Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,

SECT. VIII. Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness, imputed. (Book 8)

119. Christ's personal Righteousness, Divine or Humane, habitual, a∣ctive * 1.1 or passive (as it's called) is not given us or made ours, truly and pro∣perly in the thing it self, but in the effects (as was aforesaid) for neither the same matter; nor the same form is strictly ours. 1. That neither of them is ours in a physical sence is undeniable. If the Divine Righte∣ousness were so ours, we were Gods. And a Habit, an Act, and a Pas∣sion (materially) cannot be removed from one subject to another, nor the same be in divers subjects: These are as palpable contradictions as Transubstantiation is. And the Relative form is founded in the matter or subject, and can no more be removed. The paternity of a Gene∣rator, and the paternity of an Adopter, are not the same, but two. And a Relation is an accident, also which perisheth when removed from the subject; and in another is another. 2. If it be said that both are ours Morally or Imputatively, I answer, It is true: But that phrase is of large and doubtful signification. 1. If the meaning be that [The Covenant of Grace doth as certainly pardon or justifie us (in the way and degree promised by it) for the merit of Christs Righteousness (in performing his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father) as our own merit (had it been possible) would have done; or our Innocency would have Justifyed us by the Covenant of Innocency] this is true.

2. But if the meaning be that [Christs merit and satisfaction, by per∣fect holiness, and obedience, and suffering, are supposed or Reputed by God to have been inherent in us, or done by us in our civil person in Christ; or that in a sence natural or Legal we did all those things our selves, or that God judgeth us so to have done, by Judging Christ and us to be the same civil person; or else that all the Benefits of Christs Righteousness shall as fully and immediately be ours, as if we had been, and done, and suffered, merited and satisfyed in and by Christ; All this is false.

120. For if this were so, we could need no pardon; for he that is re∣puted to be Innocent, by fulfilling all the Law, is reputed never to have sinned, by omission or commission: And he can have no pardon of sin, who hath no sin to be pardoned. Therefore such an Impu∣tation of Christs Righteousness to us, would make his satisfaction null or vain, or certainly neither imputable to us, nor useful for us.

121. Some to avoid this do divide the Time of our Lives, and sup∣pose Christs sufferings to have satisfied and purchased pardon of our sins, for all the Time before our Believing, and his Righteousness to be imputed to us for the Time since our Believing: But this is a humane fi∣ction: For our sins after believing must have pardon too, by Christ's satisfaction.

And some distinguish of our Time and State under the two Covenants, and say that Christ's satisfaction was for the pardon of our sins under the first Covenant, which continued but till the promise made to Adam, Gen. 3. 15. And so was for none but Adam's sin imputed to us; and that after that all being under the new Covenant, it condemneth none but the finally impenitent (who scape not) and so that Gods pardoning men since the new Covenant is but his preventing their need of pardon, or else par∣doning temporal punishments only: But this is contrary to the Gospel,

which tells us that Christ dyed for our sins, even all that ever are for∣given, and that all are forgiven to believers, (and not the necessity of forgiveness prevented) and not only Adam's sin as ours: Nor only the temporal, but the perpetual punishment. And even temporal punish∣ment is not due to the innocent.

122. Some distinguish only of Actions, and not of Time, and say Christ's Sacrifice satisfyed for all our sins, that they may be forgiven, and his righteousness is imputed to us, that we may be also accounted just; But this is but either ambiguity, or the fore-detected gross con∣tradiction. For if by Justice they mean Reputed sinlessness, or perfecti••••, then these two cannot stand together: For he that is supposed a Sinner, is supposed not sinless or perfect; And he that is supposed sinless cannot be supposed pardonable.

123. Some think to avoid the contradiction, by distinguishing only the moments of Nature, and double respect of the same mans actions: They say that we are first in order of Nature supposed to be Sinners, and pardoned, and then to be such as moreover need the reputation of Innocency or Righteousness which is added to pardon. But, 1. He that is pardoned all sins of omission and commission, is accounted In∣nocent and Righteous as to any Guilt of punishment, either of sence or Loss. 2. And he that is after accounted Innocent and Just from his first being to that hour, is judged never to have needed pardon: And so they make God come with an after act, and condemn his own fore∣going act of error and injury; or at least to contradict it, and in the first instant to say [I pardon this Sinner] and in the second to say [I now repute him one that never sinned or needed pardon.]

124. But the commonest way of such Divines is, to say that Christs Righteousness is first imputed; that is, we are reputed to have perfectly obeyed and been habitually holy in Christ, and then sin is next pardoned as a fruit of the merits of this. But this is still but the oft detected contradiction, that we are first accounted sinless, and therefore our sins are forgiven us.

125. Some say that the Law since the fall obligeth us both to obey and to suffer, and not to one only; else a Sinner bound to suffer, should not be bound to obey. Therefore Christ must do both for us: But this is too gross for any man to utter that ever knew what Law and Govern∣ment is. Do they mean that as to the same Act and time, the Law bind∣eth us to obey and suffer? or for divers acts and instants of time? Do they mean that the Law bound man both to perfection and suffering for perfection, or to suffering for sin? No man doubts but when one sin is committed, and punishment deserved, the Law is still the Law, and bindeth men still to obey or suffer more the next moment, and again to obey or suffer more the next moment. But this concerneth not our question. Did the Law bind Adam to obey and to suffer before he sinned? Did it bind him both to obey and suffer for his new sin the next instant? It's true it bound him to suffer for his old sin? but not for the next before it is committed. And the obligation to duty goeth before the obligation to punishment for that same action; because the action cometh between; and the first is an act of Gods antecedent Will, and the second of his consequent Will, that is, of the Retributive, and not the Preceptive part of the Law.

And they note not that the question is not, what obedience a man is bound to, but what he performeth or must be reputed to have perfor∣med. If they will speak so unaptly as to say that the Law commandeth

Lapsed man, not to have sin, or imperfect man to have been perfect; that is, that the Command to day bindeth Adam ad praeteritum not to have sinned yesterday, or bindeth to Impossibility in nature, that existent sin should not be existent, (in all which I leave them to their ••iberty of words) yet it is certain that no man hath perfectly obeyed for one year or day. And therefore if Christ's perfect obedience and ••oliness be imputed to them from their first being, then they are re∣••uted not-lapsed, nor-sinners from the beginning and, so not pardona∣••le. But if it be only for the time after sin that Christ's perfection is ••theirs, after what sin must it be? If after Adam's, then we need no pardon of any but Adam's sin. If after conversion, then we need no pardon for sins after Conversion. If after our last sin, then Christ's per∣••ection is not imputed to us till after death.

126. Others would come nearer the matter, and say that we are ••eputed Righteous as fulfillers of the Law, and yet reputed Sinners as Breakers of the Law: and that though there be no medium in naturals between light and darkness, life and death, yet there is between a ••reaker of the Law, and a fulfiller of it, viz. a non-fulfiller; and be∣••ween just and unjust, that is not-just: But this is a meer darkness: There ••s a medium negative, in a person as not obliged; but none between Posi∣••ive and Privative in one obliged as such. A stone is neither just nor ••rivatively unjust: Nor a man about a thing never commanded or for∣••idden him: But what's this to the matter? God's Law is pre-supposed: we talk of nothing but Moral acts: The Law forbiddeth Omissions and Commissions: both are sin. Do these men think that he is not reputed Positively just, (and not only not-unjust) who is reputed never to have committed a sin, nor left undone a duty in his life. Can ••he Law be fulfilled more than so? What is Righteousness if that be not?

Obj. Adam was neither just nor unjust in his first moment; no nor till he sinned say some, because till then he was not obliged to obey, or at least to any meritorious act, that is, to love God.

Ans. 1. Adam was in his first instant but Habitually just, and not by Act, because not obliged to impossibilities any more than an Infant or a stone: But we speak only of obliged persons. 2. It is not true that Adam was not obliged to obey and Love God before he sinned, or that he never Loved God as God.

Obj. At least Adam merited not the Reward, though he sinned not till then.

Ans. 1. He merited what Reward he had, viz. the continuance o his blessings first freely given: but not an immutable state. 2. It is yet unresolved what that was by which Adam must merit Immutability and Glory? whether, 1. Once obeying or consent to his full Covenant. 2. Or once loving God. 3. Or conquering once. 4. Or eating of the tree of Life. 5. Or presevering in perfect obedience to the end; that is, till God should translate him, which is most likely. His not Meriting Immutability before the time, was no sin, we confess. 3. And we maintain as well as you, that Christ hath not only satisfied for sin, and merited pardon, but also Merited Imm••table Glory. But consider, 1. That Adam's not doing that which was to merit Glory, was his sin of omission, and to pardon that omission, is to take him as a meriter of Glory. 2. Therefore it must be somewhat more than he forfeited by that omission and his commission, which cometh in by Christ's merit above forgiveness. 3. That Christ merited all this, both by his active,

passive and habitual Righteousness, by which he merited pardon. 4. That it was not we that merited it in him, but he, to give it us only on the terms of a Law of Grace.

127. Yet some come nearer, and say that, To punish and not-Reward are not all one: And so the respect that Sin hath to the deserved punish∣ment needed pardon and satisfaction: But our deserving the Reward need∣ed Christ's perfect Obedience to be imputed. In this there is somewhat of truth. But you must avoid the errors that lie in the way, and a•••• by most supposed truths. 1. Remember that man can have nothing from God, but what is a meer Gift as to the matter, though it be a Reward as to the order and ends of collation. And in this case, punishment is damni as well as sensus; And so the loss of the Reward is the principal part of Hell or Punishment. So that if Christ's death hath pardon•• our sins of Omission, we are reputed to have done all our duty; And if so, we are reputed to have merited the Reward: And if he pardon our •••••••• as to all punishment of sense and loss, he pardoneth them as to th•••• forfeiture of Heaven as a Gift, if not as a Reward.

128. But, say they, remission of sin is but part of Justification, because a man may be forgiven, and yet not reputed never to have broken the Law. To put away guilt, and to make one righteous are two thing. Ans. Still confusion. Guilt is either of the fault as such, or of the punishment, and of the fault only as the cause of punishment. If all g•••• both culpae & poenae were done away, that person were reputed po•••• righteous; that is, never to have omitted a Duty, or committed a •••• But indeed when only the Reatus poenae (& culpae quoad poenam) is do•• away, the Reatus culpae in se remaineth. And this Christ himself never taketh away, no not in Heaven, where for ever we shall be judged, once to have sinned, and not to be such as never sinned.

129. And this seemeth the very core of their error, that they th•••• * 1.2 we must be justified in Christ by the Law of Innocency, which justified Christ himself; and that we are quit or washed simply from all guilt of fault, as well as obligation to punishment: which is a great untruth, contrary to all the scope of the Gospel, which assureth us, that we are justified by the Law of Grace or Faith, and not by the Law of Works: That Christ freeth us from the curse and penalty of the Law: which he could not do, if we were reputed never to have deserved it, as never being Sinners. If we are reputed such as fulfilled the Law of Innocency (by another in our civil person, or as fully representing us,) all the Gospel is over-turned: There is no room for Repentance, none for the satisfacti∣on of Christ, none for Faith in his blood, nor for Pardon, or prayer for Pardon, or any Grace, Act, Duty or Ordinance, Sacraments, Confession, or any thing which supposeth Sin.

To say that Adam's Law meant, [Do this, by thy self or by Christ, and thou shalt live,] is a Humane fiction, not found in Scripture, confound∣ing the Law of Innocency with the Gospel: And to say that the New Covenant maketh us one Person with Christ, and then the Law of Ad•••• doth justifie us, is a double error. We are not reputed one Person with Christ; nor doth the first Covenant justifie any but the Person that per∣formeth it. But we maintain as well as they, that the same Righteousness of God in himself, is manifested in both Covenants, and the same holy love of perfect Obedience, and the ends of the first Covenant are secu∣red by the second. But the tenour and terms are not the same, nor the Righteousness of the subject as denominated from those terms. It is not the same Law which condemneth us and justifieth us, nor that justifieth

Christ and us; nor is it the same Habits, or Acts, which are the immedi∣••••e fundamentum of the Relation of righteous in Christ and in us, ••ough his Righteousness be the meritorious cause of ours. And there∣••••re not the same with the thing merited.

130. The Truth which they grope after, and must reconcile them ••••••••, is as followeth. Christ in his Sufferings did stand in the room of ••••ners as their Sponsor, and satisfied Justice as was said before: And ••••d had other ends yet to accomplish: It was meet that the perfection ••his Law should be glorified by a perfect fulfilling of it by Christ, ••en we had failed. Satan was hereby confounded: God pleased and ••noured: Man shewed what he should have been, and yet should do: ••ns nature in Christ was thus actively and habitually perfected: By all ••s Christ performed his Obedience to the mediatorial Law, and his * 1.3 ••venant of Redemption; and so acquired a right first to himself of giving ••t the purchased Benefits to Sinners, by a new Law or Covenant of Grace ••••d according to it; By which Covenant, only as his Instrument, the ••her and Son give us Right to them, in an Order there established. •••••••• that is there given to us, Christ purchased for us, by performing his ••n Covenant first with the Father, by perfect Holiness, and Obedience, ••en in his Sacrifice on the Cross, and by all that he undertook to do as Redeemer, antecedently. The Purchase was made for this Donation •• its end, and is commensurate to it: just so much as Christ hath given •••••••• as to matter, manner, terms, degree, time, &c. he did purchase and ••rit for us, and no more. Had he antecedently done all that he did •••••••• our person, and we in him, in Law sense, the thing it self, with its separable consequents and effects, had been all ours ipso facto, before and ••thout the donation or conveyance of a new Law or Covenant; nor ••d they been ever given us upon terms and conditions, when they were •••••••• own before, without those terms. But now what is given us by the ••ew Covenant, we have title to on this account, because it was pur∣••ased by the perfect Merit and Saerifice of Christ, and so given us by ••m, and by the Father. So that it is ours as sure as if we had merited it ••r selves, but not ours in the same order, and measure, and time, and ••ms, as if we had merited it our selves (in our natural or legal per∣••ns). For then it would have been all ours at once ipso facto, even ••e merit it self, and the fore-said effects. We deserved punishment, ••nd Christ was punished in our stead, that we might be forgiven; not ••mediately, but on Covenant-terms: we had forfeited Life by sin; And ••hrist merited Life for us by his Perfection, (not in our persons, but in ••e person of a Mediator,) which Life was to be given to us by the said ••ovenant: The antecedent benefits (such as the Covenant it self) he ••veth absolutely, and antecedently to any act of ours. God reputeth all his Satisfaction and Merit of Christ to be as meet and effectual to pro∣••ure us all these Benefits, to be thus given, as if we our selves had done and ••ffered: And in this sense Christ's Righteousness is given us, and made ours, •••••••• that it is given for us, and we have the said benefits of it: Not that God doth give us the very habits of Holiness which were in Christ, nor ••he transient acts which he performed, nor the very Sufferings which he ••nderwent, nor the Relation of righteous satisfactory and meritorious, as •••••••• was that numerical Relation which immediately resulted from Christ's ••wn Habits, Acts and Sufferings; For such a translation of accidents is •••••••• contradiction. But God giving us all the effects, or Salvation merited, ••n it self properly, is said also not unfitly to give us the Merit or Righte∣ousness which procured them; that is, as it was paid to God for us, to

procure them; even as he is said to give Christ himself (antecedently •••• our Faith) to the World as a Saviour. And thus Christ's Righteous∣ness, Merit and satisfaction may be said to be imputed to us, in that it •••• thus given us, and thus truly reputed ours.

131. But when the Text saith, Rom. 4. 24. Righteousness is imputed •••• us, the meaning is no more, but that God reputeth or judgeth us righte•••••• though we have not the Righteousness of Innocency, or of the Law •••• Works; which indeed is done for Christ's meritorious Righteous•••••••• procuring it: But the Text speaketh not of Christ's personal Righteous•••••••• in matter or form, imputed to us as being it self our own. Impu•••••••• Righteousness to us, is a consequent Act (after Faith) of God as Jud•••• and not an antecedent donation.

132. And it is true that formaliter, non-punire & praemiari, ••••••∣punish, and to Reward are not all one: And in some cases a man may •••• freed from punishment, who is not rewarded: But it is as true as is a•••••• said, 1. That Gods Salvation, and all his Benefits, are ever free Gifts •••• to the matter and value first, and then the relation of a Reward is b•• secondary as to the Order of collation, and the reason comparative, wh•• one man hath them rather than another (as a thankful Child hath the Gift which the Contemner goeth without). 2. And that here, Not to have this Gift (forfeited by our sin) is to be punished: And so h•••••• non-donari, is puniri materially though the relations differ. 3. And that it is the same Righteousness of Christ which meriteth our Impunity quoad damnum & sensum, and which meriteth our Right to the Gift of Life, both sub ratione doni as a Gift, and sub ratione condonationis as a forgiveness of the forfeiture, and of the poena damni: So that here •••• no room for the conceit, that Christ's death was only to purchase Par∣don, and his Righteousness to merit Life. That which confoundeth men here is, their taking the divers Respects, and Connotations, and Co••∣ceptions of one and the same thing, to be divers separable things: Th•• same Law hath the Preceptive part (to do and not do) and the Retributing part (penal and rewarding). The same Obedience of Adam was •••• doing what was commanded, and a deserving what was promised. •••••••• more was promised to persevering Perfection than to the first act of Obe∣dience. One Sin deserved death; but one act of Obedience desern•••• not immutable Glory. And as the same Act is formally Obedience re∣lated to the Command, and formally meritorious or praemiandus, •••• related to the Promise. And the same Act is sin and punishable, as related to the Precept (or Prohibition) and Threatening; so the same Glory is a free Gift in one respect (as related ut bonum to God as Benefactor) and a Reward in another (as related quoad ordinem conferendi to God •••• Rector.) And the same loss of Glory is poena related to the Threatening and it is the loss of a Reward as related to the Promise. And so the s•••••• Merits of Christ's active, and passive, and habitual Righteousness, be∣cause our Glory, both by giving us pardon of our forfeiture, and by Covenant-Donation, and as a Reward to Christ, and to us when •••• perform the conditions of his Gift.

133. And it is certain, that Christ's Sufferings are first satisfactory and then meritorious, being a part of his Active, that is, voluntary O••∣dience. And Christ's Holiness and Obedience are meritorious of pardon •••• Sin, as well as of Salvation.

134. If there be (as there is) any thing which is given us throug•••• Christ, more than our own Innocency or Obedience would have m••••••∣ted, the Gift of that is more than remission of Sin; And is to be ascribe••

accordingly to the Purchase of Christ's Merits. But yet both his Holi∣ness and Sufferings (though not as sufferings) did merit it: And that was not a fulfilling of the Law in our stead.

135. This superadded Gift (what-ever it is) seemeth in Scripture to be included in Adoption, and not in Justification: But yet it may in this sense be called Justification, in that when our Right to that Gift is questioned, that Right must be justified by the Covenant-Donation, and by Christ's meritorious Purchase of it. But this is only de nomine: We are agreed of the thing.

136. It is greatly to be noted, that as a Reward is in the formal notion more than not punishing (where materially they are the same) so Christ hath not at all merited that eternal Life should be ours, by way of Reward for our fulfilling the Law in him, but that it should ours by his free Gift, as a Reward to Christ for his own Merits. So that the Relation of a Re∣ward for Perfection, belongeth only formally to Christ, (who taketh it as his benefit that we are saved through his love to Souls) but not at all to us. And to say (as too many hold) that Heaven is our Reward for our perfection of Holiness and Obedience in and by Christ, is a Humane Invention, subverting Christ's Gospel; or unfit speech, if better meant.

137. Yet a Reward it is to us, to be glorified; but that is not for our fulfilling the Law of Innocency by Christ, but for our believing in Christ, and performing the conditions of the Covenant of Grace: which giveth us Life as a free Gift; but yet in the order of the condition it hath the re∣lation, and name of a Reward to us, in the Scripture.

138. So that here are three rewarding Covenants before us: 1. The Covenant or Law of Innocency rewarding man for perfection to the end; And this rewarded none but Christ: And it is false that we are rewarded by that Covenant, or justified by it, for Christ's fulfilling it. But it * 1.4 justified Christ. 2. The Law or Covenant made only to and with Christ the Mediator: And this Covenant further rewarded Christ as Mediator, giving him all that it promised to himself and us, for his performing the mediatorial conditions. And so our Life is Christ's Reward. 3. The Covenant or Law of Grace (for it is the same thing in several respects that's called the Law and the Covenant), which giving Life on the con∣dition of Faith, doth justifie and reward Believers. And we are justified and rewarded by no other Law.

139. When Rom. 4. oft saith (and other Texts) that we are justified by Faith, it connoteth and includeth that we are justified by Christ and his Sacrifice, Merits and Covenant respectively, believed in: But yet it is not Christ, nor his Sacrifice, or Merits, or Promise that is meant by the word [Faith.] It was a gross abuse of the Text so to expound it: Faith connoteth the Object, but it is not Christ that is called Faith.

140. But the meaning is, that man having forfeited Life, Christ's Righteousness (habitual, active and passive,) hath merited, that it shall be given us as a free Gift, but yet regularly under a Law: But the Law

maketh nothing but believing acceptance the condition of our Right, and he that doth that much, shall, without perfection, be esteemed and used as righteous for the sake of the said Righteousness of Christ. So that in point of Merit, as to the value of the thing, Christ's Righteousnes•• is instead of our Innocency: But as to the order of collation, something being still to be required of us as a condition of Right, so our Faith now is instead of our Innocency, as being all that is laid on us instead of ••••, that we may have right to Justification. And to assign this condition o•• our part, Paul saith, That Faith is imputed to us for righteousness. To deny this sense, is to use violence with the Text.

141. Christ's Righteousness is made ours, as our Sins were made his: which is not in themselves, as is aforesaid: God forbid we should think that Christ was ever reputed by God to be a Sinner, a Blasphemer, a Murderer, an Enemy to God and Goodness, one that had Satan's Image, and was his Servant, a Persecutor of himself, &c. But only our sin was imputed to him as to the punishment deserved: that is, he assumed the Reatum poenae, the punishment, and a dueness occasioned by our sin; but made his own by his voluntary sponsion; But never had he the rea••um culpae in its self, but meerly as aforesaid respectively to the punishment. Even so we have the Righteousness of Christ, not in its self, as Proprie∣tors of it, but in relation to the effects; that is, we have the effects, even our Justification, and other benefits as purchased by it, and for its sake: And as our guilt, or obligation to punishment, was not Christ's, till his voluntary sponsion or consent did make it so; Even so his Righteousness is not ours in the effects, till our voluntary consent accept it: Because i•• is not a natural, but a contracted Relation that is between Christ and us. And as it is not a strict propriety in Christ's Righteousness that we have, so it is much less a plenary and absolute propriety: nor have we it in the Relation of a meritorious cause to all uses, as if it had been fully our own, but only limitedly to those uses which God accepted it for, and hath assigned to it in the Gospel; that is, it is but a certain sort and measure of mercies that are given us from it in Gods time and way.

142. To the asserting of the rigid sense of Imputation, they are ne∣cessitated to say that, which supposeth Gods repute of the matter to be false; that is, that he reputeth us to have done that in and by Christ, which we never did by him: But God judgeth nothing to be otherwise than it is? that he judgeth Christ to have been the Sponsor and Mediator, and in that person to have done and suffered as he did, is because it is true: But he judgeth him not to have been the legal Person of the Sinner, and as many persons as there be redeemed Sinners in the world, because that is not true.

143. They say that what the Surety doth, the Debtor doth in Law-sense, and to judge so is not to err. But there are several sorts of Sure∣ties, much more of Instruments in paying a Debt. 1. There be free Sureties, who are not obliged to the Debtor as his Dependents; and these either by counter-security, or by right of the thing, may recover all of the Debtor again. And therefore the Law supposeth not the Debtor to have payed the Debt by them; but that the Creditor made them both Joynt-Debtors for his own security. 2. There are Sureties antecedently, and Sureties consequently: One that before the Debt doth conditionally make himself a Joynt-Debtor, in case the Principal pay it not; And there is a Surety more properly called an undertaking-Friend, who after payeth the Debt, being disobliged before. Christ was not a Surety of the first sort, in Law-sense; And if you call Gods Decrees, which are

his Essence, Suretiship, your liberty of words changeth not the case. 3. There is a Surety who payeth the Debt in the name and person of the principal Debtor; (And he is not properly called a Surety, but an Agent or Substitute:) And Christ was none such; nor is any proper Surety such. And there is a Surety which, by the Creditors consent, doth pay the Debt in his own name, agreeing that the chief Debtor shall have no be∣nefit by it but from him, as he shall give it, on certain terms: And this was Christ's case. 4. There is a Surety that payeth the same debt that was due from the Principal: And there is a Surety or Friend that under∣taketh only to make the Creditor satisfaction, because the Debtor can∣not pay. And this is the case. 5. Lastly, There is a pay-master that is the Debtors Instrument, whether Servant, Delegate, or whoever at his command or request doth pay it in his name and person: And this is not the case. And there is a proper Surety, who is a third person and no Instrument, and payeth it in his own name though for another. This, as I said, is the case; and therefore it is not we that paid it.

Therefore to the Objection I say, that to judge Christ such an Instru∣ment or Delegate of ours, or Surety that did all in our legal person; is to misjudge and err, as is proved, which God cannot do.

144. Christ did and suffered in the common nature of man, though not in the person of each Sinner. And mans nature is so far redeemed by him, that for the meer Original Sin of nature alone, no man shall perish, unless he add the rejection of Grace; (of which somewhat is said be∣fore.) But yet as Nature existeth only in persons, so it is all persons, who have this much benefit and more. But that he merited and satisfied in our Nature, is a proper speech, and truer than that he did it in our persons.

145. But all this similitude of a Creditor and Debtor, is to be limited in the application, according to the great difference of Sin and Debt, which will infer a great diversity in the consequents; which may easily be col∣lected by the Reader.

146. As to the great and weighty question, whether Christ died for * 1.5 sins against the New Covenant, or only for those against the old: I an∣swer, Distinction is here notoriously necessary. 1. If by the old Cove∣nant, or first Covenant, you mean the conditional Promise, [Be perfect and live] no sin since Adam's is against that conditional Promise, because it ceased through mans incapacity, upon the Fall; And Christ died not only for the first sin.

2. If by the first Covenant you mean, the bare command of perfect perpetual Obedience, Christ died for sins against that command which is still in force, but not as a Covenant of Life given on that condition.

3. If by the first Covenant, you mean the punitive part of the Law of Innocency, saying, [Thou shalt die if thou obey not perfectly.] So Christ died for all our Sins in the strictest sense, even as we are con∣demnable for them by that Law. And that part also of the Law conti∣nueth to make punishment our due in primo instanti, though with an ad∣joyned remedy.

4. If by the New Covenant, you mean the meer preceptive part of Christ's supernaturally-revealed Law, or of the foresaid Law of Nature, as in the hands of Christ, so Christ died for sins against the Law of Christ. 2. If by the New Covenant or Law you mean, the Promise and Threaten∣ing of Christs Law, or either; so Sin may be said to be against them in two senses: 1. Objectively, as they are neglected by us: And so that Sin formally is only against the Precept, and Christ died for it. 2. Or as the

Sin hath punishment threatened by the Sanction, and no pardon given by the Promise: And so Sin is in two senses also against the said Sanction: that is, 1. When it is such a Sin as the Promise giveth no pardon to con∣ditionally, And such as the commination peremptority condemneth the Sinner for to remediless misery. And this Sin is the final non-perf••r∣mance of the Gospel-Condition (Faith and Repentance). And such only are fully obliged to suffer Hell by the commination of the Law of Grace: And for such Sin Christ never died: not because he never died for the person as to any other sin, or for any benefit, as some teach: But be∣cause, 1. He resolved never to die for that sin it self, (of final Unbelief, Impe∣nitence and Unholiness.) 2. And because he never died to satisfie his own Law of Grace, and to take off its proper full obligation to final punishment; but only to satisfie God instead of mans suffering what the Law of Works obliged him to.

2. But there is also a mediate or conditional dueness of punishment, according to the Law of Grace: which is when a man by not believing and not-repenting at the present, and by neglecting and resisting Grace, doth so far forfeit all Grace and Salvation, as that God may cut him off, and cast him into Hell if he will; not having peremptorily said, that he will do it; nor given men any assurance that he will not. This man is not immediately and fully under the dueness of Hell fire, but on supposition that God should first cut him off; and then his Impenitence would be final, which is the first case: But this person is under all this guilt. 1. Guilty of punishment not forgiven against the Law of Works. 2. He is so far guilty of punishment, according to the Law of Grace, as 1. That no pardon is given him, or due to him. 2. And God may justly take away his Spirit and forsake him. 3. And God may justly cut him ••••••••. 4. And if God should cut him off, Hell will be his full immediate due.

147. By this it further appeareth, that we cannot be justified as per∣sonally * 1.6 fulfilling all Righteousness in Christ: Because we are all our life time principally under those great Duties of the Law of Grace, which Christ neither did nor could do for us. We are bound all our days to accept a Saviour, to accept pardon of Sin, and mortifying Grace, to confess our Sins, to repent of them, and sorrow for them; to labour in the use of all Means and Ordinances to mortifie them; To do all our duties as Sinners, in that manner as those must do that are in a Physicians hands for Cure; To receive and apply Christ's Merits to that end; to beg his Intercession and daily pardon; To labour that imperfect Grace may be strengthened: In a word, Sin, and a desire of healing, so affect all that the Gospel commandeth us, that Christ was not capable of any of this. And if all this was undone till our Conversion, and much of it undone after our Conversion, and yet Christ never did it for us, not we in him; How can it be said that we are justified by fulfilling all the Law in and by Christ? yea the Law of Nature still commandeth us, to obey the Law of Grace, supposing it made and revealed to us.

148. The question whether Christ payed the Idem or the tantundem, is hence also more fully resolved: By payment is meant, either Holiness or * 1.7 Suffering. And 1. This sheweth that Christ's Obedience was not materi∣ally the same with ours (as aforesaid). 2. And I before proved that a great, and the far greatest part of our punishment was such as Christ could never suffer; either permitted Sin it self, or desertion by the Spirit of Holiness, or divine displeasure and hatred, or accusations of Conscience, &c. 3. And the Law binding only the Sinner, and not any Surety to suffer, and every man personally to obey, most clearly it is not Idem qu••d

debetur, were it but meerly because it is not ejusdem or per eundem.

149. Indeed solution of the Debt, and satisfaction strictly taken thus ••iffer, that satisfaction is solutio tantidem, vel aequivalentis alias indebi••i. And if Christ be said to have paid the very same duty and punishment which the Law required, he is denied to have satisfied for our non-pay∣••ent: For a Law that is fully performed can require no more, nor the Law-giver neither: And therefore both Satisfaction and Pardon are shut ••ut.

150. It is not properly the Law which is satisfied, but the Law-giver ••s above Law as is said: But yet improperly the Law may be said to be ••••tisfied in that the ends of the Law-giver in it are obtained.

151. Though I owe much thanks to God for what, near thirty years go, I learned from Grotius de satisfact. yet I must say that in this great ••uestion, whether Christ satisfied God for Sin as Domino absoluto, vel •••• parti laesae, vel ut Rectori, which he asserteth alone, I take him to come ••••ort of accurateness and soundness; And that this is the truth.

God is to man, 1. Dominus absolutus, that is, our Owner. 2. Rector ••premus. 3. Amicus, Benefactor: vel Pater & finis. Sin is against God in all these three Relations: 1. As our Owner, it is a denying him and ••lienating his own quoad usum. 2. As Rector, it breaketh his Law. 3. As ••••r Lover and End, it is a departing from him. For 1. As our Owner, we we him total resignation and use as such. 2. As our Ruler, we owe him ••ubjection and Obedience as such. 3. As our Friend (Benefactor & Ama∣••••lissimus) we owe him Gratitude and Love as such (which yet is part ••f Obedience too.) Now Sin being the privation of all this, God is to ••e satisfied for it as such, in all these three Relations; And is pars laesa •••• all these three Relations, that is, he is injured, though not hurt. It is ••••ue, that Government and punishing Justice, formally as such, belong to God only as Rector. And satisfaction is made him eminently in that Re∣••ation; yet also to compensate the injury done by sin to him in the other ••wo Relations also.

Notes

• * 1.1

  How little the Papists differ from the Imputa∣tion which they quarrel with. See in Bellarm. words cited and appro∣ved by Davenant de Justit. And Pet. a S. Joseph. Theol. Speculat. l. 4. c. 10. saith, [Obj. P••ccatum re∣mitti non potest quamdiu homo manet conversus ad creaturam & aversus a Deo: At semper aversus erit a Deo nisi mutatur. Resp. Sufficere▪ mutatio∣nem moralem, quae per solam Dei condonationem fieri potest, ut jam homo non di∣catur aversus a Deo. (This is Antinomianism, and false; As if God called not him averse who is really averse.) Obj. 2. Si peccatum remitti potest sine actu aut habitu—per solam imputationem erit quae est ••aereticorum sententia. Resp. Haereticos loqui de facto & non de imputatione peccati rema∣nentis & vere non remissi: nos de possibili & de ver•• remissione qua peccatum tollatur.] See how the case is turned and wrang∣lers deceive themselves. We hold it neither de facto nor de possibili: and they hold it de possibili and not de facto, viz▪ that bare pardon and non▪ imputation may put away the very being of sin, and may save men. Of which more after∣wards. But many others deny that sin can be remitted by extrinsick condona∣tion: See Cacer's Sum. The. 22. c. 2. They ordi∣narily take Remission for destroying the sin it self.
• * 1.2

  Of this see wotton de Reconcil. at large.
• * 1.3

  Herveus Natal. quodlib. 4. q. 14. could speak thus much better than many Protestants. [Sicut me∣ritum Christi quantum ad actum quem exercuit, non transit in alios; transit tamen in alios quantum ad effectum illius meriti illis qui applicantur ad Chri∣stum mediantibus Sacra∣mentis vel mediante fide propria; Qui quidem ef∣fectus est Gratia quae est c••ntraria, culpae, & quae reddit hominem dignum vita aeterna: Ita etiam demeritum Adae, licet non transeat in alios quantum ad actum quem exercuit, tamen transit quoad ef∣fectum culpae originalis, quae est contraria gratiae, & reddit dignum poenae aeterna, & indignum vita aeterna. How doth this differ from the soundest Protestants as to the Im∣putation of Christ's Righteousness to us, or Adam's sin.
• * 1.4

  All the stir of the Pa∣pists is to prove that we have inherent Righte∣ousness as well as par∣don, which Protestants are as much for as they. The rest is de nomine justificationis, Malder. 1. 2. q. 113. a. 2. p. 572. Apostolus, 2 Cor. 5. non aliud vult quam Christum cui nullum debebatur sup∣plicium, factum fuisse ho∣stiam pro nostro peccato, ut nos qui apud Deum nihil merebamur, praeter. suppli∣cium, justitia Dei fieremus in ipso; id est, gratis sine nostris operibus conseque∣remur per ipsius merita ju∣stitiam coram Deo.] What doth this differ from the Doctrine of the Refor∣med Churches.

  Idem ibid▪ Quando Aposto∣lus dicit multos constitui justos per unius obedienti∣•••• significatur causa meritoria, non autem formalis: And so say we: But some call Christ's Righteousness the causa material••s, meaning no more but that it is the matter of that Merit, for which we are justified; As if Adam had perfectly fulfilled the Law, his fulfilling it, had been meritorious of his sentential Justification, and yet the matter of his constitutive Justification; that is, of his Righteousness. And some u••••ptly call it the formal cause: But an unapt logical notion is not an error in Faith or Theology.

  Idem ib. p. 573. Quamvis ••x omnino rigida justitia solus Christus Dominus satisfactat; de condigno tamen, ita ut merces operi ••ono debeatur post Dei promissionem, meretur justus coronam justisi•• quam reddet in illa die justus judex: Est nostra justitia tota, totum meritum, tota satisfactio dependens a me••ito & satisfactione Christi. Still here is a wordy Contro∣versie.
• * 1.5

  How far Christ died for sins against the Law of Grace.
• * 1.6

  Christ not capable of our kind of Obedience.
• * 1.7

  The Idem or Tantundem.