Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sence [sic] sound Protestants hold it and of the false divised sence by which libertines subvert the Gospel : with an answer to some common objections, especially of Dr. Thomas Tully whose Justif. Paulina occasioneth the publication of this / by Richard Baxter a compassionate lamenter of the Church's wounds caused by hasty judging ... and by the theological wars which are hereby raised and managed ...

CHAP. V. The Objections Answered.

Obj. 1. YOƲ confound a Natural and a Politi∣cal person: Christ and the several be∣lieving sinners are not the same natural Person, but they are the same Political. As are with us, saith Dr. Tullie, the Sponsor and the Debtor, the Attor∣ney and the Clyent, the Tutor and the Pupil; so are all the faithful in Christ, both as to their Celestial regenerate nature, of which he is the first Father, who begetteth sons by his Spirit and seed of the Word to his Image, and as to Righteousness derived by Legal Imputation. Vid. Dr. Tullie, Justif. Paul. p. 80, 81. It's commonly said that Christ as our surety is our Person.

Ans. 1. The distinction of a Person into Natural and Political or Legal, is equivoci in sua equivocata: He therefore that would not have contention che∣rished and men taught to damn each other for a word not understood, must give us leave to ask what these equivocals mean. What a Natural Person sig∣nifieth, we are pretty well agreed; but a Political Person is a word not so easily and commonly under∣stood. Calvin tells us that Persona definitur homo qui caput habet civile. (For omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim: Homo cum est vocabulum naturae; Per∣sona juris civilis.) And so (as Albenius) civitas, municipium, Castrum, Collegium, Ʋniversitas, & quod. libet corpus, Personae appellatione continetur, ut Spi∣gel.

But if this Definition be commensurate to the common nature of a civil person, then a King can be none; nor any one that hath not a civil head. This therefore is too narrow. The same Calvin (in n. Personae) tells us, that Seneca Personam vocat, cum prae se fert aliquis, quod non est; A Counterfeit: But sure this is not the sence of the Objectors. In general saith Calvin, Tam hominem quam qualitatem hominis, seu Conditionem significat. But it is not sure every Quality or Condition: Calvin therefore giveth us nothing satisfactory, to the decision of the Controversie which these Divines will needs make, whether each believer and Christ be the same Political Person. Martinius will make our Contro∣versie no easier by the various significations gather∣ed out of Vet. Vocab. Gel. Scaliger, Valla; Which he thus enumerateth. 1. Persona est accidens condi∣tio hominis, qualitas quâ homo differt ab homine, tum in animo, tum in corpore, tum in externis. 2. Homo qualitate dictâ proditus: 3. Homo insigni qualitate praeditus habens gradum eminentiae, in Ecclesia Dei, &c. 4. Figura, seu facies ficta, larva histrionica, &c. 5. Ille qui sub hujusmodi figura aliquam representat, &c. 6. Figura eminens in aedificiis quae ore aquam fun∣dit, &c. Individua substantia humana, seu singula∣ris homo. 8. Individua substantia Intelligens quaelibet. Now which of these is Persona Politica vel Legalis. Let us but agree what we mean by the word and I suppose we shall find that we are agreed of the Mat∣ter. When I deny the Person of Christ and the sin∣ner to have been the same, or to be so reputed by God, I mean by Person, univocally or properly, An Individual Intelligent substance. And they that mean otherwise are obliged to Define; For Analogum per

se positum stat pro▪ suo significato famosiore. If they mean that Christ and the Believer are the same as to some Quality, or Condition, let them tell us what Quality or Condition it is, and I think we shall be found to be of one mind.

But I think by the similitudes of a Sponsor, Attor∣ney, and Guardian, that they mean by a Political Person (not as a society, nor such as agree in Quali∣ty, but) A natural Person so related to another Natural person, as that what he doth and suffereth, Is or Hath, is limitedly to certain ends and uses as effectual as if that other person himself did and suffered, Were or Had numerically the same thing. I obtrude not a sense on others, but must know theirs before I can know where we differ. And if this be the meaning, we are agreed: Thus far (though I greatly dislike their way that lay much stress on such humane phrases,) I grant the thing meant by them. Christs Holiness Habitual and Actual, and his Merits and Satisfa∣ction are as effectual to a believers Justification and Salvation upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace (which is sealed by baptism) as if we had been, done and suffered the same our selves. But still remem∣ber that this is only [limitedly] to these uses, and on these termes and no other, and I think that this is the meaning of most Divines that use this phrase.

But the sense of those men that I differ from and write against (the Libertines and Antinomians, and some others that own not those names,) is this: that A Legal Person is one so Related to anothers Natural person as that what he Hath, Doth, or Suffereth in such a case, is (not only effectual as aforesaid to others, but) is in itself simply Reputed or Imputed to be Morally, though not physically, the Habit, Act and

Suffering, the Merit and satisfactory Sacrifice of the other person: And so being the reputed Haver, Doer or Sufferer, Meriter or Satisfyer himself, he hath abso∣lute right to all the proper results or benefits.

And so a man may indeed many ways among us Represent or Personate another. If I by Law am Commanded to do this or that service per meipsum aut per alium, I do it in the Moral or Law-sence, because the other doth it in my name and I am al∣lowed so to do it. So if I appear or answer by any Proctor or Attorney; if the Law make it equal to my personal appearance and answer, it is said that I did it by him: (but only so far as he doth it as my Representer or in my name): So if I pay a debt by the hand of my Servant or any Messenger, if so allowed, I do it by that other. So indeed a Pupil, doth by his Guardian what his Guardian doth, only so far as the Law obligeth him to consent or stand to it.

We did not thus our selves fulfil all the Law in and by Christ: Nor are we thus the Proprietors of his Habitual perfection, Merits or Satisfaction.

The common reason given by the contrary-mind∣ed is, that he was our Surety, or Sponsor, or fide∣jussor: and so we translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 7.22. and I remember not any other text of Scripture allega∣ble for that title. But this word doth not necessa∣rily signifie any such Representer of our Persons as a∣foresaid. Nay when he is called thus the fidejussor of a better Covenant, it seemeth plain that it is Gods Covenant as such, and so Gods Sponsor that is meant; and as Grotius saith Moses pro Deo spospon∣dit in Lege Veteri: Jesus pro Deo in Lege Nova: Lex utraque & pactum continet, promissa habet. Sponso∣rem dare solent minûs nati: & Moses & Deus homini∣bus

melius nati erant quam Deus qui inconspicuus. So also Dr. Hamond [He was Sponsor and Surety for God, that it should be made good to us on Gods part, on Condition that we performed that which was requi∣red of us:] And here they that translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Testament, never intended that it was our Part of the Covenant that is meant by a Testament: But (the most Judicious expositor,)

Mr. Lawson on the text, truly saith [The Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets translated into Greek will tell us; That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always signifieth a Law or a Covenant, and for the most part both: so it doth in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists where it seldom signifieth the last Will and Testament of a man. The same thing is a Law in respect of the precepts, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 turned Surety, signifieth one that undertaketh for another to see something paid or performed: And though the word is not found in the New Testament except in this place, &c. But Varnius tells us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Mediator; and so it is taken here as it's ex∣pounded by the Apostle in the Chapter following: And because a Priest doth undertake to procure from God, both the Confirmation and performance of the promises to the people, and to that end me∣diates between both; therefore he is a Surety and Mediator of the Covenant, and in this respect the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant is a Priest.]

So Calvin (though almost passing it by) seemeth to intimate that which I think is the truth, that Christ is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Gods Covenant from the sacerdotal appropinquation, mentioned vers. 19. &c.

And M••rlorate after Theoph••lact, Sponsorem pro Me∣diatore & intercessore posuit.

So Paraeus in loc. Est novi faederis Sponsor Christus, quia novum faedus sanguine & morte sua obsignavit.

So the Dutch Annot. and many others, besides the Ancients, by a Sponsor, tell us is meant a Mediator.

And we grant that a Mediator is not of one, but doth somewhat on the behalf of both parties. But that as Mediator he Is; Hath, Doth, Suffereth, Merit∣teth, Satisfyeth; so as the Representer or person of each believer, as that every such Person is supposed in Law to have Been, Done, Suffered, Merited, thus in and by the Mediator, is neither signified by this or any other text.

2. And they that distinguish of a Natural and Political Person, do but darken the case by an ill-expressed distinction, which indeed is not of two sorts of Persons, but between Reality and Accepta∣tion, taking Person properly for a Natural Person: It's one thing to be such a Person, and another thing to have the Act, Passion, Merit, &c. Accepted for that other Person: And this latter signifieth, either 1. That it was done by the other person mediately, as being a cheif Cause acting by his Instrument. 2. Or that it was done for that other Person by another. The first is our denyed sence, and the second our affirmed sence.

Among us Sureties and Sponsors are of several sorts: Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another sense of Sponsion in the Civil Law, than is pertinent to the objectors use: And in Baptism the same word, hath had divers senses as used by persons of differ∣ent intentions. The time was when the Spon∣sor was not at all taken for the Political Person (as you call it) of Parent or Child, nor spake as their Instrument, in their name: But was a Third person,

who (because many parents Apostatized, and more Died in the Childs minority) did pass his word, 1. That the Parent was a credible Person, 2. That if he Dyed so soon or Apostatized, he himself would undertake the Christian Education of the Child. But the Parent himself was Sponsor for the Child in a stricter sense, (as also Adopting Pro-parents were, & as some take God-fathers to be now,) that is, they were taken for such, whose Reason, will and word, we authorised to dispose of the Child as obligingly, as if it had been done by his own reason will and word, so be it, it were but For his good, and the Child did own it when he came to age: And so they were to speak as in the Childs name, as if Na∣ture or Charity made them his Representers, in the Judgment of many. (Though others rather think that they were to speak as in their own persons, e. g. I dedicate this Child to God, and enter him into the Covenant as obliged by my Consent.) But this sense of Sponsion is nothing to the present Case.

They that lay all upon the very Name of a Surety as if the word had but one signification, and all Sureties properly represented the person of the Prin∣cipal obliged person, do deal very deceitfully: There are Sureties or Sponsors, 1. For some Duty, 2. For Debt, 3. For Punishment. 1. It is one thing to undertake that another shall do a Comman∣ded duty: 2. It's another thing to undertake that else I will do it for him: 3. It's another thing to be Surety that he shall pay a Debt, or else I will pay it for him: 4. It's another thing to undertake that he shall suffer a penalty, or else to suffer for him, or make a Valuable Compensation.

1. And it's one kind of Surety that becometh a

second party in the bond, and so maketh himself a debtor; 2. And its another sort of Surety that un∣dertaketh only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a Friend; who may pay it on such Conditions as he and the Creditor think meet, without the Deb∣tors knowledg. Every Novice that will but open Calvin may see that Fidejussor and Sponsor are words of very various signification; and that they seldom or never signifie the Person Natural or Politi∣cal (as you call it) of the Principal: Sponsor est qui sponte & non rogatus pro alio promittit, ut Accurs. vel quicunque spondet, maximè pro aliis: Fidejube∣re est suo periculo fore id, de quo agitur, recipere: Vel, fidem suam pro alio obligare. He is called Adpromis∣sor, and he is Debtor, but not the same person with the Principal, but his promise is accessoria obligatio, non principalis. Therefore Fidejussor sive Intercessor non est conveniendus, nisi prius debitore principali convento: Fidejussores a correis ita differunt, quod hi suo & proprio morbo laborant, illi vero alieno tenentur: Quare fideijussori magis succurrendum censent: Ve∣niâ namque digni sunt qui alienâ tenentur Culpâ, cu∣jusmodi sunt fidejussores pro alieno debito obligati, in∣quit Calv.

There must be somewhat more than the bare name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 once used of Christ as Mediator of Gods Covenant, or the name of a Surety as now u∣sed among men, that must go to prove that the Me∣diator and the several sinners are the same Legal Persons in Gods account.

But seeing Legal-Personality is but a Relation of our Natural person, to another Natural person, that we may not quarrel and tear the Church when really

we differ not 1. Let our agreement be noted. 2. Our difference intelligibly stated.

1. It is granted (not only by Dr. Tullie, but o∣thers that accurately handle the Controversie,) 1. That Christ and the Believer never were nor are our Natural person; and that no union with him maketh us to be Christ, or God, nor him to be Pe∣ter, John, or Paul, &c. That we know of no third sort of Natural person, (which is neither Jesus, nor Peter, John, &c.) But composed of both united, which is constituted by our Union. For though it be agreed on, that the same Spirit that is in Christ is (operatively) also in all his Members, and that therefore our Communion with him is more than Relative, and that from this Real-Communion, the name of a Real-Ʋnion may be used; yet here the Real-Ʋnion is not Personal (as the same Sun quickeneth and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and a Plant, and yet maketh them not our person:) Therefore he that will say we are Physically one with Christ, and not only Relatively; but tell us [ONE What?] and make his words Intelligible; and must deny that we are ONE PERSON: and that by that time we are not like to be found differing. But remember that while Physical Communion, is confessed by all, what ƲNION we shall from thence be said to have (this Foundation being agreed on) is like to prove but a question, de realitione & no∣mine.

2. Yea all the world must acknowledg that the whole Creation is quoad praesentiam & derivationem more dependant on God than the fruit is on the Tree, or the Tree on the Earth, and that God is the inseperate Cause of our Being, Station, and Life;

And yet this natural intimateness, and influx, and causality, maketh not GOD and every Creature absolutely or personally One.

3. It is agreed therefore that Christ's Righteous∣ness is neither materially nor formally, any Acci∣dent of our natural Persons; (and an Accident it is) unless it can be reduced to that of Relation. 1. The Habits of our Person, cannot possibly be the habits of another inherently. 2. The actions of one cannot possi∣bly be the actions of another, as the Agent, unless as that other as a principal Cause, acteth by the other as his Instrument or second Cause. 3. The same fundamentum relationis inherent in One Person, is not inherent in another if it be a personal Relati∣on: And so the same individual Relation that is one Mans, cannot numerically be another Mans, by the same sort of in-being, propriety▪ or adherence. Two Brothers have a Relation in kind the same, but not unmerically.

4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falsly, and therefore taketh not Christ's Righteousness to be any more or otherwise ours; than indeed it is; nor imputeth it to us erroneously.

5. Yet it is commonly agreed, that Christ's Righ∣teousness is OƲRS in some sense; And so far is justly reputed Ours, or imputed to us as being Ours.

6. And this ambiguous syallable [OƲRS] (enough to set another Age of Wranglers into bit∣ter Church-tearing strife, if not hindred by some that will call them to explain an ambiguous word) is it that must be understood to end this Controver∣sie. Propriety is the thing signified. 1. In the strictest sense that is called Ours, which inhereth in

us, or that which is done by us. 2. In a larger (Moral) sense, that which a Man as the principal Cause, doth by another as his Instrument, by au∣thorizing, commanding, perswading, &c. 3. In a yet larger sense that may be called OƲRS, which a third person doth partly instead of what we should have done (had, or suffered) and partly for our use, or benefit. 4. In a yet larger sense that may be called OƲRS, which another hath, or doth, or suffereth for our Benefit, (though not in our stead) and which will be for our good, (as that which a Friend or Father hath, is his Friends or Childs, and all things are Ours, whether Paul, or &c. and the Godly are owners of the World, in as much as God will use all for their good).

7. It is therefore a Relation which Christ's Righ∣teousness hath to us, or we to it, that must here be meant by the word [OƲRS]: Which is our RIGHT or Jus; And that is acknowledged to be no Jus or Right to it in the foresaid denied sense; And it is agreed that some Right it is. Therefore, to understand what it is, the Titulus seu Funda∣mentum juris must be known.

8. And here it is agreed; 1. That we are before Conversion or Faith related to Christ as part of the Redeemed World, of whom it is said, 2 Cor. 5.19. That God was in Christ, reconciling the World to himself, not imputing to them their sins, &c. 2. That we are after Faith related to Christ as his Covenanted People, Subjects, Brethren, Friends, and Political Members; yea, as such that have Right to, and Possession of Real Communion with him by his Spirit: And that we have then Right to Pardon, Justification, and Adoption, (or have

Right to Impunity in the promised degree, and to the Spirits Grace, and the Love of God, and Hea∣venly Glory). This Relation to Christ and this Right, to the Benefits of his Righteousness are agreed on: And consequently that his Righteousness is OƲRS, and so may be called, as far as the foresaid Relations and Rights import.

II. Now a Relation (as Ockam hath fully pro∣ved) having no real entity, beside the quid absolu∣tum, which is the Subject, Fundamentum, or Ter∣minus, he that yet raileth at his Brother as not say∣ing enough, or not being herein so wise as he, and will maintain that yet Christ's Righteousness is fur∣ther OƲRS, must name the Fundamentum of that Right or Propriety: What more is it that you mean? I think the make-bates have here little probability of fetching any more Fuel to their Fire, or turning Christ's Gospel into an occasion of strife and mutu∣al enmity, if they will but be driven to a distinct explication, and will not make confusion and ambi∣guous words their defence and weapons. If you set your quarrelsome Brains on work, and study as hard as you can for matter of Contention, it will not be easie for you to find it, unless you will raze out the names of Popery, Socinianism, Arminia∣nism, or Solifidianism, Heresie, &c. instead of real Difference. But if the angriest and lowdest Speak∣ers be in the right, Bedlam and Billingsgate may be the most Orthodox places.

Briefly, 1. The foresaid Benefits of Christ's Righteousness, (Habitual, Active and Passive) as a Meritorious, Satisfactory, Purchasing Cause, are ours.

2. To say that the Benefits are Ours, importeth that the Causal Righteousness of Christ is related to us, and the Effects as such a Cause: and so is it self OƲRS, in that sense, that is, so related.

3. And Christ himself is OƲRS, as related to us as our Saviour; the Procurer and Giver of those Benefits. And do you mean any more by [OƲRS]?

If you say that we deny any Benefits of Christ's Righteousness which you assert, name what they are. If you say that we deny any true Funda∣mentum juris, or reason of our title, name what that is. If you say that we deny any true Relation to Christ himself, tell us what it is: If you cannot, say that you are agreed.

1. If you say that the Benefit denied by us, is that we are judged by God, as those that (habi∣tually and actively) have perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency our selves, though not in our natu∣ral Persons, yet by Christ as representing us, and so shall be justified by that Law of Innocency as the Fulfiller of it, we do deny it, and say, That you subvert the Gospel, and the true Benefits which we have by Christ.

2. If you say that we deny that God esteemeth or reputeth us, to be the very Subjects of that Nu∣merical Righteousness, in the Habits, Acts, Pas∣sion or Relation, which was in the Person of Christ, or to have done, suffered, or merited our selves in and by him, as the proper Representer of our Persons therein; and so that his Righteousness is thus imputed to us as truly in it self our own pro∣priety, we do deny it, and desire you to do so also, lest you deny Christianity.

2. If you blame us for saying, That we had or have no such Relation to Christ, as to our Instru∣ment, or the proper full Representer of each Belie∣vers particular Person, by whom we did truly ful∣fil the Law of Innocency, habitually and actively, and satisfied, merited, &c. We do still say so, and wish you to consider what you say, before you pro∣ceed to say the contrary.

But if you come not up to this, where will you find a difference.

Object. 2. Christ is called The Lord our Righte∣ousness, and he is made Righteousness to us, and we are made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21, &c. And by the Obedience of one, many are made Righteous.

Answ. And are we not all agreed of all this? But can his Righteousness be Ours no way but by the foresaid Personation Representating? How prove you that? He is Our Righteousness, and his Obedience maketh us Righteous.

1. Because the very Law of Innocency which we dishonoured and broke by sin, is perfectly fulfilled and honoured by him, as a Mediator, to repair the injury done by our breaking it.

2. In that he suffered to satisfie Justice for our sin.

3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the Father, all that Righteousness which we are truly the Subjects of, whether it be Relative, or Qualita∣tive, or Active; that is, 1. Our Right to Christ in Union to the Spirit, to Impunity, and to Glory; And, 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which we are made Holy, and fulfil the Conditions of the Law

of Grace. We are the Subjects of these, and he is the Minister, and the meritorious Cause of our Life, is well called Our Righteousness, and by many the material Cause, (as our own perfect Obedience would have been) because it is the Matter of that Merit.

4. And also Christ's Intercession with the Fa∣ther, still procureth all this as the Fruit of his Merits.

5. And we are Related as his Members (though not parts of his Person as such) to him that thus merited for us.

6. And we have the Spirit from him as our Head.

7. And he is our Advocate, and will justifie us as our Judg.

8. And all this is God's Righteousness designed for us, and thus far given us by him.

9. And the perfect Justice and Holiness of God, is thus glorified in us through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove, that we just∣ly own all asserted by these Texts? But if you think that you have a better sense of them, you must better prove it, than by a bare naming of the words.

Object. 3. If Christ's Righteousness be Ours, then we are Righteous by it as Ours; and so God re∣puteth it but as it is: But it is Ours; 1. By our Ʋni∣on with him. 2. And by his Gift, and so consequently by God's Imputation.

Answ. 1. I have told you before that it is con∣fessed to be Ours; but that this syllable OƲRS hath many senses; and I have told you in what sense,

and how far it is OƲRS, and in that sense we are justified by it, and it is truly imputed to us, or re∣puted or reckoned as OƲRS: But not in their sense that claim a strict Propriety in the same numerical Habits, Acts, Sufferings, Merits, Satisfaction, which was in Christ, or done by him, as if they did become Subjects of the same Accidents; or, as if they did it by an instrumental second Cause. But it is OƲRS, as being done by a Mediator, instead of what we should have done, and as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness and Benefits, which are freely given us for the sake hereof.

2. He that is made Righteousness to us, is also made Wisdom, Sanctification and Redemption to us: but that sub genere Causae Efficientis, non autem Causae Constitutivae: We are the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ. Plainly the Question is, Whether Christ or his Righteousness, Holiness, Merits, and Satis∣faction, be Our Righteousness Constitutively, or only Efficiently? The Matter and Form of Christ's Per∣sonal Righteousness is OƲRS, as an Efficient Cause, but it is neither the nearest Matter, or the Form of that Righteousness which is OƲRS as the Subjects of it; that is, It is not a Constitutive Cause nextly material, or formal of it.

3. If our Union with Christ were Personal, (making us the same Person) then doubtless the Ac∣cidents of his Person would be the Accidents of ours, and so not only Christ's Righteousness, but every Christians would be each of Ours: But that is not so. Nor is it so given us by him.

Object. 4. You do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all, which con∣sisteth in perfect Obedience and Holiness, but only a Right to Impunity and Life, with an imperfect Inhe∣rent Righteousness in our selves: The Papists are for∣ced to confess, that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law, and not only the Retributive part: But they say, It is in our selves, and we say it is Christ's im∣puted to us.

Answ. 1. The Papists (e. g. Learned Vasque•• in Rom. 5.) talk so ignorantly of the differences of the Two Covenants, or the Law of Innocency and of Grace, as if they never understood it. And hence they 1. seem to take no notice of the Law of Innocency, or of Nature now commanding our perfect Obedience, but only of the Law of Grace. 2. Therefore they use to call those Duties but Perfections; and the Commands that require them, but Counsels, where they are not made Conditions of Life: and sins not bringing Damnation, some call Venial, (a name not unfit) and some expound that as properly no sin, but analogically. 3. And hence they take little notice, when they treat of Ju∣stification, of the Remitting of Punishment; but by remitting Sin, they usually mean the destroying the Habits: As if they forgot all actual sin past, or thought that it deserved no Punishment, or needed no Pardon: For a past Act in it self is now no∣thing, and is capable of no Remission but Forgive∣ness. 4. Or when they do talk of Guil•• of Pu∣nishment, they lay so much of the Remedy on Man's Satisfaction, as if Christ's Satisfaction and

Merits had procured no pardon, or at least, of no temporal part of Punishment. 5. And hence they ignorantly revile the Protestants, as if we denied all Personal Inherent Righteousness, and trusted only to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as justifying wicked unconverted Men: The Papists therefore say not that we are innocent or sinless, (really or imputatively); no not when they dream of Perfection and Supererrogation, unless when they denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Con∣dition of the Law of Grace, and not that of In∣nocency.

2. But if any of them do as you say, no wonder if they and you contend: If one say, We are In∣nocent, or Sinless in reality, and the other, we are so by Imputation, when we are so no way at all (but sinners really, and so reputed); what Reconcilia∣tion is there to be expected, till both lay by their Errour?

Object. 5. How can God accept him as just, who is really and reputedly a Sinner? This dishonoureth his Holiness and Justice.

Answ. Not so: Cannot God pardon sin, upon a valuable Merit and Satisfaction of a Mediator? And though he judg us not perfect now, and accept us not as such; yet 1. now he judgeth us Holy, 2. and the Members of a perfect Saviour; 3. and will make us perfect and spotless, and then so judg us, having washed us from our sins in the Blood of the Lamb.

Object. 6. Thus you make the Reatus Culpae, not pardoned at all, but only the Reatus Poenae.

Answ. 1. If by Reatus Culpae be meant the Re∣lation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator, and so to be Reus, is to be Revera ipse qui peccavit; then we must consider what you mean by Pardon: For if you mean the nullifying of such a Guilt, (or Reality) it is impossible, because necessiate existen∣tiae, he that hath once sinned, will be still the Per∣son that sinned, while he is a Person, and the Re∣lation of one that sinned will cleave to him: It will eternally be a true Proposition, [Peter and Paul did sin]; But if by Pardon you mean, the par∣doning of all the penalty which for that sin is due, (damni vel sensus) so it is pardoned; and this is indeed the Reatus poenae: Not only the Penalty, but the Dueness of that Penalty, or the Obligation to it, is remitted and nullified.

2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpae you mean an Obligation to Punishment for that Fault, this being indeed the Reatus poenae, as is said, is done away. So that we are, I think, all agreed de re; And de nomine you may say that the Reatus Culpae is done away or remitted, or not, in several senses: In se it is not nullified, nor can be: But as Dueness of Punishment followeth, that is pardoned.

Object. 7. You have said, That though we were not personally but seminally in Adam when he sinned, yet when we are Persons, we are Persons guilty of his actual sin: And so we must be Persons that are Par∣takers of Christ's Actual Righteousness, and not only of its Effects, as soon as we are Believers. For Christ being the Second Adam, and publick Person▪ we have our part in his Righteousness, as truly and as much as in Adam's sin.

Answ. 1. We must first understand how far Adam's sin is ours: And first I have elsewhere pro∣ved that our Covenant-Ʋnion and Interest supposeth our Natural Ʋnion and Interest; and that it is an adding to God's Word and Covenant, to say, That he covenanted that Adam should personate each one of his Posterity in God's imputation or account, any further than they were naturally in him; and so that his innocency or sin should be reputed theirs, as far as if they had been personally the Subjects and Agents. The Person of Peter never was in Reality or God's Reputation, the Person of Adam. (Nor Adam's Person the Person of Peter): But Peter being virtually and seminally in Adam, when he sinned, his Person is derived from Adam's Per∣son: And so Peter's Guilt is not numerically the same with Adams, but the Accident of another Subject, and therefore another Accident, derived with the Person from Adam (and from nearer Pa∣rents). The Fundamentum of that Relation (of Guilt) is the Natural Relation of the Person to Adam, (and so it is Relatio in Relatione fundata). The Fundamentum of that natural Relation, is Ge∣neration, yea a series of Generations from Adam to that Person: And Adam's Generation being the Communication of a Guilty Nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters, is the fundamentum next following his personal Fault and Guilt charged on him by the Law: So that here is a long series of efficient Causes, bringing down from Adam's Person and Guilt a distinct numerical Person and Guilt of every one of his later Posterity.

2. And it is not the same sort of Guilt, or so plenary, which is on us, for Adam's Act, as was

on him, but a Guilt Analogical, or of another sort: that is, He was guilty of being the wilful sinning Person, and so are not we, but only of be∣ing Persons whose Being is derived by Generation from the wilful sinning Persons, (besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity): That is, The Relation is such which our Persons have to Adam's Person, as make it just with God to desert us, and to punish us for that and our pravity together. This is our Guilt of Original sin.

3. And this Guilt cometh to us by Natural Pro∣pagation, and resultancy from our very Nature so propagated. And now let us consider of our con∣trary Interest in Christ.

And, 1. Our Persons are not the same as Christ's Person, (nor Christ's as ours) nor ever so judged or accounted of God.

2. Our Persons were not naturally, seminally, and virtually in Christ's Person (any further than he is Creator and Cause of all things) as they were in Adams.

3. Therefore we derive not Righteousness from him by Generation, but by his voluntary Donation or Contract.

4. As he became not our Natural Parent, so our Persons not being in Christ when he obeyed, are not reputed to have been in him naturally, or to have obey∣ed in and by him.

5. If Christ and we are reputed one Person, ei∣ther he obeyed in our Person, or we in his, or both. If he obeyed as a Reputed Sinner in the Person of each Sinner, his Obedience could not be meritori∣ous, according to the Law of Innocency, which required sinless Perfection; And he being suppo∣sed

to have broken the Law in our Persons, could not so be supposed to keept it. If we obeyed in his Person, we obeyed as Mediators, or Christ's, of which before.

6. But as is oft said, Christ our Mediator under∣took in a middle Person to reconcile God and Man, (not by bringing God erroneously to judg that he or we were what we are not, or did what we did not, but) by being, doing, and suffering for us, that in his own Person, which should better answer God's Ends and Honour, than if we had done and suffer∣ed in our Persons, that hereby he might merit a free Gift of Pardon and Life (with himself) to be gi∣ven by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Ac∣cepters. And so our Righteousness, as is oft open∣ed, is a Relation resulting at once from all these Causes as fundamental to it, viz. Christ's Merito∣rious Righteousness, his free Gift thereupon, and our Relation to him as Covenanters or United Be∣lievers. And this is agreed on.

Object. 8. As Christ is a Sinner by imputation of our sin, so we are Righteous, by the imputation of his Righteousness. But it is our sin it self that is imputed to Christ: Therefore it is his Righteousness it self that is imputed to us.

Answ. 1. Christ's Person was not the Subject of our personal Relative Guilt, much less of our Ha∣bits or Acts.

2. God did not judg him to have been so.

3. Nay, Christ had no Guilt of the same kind reckoned to be on him; else those unmeet Speeches, used rashly by some, would be true, viz. That Christ was the greatest Murderer, Adulterer, Idolater,

Blasphemer, Thief, &c. in all the World, and con∣sequently more hated of God, (for God must needs hate a sinner as such). To be guilty of sin as we are, is to be reputed truly to be the Person that com∣mitted it: But so was not Christ, and therefore not so to be reputed. Christ was but the Mediator that undertook to suffer for our sins, that we might be forgiven; and not for his own sin, real or justly reputed: Expositors commonly say that to be [made sin for us], is but to be made [a Sacrifice for sin]. So that Christ took upon him neither our numerical guilt of sin it self, nor any of the same species; but only our Reatum Poenae, or Debt of Pu∣nishment, or (lest the Wrangler make a verbal quar∣rel of it) our Reatum Culpae non qua talem & in se, sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae: And so his Righteousness is ours; not numerically the same Relation that he was the Subject of made that Relation to us; nor yet a Righteousness of the same Species as Christ's is given us at all, (for his was a Mediators Righteousness, consisting in, 1. perfect Innocency; 2. And that in the Works of the Jew∣ish Law, which bind us not; 3. And in doing his peculiar Works, as Miracles, Resurrection, &c. which were all His Righteousness as a conformity to that Law, and performance of that Covenant, which was made with, and to him as Mediator). But his Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause and Rea∣son of another Righteousness or Justification (di∣stinct from his) freely given us by the Father and himself by his Covenant. So that here indeed the Similitude much cleareth the Matter; And they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin it self in its formal Relation to be his own, and so

Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Re∣deemed set together, and they that will not over∣throw the Gospel, by making us formally as Righ∣teous as Christ in kind and measure, must needs be agreed with us in this part of the Controversie.

Object. 9. When you infer, That if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ, we cannot be again bound to obey our selves afterward, nor be guilty of any sin; you must know that it's true, That we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did, (which is to redeem us, or to fulfil the Law of Works) But yet we must obey to other ends, viz. In∣gratitude, and to live to God, and to do good, and other such like.

Answ. 1. This is very true, That we are not bound to obey to all the same ends that Christ did, as to redeem the World, nor to fulfil the Law of Innocency. But hence it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our Persons legally, but in the Person of a Mediator, seeing his due Obedi∣ence and ours have so different Ends, and a diffe∣rent formal Relation, (his being a conformity proxi∣mately to the Law, given him as Mediator) that they are not so much as of the same species, much less numerically the same.

2. And this fully proveth that we are not reckon∣ed to have perfectly obeyed in and by him: For else we could not be yet obliged to obey, though to other ends than he was: For either this Obedience of Gratitude is a Duty or not; If not, it is not truly Obedience, nor the omission sin: If yea, then that Duty was made a Duty by some Law: And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude (or

for what ends soever) either we do all that we are so bound to do, or not. If we do it (or any of it) then to say that we did it twice, once by Christ, and once by our selves, is to say that we were bound to do it twice, and then Christ did not all that we were bound to, but half: But what Man is he that sinneth not? Therefore seeing it is certain, that no Man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gospel, (in the time and measure of his Faith, Hope, Love, Fruitfulness, &c.) it followeth that he is a sinner, and that he is not supposed to have done all that by Christ which he failed in, both because he was bound to do it himself, and because he is a sinner for not doing it.

3. Yea, the Gospel binds us to that which Christ could not do for us, it being a Contradiction. Our great Duties are, 1. To believe in a Saviour. 2. To improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of Faith. 3. To repent of our sins. 4. To mortifie sinful Lusts in our selves. 5. To fight by the Spi∣rit against our flesh. 6. To confess our selves sin∣ners. 7. To pray for pardon. 8. To pray for that Grace which we culpably want. 9. To love God for redeeming us. 10. Sacramentally to co∣venant with Christ, and to receive him and his Gifts; with many such like; which Christ was not capable of doing in and on his own Person for us, though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them, and pray for the pardon of our sins, as in our selves.

4. But the Truth which this Objection intima∣teth, we all agree in, viz. That the Mediator per∣fectly kept the Law of Innocency, that the keeping of that Law might not be necessary to our Salvati∣on,

(and so such Righteousness necessary in our selves) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency, and be saved upon our sincere keeping of the Law of Grace, because the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator, and thereby the Grace of the New-Covenant merited, and by it Christ, Pardon, Spirit and Life, by him freely given to Believers.

Object. 10. The same Person may be really a sinner in himself, and yet perfectly innocent in Christ, and by imputation.

Answ. Remember that you suppose here the Per∣son and Subject to be the same Man: And then that the two contrary Relations of perfect Innocency, or guiltlesness, and guilt of any, (yea much sin) can be consistent in him, is a gross contradiction. In∣deed he may be guilty, and not guilty in several partial respects; but a perfection of guiltlesness ex∣cludeth all guilt. But we are guilty of many a sin after Conversion, and need a Pardon. All that you should say is this, We are sinners our selves, but we have a Mediator that sinned not, who merited Pardon and Heaven for sinners.

2. But if you mean that God reputeth us to be perfectly innocent when we are not, because that Christ was so, it is to impute Error to God: He reputeth no Man to be otherwise than he is: But he doth indeed first give, and then impute a Righte∣ousness Evangelical to us, instead of perfect Inno∣cency, which shall as certainly bring us to Glory; and that is, He giveth us both the Renovation of

his Spirit, (to Evangelical Obedience) and a Right by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteous∣ness of Christ that merited it; And this thus given us, he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us.