteousness by Christ which he did for us Many more such humane inventions corrupting our Faith at least in notion too many fight for as if they were necessary truths of God Postscript REader the Author of the following objections is Mr. Stephen Lob I had thought not to have named him till I saw but Yesterday his Books of Free Grace which I never before heard of though it was printed almost ten year ago It is so considerable a confutation of Antinomian errours that I commend it to thy reading And being my self in great pain expecting death and like to write in these Controversies no more that I have once more as a Speculator or Watchman blown the Trumpet to warn men of the danger of the Other Gospel that subverteth the Gospel of Christ I have this Peace of Conscience that the blood of the seduced will not be required at my hands And if that M.S. of Mr. Stone of New-England which Mr. Lob so praiseth may by him be yet recovered I intreat his endeavour In which I cannot doubt but Mr. Increase Mather will assist him tho his name be prefixt among the twelve And I commend to some honest Bookseller to reprint Mr. Thomas Welds History of the New-England Antinomian Libertinism it being out of press And I hereby intreat Mr. William Manning of Suffolk if living to Print the excellent Treatise of Justification of his which I have long ago read And Mr. Samuel Clerk Author of the Annot. to Print his sound Treatise which I long ago read on the same Subject And though my own Judgment be for the Imputation of Christs Passive Active and Habitual righteousness dignified by the Divine as the full and the sole meritorious cause of all Grace and Glory as making up the condition of his Mediatorial Covenant imposed on him by God Yet I intreat the Learned Reader to peruse the Writings of those great Divines that are for the Imputation of the Passive only Ursine Olevan Paraeus Scultetus Wendeline Beckman and the rest with Camero Placaeus and all that party of famous French Divines who all effectually confute the false sense of Imputation of the Active Righteousness which Mr. Bradshaw confuteth with many others as if we had done it by Christ and were our selves the Subjects of it and are justified by that Law that condemneth us Jan. 20. 1690. R.B. An Answer to some Animadversions of a Friend tending to the further explication of some passages which through brevity were not understood § 1. SIR Your notes have so much Judgment and moderation and so little if any thing contrary to what I assert that they require nothing from me but a repeated explication of that which you observed not as before explained But when it is enough for me to explain my own Words and Doctrine you put me on another task to seek after the explication of another mans which I am not obliged to on any account but for your Satisfaction It is enough for me to speak true Doctrine in the most intelligible manner that I can without examining whether other mens expressions be sound or apt § 2. I begin with your own Notes And 1. I hope that few are so ignorant that meddle in these matters as to doubt of what you say that no one term much less one Metaphor or similitude can adequately express any of the Mysteries of Grace and no one Metaphor must be carried too far Omne simile est etiam dissimile And all set together so far as they are thereto intended must instruct us § 3. I know none but the Socinians that think a Mediator and a Sponsor inconsistent or deny Christ to be a Sponsor And methinks your words for their consistency import a greater difference between them than there is It is part of Christs Mediation to be a Sponsor These terms therefore express no difference but between the whole and the part But what a Sponsor Christ is is all the doubt which I a little opened and you pass by It is not agreed by expositors what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth in that one only place of Scripture where it is used Very learned expositors think that as Moses was called Gods Mediator or Sponsor to the people as being his Spokesman and in his name assuring them that this was Gods Covenant which he would perform and returning the peoples answer to God and praying for them but not undertaking for them and personating them so Christ is here likened to him and called the Mediator and Sponsor of the new and better Covenant not as he personateth or undertaketh for Covenanting Subjects but only as he representeth God the Father to man and is his Sponsor to us But as Paul saith he is not a Mediator of one so I see not but though chiefly he be Gods Sponsor to man yet withal he be there called a Sponsor also as well as a Mediator for man to God But all the doubt is what a Sponsor for man he is And first we must enquire what Covenant he is a Sponsor of No doubt but Gods Covenant with the Mediator as such is one and Gods and the Mediators Covenant with man solemnized in baptism is another And yet no doubt but these two have such relation as that in some sort or respect they may be called one He that saith they are not two is plainly confuted by the constitutive defining parts the Divers Parties Matter Terms and Ends. It was not said to Christ but by Christ Repent and believe in Christ or be damned Pardon and Salvation are not offered to Christ to be received by Faith in himself Yet as the Laws of the Land though several are One Instrumentum Regiminis So we call all the Laws of Nature usually singularly The Law of Nature and so we say The Civil Law the Canon Law Gods Law c. Now the question is what Covenant Christ was the Sponsor of 1. In his own proper Covenant he did Spondere praestare to suffer for us and to obey for us in the just sence in due place explained to rise and ascend for us to intercede for us to