always have access to God and obtain eternal Life Socin Tom. 1. 788. Truth Jesus Christ was by Divine Adjustment a middle Person between God and Sinners and as such laid his hand on both undertaking to appease God's Wrath and procure Salvation for us at his hand and also to make God and the way of Salvation known to us for our Reconciliation and Obedience to God and by him God still imparts his Blessings to us and admits us free access to himself Error 5. Christ is called a Surety as a Sponsor or Messenger on God's part to us but he promised nothing to God for us Crell vol. 1. p. 612. Truth Tho Christ was not a joint federating Party with us in the Covenant of Works yet he was not only a Surety on God's part to us but he was a mediating Surety on both parts and as such he engaged in the Covenant of Redemption to make Atonement for us and in the Gospel-Covenant that all true Believers shall persevere to the obtaining of eternal Life Error 6. Christ was not an High-Priest while on Earth nor was his Blood offered by him to God but it was himself was offered and that not on the Cross but when he entred into Heaven yet the Death of Christ so far belongs to his Priesthood that he was prepared by his Death to become a High-Priest and to offer himself a perfect Sacrifice for Sin in Heaven neither of which could be according to the Decree of God if his Death had not intervened Crell vol. 2. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 10. vol. 1. 613. vol. 2. par 1. 162. Socin Tom. 1. Praelect Theol. cap. 23. Truth Christ was an High-Priest while he was on Earth and as such upon the Cross offered up himself by his bloody Death a perfect Sacrifice whereby his Blood was a propitiatory offering at the very time it was shed and tho in the virtue thereof the Saints were saved before his Incarnation and Christ for ever intercedeth in the Heavens yet the presenting of himself or it there makes no addition to the Perfection of it as a Sacrifice Error 7. There is no use nor place in the Priesthood of Christ for appeasing God's Wrath or offering any Sacrifice no not in Heaven as a Condition of obtaining Remission properly as from God or impetrating the same but Christ's Death is a means of our enjoying that Remission from God and it was indirectly a Condition thereof as to be given to us i. e. it was a Condition imposed on Christ without which by the Divine Decree he was not to obtain Authority from God to forgive us our Sins and it may be called a Sacrifice to God's Mercy as of his own free Grace reconciled but not as offended with Sinners Socin Tom. 2. 665 666. Crell vol. 1. 612. Wolzog. in Ioh. 3. 16. Truth The first and principal use of Christ's Priesthood was to offer on the Cross a Sacrifice to appease God's Wrath against Sinners and to impetrate Remission and eternal Life that so God the offended Governor might consistently with the Honour of his Law and of all his Divine Perfections be at liberty and inclined as well to give the said Blessings as that we might become actual Partakers of them from Christ as authorized to apply them to us And all the other Sacerdotal Acts of Christ do refer to this Error 8. Redemption mentioned in the New Testament signifies no more nor other than a freeing us from the Punishment of Sin without any proper Price intervening And when it 's said Redemption is obtained by the Blood of Christ it 's not meant that the Blood of Christ could move God or that God was thereby obliged to grant us Deliverance from the Punishment of our Sins but that the shedding of his Blood ought to intervene that we might be moved thereby to accept that Deliverance when offered to us Neither did Christ buy us but God by Christ asserted his Right to us and tho our Deliverance from Punishment is gotten as if by a Price yet this is not as if the Blood of Christ were paid to any Socin Tom. 〈◊〉 Prael Theol. cap. 19. Tom. 2. 145 147. Slicht in Rom. cap. 5. v. 10. Truth Redemption by the Blood of Christ is that we are bought by his Blood as a proper Price and delivered from the Curse of the Law and Captivity under Sin and Satan as by a proper Ransom paid to the just Governor of the World Error 9. Christ by his Death did not reconcile God to us but he reconcileth us to God by his Death i. e. we come thereby to be converted to God and cease to offend him yea God's Anger was so far from being appeased by the Death of Christ that thereby it was declared that God was before pacified to us Socin Tom. 1. 144 145 665 666. Crell vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. 154 155 107. Slicht Tom. 2. 214 401. in Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5. Truth We being Children of Wrath because of our Sin the Lord Jesus did by his Death atone our offended God who became thereby so reconciled that he offereth Peace to Sinners and requireth and urgeth us by believing aright to accept thereof and upon our penitent believing he becomes actually reconciled to us delighting in us and dealing with us as Objects of his restored Favour Note 1. Crellius Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8. part 3. disputes against this as the Error of Grotius and the rest of the Orthodox stating it in these words God was before angry but being appeased by the Death of Christ he determined to lay aside his Anger and upon our believing and repenting he doth actually lay aside his Anger 2. Grotius de Satisf cap. 7. distinguisheth the Actings of the Divine Will 1. As before Christ's Death is decreed c. then God is angry with the Sinner yet so as not to be averse to all methods of Reconciliation 2. Vpon Christ's Death as well when fixed as when undergone then God not only appoints the way but promiseth to be reconciled 3. When a Man believes in Christ with a right Faith and Christ according to the Tenor of the Covenant presents the Believer to God then God lays aside his Anger and receives the Person into Favour or is actually reconciled 3. How little do well-meaning Antinomians consider that not only in the third Error c. but in this last Error they agree with the Socinians and that in a Point whence most of their false Notions about Christ's Satisfaction proceed For see you not they hold that after God's absolute Decree to justify us there 's no Wrath in God to appease the change is only on our part And no Reconciliation but on our side whom God begs to be reconciled to him he being already at Peace with us Error 10. By Christ's dying for our Sins as being laid on him is not meant that Christ according to his Sponsion satisfied Divine Iustice for our Sins or that he paid to God
any thing which we owed for our Sins but when he is said to have died for our Sins as they were laid on him nothing else is meant but that he died by occasion of our Sins to take them away i. e. he died to reclaim us from our Sins and to assure us that if we did leave our Sins we should be forgiven and besides this that we might perceive and obtain the fruit of that Forgiveness c. Socin Tom. 2. 153. Tom. 1. Prael Theol. cap. 18 20. Crell Vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. Truth When it 's said Christ died for our Sins as being laid on him it 's not only to bring about the forementioned Ends and such other Purposes as are assigned by the Socinians but they were imputed to him as what he had for our Salvation engaged to make Satisfaction for And he did by his Death make a real full and proper Satisfaction to God's Justice vindicating the Honour of his Justice and Government and of the violated Law as fully as if the pardoned Sinner had endured the utmost Punishment threatned by the said Law Error 11. God did not inflict Death on Christ our Mediator to express his hatred of Sin and deter us from it by his Death as any instance of Divine Displeasure against our Offences and therefore our Sins were not punished in Christ. Socin Tom. 1. 577 578 581. Tom. 2. 194. Crell vol. 1. de Morte Christi p. 611. Truth God did punish our Sins in the Death of Christ by shewing his real Hatred against Sin in all the Extremities Christ did endure which Extremities and Death thus inflicted were not only fit but truly design'd to deter us from all Disobedience against which God thus testified his high Displeasure Error 12. Christ did not by his Death properly merit Salvation or any other thing for us nor did he by the Merit of his great Obedience appease God's Anger Socin Tom. 2. de Servat Part. 3. cap. 6. p. 205. Ruari Epist. 164. Smal. Disp. 2. contr Frantz Truth Christ by his Death and Obedience did properly merit our Salvation and the Reconciliation of God to us his Death being to be considered first as satisfactory and hen meritorious and his Obedience first as meritorious and then satisfactory Error 13. By Christ's dying for us or in our stead as some of them sometimes word it tho they expresly dispute against it is not meant that Christ was substituted to die in the room of us who were condemned to die that God might be pacified nor that his Death was instead of our Death that we for the Merit of it might be delivered but the meaning is that Christ for our good did by his Death come to be crowned with Glory and Power whereby he is able to make us meet for Pardon and authorized to give that Pardon to us Socin Praelect cap. 20 21. de Scrvat cap. 8. Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. Par. 1 c. Truth By Christ's dying for us and in our stead is meant that whereas we Sinners were condemned to die for our Sins our Lord Jesus tho he became not a Sinner in our stead yet as Mediator he was substituted to die in our stead that by his Death God might be inclined to forgive us who otherwise must have died and by virtue of his Death as a Satisfaction to Divine Justice we are delivered from Death This Parenthesis I add to the Description Grotius gives of Christ's dying in our stead De Satisf cap. 9. LIMBORG's Opinion of Christ's Satisfaction consonant to EPISCOPIVS and some few other Arminians Error 14. Vindictive Justice required not Satisfaction to be made in order to the remission of Sin Limbor Theol. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 18. § 4. Truth Vindictive Justice for the Honour of the Divine Law required Satisfaction in order to the remission of Sin at least after the enacting of Adam's Covenant Error 15. Christ's Sufferings were not a full Satisfaction to Justice nor was the Price of our Redemption fully equivalent to the Misery we deserved But God might accept as a redeeming Price much or little as himself judged fit and might be satisfied with any sort of Affliction laid on Christ. Nor did Christ satisfy the Rigor of Divine Justice but the Will of God considered at once merciful as well as just i. e. Mercy abated to Christ in the terms of Satisfaction what Iustice demanded Lib. 3. cap. 2. § 8 9. cap. 22. § 2. cap. 23. § 6. Truth Tho the great Mercy of God appeared in his being willing to admit accept and provide Christ our Mediator to make Satisfaction for our Sins yet God our just Governor would have it that the terms of Satisfaction proposed to our Mediator should be such as strict Iustice demanded for the Honour of his violated Law and securing the Ends of his Government which terms were no lower than that he should suffer what was fully equivalent to the Punishments they whom he was to redeem deserved to endure And as our Lord Jesus did suffer in kind much of what we deserved to suffer so he suffered considering the Dignity and Innocency of his Person what was in the intrinsick Value fully equivalent to such of our deserved Punishments as he was not capable of suffering in kind Nay the Price of our Redemption paid by him was not only equivalent to what the Law of Works required of us but it was supralegal that is it far exceeded what any Sinners were thereby obliged to nor see we how a full Satisfaction for all our Sins could be otherwise made Error 16. Our Faith and Regeneration were not merited by Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 22. § 3. Truth Considering that our New-birth and Faith are the Fruits of the holy Spirit whom by Sin we had expelled his return to regenerate and make us Believers must be for the sake and with respect to the Merits of Christ as what vindicated the Honour of God who restored him to us Truth No Penance Pilgrimage Fastings or good Works of our own or other Men can make proper Satisfaction to Divine Justice for the least of our Sins as to any part of their Fault or Guilt This last we add in opposition to what POPISH Opinions seem to militate against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Socinian Notions of Iustification Error 1. In our Justification by Christ our Sins are blotted out not by Christ's Death and Obedience as any Compensation or Satisfaction to God for them but only by God's simple Forgiveness and Pardon absolutely free in all respects without any Merit of Christ's or our own Socin Tom. 1. Praelect Theol. cap. 15 16. Crell vol. 1. in Phil. 3. 9. in Rom. 3. 24. Truth In Justification upon our penitent believing our Sins are pardoned and our Persons accepted for the sake of Christ's Death and Obedience as what compensated and made Satisfaction for our Sins And tho neither our Graces nor Works do merit our Pardon Acceptance or eternal
depends not on any such mere words But was Christ appointed and did he consent to endure what the Sinner was to suffer that in virtue thereof the offended God might be appeased and the Sinner delivered This is the thing they oppose Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. par 14. explaining this very Phrase 3. Nor is with them the Question Whether Christ's Sufferings were in part the Idem and in other respects a full Equivalent to the Punishments the Sinner deserved No their Arguments run against the Equivalency and on that account deny that his Sufferings could be a full Price of Redemption or a Satisfaction and well they may when they call him a mere Creature Crell Resp. ad Grot. c. 4. par 2. c. 6. par 18. It 's the Proportion in the Value they most directly militate against 4. Nor whether Christ was a Sinner in judicial Esteem or was he reputed the innocent Mediator making amends to Iustice for our Sins that we the Offendors might be redeemed by his merits who to make Satisfaction submitted to be dealt with as if he had been a Sinner The last is enough for their Abhorrence and tho Socinus took all Advantages to expose the Orthodox in representing their Opinion as to the Imputation of Sin to Christ yet grants they hold that Christ was truly innocent and reputed so by God even when he was punished as if an Offender De Servat cap. 6. It 's true sometimes they would force some such Consequence on the words of the Orthodox as if Christ must be legally reputed a Sinner but that is to furnish themselves with an Argument to ridicule the true Doctrine of Satisfaction And note they deny that 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made Sin to be Christ was made a Sacrifice for Sin yea some render it he was made a Sinner as Slicht c. God dealt with him as a Sinner Socin in loc 5. It 's far enough from the Socinian Controversy whether Christ was immediately obliged by the Law of Works to die i. e. Did God thus sentence him Thou Christ hast sinned and therefore thou shalt die Or was he immediately obliged to die by the Govenant of Redemption and mediately by the Law of Works i. e. the Sentence is to be thus apprehended Whereas thou my Son the Mediator hast with my Consent declared thy willingness to expiate Sin and ransom Sinners justly condemned by the Curse of my Law to die And whereas my Vindictive Iustice the Honour of my Law and Government required that I the Rector should exact Satisfaction and Reparation for the Crimes of these Sinners by thy Death if I agreed to thy redeeming and saving them and thou hast obliged thy self to die in their stead to redeem them therefore thou shalt die this accursed shameful Death This I say is no part of the Dispute with the Socinians for the last account doth as directly oppose their Notions as the former nay much more for it asserts the Compact before his Incarnation and consequently the Divinity at least Preexistence of Christ. 6. Nor yet is it of any moment with them whether Men say Sin would be in a more proper sense the immediate meritorious Cause of the Sinner's dying who committed the Sin than of Christ's dying who did not commit the Sin tho he obliged himself to make Satisfaction for it in the Sinner's stead that the provoked God might be reconciled to him The Point with them being this Did our Sins notwithstanding God's merciful Disposition retain that Demerit in his account as rendered Satisfaction for it by Death necessary to reconcile him to Sinners and consequently did Christ suffer Death to make that Satisfaction which was become thus necessary by Sin and yet impossible for the Sinner to make 7. It 's true the Socinians usually say our Sins were the occasion of Christ's Death yet oft they call them the antecedent Cause but occasion being more common and agreeable to their Hypothesis I wish others had waved that word to prevent Abuse Nevertheless the mere using of that word is far from arguing any Man to Socinianize so that he apply it to a sense opposite to what Socinians do This will appear if we consider in what sense the Socinians use it they say our Sin was an occasion of Christ's Death as Sin was that which we were to be reclaimed from and our hope supported against And the Death of Christ was that way in which God who was not unreconciled before did appoint Christ to reclaim us from our Sins as his Death assureth us of the Truth of his Doctrine and Promises manifesteth God's prior Reconciliation and so his Death became an Argument to encline us to believe and repent and also a causa sine qua non both of a strong Motive to Holiness viz. the endless Glory designed in Heaven for us which was before shut up and of that Power Authority and Care of Christ at God's Right-hand to bring us into the Possession of it But when others shall call our Sins an occasion of Christ's Death and explain it thus That it was an occasion of Christ's Death as a penal Satisfaction to the Iustice of God and that he endured it to pacify God to Sinners that God's hatred of Sin and his Justice yea punitive Justice might be no less demonstrated in Christ's Satisfaction than if the Sinners had been damned And his Obedience and his Punishments wherein Vindictive Iustice was thus glorified did merit the Pardon of our Sins and eternal Life such an Explication doth as much oppose Socinianism as if they had used the word meritorious Cause instead of occasion That no Person may pretend the Reverend Mr. Baxter's Authority in favour of Socinianism because he sometimes calls our Sins an occasion of Christ's Death I do assure the Reader that he explains the word occasion in the last sense and in the most direct opposition to Socinianism nor can any pretend but the reason he useth this word as also pro causa meritoria or instead of a meritorious Cause is only to distinguish Christ the Sponsor making Satisfaction to Justice for our Sins from the Sinner himself when suffering for his own Sins To evidence which I have repeated his own Assertions under this seventh Head and could easily cite his own words which agree exactly to what 's Antisocinian in the six foregoing Heads See Method Theol. par 3. cap. 1. determ 11 12 15. Need I add that he says God declared to the feeling of Christ his Displeasure against Sin which was the Cause of all the Miseries which he endured i. e. saith he Christ bare those Punishments which the Anger and Displeasure of God against Sin and Sinners caused to be inflicted on him our Sponsor Vbi sup Disp. 4. and all this in our stead Det. 10. He made Satisfaction for our Sins to God as Rector and as the injured Party Determ 14. Christ's Death answered all the Ends of the most proper Punishments and
of the Threatning of the Law Determ 12. When he calls Sin an occasion of Christ's Death he there calls it also a remote meritorious Cause Determ 5. And as for a proper meritorious Cause as when Children are punished for their Parents Sins Determ 5. His Safaction yielded to our most just Rector a sufficient ground on which to forgive penitent Believers spiritual and eternal Punishments Disâ— 2. Nay he sees not supposing the Law of Works how God could forgive our Sins without the Penal Satisfaction of Christ Disp. 2. Determ 15. It were endless to produce the Instances demonstrating the Orthodoxness of this great Man as to the Satisfaction of Christ against Socinianism And by the way such as say Christ's penal Satisfaction was not necessary to the forgiveness of our Sins do a thousand times more favour Socinianism than Mr. Baxter's Notions or Words can be wrested to Perhaps others who follow Episcopius and some other Arminians when all must acquit him of Socinianism may surmise he favoureth their Notion of Christ's Death as if it were a Satisfaction only to the Will of God and not a full Satisfaction to the Iustice of God To this I answer Mr. B. distinguisheth Satisfaction into that which is the fulfilling the Will of a Person and that which is the Payment of what was owing by an Equivalent otherwise not due And he affirms that Christ's Satisfaction was not a mere fulfilling the Will of God tho it supposeth his Consent but it was a full Equivalent to what Punishments we deserved in that it better answered the Ends of Divine Government than the Sinner's Punishment would have done it more fully demonstrated the vindictive Justice of God than if the Sinner had been damned and it was a full Satisfaction to governing Justice and the End of the Law Vbi supra Determ 10 11 12 15. I thought this account necessary not only for the forementioned End but also that our Agreement in opposition to Socinianism might not exclude Mr. B. and such as approve of his Scheme which would add strength to that Heresy and be injurious to many worthy Persons nor ought a few words so fully explained be pressed to brand them with that odious Title who could more plausibly fix the same Character on Persons from things plainly asserted in the Socinian sense and subserving their Hypothesis As Christ's Death was not necessary to the remission of Sin the Promise of Forgiveness is no Effect of Christ's Death Repentance under the Gospel is an Effect of justifying Faith in Christ. The preaching of Reconciliation to Sinners is only to publish to them that God is already reconciled to them and to call them to be reconciled to God Many others might be instanced but I think it were unjust even upon such grounds to call any of these Socinians CHAP. VII An Enquiry into what Difference seems to remain concerning the Satisfaction of Christ and Iustification of a Sinner And this Difference reduced below any Cause of Discord I Think both sides are acquitted from all dangerous Errors concerning the Satisfaction of Christ and Justification of a Sinner nor can I doubt but the impartial Reader must apprehend the remaining Difference doth not lie in Opinions about these Doctrines themselves but in accommodating some words in opposition to other Errors which either Side have more especially applied their Minds to confute unless he should also ascribe it to a Zeal for sundry received Phrases on the one part and an apprehension in the other part that more accuracy is become needful since those Phrases were received 1. In both these Doctrines the visible Spring of what Difference remains is a different Notion of Christ's Suretiship For by this the word Imputation as used in both these Doctrines is governed viz. how our Sins were imputed to Christ when he satisfied and how Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us when we are justified both which depend upon the various Conceptions of the Suretiship of Christ and the manner of his representing us which I will begin with One Side thinks him a mediating Surety and distinguishing both as to the matter engaged and Instrument wherein he voluntarily engaged himself as also the respect he had to us therein 1. In the Covenant of Redemption they consider Christ agreeing with his Father the Terms of Satisfaction to Justice and Impetration of Life for Sinners and obliging himself to assume our Nature and therein perfectly to obey the Law die an accursed Death with whatever was equivalent to what by the Covenant of Works our Sins deserved Here they think Christ did not covenant strictly in our stead or as our Proxy tho he covenanted to die in our stead even strictly so He transacted as a free Interposer tho for our Salvation we were no federating Party tho we were the Persons whose Salvation was his promised Reward And therefore we have more reason since we are become his Members to say we intercede in Christ now than to say that we covenanted in Christ then Finally they account his Act of engaging so peculiar to himself that his non-performance of what he engaged which was impossible had not made us more guilty tho it would have left us miserable for our own Sins there being no other way to redeem us 2. They find Christ called a Surety in the Gospel-Covenant made with fallen Man Heb. 7. 22. and no where else This Covenant supposeth the former yea supposeth Christ's having executed his Engagements by the Covenant of Redemption to make Satisfaction to Justice i. e. it was at first accepted as if executed for this Covenant with Man doth not adjust the terms of Redemption but the way of conveying the Effects of that Redemption and is called the Testament of our Lord Jesus whereby he bequeaths the Blessings he acquired by his atoning Death In this Covenant Christ is such a Surety as not only assures us all will be performed which is promised to us on God's part but that undertakes to bring in the Elect and for the Perseverance of Believers unto eternal Life by his exerting that Power and Authority he hath received But here also they apprehend Christ a distinct federating Party A Mediator treating and obliging himself to make the Covenant stand sure and effect the Ends it was designed for but he binds not himself to believe repent or persevere for us but that we shall repent believe and persevere nor doth his Engagement that we should do so prevent our personal Engagement by Covenant to do it our selves tho in his Strength Now our Act of engaging is not his engaging Act but an Effect of it nor is our repenting his repenting Act but the Effect of his engaged Assistance nor is that Assistance of his reckoned to be legally our assisting our selves nor can we say that we covenanted in Christ to bring in the Elect or that Believers shall persevere By which with other Reasons we are induced to think that in covenanting he
transacts still as Mediator but he obliging himself to these great Performances in order to our doing what we are personally obliged to do and our receiving what we are necessitated to receive if ever we be saved even in a Gospel-way tho it supposeth him already crucified he is properly called a Surety of the New Covenant yet still connoting him a Mediator I need not suggest that if in this new Covenant Christ's Suretyship will not infer our being one foederating Party with Christ and hence that we covenanted in him it will far less follow we did so in the Covenant of Redemption which treated of things so improper to be once propos'd to us as undertaking Parties much less as Principals which to strictly legal Sureties always are supposed But of this I have treated in Man made righteous and in Answer to the Report and P. S. to Gospel-Truth THE OTHER SIDE think Christ with the Father's consent came into the Covenant of Works considered as a Bond as unviolated say some as violated say others and therein became one foederating Party with us as Elect some say as Believers say others even such a Surety as made the Covenant of Works run thus If thou Christ my Son or you the Elect or Believers do obey all the Law you shall live But if they sin thou or they shall die or they having sinned thou shalt die And they conceiving Christ to be as a strict pecuniary Surety in this one Bond with us they esteem him one legal Person and Representative in such a sense as that we did covenant in him and are legally esteemed to do and suffer what he did and not only secured of Salvation in his right and for his sake This may be accounted by some a dangerous Difference and so it were on our part if we did not own that Christ's fulfilling of the Law was an Article in the Covenant of Redemption and that we are as fully assured of Salvation if we accept of Christ as if we had covenanted in him and that he hath engaged the Elect should accept of him tho they did not covenant in him and that Believers have as inviolable an Interest in the Benefits of Christ's Death both in his right and by the Gospel-promise as if they were legally esteemed to suffer what he did suffer But all this we acknowledg It would be as dangerous on our Brethrens part to say we covenanted in Christ and obeyed in him if they did not renounce all proud assuming Boasts as if they were as righteous as Christ or stood on terms with God needing no more Acts of Mercy than that one of appointing Christ to be Mediator but after that they are on terms of strict Justice and above Forgiveness c. The like Danger would ensue their Position if they did not acknowledg the necessity of Faith to Justification and this Faith to be always accompanied with Repentance and persevering Holiness But our Brethren renounce the former and own the latter Matters standing thus will afford no ground to hereticate each other We think a mediating Surety obliged in a distinct Bond to perform the utmost which our Brethren affirm Christ to have done doth as well secure our State and support our Faith as if in the same Bond and better account for the sapiential Methods of Divine Government towards Man since the Fall with God's judicial Procedures towards Man as under Gospel-offers and his suspending Christ's merited Benefits till Men believe as also his recorded Pleadings with Sinners The Brethren think not that Christ did more for our Salvation than we allow but that we did more in Christ and thence judge our Faith more supported and the Law of Works more honoured in their way But did each side perceive all the aforesaid respective Ends alike provided for and evil Consequences equally avoided the Notion in debate could for its own sake admit no Dispute on either side And is it not pity to hate each other for mistaking the best Scheme to avoid the same Evils which both would prevent and secure that same Good which both honestly aim at by their respective Hypotheses Forbearance is the juster in this point because it turns upon a Solution of this Question When Adam is called a Figure of Christ Rom. 5. 18. is there not some disparity in their Representation of Men as well as in those other things there instanced Our Brethren think Christ so fully prefigured by Adam as a Representative that we as truly obeyed and suffered in Christ as we sinned in Adam We think the Figure as to Representation is to be explained thus As no man becomes a Sinner or dieth whose Depravedness and Death were not procured and merited by Adam's first Sin and tho the Pagan Sinners who died did not actually sin against a revealed positive Law as Adam did yet he was the Root of Death to them as well as to the Jews under Moses's Law So no men are quickned justified sanctified or saved but Christ is a Root of Life Grace Justification Holiness and Glory to them in all these by his Merits in some also by his Spirit and Power But yet we conceive Christ may as well answer Adam's Figure here intended by our being quickned justified and saved by Christ's Obedience imputed to us without our being esteemed to have obeyed and suffered in him as Christ was condemned and died for Adam's Sins imputed to him tho he was not esteemed to have sinned in Adam As he was condemned by our Disobedience so we are justified by his Obedience viz. the first by his own Compact with the Father the last by that and the Gospel too He was not condemned by any imputation that made him by the Law a Sinner unless he sinned in Adam neither are we justified by being legally judged Sufferers or Obeyers in him It avails not to say Christ was legally a Sinner and yet not reputed to sin in Adam because Christ was our Root for tho he was our Root as to Grace Acceptance Pardon and Glory and whatever else did proceed from him to us as our Saviour nevertheless if he was a Sinner he could not as to this be our Root unless we derive Sin from him but surely that Denomination must have its Root not in him but in those that were Sinners before him and whose Sins were imputed to him they must denominate that one legal Person into which he came a sinful guilty Person as he doth that one obeying satisfying Person into which we are admitted which Terms our Brethren espousing I argue from Finally we are enclined to set the foresaid Limit to Christ's Representation by this among many other Reasons for in that Rom. 5. 18. where Adam is called a Figure the Death of those Heathens was merited by their own personal Transgressions as well as by Adam's Disobedience But the Elect even when Believers do not merit Life by their own personal Obedience and therefore we are not represented altogether in the
atoning Righteousness 2. They who say it 's by Faith alone that we apply this Righteousness do also grant that Faith is not alone in the person to whom God applies the Righteousness of Christ and when they apply it to themselves Repentance Love c. are Concomitants with Faith And they who think we are justified by Works as they think its God's applying Christ's Righteousness to us and not our applying it to our selves that is the great justifying Act so they grant God justifieth us as soon as we repent and believe with the heart and suspends not a justified State till Works meet for Repentance or the Effects of Faith are produced yea should a man dy then he would be certainly saved 3. They who say it s by Faith alone acknowledg that justifying Faith will certainly produce good Works and if good Works and persevering Holiness do not follow it was a dead Faith and because dead it never was a justifying Faith however men flatter'd themselves Also that Mens Faith tho not their Persons is justified by their Works yea the most Judicious own that if Sin should reign in Believers and they apostatize they would be condemned tho the Promise of Perseverance make that impossible and therefore persevering Holiness and good Works so far continue their justification as they prevent what would bring them into Condemnation and Faith is the Condition of the Continuation of Justification See Dr. Owen of Iustification p. 207 208 306. On the other hand they who say we are justified by Works do account Works to be no more but the executing the foederal consenting Act of Faith and so its Faith exerting it self by various occasions and considering that the Believer's not only forgiving his Enemies but his persevering in Faith and Holiness are plain Conditions in many Promises made thereto and God pronounceth to Believers that he will have no pleasure in any Man who drawerh back and he shall die if Sin reigneth in him Heb. 10. 38. Rom. 8. 13. Mat. 6. 14 15. They conceive that by Perseverance in Faith and true Holiness they are kept from being chargeable with final and total Apostacy and from Obnoxiousness to the Evils denounced by the Gospel against Apostates as such and are adjudged to be under the Influence and Safeguard of the Promises made to Believers as persevering nevertheless they abhor a thought that Perseverance in Faith and Holiness or any good Work is any meriting Righteousness or the least Compensation for Sin or entitling Price of the least Benefit nor exclude they the need of multiplied and continued Pardon or make they any Blessing due of Debt but they rely wholly on Christ's Merits for these things as the only procuring Cause tho they are affected and governed by these places of God's Word which are directed to Believers as part of his Rule of Iudgment well knowing that whatever Sentence the said Words pass in this Life God executes in part now and more at Death but at the great Day it will be solemnly pronounced and perfectly executed These respective Concessions duly weighed secure those who say we are justified by Faith alone from the danger of Licentiousness and those who say we are justified by Works also from detracting from the Honour of Christ's Righteousness as having the sole meriting atoning Virtue and Efficacy in Justification and do not only grant Perseverance but think these conditional Promises and Comminations are apt and designed means of it in Subjects capable of moral Government and whose Warfare is unaccomplished However such different Sentiments may appear to others I lay so little stress upon them that I had not thought it worth my labour to have printed a Sheet against any man who confessed the necessity of saving Faith as described in the Gospel to Justification Repentance and Love still accompanying that Faith in the Object on whom God's justifying Act doth terminate and the Uneffectualness of Faith to save any who neglected to perform good Works and to persevere in Faith and Holiness Such as granted but these things I had never wrote against for scrupling the conditional respect of them to the Gospel-Law But Dr. Crisp's Notions I apprehended dangerous and they so greatly prevailing my Brethren thought my confuting them necessary at that time whereas I had no purpose when I wrote against Dr. Crisp to intermeddle with these other points but some Congregational Brethren in their Attempts against my Book did from a very few occasional Expressions therein accuse us of Socinianism Arminianism and Popery and that they might have some pretence to fix that Charge they turned the Controversy into these lesser Matters whereby I was necessitated either to insist on them however against my Will or else abide under the foresaid severe Imputation to the prejudice not only of my own Ministry but also of most of my Brethren CHAP. VIII An Attempt to accommodate the difference between such as say Christ's Righteousness is imputed only as to Effects and not in se and those of us who think it is imputed in se. FOreseeing an Objection that will be improved against a peaceable Forbearance towards a number however small and that Rigidness may include in that number whomever the Objectors shall disaffect it 's of use to state it Object Granting the forementioned Points to be reduced below a Cause of Dissention yet the Difference cannot be compromised between such as say the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in se for Justification and them who say it is not imputed in se but quoad effectus Answ. I think it may be accommodated at least so far as to cut off just Pretences for hereticating and dividing from each other To which end I will consider these several Opinions and then reduce the difference First Among them who say Christ's Righteousness is imputed in se there be two Opinions most noted and whereto all others are reducible Of both these I have already treated so much that little more is needful 1. Some think the Elect are judicially according to the Law of Works accounted to have done and suffered in Christ all the Law demanded both as the Punishment of Sin and the Merit of eternal Life Such must hold that Christ's Death and Obedience are the formal Righteousness of the Elect and the formal Cause of Justification and that from the first moment of their personal Subsistence yea and except making Christ to be their Representative without any Gift of that Righteousness it being imputed not of Grace but of Legal Iustice as Adam's Obedience had been if he had finally obeyed and his Offence now is upon his sinning There are others who are for this judicial reckoning Sinners to obey and suffer in Christ but they hold they are not adjudged to have done this till they are Believers and then they are legally just before God and as such entitled to eternal Life These speak more safely but less consistently they limit the time from a Conviction that the
whole scope of the Gospel must be contradicted if Unbelievers do not remain condemned and Believers only are justified But yet it seems hard to apprehend that God by the Law of Works accounts the Person of a Believer to have suffered in Christ and therefore to be absolved whom yet he did not account to suffer in Christ while he was an Vnbeliever and therefore condemned him and this by that very same Law which now acquits him I know to make this consist it 's offered that the Elect are not Christ's Seed till they become Believers But this comes short for it will thence follow that Christ in his Death was a strict Representative who personated Believers qua Believers which will induce ill Consequences And yet further it is not true that the Persons of Believers were seminally in Christ when he died as we were in Adam when he sinned and so no Argument can be brought from that Instance I grant that both the Merit and the powerful Virtue whereby our Persons in time obtain Faith were in Christ before we were born but that makes not Christ the Root of our Persons at that time but of that regenerating Virtue whereby we become Believers and therefore tho as to this change of our Qualification we may be called Christ's Seed when we believe yet it 's not such a Seed as it may be said of we suffered in him as we sinned in Adam who was the natural Root of our Persons and thereupon such a Representative as his Descendents sinned in What may be said of Christ's adopting Merit will have no place here for these Authors make Adoption to be an Effect of Justification and so the Imputation is prior 2. There be others who are for imputed Righteousness in se but cannot approve of the former manner of Imputation among whom there is some variety in wording their Conceptions but they come to one and the same thing viz. that God adjudgeth the Believer to be one whose Absolution Adoption and Glory were promised to Christ in Reward of his Death and Obedience by the Covenant of Redemption which are promised also to the Believer himself in the Gospel-Covenant and for his actual Interest and Enjoyment thereof as also Acceptance and Treatment as a righteous Person against all Challenges God judicially accounts what Christ hath done and suffered to be his pleadable Security This we take to be Imputation Secondly By the Opinion of those who say Christ's Righteousness is not imputed in se but only as to Effects they in Expressions oppose all the forementioned account denying that the first Head is true and that the second is any Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se. Nevertheless they grant that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious Cause of our Justification by Faith and seem to insist mostly upon its Efficacy to that end as Christ's Satisfaction was the ground upon which God enacted the Gospel-Covenant wherein our Faith tho imperfect is accounted for Righteousness Concerning this Opinion I shall offer a few things 1. None ought to narrow it as if the Authors meant that Pardon and eternal Life are not merited by the Righteousness of Christ for they affirm that these and other Gospel-Blessings are merited by Christ as well as the Gospel-Covenant Pray say not this it 's not only the Covenant it self but those very Blessings which that Covenant conveys that are the merited Effects of Christ's Death and Obedience they were his deserved Rewards which are dispensed to us upon believing This I insert to obviate a Conceit too much improved by some so stupid or worse that they will not own this Distinction and still cry out as if their Opinion confined the Influence of Christ's Righteousness to the procuring of a Law whereby Men were to purchase Pardon and Life by their own Faith Whereas they are so far from this that they affirm these Blessings were already accounted purchased and Authority in Christ to dispense them before he could enact such a Law 2. They intend not to exclude Christ's Righteousness from being imputed in any sense for they say it's imputed quoad effectus and therefore should not be charged to deny all Imputation or represented to say we are pardoned and saved for our own Works without any Imputation of Christ's Death and Obedience at all 3. In all which they affirm concerning Justification they still suppose Christ's complete Satisfaction and are sound therein None can accuse them to differ from the Orthodox as to Christ's expiating Sacrifice or impetration of eternal Life 4. I could wish a very worthy Person of this Opinion would review his own account of Justification wherein he saith it 's that Act whereby God imputes to every sound Believer his Faith for Righteousness upon the account of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits and gives Pardon and Life as the Benefits of it i. e. of Justification which he further explicates Through Christ's Sacrifice the Defects of this Faith which is our Righteousness are pardoned and by his Merits that imperfect Duty is accounted or imputed to us for Righteousness which it is not in it self Had I thus stated this Point I should ask my self Do not I set Pardon too remote from Christ's Sacrifice as the meritorious Cause And how can Pardon be the Effect of imputing Faith for Righteousness which is Justification and yet God cannot impute Faith for Righteousness unless he first pardon its Defects for the sake of Christ's Sacrifice But the cause of my mentioning this Account follows 5. They do affirm what amounts to a real Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se at least what supposeth this Imputation and infers it to be necessary For how by Christ's Merits can a Righteousness in it self imperfect be reckoned before a just God for our perfect Righteousness and yet those Merits for which it is so reckoned not be imputed at all for Righteousness to us who have that Faith Would Faith be no Righteousness except the Divine Mind did apply the Merits of Christ to Faith to make it a Righteousness upon which I am accounted righteous by this Faith and yet the Divine Mind not apply to me that Righteousness of Christ without which my Faith had left me still unrighteous whereas it seems undeniable as far as Christ's Righteousness is necessary to make my personal Faith my Righteousness in God's account that same very Righteousness is necessary to make my Person righteous in God's account Moreover they own that God promised to Christ in reward of his meriting Sufferings and Obedience that all Believers should be absolved and glorified and can they be adjudged to this Absolution and Glory without a judicial acknowledgment that they are to be absolved and glorified in that Right of Christ which resulted from that Promise made to him And can that be without an Imputation of those Sufferings and Obedience of Christ which are rewarded in that Right of Christ and thereby in those Blessings wherein Believers have this judicially acknowledged
without what it confineth its promised Absolution or Benefits to seeing the Lord our Judg doth sentence us as this revealed Rule takes hold of us § 5. I find nothing plainer than that on the one hand we are made righteous by Christ's Obedience Rom. 5. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. and accepted in the Beloved Eph. 1. 6 7. and washed from our Sins in his Blood Rev. 1. 5. and we receive the Atonement Rom. 5. 11. And on the other hand that Faith is imputed for Righteousness Rom. 4. 9 11 22 24. and we are justified by Faith Rom. 5. 1. chap. 3. 30. and by our words Mat. 11. 37. and by our Works Iam. 2. 24. and Men are called righteous with respect to their Graces and Actings short of Perfection and that Christ's judicial Proceedings are upon Mens Temper and Behaviour Mat. 22. 25. chap. 10. 32. and Promises of Pardon and Life are made still to Repentance Faith and Perseverance and the Gospel denounceth Death against impenitent Ones Luke 13. 3. Infidels Iob. 3. 36. Disobedient Rom. 2. 8. Barren Heb. 6. 8. Apostates Heb. 10. 38. and Workers of Iniquity Luke 13. 27. Nor can it be overlook'd that Perfection is not intended in what the Gospel-Promise is made to nor is the Gospel threatning of Damnation levell'd against any Offences consistent with Sincerity Hence I conclude that when God justifies a Sinner the Rule by which he judgeth requires a judicial regard to inherent Faith c. § 6. By one Rule of Judgment the same justifying Sentence in all respects could not be pronounced upon Christ's Righteousness and upon that of a believing Sinner unless that one Rule did either 1. Originally promise Life to perfect Legal Obedience and also to that which was not a perfect Obedience to the Law But if I suppose this I must admit that the Law did not denounce Death for the least Sin for to condemn to Death for the least Sin and to promise Life to imperfect Obedience consist not yea I must then consider God to enact that Rule of Judgment as in his first relation to innocent Man viz. as Creator governing by virtue of his absolute Propriety in Man as his Creature But if God be considered only in that relation it was inconsistent with his Perfections to enact a Rule of Judgment which promised Life to any thing short of perfect Obedience to the Law he delivered and which Man was originally capable to obey And moreover we find in the Rule of Judgment by which he now justifies Men a direct respect to many things which that first Law was inconsistent with as the Death of a Redeemer for our Sin Faith in this Redeemer Pardon of Sin and Absolution from the Curse which condemned us as Sinners c. 2. Or unless that one Rule of Judgment were the Gospel-Promise of the Redeemer viz. He that believeth shall be saved Hereby indeed the justifying Sentence would directly pass upon Man as a Believer and adjudg him to a right in whatever the Gospel promised to Believers qua such And considering the chief design of the Gospel is to induce fallen Sinners to believe upon a supposition and assurance given that Satisfaction is already made by our Redeemer and not now to be made or adjusted Many are apt to confine their thoughts of Justification to this as the alone Rule of Judgment and the account of the final Judgment generally states it in this manner nor can I deny but this is in some respects a safe as well as easy method But I cannot agree that the justifying Sentence is by this Rule so abstractedly taken For 1. This would too much confine the Influence of Christ's Merits to the mere procuring of the Gospel-Promise whereas we find it more immediately and fully connected with Pardon and all other saving Benefits 2. We must be made righteous by Christ's Obedience in some way less remote than this 3. The Satisfaction of Christ is not hereby sufficiently acknowledged nor applied in our Justification Many other Reasons might be given why I am convinced that when God ustifies a believing Sinner the Sentence respects him under some further judicial Consideration than merely a Believer and consequently the Rule of Judgment extensively taken required somewhat more to constitute him a justifiable Person § 7. I therefore take the Rule of Judgment to be the Gospel-Law in a subordinated Connexion with the Law of Mediation wherein the Honour of our Creator governing us by the Law of Works is provided for and the Ends of that Law fulfilled and so the Sentence will respect the imputed Righteousness of Christ and the Righteousness of Faith too the first as satisfactory and meritorious with our injured creating Lawgiver the latter as the performed Condition of the Redeemer's Grant of the blessed Effects of Christ's Satisfaction and Merits and whereby this Man who believes is discriminated from such who rejected the Offer of Salvation In the first Justice is satisfied that a Rebel should be absolved and glorified in the last the Rule enacted by governing Grace is answered by the Believer so that the Judg is no more a Respecter of Persons in applying these Benefits as Redeemer than he was regardless of governing Justice in the Condition upon which they were procured by our Saviour § 8. The Rule of Iudgment then must be this That the Believer tho a Sinner whose Absolution Pardon Acceptance as righteous and Salvation were promised to Christ by the governing Creator in reward of his Obedience and Sufferings and promised to himself for the sake of Christ in the Gospel upon his believing with that Faith which it appoints is to be absolved pardoned accepted as righteous and saved From this Rule of Judgment is easily inferr'd that justifying Sentence on which our State is changed viz. Thou art that true Believer whose Absolution Pardon Acceptance as righteous and Salvation were promised to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption and to thy self personally in my Gospel and therefore thou art adjudged absolved pardoned accepted and an Heir of Glory by virtue of that Promise made to Christ and the Gospel-Promise made to thy self and hast a Title to plead Christ's perfect Obedience and Sufferings for thy certain enjoyment thereof which will also be continually pleaded by Christ thy Advocate In like manner we see Constitutive Justification is our being made such Believers through the Influence of the Spirit of Christ as fall under the foresaid Promise made to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption and the Gospel-Promise made to our selves and so are conformed to the Rule of Judgment but yet considered as not judicially sentenced according to it Again Passive Iustification is no other than our Persons and State considered as affected by that Sentence as already past upon us viz. absolved pardoned accepted as righteous and intitled to Glory Finally Executive Iustification is no other than God's dealing with us as Persons so absolved pardoned accepted and entitled to Glory and his performing
whatever is included in the justifying Sentence yet in the way time manner and limits which the Gospel declares § 9. The Consideration of the Rule of Iudgment as before explained led me to affirm that the Justification of a believing Sinner is equivalent to a twofold Justification the one at our Creator's Bar the other at the Redeemer's the first by the imputed Righteousness of Christ the other by that of Faith which I have insisted on in PS to Gospel-Truth p. 276 279 c. 3d Edit And being desirous to prevent Mistakes in this Point which I think is probable to prevent furious Debates concerning the Doctrine of Iustification I 'll give a few hints of fuller Thoughts about it premising only that I hoped none would think that I said there is a twofold Justification for I make the Sentence to be but one tho that includes what 's equivalent to a twofold Justification Nor yet that I denied Christ as of one Essence with the Father to be Creator or said there be two actually existing Bars But these are things too low for many words 1. I consider God at our first Formation as our Creator governing Men by a Law suted to their rational innocent and perfect Natures by which Law he promised Life to sinless Obedience and threatned Death for all Disobedience God considered in this relation cannot be apprehended to enact a Gospel-Law with a Promise of Pardon and Life to the imperfect tho sincere Faith of Sinners 2. I consider this Creator offended by Man's Violation of his holy Law Under this Notion 1. He condemns the Sinner unless Satisfaction be made and excludes him from Life unless purchased by one capable of meriting it 2. He would reject Faith and every Work of a Sinner as satisfactory or meritorious this Offendor being incapable to satisfy for the least Fault or merit the least Blessing 3. I consider our Mediator transacting with our offended creating Lawgiver in the Covenant of Redemption wherein 1. Our governing Creator demands of Christ if he would save Sinners that in their Nature he must obey the violated Law and endure Death and what was equivalent to its threatned Punishment in their stead 2. He declareth that this Obedience and those Sufferings of this Mediator considering the Dignity of his Person should be accepted for Satisfaction for Sin and the Merit of eternal Life and of whatever subserved Sinners obtaining thereof 3. He promiseth Christ as a Reward of his Obedience and Sufferings that whoever of fallen Men should believe on him should be absolved pardoned accepted as righteous and eternally glorified for the sake of what he was to do and suffer and that a certain number should believe on him and so be absolved c. to his Glory and he have all Power Authority and Iudgment committed to him 4. Christ our Mediator covenanteth to do and suffer what was proposed and accepts of the said Rewards 5. In due time Christ porforms his Undertaking and becomes entitled to the said Rewards and invested in a right thereto with respect to which he is said to be justified 6. His Undertaking is allowed to operate as if performed at least from Adam's Fall and thereby his Kingdom and the saving Effects of his Obedience and Death antecede his obeying and dying 7. Whatever concerned the Sinner's Salvation was to be founded upon the satisfactory and meritorious Death and Obedience of Christ our Mediator 8. Man is to be considered under the first Head as an innocent Subject in a state of Trial according to the Law of Works and under the second Head as a Sinner obnoxious to the Curse of the Law past Relief by his own Merit and yet upon Christ's Satisfaction pursuant to the Covenant of Redemption in this third Head as savable notwithstanding the Curse of the Law 4. As an Effect of this Transaction I do not consider only Christ our Mediator under the Notion of a Redeemer as all will grant him to be in an especial manner because he alone paid the redeeming Price But I consider also the Creator to be Redeemer as he gave his Son to be a Saviour accepted the Satisfaction made by him promised to him the foresaid Rewards and so far executed them as to invest him in his Office of an accepted authorized Mediator admitting his Kingdom to commence as well as his Death to operate to saving Effects before he actually dy'd c. Upon these and the like accounts I apprehend the blessed God considered essentially tho the Father eminently bears the Title of Creator and sustains the Dignity of the Divine Essence and Government in proposing the Terms and receiving Satisfaction to stand towards us in the relation of a Redeemer who hath received Satisfaction and transacting with us in and by our Mediator in whom he is well pleased Our Creator being considered thus as God in Christ who is satisfied as to the Violations of his Law the Honour of his Government vindicated and the Ends of it secured tho Pardon and Life be granted to Sinners it will follow that in a consistency with rectoral Iustice he can so far suspend the Curse of the Law towards sinful Man and exert his Mercy as 1. To be willing to admit to Peace and Favour all whom Christ shall present to him 2. To be ready to forgive our Offences 3. To make Offers of Peace Pardon and Salvation to lost Sinners begging them to be reconciled c. 4. To return his expelled forfeited Spirit to strive with and work on dead Sinners in order to their acceptance of this offered Salvation 5. To be long-suffering and waiting to be gracious in the use of fit Methods and Means to conquer their Resistance These and the like immediately ensue upon Christ's Satisfaction and if Men intend but Instances of this kind when they say God was reconciled to us by the Death of Christ before Conversion we should allow it yet intreating them to note that the Curse suspended thus far and the Curse removed by an actual Interest in saving Blessings are very distinct as be Forgiveness with God and Forgiveness bestowed on us and yet I fear many do detract from this Benefit viz. that there is Forgiveness with God for guilty Sinners and Salvation for undone Apostates this is in it self a higher thing than that this or that Man is Partaker of it tho our personal Advantage consisteth in the latter 5. I consider God in Christ Redeemer making his offers of Salvation to Sinners and stating the Conditions upon which he will give the merited Pardon and eternal Life personally to them commanding their acceptance with a Promise of applying Christ's Satisfaction in those Effects upon their Compliance and denouncing their abiding under Guilt and Misery with sorer Punishments if they finally refuse This is by the Gospel To explicate which Note 1. Compliance is injoined by a governing Authority tho with a display of Grace it supposeth Christ's Sacerdotal Offering over and is an Instrument of
Government resulting from a Dominion acquired as Redeemer and therefore may well be called a Law yea and that by which he will judg us 2. The Historical Account of Christ's Offices Fulness Love Death and of Man's Misery the Displays of Covenant Benefits present and eternal Revelations of Divine Truths and Mysteries Gospel-Institutions and Directions whence to derive Grace c. are all to subserve our due acceptance of this Offer 3. If Christ had not proclaimed Pardon and Life to Sinners we had not known that these were to be obtained by any of us If he had not declared that he gave Pardon and Life to such as have Faith and none else we had not been certain whether it were the Believer or Unbeliever were pardoned If he had not told us he gave Faith and then Pardon there had been no known Order of these Gifts If by his Gospel God had not offered Pardon to all if they would accept it commanding their acceptance in order to it promising it upon their acceptance and determining to judg Men as they accepted or refused then there had been only an order in giving Faith and then Pardon but Acceptation had been no Condition nor Righteousness nor had Man been justifiable by it or condemnable to the want of Pardon for rejecting it 4. Acceptance of offered Salvation tho a Righteousness supposeth a meritng Righteousness of Christ and can be no higher a Righteousness than a performed Condition of a Law of Grace by which Benefits already impetrated are given Which Law differs not from a Deed of Gift but that the Donor expresseth a governing Authority in the method of applying these Blessings and resolves to judg them to whom that Offer is made by their acceptance or nonacceptance 5. Our Right adjudged upon our acceptation is a Right of Grace and Mercy and tho infallible it can infer no Claim of Debt 6. This Acceptation is described by the Gospel and nothing is an Acceptation upon which we shall receive the offered Blessings if it be not in its Principle Nature Extent Operativeness and Duration such an Acceptation as the Gospel doth promise its saving Benefits to 6. Tho this Acceptation merit nothing yet Christ's Righteousness being ordained to merit Salvation for such as shall accept of it and this Acceptance being the Gospel-ordained Condition of our personal Interest in that merited Salvation we can be saved without neither of them 7. To prevent Mistakes I add the Elect shall infallibly be brought savingly to accept of this Salvation 6. I consider God applying Pardon Peace Adoption c. to Men that have accepted of this Salvation according to the Gospel-offer 1. He acts herein as a Iudg. 2. The Relations he stands in are as Creator and Redeemer the first ceaseth not tho the other is superadded 3. The Cause is adjusted by the Rule of Judgment described in § 8. and this Cause partly refers to what satisfied the offended Creator for this Sinner's Fault and merited Salvation for this forfeiting Rebel Here Christ's Righteousness is the only justifying Righteousness Faith hath no place in God's regard who as Creator judgeth in this matter The Cause is partly also Is this a true Accepter of Salvation for whom Pardon Peace and Glory were promised in the Covenant of Redemption to Christ in reward of his satisfying meriting Death and Obedience and to whom these were promised in the Gospel Here Acceptation is a Righteousness the want whereof Christ's Righteousness is not appointed to supply and the adjudging a Man a Believer intitled to Pardon Peace and Glory upon the Satisfaction of Christ I call Justification active or the Judg's justifying Sentence 7. I call it a Justification at the Creator's and Redeemer'S Bar at the Creator's Bar as far as the Sentence refers to what vindicated the Honour of God's violated Law secured his governing Authority as our Maker and merited the Blessings before which there was no Pardon Peace or Glory for the Sinner tho a Believer none to be offered none to be had by accepting Nor is it a needless thing that the justifying Sentence have an express regard to what that refers to viz. Christ's Righteousness for as it was the alone Condition of Christ's Impetration of Pardon Peace and Life for Sinners so when these are to be adjudged to the Sinner the Honour of the Creator of the violated Law and of Christ's Satisfaction is wisely provided for by an express acknowledgment of and reference to that Righteousness I call it a Justification at the Redeemer's Bar as far as the Sentence refers to our Acceptation or Faith as a Righteousness for the unsatisfied Creator who governeth and judgeth by the Law of Works could make no Offers of Pardon and Glory to Sinners if they would accept nor admit Faith to be a Righteousness and yet considered as a Redeemer as God was when he had received Satisfaction he could not again demand a satisfying meriting Righteousness to acquit the Believer now upon no nor unless under the Notion of a Redeemer require Faith as a proper Condition of Pardon c. because in the Covenant of Redemption it was promised to Christ for Sinners as meerly described by Faith But God in Christ as Redeemer could make the Gospel-offer of Pardon upon condition of Acceptation injoyning that acceptance and promising thereto the Pardon impetrated by Christ and so that Acceptation is referred to in the justifying Sentence of God in Christ as Redeemer as what discriminates one Man who obtains the Pardon according to the Gospel-Promise from him who is judicially debarred of it 8. I think they who are altogether for Faith as the only imputed Righteousness in Justification do too much contract the justifying Sentence by excluding that distinct Respect which ought to be to the Satisfaction and meriting Obedience of Christ whereby God as our governing Creator can admit the Absolution of a Sinner And they who are altogether for the Righteousness of Christ as only imputed in Justification do also too much limit the justifying Sentence by excluding the Gospel-Righteousness of Faith which the Redeemer regards and by which he judicially discriminates who among them to whom Salvation was offered shall obtain it and who of them shall not obtain it May these Hints contribute to an Agreement between these worthy Persons at least encline all to Christian Forbearance I shall reckon it worth all my Labour and Sufferings O that the God of Peace would give us Peace by any just means FINIS a Crell vol. 2. in 2 Cor. 5. 14. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. par 2. b Crell vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9 10. c Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 9. d Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 10. Socin de Servat lib. 2. c. 13. e Tom. 1. Prael cap. 21 p. 580. f Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 1. par 11. g Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 7 8. h Crell vol. 2. in 2. Cor. 5. 14. Slicht Tom. 2. in 2 Cor. 5. 31. a Slicht in Rom. 3. 24. Phil. 2. 9. Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 2. par 1. cap. 4. par 7. b Idem ubi sup ad cap. 5. c Crell Resp. ad Grot. 215 198 199. d Ubi supra cap. 7. cap. 1. e Crell vol. 1. 612 613. f Socin Tom. 1. 596. Crell vol. 620 621. g Crell vol. 1. 612 614 616. h Socin Tom. 1. 578 579. cap. 21. p. 580 599. i Crell Tom. 1. 619. Wolz. vol. 1. Pralect cap. 2. k Socin 1. Tom. 590 594. Slicht Tom. 2. 37. Crell vol. 2. in Heb. 9. 13 14 15. l Socin Tom. 1. p. 667. Crell Tom. 1. 618. m Socin Tom. 1. 575 596. n Socin Tom. 1. 577 588. o Socin Tom. 1. 586. Crell vol. 2. par 2. p. 285.