the Righteousenss of Christ and only that It 's another matter whom our Judg in his justifying Act accounts and adjudgeth in conformity to the Gospel-Offer to be the Persons who he therein promised should be actually reconciled pardoned and entitled to Glory in the alone meriting virtue of what appeased his Anger made amends for Sin and was the Price of Glory Now this Person is the penitent Believer and he is accounted to be such from his having Gospel-Faith in Christ with true Repentance and as such is adjudged to be under the Favour of the foresaid Gospel Promise of Reconciliation Pardon and Glory yet procured and merited not by his Faith but by Christ's alone Righteousness as before accounted for and obtained in his Right who as well had these promised to him for Believers in the Covenant of Redemption as they are promised by God in Christ in the Gospel to Believers themselves for a personal Title to possess them and to plead the Merits of Christ for the enjoyment of them Having testified our Concord with our Brethren and and added this further account of what we esteem Truth and Error in the Doctrines of Satisfaction and Justification we must express our Thankfulness to God that our Brethren in the foresaid Declaration have testified against ignorant and scandalous Persons intruding themselves into the Ministry And tho the Vindication of our selves in this matter be needless when our Principles and Practice are so well known and it 's so notorious that of the great number of unqualified Men who are of late turned Preachers those very few who broke out of any of our Congregations in this City receiv'd no Approbation or Countenance from us and to avoid Restraint and Discouragement they renounced the Name of Presbyterians yea preach'd against us yet to support what we can this present Testimony of our Congregational Brethren we 'll publish one of the Articles agreed to by all of us for strengthening our Vnion after our said Brethrens Recess which is as follows 6. That no Ministers of the Union shall admit or consent that any Person shall preach in their Congregations unless they have been solemnly admitted to the Ministry by Ordination or approved by some of the United Brethren or produce a Testimony that they have been under proper and preparatory Studies to qualify them for that sacred Function CHAP. VI. Some further Examination what is Socinianism as to the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and what is not so with a brief account of several Phrases used by Socinians and by the Orthodox in a very contrary sense A Strict Observation in how uncertain a sense Terms and Phrases are made use of must convince one that Errors may be easily concealed from the Ignorant and the Orthodox as easily impeached without ground by sagacious Persons who design imposing on the Vulgar I shall give an instance in the Controversy before me which makes it evident that Mens Explications and main Hypothesis must be regarded above words otherwise their sense will be mistaken 1. I find the Socinians admit and make use of the words which some Orthodox Divines esteemed most distinguishingly expressive of their own sense as Commutation of Persons as well as things for Persons Substitution and Surrogation of Christ's Person in our room Dying in our stead Christ was an Expiatory Sacrifice His Sufferings were Punishments Our Sins were an impulsive Cause of Christ's Death God was moved by Christ's Death to give us Forgiveness Yea it was a Satisfaction Christ was made a Sinner yea the chief Sinner And many more such I could mention But this evidenceth that these very Phrases are capable of a very ill sense as well as a good one Ruarus admits Christ did in a sense impetrate our Pardon by his Death Epist. 64. So doth Crellius Resp. ad Got. cap. 9. part 3. 2. The last Chapter gave us such a Summary of their Assertions as demonstrates they use these Expressions in no good sense but if you consult the places last cited and in Chap. 5. you 'll find them wrested to consist with the fore-mentioned Errors but because it will be tedious to particularize I shall enumerate the Causes and Ends they plainly and truly ascribe the Death of Christ to 1. They assign Christ's Death to God's meer Dominion over him as his entire Creature whom he would reward for it tho not as merited 2. It was an Example of Patience 3. It was a Preparation of his Sacrifice to be offered to God in Heaven for our Sins 4. It shew'd how much he desired our Salvation tho such great Sinners and how faithful he would be in expiating our Sins in Heaven when he endured such dreadful things for our sakes which God would have chiefly considered in our High-Priest 5. His Death impressed a tender Affection and Pity towards us that so he would succour us who were to be so extreamly afflicted God would not have put Mankind in his hands unless he first suffered Death for Sinners And that God might render us more assured that if we obeyed we should have eternal Life Christ should be so fashioned that in a sense it should appear Christ had more Tenderness for us than God himself or otherwise it had been as to us alike that God had saved us immediately as to have saved us by Christ. Or 6. To establish the new Covenant and Promises 7. To confirm his Doctrine 8. To come pursuant to God's Decree to be crowned with Glory and Honour and invested with Authority and Power to convert protect forgive and give us eternal Life 9. That there might be greater Rewards promised to induce us to repent than there were before 10. To take away those greater Sins which the legal Sacrifices were not appointed for 11. Beget in us a firm hope of Life tho we should die as terrible a Death 12. That we might not fear Death or the Curse which we see conquered by him 13. That we might be induced to leave our Sin when he died that we might be reclaimed from it by such hope of Pardon upon leaving of it 14. To make known how highly kind and pacified God was to us I pass by a compliance with Pagan Customs 3. As they limit Christ's Death in this manner exclusively of and in opposition to other Causes and Ends which the proper Satisfaction of Christ more directly supposeth as you see in the fifth Chapter So I could easily shew how they dilute their own seeming Concessions as well as reduce plain Scripture-Expressions to that Insignificancy that no Man can hope by their method to apprehend any kind of words with certainty as to their meaning one while an as if a quasi is all they intend by their large Grants as if a redeeming Price c. God is as it were moved and as it were obliged by Christ to pardon us another while all is figurative
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
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
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
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
as a metaphorical Redemption Christ's Death was an Expiatory Sacrifice i.e. metonymically and synechdocically called so and it chiefly signifies what by God's Decree followed upon it viz. his Entrance into Heaven Many more might be heaped of this kind Socin de Servat par 2. cap. 2. Crell vol. 1. in Rom. 3. 24. vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8. par 3. p. 198 189. Socin Tom. 1. Praelect cap. 20. 4. They sometimes state the Difference between themselves and others and there are some things they still adhere to and secure however they perplex this Controversy with their seeming Grants and equivocal Expressions 1. Socinus states this Question and denies it Are our Sins blotted out by any Compensation or Satisfaction or else by Forgiveness Most think they are blotted out a Satisfaction intervening but we think they are blotted out by simple Forgiveness or a Pardon absolutely free Prael cap. 15. p. 565. He also states the Difference with Covet and puts this for the Position held by his own Party I judg and think this to be the Orthodox Determination That Jesus Christ is therefore our Saviour because he hath made known to us the way of eternal Life and in his own Person both by the Example of his Life and rising from the dead hath given assurance of it and made it evident as also that he will give eternal Life to us who believe him But I affirm that he neither satisfied Divine Justice by which we Sinners did deserve to be damned nor was there any need that he should satisfy it Socin Tom. 2. de Servat cap. 1. 121. Crellius states this Question Did the Redemption wrought by Christ include his Payment of a true Price to God for our Sins which he calls Satisfaction Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8. This he denies and he and others of them take great advantage of Covet's making use of Creditor Debtor and Debt to express their Judgment in this Controversy Other Instances might be given 2 The principal things they adhere to are 1. That Christ did not appease God's Anger towards Sinners 2. That what Christ did and suffered had no meriting Virtue and so did not merit from God our Pardon Acceptance and eternal Life or properly move God to give or promise them These are the Heart of Socinianism as to the Satisfaction of Christ and they do exclude what Christ performs in Heaven as well as his Death on Earth from any proper influence Godward as to these things tho to effect what they call Expiation they ascribe more to Christ's abiding on God's Right-hand taking care of the Church than to his Resurrection and more to his Resurrection than to his Death these two last being but the decreed intervening way of coming to the other which they call the Expiation it self Hence they always deny any proper redeeming Price and say God quitted his right to punish us without any respect to Christ and distinguish of Expiation on God's part which they call his own Act and on our part which is say they Christ's giving us eternal Life wherein as contain'd a full deliverance from the Punishment of Sin As to Expiation on God's part that 's in no wise by Christ's inclining God to forgive our Sins by his Sacrifice yea Socinus tells us God alone expiates Sin And when CRELLIVS blames Grotius for making Socinus to confine the Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice to Sins future for Prevention or Pardon and excluding the Forgiveness of Sins past otherwise than as it begets Faith and so turns us from Sin What greater expiating Virtue doth he ascribe to it under the Notion of an expiating Sacrifice it's this it takes away the Guilt and Punishments of all Sins tho past before Conversion and however great But how and wherein He answers it 's partly by declaring and granting us a right to that thing and partly by actually taking away Divine Punishments But is that Right or Pardon at all properly procured by this Sacrifice No by no means that he had denied and abides by the Denial here and in the following Sections The sum is a crucified Saviour his being exalted and in Heaven taking care of our Salvation assures us that we shall be partakers of the Pardon appointed and promised before by the meer Mercy of God without respect to Christ and Christ as the authorized Sponsor on God's part conveys it and assisted with the Divine Power fully removes the Punishments or rather God himself doth it Nay by their Scheme you cannot well see them allow less expiating Virtue to Mens Prayers than the legal Sacrifices yea the yearly for fay they we expiate our own Sins by those Prayers and scarce more to Christ's Sacrifice than the Legal except as to more sorts of Sin and its greater aptness to disswade us from Sin by the Love of God and strong grounds of hopes of higher Rewards being more evidenced and assured by this Sacrifice of Christ than by those of the Law For this Sacrifice of Christ is no other than an intervening Means which being performed that Discharge follows by the Divine Decree which the self-inclined God unmoved by any thing Christ was to do or suffer resolved freely to bestow of his meer Mercy To add no more they carefully distinguish between the Impetration of Pardon c. with respect to the Divine Will and the means of the application of that Pardon to the Sinner From the former they exclude Christ's Satisfaction and Merits and confine their Virtue truly altogether to the latter The thing it self is unprocured as from God the Sinner's obtaining it is subserved by Christ by what he perfoms to make us meet for it and possessing us in the Effects of it according to the way decreed and that only because decreed Socin Tom. 1. Praelect cap. 27. 21 22 23 24. Tom. 2. de Serv. cap. 4. Crell Resp. ad Grot. cap. 8 9 10. 5. It 's very obvious that the Socinian Controversy lies not in those things wherein some are induced to place them because of certain Phrases sometimes occurring in Debates concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction To Instance a few 1. It 's not whether the Sufferings of a Sponsor in the stead of the Sinner be in so strict a sense a proper Punishment as the Sufferings of the Delinquem himself would be this is nothing with them for their Question is Were Christ's Sufferings such an Instance of God's rectoral Hatred against our Sins and Anger against Sinners as that thereby the Honour of his Justice and injured Government and Law was provided for and vindicated and Sinners to be deterred from Sin by God's insisting upon such a penal Compensation before he would be reconciled to us Punishment under this Notion they expresly dispute against 2. Nor is it about the Phrase Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners they grant it admit a Surrogation of the typical Sacrifice instead of the Sinner and a Substitution of Christ in our place Their Point
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
imputed to us in Justification against the Popish Doctrine the generality of the Learned among them do only exclude every thing besides that Righteousness of Christ from being meritorious of Acceptance Pardon Life and any other Blessing and from being any Satisfaction or Compensation for any Sin affirming that this alone can atone the Anger of God for the sake of this alone will he absolve us and nothing below this is perfect enough for us to stand in before the Bar of his Justice And therefore the Work of Faith it self can be no justifying Righteousness in that sense they took justifying Righteousness all which we heartily own and hence they oft appropriate the justifying Aptitude and Office of Faith mostly to a Reliance on that sole meriting Righteousness of Christ and its receiving Forgiveness Acceptance and a Right to Life of meer Mercy for the sake of Christ's alone Merits All which is justly and truly spoken as they accommodate it to the defence of Christ's Righteousness as the only thing appointed or fit for the fore-described Purposes and in opposition to the Popish Doctrine of Merit The Dispute they had with the Popish Church was about this meriting atoning satisfying Righteousness and you I find them often propose that if the Papists would grant that this Righteousness was that of Christ alone the great Controversy about Justification was at an end But at the same time most Protestants and our Homilies do fully grant that Repentance was necessary and required to Forgiveness and Faith to Justification and these Blessings promised to those Graces tho they were not led to dispute whether these were to be called a Righteousness as qualifying the Subject on whom God's justifying Act terminated But whether in that Act God regarded any thing as a meriting absolving satisfying Righteousness any thing as a Satisfaction to Justice any thing as an impelling Motive or valuable Consideration besides the Righteousness of Christ. To this their Debates were confined in their day and this they were intent to maintain as all Christians ought to be Whereas the reason of debating the Name of that by which the Subject of Justification was determined in opposition to such whom God did not justify was not so much before them as before others of later years assaulted by such as went into another Extreme from the Doctrine of Popish Merit Nor was this matter otherwise stated by our able Divines who contend against such Arminians as affirmed the Tò credere to be our justifying Righteousness for by Righteousness such Arminians mean the Righteousness which is part of Payment and stands in the place of and answers the same Ends in our Justification as perfect Obedience served for to sinless Man which we have before stated and renounced Were there need abundant Testimonies offer by which this Head is easily proved tho I grant some Men may be found to vent some Inconsistent Expressions Having premised these things I reassume the Difference about Justification that seems to continue which lies 1. In the manner of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Both agree it is imputed but how is not so universally assented to One side thinks the sense of imputing Christ's Righteousness to be that God reckons us to have legally done and suffered what Christ did and this to the full Satisfaction of Justice and the Law of Works and therefore are reputed to have perfectly obeyed the Precepts of this Law and fully endured its Curse and for our legally doing so God judgeth and pronounceth us righteous in full Conformity to the Law and therefore entituled to Pardon Adoption and eternal Life If you ask Is this justifying Sentence the Sentence of the Law of Works viz. it s premiant Sanction applied to us by God as the righteous Judg judging us by the Law of Works They answer It is the Sentence of the Law of Works but it is of Gospel-Grace that God allowed Christ to be one Person with us in the Covenant of Works whereby we are thus accounted to obey and suffer in him But others think that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed in the following manner viz. 1. They consider that the Father promised to Christ in Reward of his Obedience and Suffering that they who believed on him should be pardoned adopted dealt with as righteous Persons who had not sinned and be eternally sav'd Hence the Lord Iesus has a right to Believers obtaining these things And as Faith describes the Persons in this Covenant who shall obtain them so when we become Believers we are accounted and adjudged to be such Believers and such as are to obtain those Blessings in Christ's Right 2. They consider God in Christ for sapiential Ends making in the Gospel an Offer of Pardon Adoption and eternal Life to poor Sinners if they believe and promising these Blessings when they believe and still as Blessings bought by Christ's Obedience and Sufferings and promised to him for Believers tho withal used in his Gospel as Motives to inforce his Command of Faith and Calls to it These things thus considered we apprehend that when God in Christ justifieth us he doth not only give us Pardon Adoption and Life but he adjudgeth and sentenceth us to be the Persons that by the Covenant of Redemption were to be pardoned adopted and saved in the right of Christ and to whom the Gospel by its Promise gives a personal Right to that Pardon Adoption and Life as purchased by Christ And he esteems and adjudgeth that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ in their full virtue is our pleadable Security for the enjoyment of them whereby we have a right to plead his Death and Merits with God as what procured these for us as well as God's Fidelity who promised them to us in his Gospel You see by this account that we rise not so high as to say we are accounted to do and suffer what Christ did and to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the Law of Works nor fall we so low as a mere Participation of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness but assert an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness it self relatively to those Effects Christ's Right is applied and his very Obedience reckoned to us as what pleads with God for those Effects and secures us against all condemning Obstacles and Challenges The justifying Sentence is not the Sentence of the Law God saith not You have perfectly obeyed therefore you shall live you have satisfied the Curse therefore you shall not die Yet the Righteousness which procured our Salvation and is our adjudged pleadable Security of enjoying this promised Salvation includes an Obedience as perfect as that to which the Law promised Life if we had not sinned and Sufferings equivalent to what the Curse pronounced against us when we sinned But because we apprehend not where this Law includes such a Sentence as this viz. because Christ obeyed you shall live tho you obeyed not and because Christ who sinned not did suffer for your Sins you
all Merits besides Christ's but not exclusively of all governing Methods in applying the effects of Free-Grace They grant Faith in Christ is required that we may be saved we more expresly say it 's by a rectoral Authority they grant it so by the Law of Works we say it 's by a Gospel positive Law tho we grant when this positive Law requireth it we are obliged also by the general Law of Nature to yield Obedience yet not by the Law of Works as specified by Adam's Covenant which Faith in Christ was inconsistent with from the essential Nature of that Covenant Our Brethren are watchful against any inherent Righteousness of man mingling with Christ's Righteousness We besides avoiding of that are solicitous lest men come short of Salvation by the Righteousness of Christ through a neglect of what he requireth in all those who shall be saved by it and yet we declare against all things besides Christ's Righteousness to be any impetrating satisfying atoning meriting or compensating Righteousness and as Faith hath no share or place in this Office so Christ's Righteousness tho the sole meritorious Cause is not that which God by the Gospel requires of Sinners that they may be saved by the Righteousness of Christ. Faith is that commanded Requisite and no more than that its place is thereto confined and therefore here 's no mingling of our Righteousness with Christ's because their Use Place and Offices be so very distinct They seem most afraid of Popery and Arminianism and therefore keep to this sense of being justified by Faith alone viz. we are justified only by Christ believed on or the Object of Faith only is imputed to us for Righteousness We are truly afraid of Popery and Arminianism but not only of these but of Antinomianism too and therefore are intent to maintain two great Truths included in that one Sentence We are justified by Faith viz. 1. That the Believer is absolv'd from Guilt accepted into God's Favour and entituled to eternal Life in and for Christ's Righteousness and neither Faith nor any Grace or Act of ours make the least recompense to God or is the least Price or Merit of Pardon or Life or any motive inclining divine Justice to promise or accept us into his favour or to treat us as righteous Persons This from our heart we own and know that this is what sound Protestants intended by it against the Papists 2. Yet as God promised to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption all Belivers should be absolv'd c. so in the the Gospel Offer of his Grace to Sinners he promised to Men that he would in and for the Righteousness of Christ absolve accept treat as righteous Persons and give eternal Life already purchased by Christ to every true Believer commanding Sinners to believe and threatning that if they believed not they should remain condemned yea become subject to sorer Punishments And that he would judg them by this Gospel Rule of Iudgment Whence we are attentive to a second Truth viz. That God accepts and accounteth Faith a performed Condition of this Gospel-Covenant and upon it acquits the Sinner from the Charge of damning Infidelity and adjudgeth the Believer qua such in opposition to Infidels to be in Christ's Right and by his Gospel Promise entitled to a present personal Interest in the foresaid Absolution Acceptance and Gift of eternal Life yet as procured by Christ's Righteousness alone and applied for his sake To add no more our Brethren in the Doctrine of Justification almost confine their Regards to the Satisfaction of Christ wherein Christ transacted with the provoked Justice of God We besides that consider a propitiated God in Christ applying the effects of his Redemption to Men in a Method of governing Grace but without any real difference in the Doctrine of Satisfaction and withal sincerely granting the Condition is performed in the Strength of Christ freely dispensed Yet upon the whole they provide against carnal Security and we against carnal Boasting They are far from designing to eclipse the Glory of Christ as King Lawgiver and Iudg and we as far from intending the diminution of his Glory as a Priest How unreasonable and unhappy would perpetuated Contests by where the Grounds pretended are of so little weight Thus I have insisted on what seems most like a Difference in the Doctrine of Satisfaction and Iustification Some weak persons may think there is a great Controversy where I see nothing worth our notice they will say Some think we are justified by one Act of Faith viz. Reliance Well but they say justifying Faith is receiving Christ c. as well as a Reliance Ay but a Man sees only with his Eye tho more is of the Essence of a Man But I say no Man sees without that which is of the Essence of his Eye Another thinks justifying Faith as such receives Christ only as a Priest others say it receives him also as a King and Prophet yet the last say the convinced Sinner hath an especial respect to Christ's Priesthood as most agreeable to his present case and the former will say its but an hypocritical Faith that receives not Christ as Prophet and King as well as Priest Nay it s not the true Christ the anointed Messias who is received unless it be as Prophet King and Priest even Christ Iesus the Lord. Ay but some say Repentance is an effect of Iustification but there be very few of our Congregational Brethren of that mind and I suppose they mean Works meet for Repentance and not a change of the purpose of the heart Nay but several say Faith alone is the instrument of Iustification others make Repentance the Condition of Forgiveness What then seeing the first grant there is no justifying Faith without Repentance and the last grant the aptitude of Faith to receive and acknowledg Christ which I suppose they mean by instrument is far greater than Repentance But when both sides consider Faith as an ordained Condition as well as an Instrument they 'l scarce dispute but that Repentance is a Condition of Pardon as well as Faith unless they would agree to join them together by calling Faith a penitent Faith or Repentance a believing Repentance connoting at once a Sinner's purpose to return to God by Christ the Mediator and his closing with Christ the Mediator that he may return to God by him tho I think the end is first agreed to before the way or means to that end is resolved on or made use of Obj. But sure there is a vast difference between those who think we are justified by Faith only and those who think we are justified by Works as well as by Faith Answ. 1. Not so very great when both mean that we are justified neither by Faith nor Works as the word justified is commonly taken for both agree that we are absolved accepted as righteous and entitled to eternal Life only for Christ's Death and Obedience as the only meriting satisfactory and
Satisfaction still interposeth between the Justice of God and a believing Sinner Neither are they backward to ascribe to efficacious Grace that Virtue whereby we are enclined and enabled to believe Men may expose each other by fiery Debates after such Concessions but he who expresseth most Heat discovers the more ungospel Spirit if not the weaker Cause and weaker Judgment 2. As for such who own Christ's Righteousness in se to be imputed in the second sense and those who say it 's not imputed in it self but as to Effects if they contend the first must quarrel the other for denying in words what he grants for substance and the latter must be warm against the former because he will not join with him in offending the weak and hazarding Truth by rejecting a Phrase which well explained doth properly express what both intend CHAP. IX An Abstract of what helped me to avoid some Perplexity concerning Iustification with some account of our being justified at the Creator and Redeemer's Bar. THO I avoid arguing any Controversy in these Sheets which are designed for Peace yet I think it may promote this healing Design to give a short Abstract of some Thoughts whereby I arrived to Satisfaction in the Doctrine of Justification § 1. Justification being a forensick Act our Thoughts ought not to wander beyond what 's necessary to it as a judicial Sentence nor disregard whatever belongs to that Here the principal Considerations are the Judg the Rule of Judgment the Cause and Person to be tried by that Rule and the Sentence to be past by the Judg on the Person whose Cause is so tried which must be no other than what that Rule of Judgment duly applied containeth Hereby what some call Constitutive Justification is strictly no other than the Conformity of the Person to the Rule of Judgment by which he is acquittable or rewardable or both Passive Justification is no other than the Effect of the judicial Sentence or the Person 's State considered as absolved or to be rewarded or both by the Sentence now judicially past upon him and supposeth a Sentence and is measured by it § 2. A justifying Sentence is past upon every justified Person and continues to pass upon him by the Gospel-Promises applied by an Omnipresent All-seeing Infallible Faithful Almighty God Rom. 5. 1 2. The Gospel-offer is the Rule of Judgment the Gospel in its respective Promises complied with is God's justifying Sentence and that conclusive and effectual tho not so discernable by us as if it were solemnly pronounced 1. Here the transcendent Perfections of God must raise our Minds above Human Judicatories he needs no Evidence because he knoweth all things there needs no Summons to appear for he is ever with us he cannot err in Judgment for he is inflexibly righteous and knows the Rule of Judgment in its extent and allowances 2. We know not what Solemnity this Sentence may be pronounced with concerning us tho out of our hearing what in Heaven where there is Joy for the Conversion of Sinners what at the Throne where Christ is our interceding Advocate c. And sometimes God condescends to make it audible to our own Consciences by the received Testimony of his Spirit 3. This Sentence is in part executed upon every Believer as to what is promised for the present as well as his Title is adjudged to what is reserved for the future The in-dwelling Spirit Assistances peculiar to Christ's Members Answers of Prayer the Comforts of the Holy Ghost and whatever special Actings of Providence belong only to God's adopted Ones are the Execution of the justifying Sentence and suppose such a Sentence past as well as that it is a gracious one 4. God still pronounceth a justifying Sentence according to the variety of his Gospel-Promises tho that great one which alters our State passeth upon our first believing As he adjudgeth us to Pardon and Adoption upon our first acceptance of his Grace so he adjudgeth us non-forfeiters upon our abiding in Christ or persevering acceptance instanced as the various Promises describe the Heirs thereof § 3. The same justifying Sentence that God past by his Promises applied by himself in this Life will be more solemnly and convincingly pronounced at the Judgment-day when the full and perfect Execution of the Sentence is to take place 1. We shall be as truly judged at that day as if we had not been sentenced or the Sentence executed at all in this Life or at Death The wise God who knows the Subserviency hereof to Practical Religion doth oft and most expresly deliver it and in words as if we were all to be among those found alive when the Trumpet sounds 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the Iudgment-seat of Christ that we may all receive c. Rom. 14. 10 12. Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God 1 Pet. 4. 5. And what must we give an account of Our Words Mat. 12. 36. Secrets of Hearts Rom. 2. 16. use of Talents Mat. 25. Heb. 13. 17. our Works c. that is every thing as gives Evidence concerning Mens Condition as it 's determinable by the Rule of Judgment and principally centers in this Have they sincerely accepted of the Salvation offered by the Redeemer 2. The Rule of Judgment and Sentence at that day will be the same as that by which every Believer is justified on this side Death it 's no new or other Sentence but the same more solemnly declared unless you 'll say it includes the entire extent of the Rule for the time of trial as well as that which changed our State 3. The great design of that solemn Process and open Sentence is to vindicate God in Christ as no Respecter of Persons in the extremely different State of the Damned and the Saved both in this Life and Eternity especially such as lived under the offers of Salvation and withal to vindicate his own mysterious Methods towards the Justified in their past Life as also them from unjust Aspersions 2 Thess. 1. Dan. 12. Mat. 22. 25. But to instance no more than the first he 'll convince Angels and Men by manifested Instances that they whom he justified and now saveth were Persons justifiable by that Rule of Judgment whereby the others are condemned and that the Sentence he pronounceth and executes on each is the very Sentence which that Rule impartially applied to their real Cases denounced § 4. The Rule of Judgment in its nature and scope is to be principally regarded in order to right Apprehensions concerning the justifying Sentence This determineth what is a justifying Righteousness and what is not this declares the nature of the adjudged Title whether it be of Grace or Debt dependent or independent thereby is evident what we are adjudged to and whether the Sentence passeth upon several complex Conditions or one particular one for we must be free from whatever the Rule of Judgment denounceth condemnable and not be
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