same manner in Christ as in Adam 2. From the former another point ariseth referring expresly to the Satisfaction viz. in what sense our Sins were imputed to Christ. One saith our Sins were imputed to Christ only as to Guilt or Obligation to bear the Punishment which we deserved for them which Punishments tho he obliged himself to endure in our stead to reconcile God to us yet that did not render him a Sinner in God's account because that Title results from the violation of the Precept abstractedly from a respect to the threatning and conceiving he was not a Sinner in our stead tho he suffer'd in our stead the punishments due to our sins they think he was esteemed by God what in truth he was viz. the holy innocent Mediator punishable by his own consent for the Sins he came to expiate and were not expiable without his dying in our stead But our Brethren think our Sins were so imputed to Christ as to give him the Denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law Yet lest the difference should appear greater than it is it 's fit I inform you that our Brethren deny that Christ had any Sin or Defilement in him or had any Sin of his own they were our Sins only imputed to him and he was a legal Sinner by being one political Person with those Sinners whom the Law esteemed real Sinners and condemned as such On the other hand we own that supposing the Covenant of Redemption he was as truly obliged and God the just Rector at as full liberty to punish him for our Sins as if he had been reputed a Sinner Nay Divine Justice required the inflicting those Punishments on him if the Sinner was to be redeemed from them for his sake Now Reader can this difference justify mutual Censures or Alienation What is a Sinner without Filth yea or any Fault of his own above a Sponsor obliged to bear the Punishments of other mens Sins in the stead of the Offenders And they who acknowledg him to be this what less say they of him than the others mean tho scrupulous of that harsher Denomination At least it would appear strange to revile each other for a different explication of that Text 2 Cor. 5. 21. he was made Sin for us One thinks he was made a Sacrifice for Sin after the Hebrew Custom for we find very oft the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify a Sin-Offering as well as Sin Lev. 7. 1 2. and cap. 4. 28 29 33. And this very Apostle follows the same Usage calling an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. Heb. 10. 5. The other side will have it meant that Christ was made a Sinner but a Sinner that 's holy undefiled and never offended which Notion of being made Sin is too diminutive to admit harsh thoughts of such as entertain it An unconcerned Observer will be apt to say These who call Christ a Sinner are intent to renounce Socinianism and they who call him a Sacrifice for Sin are as sollicitous to confute Socinianism and Antinomianism too by withholding an advantage which both these Errors receive by the use of that Word But where 's the Christian Charity or Prudence of the condemning Side when both contend for what seems the best Defence of the Doctrine of Satisfaction The other Phrases accounted for in the 6th Chapter admit the same Mitigation as this and upon the same Grounds 3. The third point wherein there appears some difference refers to the Doctrine of Iustification But before I insist on this permit me to offer a few hints 1. Any Difference in this matter seems to proceed from want of an equal Consideration of the Covenant of Redemption which fixed the terms of Satisfaction and Impetration of saving Benefits which Christ alone was thereby obliged to perform and the Gospel-Covenant wherein the Method of giving us a personal Interest in the Blessings impetrated by Christ is ordained By the former all that belongs to Satisfaction and Merit are confined to Christ and Pardon Adoption and eternal Life put in the hand of our Saviour as his Reward By the latter a way becoming our fallen State and rational Nature is appointed to apply to us a Right to the purchased Blessings nor can the Scripture-Account of God's Calls Pleadings and judicial Proceedings be explained without it I think the not distinguishing these two Covenants or fixing the Mind upon either of them with too little regard to the other contribute much to our Debates 2. With Humility I propose to Consideration whether such can dangerously err as to the way of Salvation and particularly in the Doctrine of Justification who do honestly adhere to our foregoing account of Christ's Satisfaction and in subordination thereto assert a Gospel-Law or Covenant wherein is enacted a Rule by which the saving Effects of that Satisfaction are given forth it seems to me highly improbable For in the account given of Satisfaction we ascribe the whole Impetration of Pardon Acceptance and all saving Benefits only to the Atonement and Merits of Christ expresly excluding all our own Graces and good Works from the least place therein And by our Judgment of the Gospel-Law we secure the Method and Rule of the personal Application of these merited Benefits and that conformably to the scope of the Bible in its most explained Parts as well as in full consistency with an apt Ministry and a judicial Sentence against impenitent Infidels to whom those Benefits are not applied notwithstanding Gospel-Offers Whereas if we conceived never so fitly and with greatest Soundness concerning the Satisfaction of Christ and denied a Gospel-Law or what 's equivalent to it we apprehend no small Danger inevitably to ensue and that in no less a matter than Mens Salvation for if this Gospel prove a Rule of Iudgment and that Christ gives forth Pardon and such merited Benefits thereby will not our Ministry be useless and ensnaring to Souls which doth not explain and press the Gospel Conditions in order to an Interest in those Benefits And must not those secure Sinners be destroyed who submit not to those Conditions however confident they be upon Orthodox Apprehensions of what Christ hath done to satisfy Justice and merit eternal Life The Boundaries therefore I would propose to my self are that Christ be not rivalled in his atoning or meriting Performances on the one hand nor rejected in his enacted Rules of dispensing his purchased and offered Benefits on the other for he is truly dishonoured and Souls undone by both But I would not be mistaken as if this were suggested to reflect on the Brethren who are seriously intent upon the first for it already appears and will be more evident that they neglect not the last but affirm what to this purpose is equivalent to a Gospel-Law 3. It is very evident that when Protestants express great Zeal for Christ's alone Righteousness
repeat 1. Our Testimony against Dr. Crisp's Errors when so many were indangered by his reprinted Books 2. Some part of our former Declarations against Popish Socinian and Arminian Errors when our Brethren accused us thereof for subscribing the foresaid Testimony against Crispianism 3. We shall give an account of our Congregational Brethrens Declaration against Antinomian Errors 4. We shall evidence that this taken together and examined with Candor ought to be acknowledged a sufficient Vindication of the Approvers thereof from all hurtful Antinomian Errors 5. We shall add our further Testimony against Errors about Christ's Satisfaction and Justification If Peace at least must not be allowed us after this we must bewail a judicial stroke and expect to be despised by such who perceive our common hurt from these Debates but have not Judgment to distinguish between the injured Seekers of Peace and the injurious Fomenters of Trouble CHAP. I. The State of Truth and Errors subscribed by near fifty of us drawn up and published by Mr. Williams in a Book called Gospel-Truth stated and vindicated first Edition Anno 16. 1692. Truth 1. IT is certain from God's Decree of Election that the Elect shall in time be justified adopted and saved in the way God hath appointed and the whole meritorious Cause and Price of Justification Adoption and Eternal Life were perfect when Christ finished the Work of Satisfaction Nevertheless the Elect remain Children of Wrath and subject to Condemnation till they are effectually called by the Operation of the Spirit Error The Elect are at no time of their Lives under the Wrath of God nor are they subject to Condemnation if they should die before they believe yea when they are under the Dominion of Sin and in the Practice of the grossest Villanies they are as much the Sons of God and justified as the very Saints in Glory Truth 2. Tho our Sins were imputed to Christ with respect to the Guilt thereof so that he by the Father 's Appointment and his own Consent became obliged as Mediator to bear the Punishments of our Iniquities and he did bear those Punishments to the full Satisfaction of Iustice and to our actual Remission when we believe nevertheless the Filth of our Sins was not laid upon Christ nor can he be called the Transgressor or was he in God's account the Blasphemer Murderer c. Error God did not only impute the Guilt and lay the Punishment of the Sins of the Elect upon Christ but he laid all the very Sins of the Elect upon Christ and that as to their real Filthiness and Loathsomness yea so that Christ was really the Blasphemer Murderer and Sinner and so accounted by the Father Truth 3. The Atonement made by Christ by the Appointment of God is that for which alone the Elect are pardoned when it is applied to them But the Elect are not immediately pardoned upon Christ's being appointed to suffer for them nor as soon as the Atonement was made nor is that Act of laying Sins on Christ God's forgiving Act by which we are personally discharged Error The very Act of God's laying Sins on Christ upon the Cross is the very actual discharge of all the Elect from all their Sins Truth 4. An Elect Person ceaseth not to be a Sinner upon the laying of our Sins upon Christ that is he remains a Sinner as to the Guilt till he believes if Adult He is a Sinner as to the Filth of Sin till he be sanctified He is a Sinner as to the charge of the sinful Fact he commits and that even after Pardon and Sanctification Nevertheless he is free from the Curse when he is pardoned and shall be purged from all the Filth of Sin when he is perfect in Holiness And tho Christ did bear the Punishment of our Iniquity yet it never was Christ's Iniquity but ours Error The Elect upon the Death of Christ ceased to be Sinners and ever since their Sins are none of their Sins but they are the Sins of Christ. Truth 5. The Obligation of suffering for our Sins was upon Christ from his undertaking the Office of a Mediator to the moment wherein he finished his satisfactory Atonement The Punishment of our Sins lay upon Christ from the first moment to the last of his state of Humiliation Error The time when our Sins were laid actually on Christ was when he was nailed to the Cross and God actually forsook him and they continued on him till his Resurrection Truth 6. The God testified his threatned Indignation against Sin in the awful Sufferings of Christ's Soul and Body in his Agony and suspended those delightful Communications of the Divine Nature to the Human Nature of Christ as to their wonted Degrees yet God was never separated from Christ much less during his Body's lying in the Grave neither was the Father ever displeased with Christ and far less did he abhor him because of the Filthiness of Sin upon him Error Christ was on the account of the Filthiness of Sins while they lay upon him separated from God odious to him and even the Object of God's Abhorrence and this to the time of his Resurrection Truth 7. The Mediatorial Righteousness of Christ is so imputed to true Believers as that for the sake thereof they are pardoned and accepted unto Life eternal it being reckoned to them and pleadable by them for these Uses as if they had personally done and suffered what Christ did as Mediator for them whereby they are delivered from the Curse and no other Atonement nor meriting Price of saving Benefits can be demanded from them Nevertheless this Mediatorial Righteousness is not subjectively in them nor is there a Change of Person betwixt them and Christ neither are they as righteous as he but there remain Spots and Blemishes in them until Christ by his Spirit perfect that Holiness begun in all true Believers which he will effect before he bring them to Heaven See the 2d Truth and note it is only Dr. Crisp ' s Change of Person is denied viz. a perfect Change which makes us as righteous as he c. but not Christ's dying in our stead which in this Book is oft asserted Error Every Believer or elect Person is as righteous as Christ and there is a perfect Change of Person and Condition betwixt Christ and the Elect he was what we are viz. as sinful as we and we are what he was viz. perfectly holy and without Spot or Blemish Truth 8. I shall express it in the words of the Assembly The Grace of God is manifested in the second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him requiring Faith as the Condition to interest them in him promiseth and giveth his holy Spirit to all his Elect to work in them that Faith with all other saving Graces and to enable them unto all Obedience as the Evidence of the Truth of their Faith and Thankfulness to God and as the way which
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
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
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
foreknown predestinated and called effectually according to the purpose of his Grace shall fall away either totally or so as not to be finally glorified 5. That Faith Repentance a holy Conversation or any Act or Work whatever done by us or wrought by the Spirit of God in us are any part of that Righteousness for the sake of which or on the account whereof God doth justify any Man or entitle him to Eternal Life Then follows a Testimony against the other Extreams viz. Antinomian Errors Again Anno 1696. in a Paper call'd The second Paper sent to our Brethren we thus give our sense 1. Concerning Iustification That altho the express Word of God doth assert the necessity of Regeneration to our entring into the Kingdom of God and require Repentance that our Sins may be blotted out and Faith in Christ that we may be justified and Holiness of Heart and Life without which we cannot see God yet that none of these or any Work done by Men or wrought by the Spirit of God in them is under any Denomination whatsoever any part of the Righteousness for the sake or on the account whereof God doth pardon justify or accept Sinners or entitle them to Eternal Life that being only the Righteousness of Christ without them imputed to them and received by Faith alone 2. Of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us As we are to consider our Lord Jesus Christ in his Obedience and Sufferings as God and Man invested with the Office of Mediator so it is apparent this Commutation of Persons with us was not natural in respect of either Nature by which his individual Substance should become ours and ours his nor moral in respect of Qualities or Actions whereby he should become inherently sinful and we immediately sinless nor was it any change whereby his Office of Mediator should be transferred on us but it is to be understood in a legal or judicial sense as we may call it viz. He by Agreement between the Father and him came into our room and stead not to repent and believe for us which the Gospel requires of us as our Duty tho he hath undertaken the Elect shall in due time be enabled thereto but to answer for our Violation of the Law of Works he being made Sin for us that knew no Sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5. 21. 3. Of God's being pleased or displeased with Christ as standing and suffering in our stead We judg that God was always pleased with Christ both in his Person and Execution of all his Offices which is exprest most particularly in that of his Priestly Iohn 10. 17 18. Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my Life and no otherwise displeased than as having a dispassionate Will to inflict upon him the Punishment of our Sins which he had undertaken to bear that God might without Injury to his Justice or Honour pardon and save penitent Believers for his Satisfaction and Intercession founded thereon Note It was declared that by the words under any Denomination we exclude all Righteousness from being meritorious or atoning yea or a procuring Cause of these Benefits none is at all so but the Righteousness of Christ But we intended not to exclude what the Gospel requireth in order to our Interest in those Benefits given for the sake of Christ's Righteousness We also in 1697 delivered our Iudgment in this Proposal to our Brethren 1. That Repentance towards God is commanded in order to the Remission of Sins 2. That Faith in Christ is commanded by the Gospel in order to the Justification of our Persons before God for the sake of the alone Righteousness of Christ. 3. That the Word of God requires Perseverance in true Faith and Holiness that we may be Partakers of the Heavenly Glory 4. That the Gospel promiseth Pardon through the Blood of Christ to the Penitent Justification before God to the Believer and the Heavenly Glory to such as persevere in Faith and Holiness and also declareth that God will not pardon the Impenitent justify the Unbeliever nor glorify the Apostate or Unholy 5. That justifying Faith is not only a Perswasion of the Understanding but also a receiving and resting upon Christ alone for Salvation 6. That by Change of Person is meant that whereas we were condemned for our Sins the Lord Jesus was substituted in our room to bear the Punishment of our Sins for the Satisfaction of Divine Justice that whoever believes on him may be acquitted and saved but it is not intended that the Filth of Sin was upon Christ nor that he was a Criminal in God's account 7. That by Christ being our Surety is meant that Jesus Christ our Mediator obliged himself to expiate our Sins by his Blood and to purchase eternal Life for all that believe and Faith and every saving Grace for the Elect but it 's not intended that we were legally reputed to make Satisfaction or purchase eternal Life 8. That by Christ's answering for us the Obligations of the violated Law of Works is intended that whereas the Law obliged us to die for our Sins Christ became obliged to die in our stead and whereas we were after we had sinned still obliged to yield perfect Obedience Christ perfectly obeyed the Law that upon the account of his Active and Passive Obedience Believers might be forgiven and entituled to eternal Life but it is not intended that the sense of the Law of Works should be that if we or Christ obey'd we should live and if Christ suffered we should not die tho we sinned nor that Believers are justified or to be judged by the Law of Works but by the Gospel altho the Righteousness for the sake of which they are justified be as perfect as that Law of Works required and far more valuable CHAP. III. The State of Truth and Error published in the Congregational Ministers Declaration against Antinomian Errors about December 1698. Error 1. THat the eternal Decree gives such an Existence to the Justification of the Elect as makes their Estate whilst in Unbelief to be the same as when they do believe in all respects save only as to the Manifestation and that there is no other Justification by Faith but what is in their Consciences Error 2. That the Elect considered as in their natural Estate or as in the first Adam are not under the denunciation of Wrath by the Law as well as other Unbelievers and impenitent Sinners Truth 1. That there is a difference between the state of the Elect whilst in Unbelief and when Believers besides what is manifestative to their Consciences p. 13. Truth 2. That before they believe they are not personally and actually justified in the Court of Heaven p. 13. and none may expect to be pardoned in a state of Unbelief and Impenitence p. 47. Error 3. That pardoned Sin is no Sin and therefore God cannot see Sin in his People to be displeased
Libertinism in Practice 3. As it hinders a well-grounded Assurance and encourageth Presumption 4. As it reproacheth Christ our blessed Redeemer Against each of which our Brethren bear their Testimony 1. The hurtful Antinomian Errors which render the Ministry unapt to its proper Ends are 1. Unduly limiting the Offers of Salvation and decrying Arguments to excite Sinners to use their Endeavours under the Assistance of Gospel Means and common Grace Against this see Error 10. and from p. 41 to 47. 2. Forbidding and branding as legal the preaching of Duties and Threatnings and the applying of promised Benefits as Motives to Faith and other Duties whereto those Benefits are promised Against which see Error 9. and p. 36 39. Error 6. and p. 25 26 45. 3. Denying that the Elect whilst unconverted are under the Curse of the Law and affirming they are united to Christ and justified before God and pardoned whilst impenitent Infidels Against which see Errors 1 2 11. and p. 12 to 18. and 47 58. 2. The hurtful Antinomian Errors tending to Libertinism in Practice besides the Impediments to a Sinner's Conviction and Conversion under the fore-mentioned Head of the Ministry are such as these 1. That God seeth no Sin in his People accounts them not their Sins but Christ's and is not displeased with his People nor afflicts them for their Sins Against which see Error 3. and p. 19. 2. That Repentance is not necessary to Forgiveness nor are Believers to mourn for Sin or to beg Pardon nor to confess it unless it be to shew for Christ's Glory how many the Sins are which are become his Against which see Error 4. and p. 19 20 21 47 58. 3. That their Sins can do Believers no hurt Against this see Error 5. p. 22 23. 4. That we ought not to intend our own Benefits by our Duties neither are bound to perform Duties unless excited thereto by the Spirit nor are any Acts of our Obedience rewardable and that continued Repentance and Holiness are not by the Constitution of the Gospel necessary to our being possessed of Eternal Life Against this see Errors 6 10 11. and p. 25 26 27 47 58 59. 5. That justifying Faith is a Perswasion that Christ is mine and that my Sins are pardoned in Christ. Against this see Error 8. and p. 30 31. 3. The hurtful Antinomian Error which hinders a well-grounded Assurance and Peace and also encourages Presumption is that besides the last description of Faith we are not to try our State by marks and signs of Sanctification Against this see Error 8. and p. 32 33 34. 4. The hurtful Antinomian Errors reproachful to Christ our Redeemer are such as these that Christ is as sinful as we and we are as righteous as Christ. Against which see Error 11. p. 48 57. If the Reader consult these places and compare them with our State of Truth and Error in the first Chapter he cannot but rejoice in our Brethrens Agreement with us in a Testimony against Antinomianism CHAP. V. SOCINIAN Errors concerning Christ's Satisfaction Also LIMBORG's with some other ARMINIANS concerning Christ's Satisfaction SOCINIAN Errors as to Justification LIMBORG's with some other Arminian Errors about Justification With a state of Truths opposite to each of these as also to Popish Errors FInding our Brethren suggest in the Preface to this Declaration that after all we have said in Cap. 1 and 2. yet still we ought to do more to discharge our selves from hurtful Errors about Christ's Satisfaction and our Iustification we shall to promote Peace renounce several more Errors about those two Doctrines wherein we are suspected and tell them what we think to be Truths Error 1. Punitive Justice against Sin is no Property of God but only an Effect of his Will and therefore there was no need of any Satisfaction to be made by Christ for Sin nor is it less than ridiculous to say God was at once just as well as merciful in bringing about our Salvation by Christ Socin opera Theol. Tom. 1. Praelect cap. 16. Tom. 2. de Servator par 1. cap. 1. Prael cap. 16. Wolzog. in Mat. 19. 28. Crel Resp. ad Grot. cap. 1. Truth God is essentially just and so zealous for the Honour of his Law when enacted and his Government that Sin must not go unpunished and therefore if Sinners be saved from the Punishments threatned by the violated Law for Christ their Mediator's sake it was necessary that he made Satisfaction to Punitive Justice by enduring the Penal Effects of God's Wrath. Error 2. Jesus Christ is not the true eternal most High God of the same Substance Authority and Power with the Father Socin Tom. 2. Respons ad Iac. Vujeki cap. 1 c. Truth Jesus Christ is the true eternal most High God of the same Substance Authority and Power with the Father and in time assumed the Human Nature and remaineth God-Man for ever more Note This Article is inserted because the Value of Christ's Obedience and Death for Satisfaction and Merit was deprived from the Dignity of Christ's Person as God And therefore tho the Socinians faintly argue that if Christ were the eternal God it would not render his Death a Satisfaction yet it 's evident their great Concern in denying Christ's Satisfaction is to prevent the unanswerable Argument this would be for his Deity The like is also to be seen by their Notion of the Lord's-Supper Error 3. Christ did not by his Blood acquire or purchase the Gospel-Covenant nor was his Death an impulsive Cause of God's promising to Men the Blessings of that Covenant nor did it move him to make such Promises But Christ was only the Mediator that is Sponsor of it who assured Men that God would accomplish it and who in God's Name and by his Command performed such things as belonged to the confirming and executing of the said Covenant Socin Tom. 2. 168 199. Crell Vol. 1. p. 612. and Vol. 3. Resp. ad Grot. p. 19 128 171. Vol. 1. 612. Truth Christ did not only confirm the Gospel-Covenant to Men and do such things as belonged to the execution of the Gospel Promises but God as Governor made those Promises in consideration of the Death of Christ as what vindicated the Glory of his Government in offering and promising such Blessings to condemned Sinners altho as our absolute Lord and Proprietor he freely purposed within himself that those Blessings should be granted in what method he judged fit Error 4. Christ was for no other cause a Mediator nor so call'd but that he was appointed by God a middle Person between himself and Men not that he should appease God towards Men but that he should declare God already pacified to them and most evidently confirm the same by himself And as for Men who were Haters of and Enemies to God them he was to reconcile to God i. e. convert and be our eternal Lawgiver and faithful Interpreter of the Divine Will to them by whom they might
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
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
interest They also abhor a thought that our Faith can be presented to God as any Righteousness in Satisfaction to Justice Atonement for our Sin or the meriting Price of our Salvation withal they grant there must be such a Righteousness and that this was Christ's Righteousness and that our Sins are satisfied for we receive the Atonement are reconciled and obtain the Salvation so purchased Now is it possible that things should stand thus and Christ's Righteousness not be imputed to us Can our righteous Judg declare himself satisfied atoned and reconciled to us Sinners for the Righteousness of Christ and not impute to us that Righteousness in se as what he accounts a Plea for us in his account Can we enjoy the merited Effects of Christ's Death and that Death not be reckoned what secures to us those Effects against the Challenges which the Merits of it were designed to answer Finally Do not these Divines oft rest on and plead with God the Merits of Christ more immediately and directly than a denial of Imputation will admit when they rest on Christ's Righteousness and plead it with God for Pardon tho it's true we could not expect Pardon for it were not Pardon promised for the sake thereof I think their Minds oft act more directly and fully towards the Righteousness of Christ than to intend it thus viz. I trust in Christ's Merits for Pardon as that Pardon is the Effect of that Justification wherein our Faith is accounted through Christ's Satisfaction a Righteousness according to the Gospel-Covenant which Covenant was procured by the Merits of Christ's Death I. grant there may be use of this progressive manner of arriving at Christ's Death for support of our Faith as we confine its regards to the Gospel-Covenant and examine our Interest thereby as a Rule of Judgment But I humbly think that when we plead with God for Pardon for the sake of Christ's Merits we have a more direct Eye to the Covenant of Redemption wherein a Pardon was promised to Christ for Believers in reward of his Death and which the Gospel distinctly expresseth in this viz. That Pardon is granted for the sake of Christ's Death as what procured it in se as well as what merited the Gospel-Covenant which is the Instrument of the Donation of it And so by keeping our Eye on the Covenant of Redemption we plead Christ's Right as more immediately imputable and by keeping our Thoughts on the Gospel-Connexion between Pardon and Christ's Death as the procuring Merit of it we plead Christ's very Performances mediately imputed viz. as our pleadable Security for our certain obtaining and safe enjoying the said Forgiveness 6. The Reasons why these venerable Persons are so intent to deny an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se are 1. An apprehension that there 's no such Imputation unless we are accounted by God to have done and suffered what Christ did which would unavoidably induce the Antinomian Scheme as most consistent But that I deny to be the only import of that Phrase for when that Righteousness it self is imputed relatively to the special Effects of it it 's truly an Imputation of it in se and whereas they of the other Extreme say that its being a pleadable Security for our Pardon is but an Effect I answer This Righteousness it self being that Security is an Effect of the Compact between the Father and the Son and it 's not this Effect is imputed but the Righteousness it self as such and by the same Rule as they can deny it to be imputed in se because it 's imputed as a pleadable Security they may better say it 's being imputed for Justification and for Atonement c. would make it to be no Imputation of it in se for those are but Effects and that by virtue of the same Compact 2. A Zeal for the Gospel-Righteousness of Faith But that is very consistent with the imputed Righteousness of Christ and tho both meet in our Justification yet it 's under very distinct Considerations of which afterwards Nor can I forbear again to inform the World that both Extremes arise from too much disregard of the one or the other Covenants wherein the Salvation of a Sinner is adjusted These Brethren forgetting the Covenant of Redemption to which the Gospel-Covenant is subordinate too little mention the Righteousness of Christ the other Brethren overlook the Gospel-Covenant and darken a Gospel-Righteousness of Faith Whereas a distinct respect to the Rule of Satisfaction and Impetration on the one hand and to the Rule of the Application of impetrated Benefits on the other hand would put a Period to their principal Disputes From this Representation of the several Sentiments of the Brethren concerned in the Point before us a mutual Forbearance seems no unjustifiable thing between them who differ most and no considerable Disagreement remains between the others 1. They who think the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in se is God's reckoning we did and suffered what Christ did claim a tender regard from them who say it 's imputed only as to Effects for they disown the Antinomian Consequences of it and abhor all Abuses of it to carnal Boasts and profane Libertinism of which before How unreasonable then were it to perpetuate Contests about this Point from the ill Consequences of it when those Consequences are denied On the other hand it appears too like uncharitable Rigidness for them to condemn as intolerable such who say Christ's Righteousness is imputed only as to Effects For whatever is the sound of their words they ascribe nothing to Faith or Works which belongs to Christ's Righteousness nor do they detract from the Honour of Christ's Righteousness any thing which these Brethren ascribe thereto and are Orthodox in the Doctrine of Satisfaction against Socinianism and Popery When they say Faith is an accepted Righteousness mean they that it 's a Satisfaction either to atone for Sin or merit Life No they abhor it and confine both to Christ's Righteousness entirely But they do not say Christ's Righteousness is imputed that 's not true for they say it is imputed Ay but not in se. But should that be so would not it be far from a Christian Spirit to be implacable for not using a Phrase which the Spirit of God makes no use of who surely knew how to express Truth as properly as fallible Men should pretend to Yea but the Scriptures speak what amounts to this Phrase And so do they in granting Christ's Righteousness to be the only Atonement and meriting Cause of Pardon and Life and Acceptance with God as righteous Persons But do not they think we stand before God only in this Righteousness of Faith and not of Christ No they assure us that what Righteousness Faith is it 's so by Christ's Sacrifice and Merits and it 's only a Righteousness as a performed Condition of the Gospel describing the Persons who obtain that Salvation which is the Effect of the Righteousness of Christ and whose