The Life of Justification Opened

CHAP. XII.

Some other objections, proposed by John Goodwin, examined.

MR. John Goodwin proceedeth, in his forementioned book Chap. 9. and forward, to propose some Arguments, against the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, which in order fall under consideration.

Obj. 1. That Righteousness, which will not furnish all Believers with all points or parts of that righteousness, which the law requireth of them, cannot be imputed to them unto justification. But such is the Obedience, that Christ performed unto the Moral Law. Therefore &c. Ans. (1.) We plead not only for the Imputation of Christ's Obedience to the Moral Law; but for the Imputation of His whole Surety Righteousness, that is, of all He both did & Suffered, as the designed & appointed Surety. (2.) This Argum, though it be levelled only against the Imputation of Christ's Obedience; yet it equally wageth war against the Imputation of His Sufferings: for as to the Satisfaction & payment of the old Covenant, or His Suffering of death, it may be also said. The payment of the penalty must be such, as they, for whom it was laid down, were otherwise lying under, & under a necessity to pay it themselves. But Christ's death & payment was not such; for He did not suffer the same, as to duration, nor as to concomitant despair, & other evils, that would necessarily attend the same in Man, & doth attend it in the damned. Which consideration is enough to render this Argument suspected of falsehood, unto all such, as are not bred in the School of Socinus.

Let us see, how he confirmeth this Argum. & particularly the first proposition thereof. Because (saith he) a complete legal righteousness requireth a punctual through-obedience unto all things in the Law, in reference to each man's place & Calling. Ans. But we may distinguish the proposition thus. That righteousness, which will not furnish all believers with every specific & individual act of obedience, which is required of them, in their places & Stations, i.e. Is not made up of, nor expressly & explicitly comprehendeth in it all these particular Acts, specifically & numerically considered, cannot be imputed unto them in justification; It is false in this sense. But if it be thus taken. That righteousness, which neither did comprehend in it, not was made up of every specific & numerical Act, required of them, nor yet was infinitely transcending & exceeding the obedience of all men whatsomever, in all their distinct and particular occasions, Relations, places, & Callings, & brought more glory unto God, the Law-giver, and was a fuller proclamation of the holiness of the Law and of the Law-maker, and acknowledgment of His Authority; and with which the great Rector of the world and Law-giver was fully satisfied in all points, cannot be imputed; in this sense it may be granted. But then the Minor is palpably false; and so the Conclusion is null. And as to the first sense, or branch of the distinction, it is no way touched, let be weakened by the confirmation mentioned, as everyone may see. And so the Argument is null. And as for the ground & relevancy of the distinction, it is clear from what is said, touching the Sufferings of Christ; so that it can be denied by none, who are not professed Socimans.

To confirm the Minor, he tells us of duties of Servants, Masters, husbands wives, judges &c. Ans. The distinction given maketh all this useless, and to no purpose. Christ obeyed perfectly the same Law, we were lying under, & that as made under the Law, and as willingly subjecting himself thereunto, in our room and stead, as Surety and Sponsor; and this obedience of His was full, perfect end Compleat, for He fulfilled all righteousness. Mat. 3: 15. He was, dureing His life, holy, harmeless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, Heb. 7: 26. He knew no sin 2. Cor. 5: 21. No man could convince Him of sin. John. 8: 46. Yea the father was well pleased in Him Mat. 3: 17-& 17: 5. And this perfect and full obedience, which Christ gave unto the Law, which He came to fulfill Mat. 5: 17. being the obedience of one, who was God, equal with the Father, had in it a Supereminent excellency, worth and dignity, to the full Satisfaction of the Law and of the Law-giver, and to the repairing of that loss, and to the recovering of that Glory, which was wronged by man's violation of the Law. So that howbeit He performed not all duties, which were required of every one of the Chosen ones, in their several Sexes, Ages, Relations, occasions and Callings, which was Impossible and not needful: Yet He performed that obedience to the Law of God, which was required of Him, as standing in the room and stead of the given ones, and that in all points, yea and full obedience, wherewith the Supreme Law-giver was fully Satisfied. And, Sure, every unprejudiced person may easily see and be convinced, that this perfect and complete obedience of Christ is moreable to furnish believers with all points of Righteousness, which the Law requireth, than the single act of faith, which our Adversaries Substitute in the place thereof. Shall we think, that God accepteth of, in place of all, and imputeth that unto believers for their Righteousness, rather than the Full and perfect Obedience of Christ? Shall one imperfect Act of obedience be of more value, than the Full and perfect obedience of Christ? W • ence we see, that whatever show our Adversary maketh with this Argument against us; yet it is of no weight with himself; for as He useth it against the Imputed Obedience of Christ, so we may use it, with much more strength of reason, against the Imputation of our Faith for Righteousness, as is obvius.

We need not take notice of that objection, which He moveth against himself pag. 101. viz. That love is the fulfilling of the Law; nor of his Replies made thereunto: for we assert Christ's fulfilling of the Law in another manner, and upon other grounds: He fulfilled all righteousness, and performed all particular acts of obedience, required of Him as our Surety, so that the Father was well pleased with Him: and what more is requisite!

He moveth another objection pag. 103. viz. That it is not necessary, that men should have all particular Acts of Righteousness, qualified with all circumstances, imputed to them, it being Sufficient, that such a righteousness be imputed, which is equivalent; yea and more than equivalent, as bringing more glory to God, and as much worthy in itself. He answereth. 1. The Law will not know anything by way of proportion, but must have its jot for jot, title for title, or else it will curse. Ans. (1.) We are to regard here more what the Law-giver and Supreme Rector will know, than what the letter of the Law will acquiesce in. (2.) This taketh away the Satisfaction of Christ, and all His Sufferings, as Mediator, and destroyeth that ground of our hope and Salvation: for the Law, as to its letter, saith, the Soul that sinneth to it shall die; and hath not one jot or title of the Satisfaction and Suffering of a Mediator. (3.) What shall our Adversary now do with faith? doth any jot or title of the Law countenance the Imputation of faith, for a proportionable Righteousness? doth faith answer every jot, title, point and letter of the Law? He answereth. 2. To impute acts of Righteousness to a Man, which are proper to another calling, is rather to impute sin, than righteousness, Ans. Christ was a public person, appointed of the Father to represent all the chosen ones, & did, in their place & room, fulfill the law, in all points, according as was required of Him, by the Supreme Lord Rector & Law-giver; & this perfect & complete Obedience is made over to all those, who are His; & not one part to this particular Believer, and another to another, or some acts to this man, & some other acts to that man: & therefore this reply is groundless.

As to that viz. That God inflicted on Christ, not the circumstantiat curse threatened, but its equivalency, he saith. 1. That in these words, Thoushalt die the death, there is no necessity to mean precisely & determinatly eternal death, according to the letter. Ans. If that was not threatened in the Law, no man shall suffer it, for the breach of the Law; and so there shall be no eternal death even to such as perish, which yet himself granteth. (2.) It was a spiritual death, and such as includeth many circumstances, which Christ neither could, nor did suffer. He saith 2. God's meaning there was not, to threaten eternal death in one kind, or other; but to have the word death understood, as it indifferently signifieth that evil of punishment, which was known by that names for eternity is not of the essence of the punishment, due unto sins. Ans. The doubt remaineth concerning other circumstances, & ingredients of that death, as threatened to man. And whether eternity be of the Essence of the punishment, threatened for sin, or not; this is sure, that all, for whom Christ hath not suffered, shall perish eternally; & all had perished eternally, if Christ had not suffered: And when God threatened death to man, he know, that if that threatening did overtake him, his death would be eternal. He saith 3. Though God should take liberty to vary from the letter of the Curse; yet it followeth not, that the creature, who was bound to obey the precepts of the Law, might take the like liberty to do one thing, instead of another; or that God should accept any such payment for them. Ans. We assert no liberty for man: but why should not this liberty be allowed to the Supreme God? All the reason he giveth, I find to be this. That God accepteth on any man's behalf, as a perfect legal righteousness, the performance of such things, which are not required of him, hath no correspondence with any of the Covenants. Ans. If God could accept that, as a perfect Satisfaction, which did not every way answer to & correspond with that, which Man himself was to suffer; why might He not accept of that, as a perfect legal righteousness, which did not in all particulars, answer to, & correspond with that, which every believer was obliged unto? What reason is, or can be given for the one, which will not hold for the other? The answer he hath given, is no answer unto this. Perfect obedience was required of all by the first Covenant, & Christ did perform perfect obedience for all His own; & this being a perfect legal Righteousness, is sufficient for all; & is not the performance of such things, as are not required of them.

Obj. 2. Chap. 10. pag. 107. That Righteousness, which is exactly and precisely fitted to the person of Him, that is Mediator between God & man, cannot be imputed unto any other man. But such is the Righteousness of Christ. Ergo. The Major he thus confirmeth. He that assumeth this Righteousness of Christ, represents himself to God, in the glorious attire of him, who maketh men righteous, & may conceue himself as great in holiness, as Jesus Christ himself &c. Ans. Christ's Righteousness was indeed the Righteousness of a Mediator & Surety; & therefore was imputable to all, who by faith should be married to Him, & have union with Him, as their Head, & Husband, & are become one person in Law with Him, as their Representative & Surety; though not as it was subjected in Him, but according to the nature of the thing, & to their necessity. Hereby therefore is no wrong done to Christ, no robbing of Him of His mediatory glory; but, on the contrary, a more clear & manifest ascribing of the same unto Him, by acknowledging Him for the only Mediator, & by resting on Him, & on His Righteousness, as our only Righteousness and ground of Acceptance. We clear the matter thus. When the payment of a Surety is imputed to the debtor, and he pleadeth the same in court, for his own absolution, he doth no injury unto the cautioner; but rather declareth himself unable to pay, & ascribeth the honor of the payment unto the Surety: for he doth alleige or produce that payment, as if he would thereby declare, that he himself; as Surety, had paid the sum for another; but only produceth the payment of a Surety, in reference to himself, as a ground sufficient in Law, whereupon he should be absolved from the Charge, given-in against him by the creditor. So when the believer applieth to himself the Righteousness of Christ, he doth not make himself a Mediator or Surety; but only applieth the Righteousness & payment of his Surety, Head & Husband, for his own use, to answer the charge given-in against himself, and in reference to his own particular case & necessity. Hereby the believer doth not assume to himself an equality of Righteousness with God himself; but only assumeth that Mediatory & Surety-righteousness, which He wrought, who was equal with God, & was God, so far as their own case & necessity requireth. We dream of no such imputation, as would give ground to us to conceit ourselves to have done & said all that He did & said. This is the fiction of the Adversary, not our Assertion.

Against the consideration of the Union betwixt Christ, as the Head, & believers as the Members, which is the ground of this Imputation & communication, He saith pag. 113. 1. Christ & Believers are a mystical body, & therefore an universal agreement, in all things, with a natural body, cannot be thought on; one difference is this, what one member of the body natural doth, the whole may be said to do. But not so in the mystical body; the body of Christ cannot be said to have wrought miracles &c. Ans. Nor de we asserte an agreement betwixt this mystical body & a natural body, in all points: But yet, as Christ accounteth Himself a sufferer, when the members of His body are suffering, as such: So what Christ did, as an Head to His mystical Body▪ and Spiritual Kingdom, according to the designation and appointment of God, who made Him both King & Lord, must redound to their advantage, according to their necessity; and therefore what He did, as a public Head & Representative, must be imputed unto them, who are of His Body, & were undertaken for & represented by Him.

He saith, 2. Though the benefit of what the head doth, be communicated to the whole body; yet what the head doth, is no ways to be imputed to hand, or to foot. Ans. The hand or foot needeth no imputation of what is done by the head, but a community, or political body, and every member thereof, needeth an Imputation of what is done for their good, & in their Law-place, by their Head & public Representative. And in this matter, we look upon Christ, as such an Head.

Against the Marriage Union betwixt Christ & Believers, mentioned as another ground to clear this Imputation, he saith 1. It is true, the wife by marriage, comes to be endowed with all that is her husbands, but this endowing is no ingredient into the marriage itself, but a fruit thereof; so the right, which a believer hath to the Righteousness of Christ, accrueth unto him by & upon this Spiritual marriage; and therefore it cannot be imputed to him. The marriage must be first made up, before the right be had unto this Righteousness. Ans. If the right unto Christ's Righteousness accrue unto Believers by & upon their Spiritual marriage with Christ, this Righteousness must be imputed to them, and reckoned upon their score, or made over unto them, as the dowry is made over to the wife and reckoned hers, upon her marriage. We grant the marriage is first made up, and that this is done by faith; and yet at the very act of believing, this Righteousness is imputed. This marriage Union is first in order of nature, but no time interveeneth betwixt this Union and the Imputation of Righteousness. He saith 2. all that is the husbands is not every way the wifes, nor for every use & purpose, but only in a way of expediency and beneficialness; as his clothes are not hers to put on: so the believer must take heed of assuming the glorious rob of His Righteousness to himself, other ways than in the benefit and comfort of it. Ans. All that is the husband's becometh the wifes by Marriage, for every use and purpose, that her necessity calleth for, and the nature of the thing admitteth; as his riches becometh hers to her maintenance, and to the paying of her debt; and his honor becometh hers, to the exalting of her to a Suitable state of honor; even so must Christ's Righteousness become the Believers, that his debt may be paid, and he saved out of the hand of justice, & advanced to a state of life, and have right to glory.

Obj. 3. Chap. 11. pag. 118. If God hath sufficiently provided other ways for the justification of his people, He doth not impute this Righteousness of Christ for that end. But God hath provided other ways for this end. Which he thus prodeth. He that is completely justified by having his sins forgiven, is justified without this Imputation. But a believer is sufficiently justified before God by the forgiveness of sins. Ergo. Ans. Though a person justified is pardoned, yet justification includeth more, than mere pardon of Sins. Justification is the pronouncing and accepting of a person as Righteous; and therefore the person so justified and accepted must be righteous: and seeing he is not inherently righteous, he must be righteous by Imputation. What he said to this purpose before Chap. 5. of his book (to which he here remitteth us) hath been examined already. What he addeth here, shall now be considered, waving men's Sayings, wherewith I purpose not to medle here. He citeth again to this purpose Rom. 4: 6, 7. to which we spoke above. He supposeth, that the Apostle here did intend a full description of justification; But this he cannot clearly evince, & he forgetteth, that the Apostle maketh mention of Imputed Righteousness; and that not as one and the same thing with free Remission, but as inseparable from it. The Apostles design was not to give here a full Definition or description of Justification, it being Sufficient to the purpose he had in hand, to mention so much thereof, as did clearly & irrefragably confirm the same viz. That the blessed state of justification is not brought about, or had by the works of the Law: yea, (as is said) that very Imputation of Righteousness is not only included in the word blessedness, by which this State of justification is expressed; for a blessed man is one, who not only is freed from guilt and punishment, but hath also a right to the Crown, and to the rich recompense of reward, which is not had without a Righteousness; but is plainly also expressed, when he saith, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. Here is a Righteousness, even a positive Righteousness, mentioned, and a Righteousness imputed, and a Righteousness without our works of obedience to the Law. Hence we need not assert any Synecdoche here; or say, that a part is put fought the whole, which yet is no unusual thing in Scripture; and might be admitted here, even in this matter, without any absurdity; seeing where one part of this business is mentioned, the other is necessarily understood, because of the necessary & inviolable connection, that is betwixt them.

He saith further pag. 130. If forgiveness of sins be but a part, and the worser half of our justification, then when the Scripture saith, we are justified by His blood (Rom. 5: 9.) the sense must be, we are justified by half through his blood, but the better half of our justification must come another way; for by his blood we cannot have his active Righteousness imputed to us. (1.) We use not to make such comparisons betwixt these things (here called parts) had in justification; as to call the one the better part, and the other the worser part, both being requisite to make up our state of blessedness, and necessary thereunto. (2.) When the Scripture saith, we are justified by His blood, the meaning is not, we are justified by the half through His blood: for half justification is no justification. (3) Nor is the Reason added of any force: for by blood here, we may as well understand, by a Synecdoche, His active Righteousness, as all His passive, both being but integral parts of His Surety-righteousness, & emphatically expressed by His death, or blood, the most remarkable piece thereof, & expressive of His love and condescension, and terminating point of Surety-obedience; for He said, it was finished, when He offered up Himself, & gave up the Ghost.

He addeth, So where it is said again Chap. 5. verse 16. that the gift ( viz. of Righteousness by Christ ) is of many offenses unto justification: If the gift of many offenses, i.e. the forgiveness of Mans Sins, will not amount to a justification, without the Imputation of a legal Righteousness, we must give a check to Paul's pen. Ans. This is but vanity: we need give no check unto the Apostle's pen: for though He said not in this verse expressly, that there was a gift of Righteousness also imputed; yet he said it expressly verse 17. & 18. & 1. And shall we think, that in such a continued discourse, as this is, wherein the Apostle is explaining the whole mystery by its parts, he should mention all things, in one verse?

He proceeds to prove, that Remission of sins is the whole of justification pag. 131. Because the end (saith he) for which this Imputed Righteovsness of Christ is thus brought in to the business of justification, viz. to be the Right to the Inheritance, is supplied in a way more evangelical, & of more sweetness & dearness to the Children of God, to wit, by the grace of Adoption, Ans. To this we have said enough above, & will have occasion to speak again to it, in the next objection.

He addeth further 4. That if we thus separate and divide the benefit of Christ's Active and passive Obedience, in Justification, we take a course to lose & destroy both. Ans. Not to transcribe his tedious discourse, on this accout, I only say, That it is wholly founded upon a mistake, as if our showing the necessity of the Imputation of both, were a separating or dividing of the benefit of both, whileas the whole Effect floweth from the whole cause, both Christ's Active & His passive obedience making up one complete Surety-righteousness; and so producing one whole blessedness to believers, consisting in Remission of Sins, & in a Right to Glory: we say with him, that neither of them separated or abstracted from the other can profit us; and therefore we assert the Imputation of both, as one complete Surety-righteousness, answereing our necessity in all points. His own words pag. 132. 133. make clearly for us. I would not have (saith he) the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive, nor again the passive from the active, in respect of the common & joint effect, justification, arising from a concurrence of them both; yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap; for this would be to deface the beauty and excellency of that wisdom, which shines forth gloriously, in the face thereof. I would have everything, that Christ was, did-and suffered, to be distinguished, not only in themselves; but also in their proper and immediate Effects, respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally.

Lastly. He tells us, If the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be added, as another part of justification, then must the formal cause of one & the same Effect be double; yea one & the same formal part of the thing shall be compounded of two things, of a diverse and opposite consideration. Ans. We make the Imp • tation of Christ's Righteousness not a part of justification; But the cause of it; and yet the formal cause of one and the same Effect is not made double▪ for as the Cause is one complete Cause, viz. the Surety-righteousness of Christ, so the Effect is one complete Effect, though both Cause and Effect may be considered, as consisting of several Integral parts. There is no ground here to say, That one and the same formal part of a thing is compounded of diverse or opposite things.

Obj. 4. Chap. 12. Pag. 136. &c. That which dissolveth and taketh away the necessity & use of that sweet evangelical grace of Adoption, cannot hold a straight course with the thruth of the Gospel. But this is done by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Ergo. The Minor, which is only here to be denied, he laboreth to prove, because we say, The Righteousness of Christ must be imputed in order to our obtaining Right and Title to Life; & that by Remission of Sins a man is only delivered from death, but receiveth no Right to the Kingdom of heaven. But what can he hence infer for confirmation of the Minor? Now (saith he) this being the direct & proper end, use, office, purpose & intent of Adoption, to invest a believer with a capacity with heaven; it follows, that whosoever shall attempt to set anything else upon this throne, seeks to dissolve Adoption. Ans. The Consequence is null. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will no more take away Adoption, than justification; for it is the ground and Cause of both. He might as well say, That because in and by justification, we have Remission of Sins, to assert the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings for this end, is to dissolve justification. But the truth is clear, as was explained above Myst. 14.

He thinks both cannot stand together, because either of them is a complete & entire Title within itself; perfect Righteousness is a perfect title alone; so is Adoption or Sonship. Ans. (1.) This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings, as against justification: for either of these is a complete Title (according to our Adversary) to Immunity from death: perfect Satisfaction is a perfect title alone to this Immunity, as well as perfect Righteousness is a perfect title to the Inheritance: & Justification or Remission of Sins, (which are one with him) is also a perfect Right to this, as well as Adoption is a perfect Right to that. (2) But as Justification is founded upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ; so is Adoption. As Christ's death and Satisfaction is not formal pardon, or Right to Impunity, but is, when Imputed, the ground and cause of justification, wherein the Believer is solemnly brought into a state of freedom from death: So Christ's Obedience and Fulfilling of the Law is not a formal Right unto the inheritance, but, when Imputed and received by faith, the ground and cause of Adoption, whereby the Believer is, as it were, solemnly infeoffed of the Inheritance. Here then is nothing in vain; but all things so ordered, as may most commend the riches of the wisdom & Grace of God; & may most ensure life and all to the • eleever. So that his following discourse is mere froath and vanity: for, as God may appoint moe means for the same end, as He pleaseth; as His promises, oath & Sacraments to confirm the faith of believers; so there can be no reason given, why it may not be so here: & yet, to speak properly, Adoption is no mean, or Cause of the Right and Title to Glory, being the solemn Collation of that Right to the believer, or the solemn stating of him in that Right; as justification properly is no Mean to or Cause of pardon and Acceptation of Sinners, but rather the solemn bringing of them into or placeing of them in that state of peace, Pardon and Reconciliation, who believe in Jesus and lay hold on His Righteousness. What he speaketh of the opposition betwixt the Law and the promise, in giving of life from Gal. 3: 21. is most Impertinent; so also is that, which he saith from Gal. 2: 21. for though it be an abrogating and making void of the ordinances of God, when another thing, that is contrary & expressly excluded by the Lord from that office & work, is set up with it, to bring the same end to pass, or to serve in the same place and office: yet is there not the least color of ground to say, That if our Right & Title to heaven be by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, then doth God give the grace of Adoption in vain: for the Righteousness of Christ is the Meritorious procuring Cause of this Right and Title to heaven; and when this is Imputed & made over to the believer, he receiveth the Effect and▪ Fruit of that purchase viz. an Actual Right to glory, & is solemnly infeofed (as it were) thereof. What ignorance & folly would it discover in a man, to say, That the legal installing of a man by public seasing & Infeofment in the legal Right to & possession of such a Land, or House, is that which giveth the man Right; and therefore the price he hath laid down, to purchase that Land, or house, hath no Interest or Consideration in that purchase, for these two cannot consist, the one must necessarily render the other useless; if he hath made a purchase of the Land & house by his money, he needeth no Charter or Infeofment thereof: or if his Charter & Infeofment giveth him Right to possess the same, the price laid down is of no use? would not everyone smile at such Non-sense? And yet so reasoneth this learned Adversary, who will have the Righteousness of Christ laid by, which is the only price and purchasing Merite of our Right to Heaven; or the Grace of Adoption, whereby the believer becometh legally (as it were) infeofed of the Inheritance. It is vain, if he should think to escape by saying. That he acknowledgeth the price of Christ's Righteousness; but speaketh of the Imputation of that Righteousness, in order to this Right; For the Imputation of this Righteousness is but the Interessing of the believer in that price, as the price of such a purchase, to the end he may receive the legal infeofment of the Inheritance purchased, in Adoption.

Obj. 5. Chap. 13. pag. 145. He that hath a perfect & complete Righteousness of the Law imputed to him, standeth in need of no Repentance. Ans. This Consequence is utterly false, as was shown above Chap. 6. Mystery. 13. Repentance is not prescribed in the Gospel, for any such use or end, for which the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is called for. If Adam (saith he) had kept the Law, he had needed: no Repentance, more than Christ himself needed; & those that kept the Law in him, as exactly & perfectly as he did, what more ne • d of Repentance have they, than he had, Ans Adam, it is true, had needed no Repentance, if he had kept the Law: But the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness & obedience to us, though thereby we come to enjoy the Effects & purchase thereof, as really as if we had Fulfilled the Law ourselves; yet it maketh us not to have been no sinners; nor doth it exeem us from the Law, in time coming, nor put us out of case of sinning anymore; and consequently prejudgeth not the true & lively exercise of that grace of Repentance.

He addeth. He that is as righteous, as Christ is, (which those must needs be, who are righteous with His righteousness) needeth no more Repentance, than He needed. Ans. We do not love to say, that believers, through this Imputation, are as Righteous, as Christ was: for that expression might import that thereby they become as Righteous inherently, as He was; which is false: But that thereby they are legally accounted Righteous, to all ends & purposes, as if they themselves, in their own persons, had Fulfilled the Law: And therefore, though thereby they become, in Law-sense, Righteous; yet they are inherently ungodly & unrighteous, till sanctifying grace make a change here; & therefore stand in need of Repentance.

To that That Believers need Repentance for their daily & personal failings, he saith, But they that have an entire & perfect Law-righteousness Imputed to them, have no such need, in any respect; because in the Imputation of a perfect Righteousness, there is an universal non-Imputation of sin apparently included. Besides, if God doth Impute a perfect Law-righteousness, it must be supposed, that the rights & privileges, belonging to such righteousness do accompany it, in the Imputation—Now, one main privilege hereof is to invest with a full & entire right unto life, out of its own intrinsical & inherent dignity & worth, which is a privilege, wholly inconsistent with the least tincture of sin, in the person that stands possessed of it. Ans. Where there is an Imputation of a perfect Righteousness, there there is an universal Non-Imputation of sin, in reference to actual condemnation, or to the prejudging of the person, partaker of this Imputation, of the reward of life; but as this Imputation of Righteousness maketh not a sinner to have been no sinner; so neither doth it make their future sins to be no sins, or them to be no sinners, in time coming; because it is imputed for no such end. (2) It is true, the Rights & privileges, belonging to this Righteousness, do accompany the Imputation thereof; & that thereby believers become invested with a full & entire Right to life, because of its intrinsical & inherent dignity; but it is utterly false, to say, That this full & entire Right to life is inconsistent with the least tincture of sin, in the person possessed of it: & hereby he must say one of these two; either that there is no full Right had to life, while persons are in this life; or that there is a full and sinless perfection attainable and had by all believers; so that they sin no more, Both which are most false.

But what will he say of Faith, which he will have imputed for Righteousness, seeing this must bring along with it the same privileges; & so exclude Repentance too? To this he saith. The meaning is not, as if God either Imputed, or accepted, or accounted faith for the self same thing, which the Righteousness of the Law is intrinsically & formally; or as if God, in this Imputation, either gave or accounted unto faith any power or privilege to justify, out of any inherent worth of it. But the meaning only is, that God, upon Man's faith, will as fully justify him, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Law • He that fulfilled the Law & thereby is justified, is justified out of the inherent dignity of that, which justifieth him; but he that is justified by faith, is justified by the free & gracious acceptation of it by God; for that, which is justifying in its own Nature, & by virtue of its inherent worth & dignity. Ans. What God Imputeth & reputeth to be a Righteousness, in order to justification, must be accounted such, or a man shall be justified, without all consideration of a Righteousness▪ and so be pronounced & declared Righteous, though he be not Righteous upon any account, or in any manner of way: And if faith be not accounted for the self same thing, or for the equivalent with the Righteousness of the Law, how shall it be accounted a Righteousness, in order to the justification of a sinner, who is under the Curse of the Law, & who, because of the breach of the Law, hath no right to life? wherefore faith must have that inherent worth, that the Righteousness of the Law should have had, else it cannot be a Righteousness, whereupon a sinner can be justified before God, who is Just and Righteous, and will not pronounce such to be Righteous, as are not Righteous. (2) If God, upon a man's faith, will as fully justify a man, as if he had fulfilled the Law, either that faith must be a Righteousness, and so accounted, which he here denieth; or the man must be declared Righteous, who hath no Righteousness; and so the judgment of God should not be according to truth; or upon his believing he must be justified, as being Righteous by an Imputed Righteousness; which is the thing he peremptorily denieth. (3) When one is justified by faith, by God's free & gracious Acceptation of it, this act of grace must either import, that faith is accepted as a Righteousness, & so accounted of God; or still the believer shall be declared and pronounced Righteous, though he hath no Righteousness; or the meaning of this Acceptation must be, that God hath graciously condescended to appoint this mean & way of sinners having an Interest in the Righteousness of Christ, whereby he may be accounted Righteous & justified, as really, as is he had performed that Righteousness himself, in his own person: & in this sense, it is most true, but utterly destructive of his design. (4) If faith be accepted for that, which is justifying in its own Nature, & by virtue of its Inherent worth & dignity, it must either be that, which is of such inherent worth, or it must be accepted for that, which it is not, & so a man must be judged by God to have that, which he hath not.

He concludeth thus. Wherefore, the Imputation of faith for righteousness may well stand with personal sins, in him, to whom this Imputation is made, in respect of which sins he remains obliged to repent: but the Imputation of a perfect legal Righteousness makes a man perfectly righteous in the letter & formality of it. Ans. Then it seemeth that by the Imputation of faith for Righteousness, a man standeth not invested & possessed of a full & entire right unto life: for that, he said before, was a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least tincture of sin. (2) If by a perfect legal Righteousness, he mean a Righteousness required of the Law & performed by us personally, we plead not for the Imputation of any such: but if he mean a Righteousness consisting in full conformity to the Law, performed by Christ & graciously imputed to us, & received by faith, that is well consistent with inherent & personal sins. What he meaneth by making a man perfectly righteous in the letter & formality of it. I know not, till some be pleased to explain it.

Obj. 6. Another argum. he prosecuteth pag. 149. &c. thus. If men be as Righteous as Christ himself was, in his life, there was no more necessity of His death for them, than for himself▪ then the just should not have died for the unjust, but for the just. Ans. If we had not transgressed the Law, there had been no necessity, that either we, or any for us, should have died; but having transgressed the Law, & thereby fallen under the Curse, & wanting all right to life, we must have a Surety-righteousness, whereby not only the Curse shall be taken away, but the blessing of Abraham may come upon us, & we may have a full right to life: & therefore both the Active & passive Righteousness of Christ is necessary (2) Christ died for the unjust, because His death, which was the period & terminating act of His obedience, and Surety righteousness, which He undertook to perform in our room and Law-place, was for sinners, lying under the Curse, & void of all right & title to life. He imagineth, that first Christ's Active Righteousness is imputed, & thereby the person is constituted Righteous; & then inferreth the non • necessity of Christ's death: By we say, that Christ's whole Surety-righteousness, consisting in what He did & suffered, in His state of Humiliation, in our room, and as Cautioner, is at once imputed, and not in parts; that so the necessity of sinners may be answered in all points.

He thinks to prove this consequence by these words Gal. 2: 21. If righteousness be by the Law, then Christ died in vain; rejecting the sense of the word Law, viz. as importing the works of the Law, as performed by us, in our own person, & thereby doing violence to the whole Scope of the place, & to the constant acceptation of the expression; & supposing that the Consequence will be strong, though the works of the Law, as performed by Christ, be here understood; & that merely upon this false ground, Because the Righteousness of Christ's life imputed had been a Sufficient, & every ways a complete Righteousness for us. Nor need we say, as he saith in our name, That there was a Necessity, that Cbrist should did, that so the righteousness of His life might be imputed to 〈◊〉 . For the necessity of His death arose from our transgressing of the Law, & being under the Curse.

Obj. 7. Chap. 14. pag. 151. He alleigeth, that this Imputation evaniateth Remission of Sins, saying, for if men be righteous with the same righteousness, wherewith Christ was righteous, they have no more need of pardon, than He had. Ans. We spoke to this above. Chap. 6. Mystery 11. & therefore need say no more here, then that the Consequence is null, & that the probation is insufficient, for though we be constituted Righteous through the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; it is but a Surety-righteousness, & not our own inherently: & the Surety not being of our appointing or fitting & furnishing, our pardon is a Consequent & Effect of this Imputation. (2) The consequence is no more valide from the Imputation of the Active Righteousness of Christ, than from His passive and Satisfaction: and so with Soci • ians, he must also hereby deny Christ's Satisfaction, that he may establish his free Remission. But Gospel free forgiveness is rather established, than any way weakened by our Assertion of the Imputation of Christ's whole Surety-righteousness.

He addeth, Christ hath taught us to pray for forgiveness of Sins: now to pray for that, and yet to conceit ourselves as righteous, as Christ was, is rather to mock, than to worship. Ans. This expression to conceit ourselves as righteous as Christ was, is none of ours; & though it may admit of a good sense as being true, quoad veritatem, though not quoad modum: yet because it is so ambiguous, & liable to misconstruction, I chose rather to forbear it, seeing no necessity touse it. And to conceit ourselves legally & juridically righteous with the Imputed Surety-righteousness of Christ, is very consistent with praying for pardon: for Christ's Surety-righteousness is not, nor yet said to be, imputed for this end immediately, that all our after actions should be sinless; but to this end rather, that we may have actual pardon of by past sins, & of future sins too, after the method of the Gospel; and that none of our sins should actually procure our Condemnation, or prejudge us of eternal Felicity; but that notwithstanding thereof, we should not come into condemnation, but enter into life.

He saw, that what he here objecteth against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, will militat as much against the Imputation of Faith, which must derive a righteousness upon the person, as perfect and complete, as the Righteousness of the Law; & so can leave as little place for Remission, as what we plead for; and therefore to obviat this, he tells us. That when faith is imputed, another thing is imputed▪ then the righteousness of the Law itself, to wit, faith, by name, instead of it: Now any other righteousness, or any other thing imputed for righteousness, besides the righteousness of the Law, will bear a consistency of sin with it, & of remission. Ans. If by the righteousness of the Law here, he only meaneth that, which we perform in our own persons, it is true, that is inconsistent with sin or pardon: but it is false, if he understand thereby, the righteousness of the Law, performed by another, Christ our Surety. And sure, if his faith be accounted a Righteousness, it must be a Righteousness, or God's estimation is not just: & if it be a Righteousness; it must be accompanied with all the privileges of a Righteousness (as himself saith) and consequently exclude all Sin & Remission, if these be such concomitans of an Imputed righteousness.

He addeth, when a perfect Sanctification is imputed to a man for his justification▪ that man can be no more reputed to have sin in him, than to be obnoxious to death, which is opposite to justification. Ans. And no wonder; for perfect Sanctification being a perfect inherent holiness, cannot, without a contradiction, but exclude sin. But who speak of such an Imputation of Sanctification? We know no such thing; for Sanctification is wrought & inherent in us, & not imputed to us. If he mean by this perfect Sanctification, the perfect Obedience and Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we say, though that perfect Sanctification or Righteousness could be consistent with no sin in Christ; yet, when imputed to us, it can consist with sin inherent in us, & with pardon of sin also; as we have already cleared.

Further saith he. But when that, which either is no Sanctification, or at most, but an imperfect Sanctification, is imputed for Righteousness in a man's justification, place is left for inherency of sin, & consequently for the forgiveness of it. Ans. That which is no Sanctification, or at most, but an imperfect Sanctification, must either be no Righteousness, or at most, an imperfect righteousness; and therefore cannot be reputed or accounted a perfect righteousness; and so cannot be imputed to a person, in order to justification. Or if we should suppose, that God did make it, & really repute it to be a righteousness, it must be a complete righteousness; & consequently inconsistent with pardon, because it shall hereby become a complete inherent Holiness & Righteousness.

Obj. 8. Chap. 15. pag. 153. &c. Whoseever is perfectly righteous, or as righteous as Christ is, in him God can see no sin. But every believer (saith this opinion, which we impugn) is as perfectly & completely righteous, as Christ himself is. Therefore &c. Ans. How false this consequence is, was manifested above Chap. 6. Mystery 15. And now, waving that expression of being as righteous, as Christ himself is. I distinguish the Major thus, Whosoever is perfectly righteous with an inherent Righteousness (taking perfection here not for kind, but for degrees) in him God can see no sin, true: but in this sense the Minor is false. Whosoever is perfectly Righteous with an Imputed righteousness, in him God can see no sin, or order to actual condemnation, it is true, but then the Conclusion containeth nothing but truth. It is true, God could see no sin in Christ, because there was no sin existing in Him; yet He can see sin in believes, in whom sin existeth, notwithstanding they be clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ, which only maketh, that God can see no sin in them, for which He will actually bring them into condemnation; and this is consonant to Scripture Rom. 8: 1.

Obj. 9. Another Reason he proposeth Chap. 16. pag. 154. &c. alleiging; That by this Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, we confound the two Covenants of Works & of Grace. But as to this, we have cleared the truth above Chap. 6. Mystery 16. Nor need we be much troubled at his bold alleigance; fo • not we, but he & others with him, by his opinion, in pleading for the sole Imputation of faith, as our Gospel Righteousness, to which some add other works of obedience, do turn the Gospel into a new Covenant of Works: for if faith, properly taken, alone, or conjunct with other works of Righteousness, which we do, be all our Gospel-righteousness, we are justified by our own personal obedience & righteousness; and this was the plain tenor of the Covenant of works: The variation of the obedience, now required from what was of old, though now it be but as a pepper corn, in comparison of the greater rent formerly required, doth make no alteration in the Nature and Essence of the Covenant: for justification & life is still by works of righteousness, which we do, and which are our own. But when the Righteousness of a Surety is imputed, & we are upon that account accepted, though the righteousness, wrought by the Surety, be obedience to the same Law, that was in force under the first Covenant, & which we were obliged unto, & lying under the Curse of (as it must needs have been, seeing He did substitute himself in our place, & took our debt upon Him) the Covenant is altered: for the first Covenant knew no Righteousness, but what was our own & personal; & did not admit of a Surety. Thus these two Covenants are not confounded by us, but kept manifestly distinct; & we cannot own their Gospel-way of justification, as being a way to bring us back again to the old Covenant of works, with a mere pretext of some ease, as to the Conditions, or Termes.

Yet he would prove, that the two Covenants are made one by us, thus, where the parties Covenanting are the same; & the things covenanted for are the same; and the Conditions or agreement the same, there the Covenants are every way the same. But if the Righteousness of the Law imputed to us be the agreement, or Condition of the New Covenant, all the three, persons, things, & Conditions are the same. Ans. (1) It may be questioned, if either the persons Covenanting, or the things Covenanted for, in both Covenants, be the same every way; but to speak of this is not our present purpose (2) The Covenants do not agree, as to their Conditions; for the condition required in the Covenant of works, was a proper antecedent condition, which is a cause of the thing promised; but the Condition of the New Covenant is only a consequent condition, denoting nothing else, than a connection, or order betwixt the thing promised, & the condition required. (3) The Righteousness of the Law imputed to us, is no condition required of us, in the New Covenant; but it is required of us, that by faith we close with Christ, & thereby come to have an Interest in Christ, & in all His Righteousness, to all ends and purposes; which our case and necessity calleth for. (4) This Righteousness of the Law was called for from us, in our own persons, in the old Covenant; but in the New Covenant, the righteousness is Imputed to us, when we believe in Him. And this, as is said, is enough to distinguish these Covenants.

But he thinks. The Righteousness of the Law imputed from another, & wrought by ourselves do not much differ, the substance being the same. Ans. Yet this difference may make a substantial difference in the two Covenants: for when the Covenant of Works did not admit of the performance of the Conditions by a Surety, as himself proved by four Arguments pag. 155. And the Covenant of Grace holdeth forth justification only through the Righteousness of another, imputed to us, & received by faith: Though the Righteousness, mentioned in both, consist in conformity to the same Law; yet the Covenants cannot but substantially differ, as is obvious to everyone. Beside, that the righteousness imputed consisteth in more, than in Obedience to the Law; for it comprehendeth his whole Surety-righteousness; & that took in His Sufferings also. The following objection, which he preoccupieth, is purely his own, & so I leave it.

Obj. 10. Chap. 17. pag. 158. &c. That for which Righteousness is imputed to those that believe, cannot be imputed to them for righteousness. But the Righteousness of Christ is that, for which righteousness is imputed to those that believe. Ergo. The Assumption he thinks none will deny, but such as deny the righteousness to be the Meritorious Cause of that Righteousness or justification, which is conferred upon men. The Major he thus proveth If it be Impossible, that the thing merited should be the same thing, with that, which is the Meritorious Cause thereof, then it is not only not true, but impossible, that the Righteousness of Christ should be the Righteousness of a believer. But the former is true Ergo &c. Aus. This is nothing but a pure fallacy, founded upon a palpable mistake viz of confounding righteousness & justification as if they were one & the same. To discover this, let us put Justification for Righteousness in the first Argument, thus. That for which believers are justified, cannot be imputed to them for righteousness, But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which believers are justified. Therefore &c. Who seeth not now, how false the Major propositions is; & how impertinent & ridiculous the probation thereof is? justification, which is the Effect, or the thing merited, is not the same thing with the Righteousness of Christ, the Meritorious cause thereof.

Obj. 11. pag. 160. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a believer for righteousness, in his justification, then the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed. But that cannot be imputed. Ergo &c. He proveth the Minor, which is denied, thus, Because the Meritorious cause, being a kind of Efficient cannot be either the matter, or the form of that, whereof it is Efficient—It is an Inviolable Law amongst the four kinds of causes, Material, Formal, Final & Efficient, that the two former do only ingredi composition, or effectum, & are partes rei constitutae; & that the two latter are always extrinsical, & stand without. Ans. All which is but vain argueing, grounded upon this palpable mistake, that justification is a physical Effect, like the whiteing of a wall; (which is the example, whereby, he illustrates the matter) & therefore he thinketh, that these terms are used, in this matter, in as proper a sense, as when they are applied to physical causes & Effects; whileas the matter is quite otherwise; & many of these terms are here used, but in a metaphorical sense. But to the matter, whether Imputed Righteousness, be called the Material cause, with some, or the formal cause, with others, of justification, is no great matter, seeing everyone hath liberty to explain, in what sense he useth these terms, in this matter; & I should rather choose to use the term (if such like terms must be used) of the formal objective cause, or Reason; This is enough to us, That it is that, whereby they become juridically righteous; & that, upon the consideration whereof, now imputed to them, they are pronounced Righteous & justified; & so is the meritorious cause of their justification, & that Righteousness, which covereth them, & upon the account of which, they are declared & pronounced Righteous: as the payment of the Surety, is as the meritorious cause in Law of the absolution of the debtor, & the ground upon which he is absolved, being accounted his payment, because the debtor & Surety are one person in Law. As in a juridical sentence of Absolution of an accused debtor, there is no proper formal, or material cause; so neither in the matter of justification, which is God's juridical Act & Sentence.

Yet I cannot acquiesce to what he addeth, saying That only remission of sins or absolution from punishment, is as the form applied unto, or put upon the matter, & the matter or subject itself, where unto this form is applied; Not only because, according to his own argueing, one thing cannot be both matter & form of the same thing; but because Remission of sins in hereby made the whole of justification; whereas to speak properly it is but an Effect or consequent, or at most a part thereof; & the person justified is properly absolved from the accusation & declared to be Righteous; & so is legally constituted or put into a state of Righteousness, or of Righteous persons, whereupon followeth freedom from guilt, or punishment, & a Right to the reward: & as to this State, whatever we shall conceive as the form thereof, it must be a Righteousness; & consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed; for sinners can have no other.

Obj. 12. If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us, thon the Effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also; & so we may be said to have merited both our own justification, & salvation: for if I may be accounted or reputed to have wrought that Righteousness, which is meritorious, why may I not be conceived as well to have merited? Nay further, if I may be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness in Christ, whereby I am justified myself, I may as well be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness, by which the whole world is justified. Ans. This is but a mere sophism, founded upon a mistake: The consequence is false, & the proof thereof standeth only upon this rotten bottom. That to say, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, is to say, that we are reputed, esteemed, or accounted to have done or wrought that Righteousness ourselves; whileas the true meaning of Imputation is this. That the Righteousness of Christ is made over by grace unto Believers, & reckoned upon their score, where by they are dealt with now, no other ways, than if they had fulfilled all Righteousness, in their own person. Whence it is clear, that the Effects cannot be said to be imputed to us; but only that we partake of the Effects thereofs, so far as our own Necessity requireth: As the Ransom paid for the Redemption of so many captives, is imputed to each of the captives, in order to his own Redemption, & to none of them as Redemption of others: & without this Imputation, or reckoning it upon their score, as the price of their Redemption, no man could have right to the Effects thereof in reference to himself, or could be redeemed thereby. So that it is manifest, that through the meritorious cause, or the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, we obtain justification & Salvation; but do not merit them: our Redeemer & Surety meriteth them for us, & we enjoy what He merited for our own happiness. It is false then to say, That by Imputation we are conceived to have wrought that righteousness in Christ, whereby we are justified: & therefore it cannot but be most false to think, That we may be conceived to have wrought that righteousness also, by which others are justified; for it was only our Head, Husband, Surety & Redeemer, who wrought it, & free grace imputed it to, or reckoneth it upon the score of Believers.

Obj, 13. chap. 18. pag. 165. If the active Righteousness of Christ be in the letter & formality of it imputed unto me, in my justification, then I am reputed before God, to have wrought that righteousness in Christ. But this is false &c. Ans. Neither proposition is true: The Major is denied, unless by these word, letter and formality, he understand such an Imputation, as we do not acknowledge, & his words would seem to import this: for (saith he, in confirmation of the Major) to have anything imputed to a man, in the letter of it, is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him: And if this be the only sense of his proposition, the conclusion maketh not against us: for we asserte no such Imputation, as inferreth such a Reputation, Nay, to say, That God should repute things so, were to destroy all Imputation, for what God (whose judgment is according to truth) • eputeth us to have done, we must have done it; & if we have really done it, & be reputed to have done it by the Lord, it cannot be said to be imputed to us, in the sense we take Imputation; for Imputation with us, is of that, which we have not, or did not, & which God knoweth & judgeth we did not; & yet is by Imputation so made over to us, & put upon our score, & reckoned upon our account, as that we are as really made partakers of the Effects thereof, that is, of justification &c. As if we had done it ourselves, or it had been ours, without & before any Imputation. Hence the believer is made the righteousness of God in Christ; & not reputed, or esteemed to have been the righteousness of God, but now, through the gracious Imputation of God, & through faith made to be so.

Hence we see, that the proof of his Minor goeth upon the same Mistake if (saith he) I be reputed before God to have wrought Righteousness, in Christ in my justification, then is Christ, in His Sufferings, reputed before God to have sinned in me. Ans. We say neither the one, nor the other. Christ did not sin in us, nor did the Lord repute Him to have done so. But he was made sin, by Imputation; the guilt of sin being laid upon Him; or our sins, as to their guilt, being caused to meet on Him. Whence it came to pass, that He suffered as really the punishment of sin, as if He had sinned in us, whileas, as to His own person, He knew no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth.

Obj. 14. pag. 166. If the Active obedience of Christ be imputed, then His Passive is imputed also. Ans. And why not? If the death & Sufferings of Christ (saith he) be imputed unto me; then may I be accounted or reputed to have died or suffered in Christ. But this cannot be: because in Christ, we are justified & absolved from punishment; & therefore cannot be said to have been punished in Him. Ans. This whole Argument is of a piece with the foregoing: Though therefore it be upon the matter answered already: Yet we shall add this word further. That though in one sense it is false, to say, That we are reputed to have died & Suffered in Christ viz physically; yet in a legal sense, it may be admitted, as a truth, that Believers, who now by faith are in Christ, & of His Body, are accounted & reputed to have suffered in Christ, their Head, Surety & Public person; & therefore are now dealt with, as, such. Hence they are said to be crucified with Christ, to be dead & buried with Him, & to be risen with Him Rom. 6: 4, 5, 6. Ephes. 2: 5, 6. Col. 2: 12. Yet it will not follow hence, that in a legal sense Christ can be said to have sinned in us; for we were not His Representative or Head. Though the debtor may be said, in Law sense, to have paid his creditor, in his Suretys payment; Yet the Surety cannot be said to be contracting debt, in the debtor, for the debtor's deed cannot affect him, until he voluntarily submit himself to be Surety, where may be after the debt is already contracted by the debtor. And to say, in this Law sense, that Believers Suffered in Christ, doth not weaken the ground of our justification, absolution, Acceptation, & Healing, as is manifested above, unless we turn. Socinians; & then upon this same ground, we may deny all the Satisfaction of Christ.

Obj. 15. pag. 168. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, then are we justified, at least in part, by the ceremonial Law; because part of that Righteousness, which Christ wrought, stood in obedience to the ceremonial Law. But this is not true. Ergo &c. Ans. We are not said to be justified either by the Moral, or by the Ceremonial Law; But by the righteousness of Christ, which consisted in yielding perfect obedience to the Law of God, & in answering all the demands of the Law, in the behalf of His own. And so, though the Law doth not justify us, because we are sinners; yet neither can the Law now condemn us, because Christ, our Surety, hath perfectly fulfilled it, & given full Satisfaction to the Law given, for our violation thereof. And, in this matter, the Ceremonial Law is not to be separated from the Moral, it being but a branch, or an Appendix thereof, & enjoined thereby: for the Moral Law saith, that God must be worshipped only that way, which Himself hath prescribed, & that Ceremonial worship being the then Instituted worship of God, whosoever knowing this did not worship God after that manner; did violat the Second of the Moral Law, which became not Him to do, who came to fulfill all righteousness. And thus the righteousness of obedience, that is Imputed, is Moral, or righteousness consisting in obedience to the Moral Law. And this is wholly imputed to all believers, whether of Jews, or of Gentiles, in reference to their own Redemption, or delivery. The objection, which he frameth against himself. viz. That the Moral Righteousness is Sufficient, & the other needeth not be imputed, is none of ours, as appeareth by what is said; for we do not exclude the Ceremonial, But reduce it to the Moral, obedience to that being enjoined by this.

Obj. 16. Chap. 19. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us, then are our sins imputed to Christ, the same manner. But this is not so. Ergo. The Minor he proveth thus If the sins of Men be imputed to Christ, then God looks upon Him, & reputes Him, in His Sufferings, as one that truly & really had provoked Him, & sinned against Him. Ans. This consequence is denied; for no such Reputation, or Estimation followeth upon the Imputation, which we assert, as hath been already cleared: only this will follow, that Christ being, through His own willing consent, in our Law-place, as our Surety, & having undertaken to pay our debt, He was exacted upon, & dealt with by Justice, as if He had been the true sinner, though He knew no sin; as Believers, having Christ's righteousness imputed to them, are dealt with, as if they had kept the Law, & made Satisfaction by themselves. But as God doth not look upon them, nor esteem, nor consider them, nor repute them, as having really fulfilled the Law in their own Physical persons; so nor doth He look upon, esteem, consider or repute Christ to have been truly & really a Transgressour of the Law, in His person. Hence we see, that his proof, that God did not look upon Christ so, is impertinent; for we do not say so, knowing that to look upon Christ, as one that had truly sinned, were to look upon Him, as deserving in Himself what was inflicted upon Him; & that God's judgment is always according to truth; & that Christ knew no sin in Himself, but was made sin, as having the guilt of our sins imputed to Him, when He put Himself in our room & Law-place; & so He died & Suffered for us, in our stead, & became a Sacrifice for sin, having the guilt thereof laid on Him.

Obj. 17. pag. 173. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us, in our justification, then God doth look upon us, as worthy of that justification. But this is an unclean saying. Ergo. The Major he thus proveth. If God reputes me to have kept the Law, as perfectly as Christ did, He must conceive of me, as worthy of my justification; for as the fulfilling of the Law, & deserving justification, are the same Rom. 4: 4. So the reputing of a man to have done the one, is the reputing of him to have deserved the other. The Minor he thus confirmeth, Because then God should show us no grace or favor in our justification. (Rom. 4: 4. with Rom. 11: 6) But if any favor be shown, it is only in this, that He reputeth us worthy to be justified, or puts a worthiness upon us for justification; whereas the Scripture expressly affirmeth, that God justifieth the ungodly, that is the unworthy Rom. 4: 5. Ans. Unto all this, I say (1.) We say not, that God imputeth to us the righteousness of Christ, in justification; But that He doth it in order to justification. (2.) Though Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us; Yet it will not follow; that God looketh upon us, as worthy of our justification, viz in ourselves: & it may be yielded, that He looketh on us, when clothed with Christ's righteousness, a worthy of justification, viz in Christ our Surety 〈◊〉 with whose righteousness we are now covered, when it is imputed unto us. But then the conclusion will make nothing against us. (3.) If the meaning be, that therefore God looketh upon us, as worthy of justification in ourselves, the consequence is false; & the Reason adduced for confirmation is invalide: for the Text Rom. 4: 4. speaketh of him that worketh, & so hath the ground of the merit in himself: he indeed that fulfilleth the Law in himself deserveth to be justified. And let our Adversaries see to this, who will have no Righteousness imputed, but our own faith, which is in us, & is our own, & is, in their account, as good as the fulfilling of the Law, & is accepted for that end: for Sure, such as have this faith, which is in them, reputed for their righteousness, upon the account of which they are justified, must have the reward reckoned to them, not of grace, but of debt; & so must merit & deserve their justification, in full & proper sense. (4.) It is not to be admitted, as a truth, without the forementioned distinction, to say, that the reputing of a man to have done the one, is the reputing of him to have deserved the other, for to repute a man to have done the one, in his own person, is indeed a reputing of him to have deserved the other. But we assert no such Reputation in God; for His judgment is according to truth; But only assert an Imputation, which taketh away this Reputation, these two being inconsistent: & from this Imputation can no such thing be inferred. (5.) It is true, if we deserved justification, justification should be no act grace; but we deserve no such thing, being in ourselves, & as to ourselves, indeed ungodly; yet when justified, we are looked upon as clothed with the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, & received by faith: & so, though our justification be merited by Christ, & be an Act of justice & truth in God, in reference to Christ; yet as to us, it is of free grace; & so much the more of free grace, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for that end. And such as understand not this, are more principled with Socinian abominations, than with the doctrine of the Gospel of the grace of God.

Obj. 18. pag. 173. If men be formally just by God's act, imputing Christ's righteousness, then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God, imputing Adam's sin. But this is not true: for then an Act of God should be as the life & soul of that sin, which is in men. Ergo Ans. As this argument concludeth nothing against the truth, now asserted, this conclusion being different from the question now in hand; so it is but a mere exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical terms & notions, that thereby the truth may be more darkened. We are not obliged by any Law of God, to explain or interpret these mysteries of Salvation, according to these Notions, which men explain after their own pleasure, knowing no Law, constraining them to follow either one man or other, in the arbitrary sense, which they put upon these terms. But as to the present • rgument, no answer can be given, until it be known, what is the true meaning of these words formally just. Possibly he will understand hereby the same, that others mean by Inherently just, & so indeed do all the Papists: And if so, we can answer by saying, That no orthodox man thinketh or saith, that in this sense, we are made formally just by God's act imputing Christ' righteousness; but by Holiness, wrought in us by His Spirit. And as to that righteousness, which is imputed, whether it be called the Formal, or the Material cause of our justification, it is but a nominal debate, having no ground, or occasion, in the Word of God, by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts & expressions, in this matter. Nor do they, who say, we are formally just by Christ's righteousness, say, we are formally just by God's Act imputing that righteousness; But by the righteousness itself imputed by God & received by faith. Nor do they say, that men become formally sinful by the like act of God, imputing Adam's sin unto his posterity, but by Adam's sin imputed: though God's Act be the cause of this effect, it is not the effect itself. Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners, that is guilty & obnoxious to wrath: so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute believers Righteous.

Obj. 19. pag. 175. If justification consists in the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, partly in Remission of sins, then must there be a double formal cause of justification, & that made up & compounded of two several natures, really differing the one from the other. But this is impossible, Ergo. Ans. (1.) This Argument is founded upon another School-nicety, or notion, viz the Simplicity & Indivisibility of Natural forms: & this Philosophical Notion is here adduced to darken the mystery, we are treating of. It were a sufficient answer then to say, That the Minor, though it be true in natural forms; Yet will not necessarily hold, in the privileges of Saints, which may be single, or compounded, as the Lord thinketh meet to make them. And can any reason evince, that the Lord cannot confer & bestow, in the grand privilege of justification, moe particular favoures than one? Can He not both pardon sins, & accept as, & declare to be Righteous? Can He not both free the believer from the condemnation of hell, & adjudge him to the life of glory? or cannot these two be conceived as two things formally distinct, though inseparable? (2.) But I shall not say, That Imputation of Christ's righteousness is a part of justification; But rather that it is the ground thereof, & necessarily presupposed thereunto. Nor shall I say, that Remission of sins is the form, or formal cause of justification; a pardoned man, as such, not being a justified man. It is true, pardon of sins doth inseparably follow upon, & is a necessary effect of our justification, & a certain consequent of God's accepting of us, as righteous in His sight, upon the account of the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us & received by faith. I grant also that justification may be so described, or defined, as to take in that Effect, without making it thereby a formal part thereof, when strickly considered. (3.) But he will have Remission of sins to be the whole of justification, & nothing more included therein, or conferred thereby, abusing to this end (as we heard above) Rom. 4: 6, 7, 8. Where the Apostle is citing the words of the Psalmist & is not giving us a formal definition of justification; nor saying, that justification is the same with Remission; nor that Remission's the formal cause of justification: but only is proving, that justification is not by our works, as the ground thereof, & that by this reason, Because that would utterly destroy free Remission, which is a necessary Effect & consequent of Gospel-justification, & cannot be had without it; in order to which justification, he there asserteth expressly an Imputation of righteousness: Now, an Imputation of righteousness is not formally one & the same thing with Remission of sins; nor can Remission of sins be-called a righteousness, or the Righteousness of God, or of Christ: yet the Man is a blessed man, whose sins are covered, because that man is necessarily covered with the righteousness of Christ, whose sins are covered: for Imputation of righteousness & free pardon do inseparably attend one another. Nor is it to the purpose to say. That pardon is a passive righteousness, though not an Active righteousness; for all righteousness, rightly so called, is conformity to the Law, & that is not a passive or Negative righteousness, which may be in a beast, that transgresseth no Law, & consequenly hath no unrighteousness.

Obj. 20. pag. 176. If such Imputation be necessary, in justification, this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God, or in respect of His Mercy, or for the salving or advancing of some other attribute. But there is no necessity in respect of any of these. Ergo. Ans. (1) This same man tells us, that there is a necessity for the Imputation of faith, as our Righteousness, not withstanding of all that Christ hath done; and why may he not grant the same necessity for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ? will it satisfy him, that we found the necessity of Imputation of Christ's Righteoufness on the same ground? (2) Though we should not be in case to assign the real & just ground of this necessity; yet, I judge, it should satisfy us, that the Lord, in His wisdom & Goodness, hath thought fit to appointe and ordain this method & manner of justification; & so far should we be from disputing against this Truth, with such Arguments, & from rejecting of it until we be satisfied, as to the grounds of necessity requiring this, that we should receive it, close with it, and embrace it with all thankfulness, as a Mystery of Love, free Grace & wisdom, that Angels may wonder at. (3) Yet, accrding to the Scriptures, we may say, that the Truth & Justice of God require this: for His judgment is always according to truth Rom. 2: 2. and it would be an abomination in His eyes to justify one every way wicked. Therefore, if He pronounce a person righteous, in His sight, which He doth when He justifieth a person, that person must be a Righteous person: but when no man can be justified, or pronounced Righteous, as being inherently Righteous Psal. 130: 3. & 143: 2. all, who are justified, must be clothed with an Imputed Righteousness: for God must be just, even when he justifieth him, which believeth in Jesus Rom. 3: 26.

In reference to the justice of God, he saith, That there is nothing at all necessary to be done either by God himself, or by man, about justification of a sinner, by way of Satisfaction to the justice of God, since that one offering of Christ of himself upon the cross. Ans. We plead not for Imputation, upon any such account: nor do we see the least ground to think, that this should derogat any thing from the full & complete Satisfaction of Christ, made to justice, or from the price, laid down by Him, as if this Imputation were required, to supply something wanting there: Yea our doctrine of Imputation doth rather confirm & establish the same, it being an application of the Sponsor's Surety-righteousness, or payment & Satisfaction unto the debtors, in order to their Absolution & freedom from the sentence. Though the Surety hath paid the creditor; yet the Law may require, that when the debtor is charged or challenged for the debt, the payment of his Surety be instructed & made manifest unto the judges: And yet it will not hence follow, tha • the Satisfaction or payment, made by the Surety, was defective and insufficient.

He further saith. That God can as well and as truly pronounce that Man righteous, that wants a literal or legal Righteousness (especially supposing▪ he hath another Righteousness, holding any Analogy or proportion thereto) as he may account any Mans uncircumcision circumcision Rom. 2: 26. Ans. That the Lord may deal with one uncircumcised, that keepeth the Law, no less than if he were circumcised; and so thereby declare, that He valueth not outward circumcision so much, as the Jews were ready to dream, who questieneth? But what is this to the business in hand? shall we therefore think, that the Lord, whose judgment is according to truth, shall account any Righteous, who have no righteousness? Shall we think, that the Righteous judge shall pronounce & declare him to be Righteous, who is not so? (2.) He may think to ward this of by his parenthesis; But, I pray, what is that other righteousness, that holds any analogy or proportion to the righteousness, required by the Law of God? Is that the single Act of faith? Sure, that must hold a very unproportionable proportion & a poor analogy unto Obedience to all commands of God! I need not take notice of that word legal righteousness literally so called; for he hath many such of little other use, than to amuse the Reader, & darken the matter (3.) If by this proportionable righteousness, he mean the righteousness of Christ, which may be said to hold an analogy to the righteousness of the Law, which man was obliged to perform, which possibly he understandeth by a legal righteousness literally & properly so called, he speaketh truth, & yieldeth the cause; for that is it, we contend for.

But afterward he seemeth to tell us, what he meaneth by analogical righteousness, saying So may God, with as much righteousness & truth, pronounce, & call or account a man righteous, that is not strickly, properly or literally, such, if he hath any qualification upon him, that any way answereth, or holdeth proportion, in any point, with such a Righteousness, as he should do, in case this man had this legal righteousness upon him, in the absolutest perfection of the letter. Ans. And who may not see the folly of this Reddition, to infer this from the Lord's calling John the Baptist Elias & the like? Will he make the Lord's pronouncing sentence, in judgment, as a righteous judge (as He doth in the matter of justification) to be such a figurative speech, as when John Baptist was called Elias, because he had some resemblance to Elias, when he came in his Spirit & power? Will he be accounted a righteous judge, upon earth, who in judgment should pronounce that man righteous, who, instead of the righteousness he should have had, hath only one poor qualification upon him, that some way or other holdeth proportion with it, in any point? If so, it will be a great question, if ever any wicked man can be condemned, seeing it will be rare to find one, that hath never all his days done something, that answereth to the Law, in some poor way or measure, as to same one point or other. Yea, if we might drive this further, it might be made probable, that hence it would follow, that all the world should be justified even in the sight of God. But enough of this, which is too too gross. Yet woe hear not what that qualification is.

He saith, when God pronounceth a man righteous, it is sufficient to bear out the justice & truth of God, if his person be under any such relation, & condition, as belongeth to a legal righteousness, or which a legal righteousness would cast upon him. Ans. What before was called a Qualification, is here called a Relation, or condition; & these seem not to be one & the same thing: But what if that Relation, or condition have no foundation, how shall the Lord, upon that account, pronounce such a person righteous? or, though it be not founded upon a legal righteousness, performed by the man's self in his own person, yet may it not be founded upon a Surety-righteousness imputed?

But what is this? He addeth, Now, one special privilege or benefit belonging to a perfect legal righteousness, is to free the person, in whom it is found, from death & condemnation, & he that hath his sins forgiven him, is partaker with him in the fullness of this privilege, is as free of condemnation, as he Ans. But he hath not yet proved, that any man is pardoned, without the Imputed righteousness of Christ: & beside, righteousness bringeth with it, as a special privilege or benefit, right to the promised Inheritance of Glory: But a pardoned man, as such, hath not this Right, nor yet can challenge it, as was shown above. Moreover, if God pronounce a Man righteous, because he is pardoned, then the man must be pardoned, before he be justified; for in justification he is declared & pronounced Righteous, & not made such: & if he be pardoned, before he be justified pardon is not the form of justification, nor the whole thereof, as he saith, but rather something antecedent thereto.

What in fine he saith, is but what we have often heard viz That forgiveness of sins, is a true & complete righteousness, in the kind, a passive righteousness, as absolute & perfect in the kind of it, as any Active righteousnest: And for him that hath once sinned, there is no other righteousness applicable to him, but only this, which for all other ends, purposes, advantages, privileges what some ever, is as offectual as the active righteousness itself could be. Ans. (1.) No Scripture calleth pardon of sins a righteousness (2.) A passive righteonsness is no righteonsness, as we lately made appear. (3.) That another righteousness, even the positive Surety-righteousness of Christ, is applicable unto a sinner, hath been hithertil evinced. (4.) pardon, as such, can give no Right to the reward, promised to obedience; & therefore cannot be as effectual, as an active righteousness, to all Ends, purposes, Apvantages & privileges.

Obj. 21. Chap. 20. That, which having been dhne, in our own person, could not have been our justification, nor any part of the righteousness, by which we could have been justified, cannot be made our justification, nor any part of it, by Imputation from another. But such is the righteousness of the Law, pretended to be imputed from Christ. Ergo &c. Ans. (1.) We do not call the righteousness of Christ our justification; nor do we say, that it is made our justification or any part of it, by Imputation unto us: nor yet do we make it a part only of the righteousness, by which we are justified; for His righteousness is the whole of that righteousness: Nor by His Surety-righteousness imputed to us, do we understand only His Active obedience to the Law. (2.) He here Supposeth that we say, there is nothing imputed to us, in order to our justification, but Christ's Obedience to the Law, without His Satisfaction by Suffering: And thus we see, the main pilla • s of this Argument are weak, & its whole foundation being sandy, it cannot stand.

He confirmeth the Major thus. If a personal fulfilling of the Law could have been no justification, nor part of justification to us, certainly an Imputative fulfilling of it could not have been either. The Imputation of a thing from another cannot add any strength to it, above a personal acting, yet the Nature of Imputation is only to supply the defect of personal performance, & therefore cannot exceed it. Ans. Though obedience to the Law cannot avail us, now we are sinners, even though it were perfect (which is in effect a supposition of what is impossible yea & self contradictary, & therefore can lay the foundation of no truth, in an Argument) yet it could have availed Adam, while standing, & us in him. (2.) The Righteousness, which is now imputed, is not the Righteousness of a sinner; & so cannot be called the same with that Rightoeusness, which is supposed to be done by us, who are sinners: for the Righteousness in the supposition had been no righteousness at all, not being complete & perfect. Now, who seeth not, that the Imputation of a perfect righteousness hath other strength & virtue, then that hath which is personal & Imperfect? (3.) The Imputation of an Obedience, perfect & complete, can avail such, as are recocciled by the death of Christ, when personal obedience, suppose it never so full (if the supposition could be made) cannot avail such, as are under God's curse because of sin already committed.

He confirmeth the Minor thus, Man being once fallen & made obnoxious to condemnation, can never be recovered again by ten thousand observations of this Law. Ans. Though the observation of the Law, could it now be done by fallen man, which is impossible, cannot avail unto justification; yet, as is said, it could have availed man, while standing: & man remaining still under the obligation, it is his debt: & seeing it is now impossible for him to pay this debt, his Surety must pay it for him, & the Surety's payment must be reckoned on his score.

Obj. 22. That which men are not bound by any Law, or command of God, to do, in their own persons, for their justification, cannot be imputed from another to any such and. But men are not bound, by any such Law, to observe the Law, for their justification. Ergo &c. Ans. The Major I distinguish thus▪ That which men neither now are, nor never were bound to do, in their own persons for their justification, by any Law, or command of God, cannot be imputed from another, to any such end; this is granted: but the assumption speaketh only of what men now are obliged unto; & so the Argument is inconcludent. That which men, though once obliged unto, in their own persons, in order to justification, yet now are not obliged unto by the Law of God, cannot be imputed from another, to any such end: this is false. Let us hear his proof. Because (saith he) Imputation is found out & ordained by God to supply personal defects: But where there is no Law, there can be no personal defect. Ans. Imputation is not found out & ordained by God, to supply the want of that, which men are now obliged unto by the Law of God; but to supply what once they were obliged unto, & is not yet done: and the reason is, because the Law, being not abrogate by the breach thereof, continueth in force to oblige to perfect & Exact Obedience; & every violation thereof is a sin before God: & because it must be satisfied, even as to this, ere any can think to enjoy the reward promised to perfect obedience; & no man can satisfy the demands of the Law by himself: therefore everyone, who would have the Reward, & partake of Life, must have a perfect obedience imputed to him to the end, that, without any infringing of the Law, the sinner may be-justified, & the Law established.

To the Minor I only say, That albeit no Man be under any command of God, now to observe the Moral Law perfectly, that thereby they may be justified, the Lord having now provided another way, in the Gospel which all, to whom it is revealed, are bound to take: Yet all, out of Christ, & who have not yielded obedience unto the Gospel, are still under the old covenant, being not as yet brought in into the New: & so, while they abide there, have no other way, whereby to expect justification, but the old way, hold forth in the old covenant, viz. Perfect Obedience, which is now become Impassible: for till they believe in Christ, they are still in Nature, & are not translated into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, though, as to such as hear the Gospel, there is a command to believe in Jesus Christ, to the end they may be justified: But as to such, as either hear not the Gospel, or hearing it would not yield obedience thereto, they have no other way, whereby they can expect justification, but doing of the Law Rom. 2: 13. & that is also a desperate & Impossible way, when the Law is already now broken. The meaning of these words Rom. 2: 13. The doers of the Law shall be justified, is not, what he imagineth pag. 184. viz. That God will accept, justify, & save only such, who out of a sincere & sound faith to wards Him by His Christ, address themselves to serve & please Him, in a way of obedience to His Laws: for this sense of the words keepeth no correspondence with the scope of the Apostle there, nor with the Circumstances of the place.

Obj. 23. If God requires only faith of men to their justification, then He imputes this faith unto them there-unto. But God requires only faith to justification. Ergo &c. Ans. (1.) The conclusion is not directly the thing, that is now in question, but another question, of which hereafter in due time. (2.) The Minor is false to some of his own party, who join works with faith. (3.) The Major is denied; for though God require faith of men to their justification; Yet that faith is not imputed unto them viz. as their Righteousness. It may be, he meaneth no more by the word Impute here, but to accept of it, when performed, according as it is prescribed: and indeed his proof annexed can evince nothing else; because (saith he) to impute unto justification, & to accept unto justification are nothing differing at all, in sense & signification: Now if God should require faith of Men, & only faith to their justification, & not accept it thereunto, he should make a bargain, & not stand to it: for hereby it is manifest, that to Impute faith unto justification, is but to accept it, in order to justification, in the place, & for the end, which God hath fixed to it, & required it for; that is, to be a Mean & Instrument, in the business, & to be the way of Interessing us in the Righteousness of Christ, the sole Righteousness for which, & ground upon which, we are justified. This then being the meaning of his Major Proposition, for anything that yet appeareth, his whole Argument is but a mere sophistical evasion. (4▪) It is true, God requireth of us only faith, as an Instrument & mean to lay hold upon the Righteousness of Christ, in order to our justification: but this is so far from proving that therefore there is no necessity for the Righteousness of Christ, that, on the contrary, it establisheth that truth more firmly: for the faith, that is required unto justification, is not a bare historical faith, but such a faith, as carrieth the believer out of himself, to seek a Righteousness in Christ, & declareth his full Satisfaction therewith, & his resting thereupon, in order to his Acceptance with God, & being justified & absolved from the sentence of the Law, under the conviction of which he was lying. (5) The scope and drift of this Objection is to separate these things, that God hath most firmly and manifestly conjoined, viz. God's Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, and our Receiving that gift of Righteousness by faith, and the atonement through faith. But, as was shown above, the Scripture holdeth forth the necessity of both, and what God hath conjoined, let no man separate.

To this he saith. If the Righteousness of Christ be that, which is imputed, & not the faith, that is required of them, then may this Righteousness be Imputed to this end, before, yea & without the faith of any man; for this faith adds no virtue, or value to that Righteousness. Ans. This being God's free Constitution, His will should serve us for a Law; and instead of too curious enquiring, whether this might be, or not be without the other, or before the other, we should rest satisfied with God's Method; & therein carry more like Christians, than in making such objections against His express determinations. What though it were granted, that God might, if it had so pleased Him, impute the Righteousness of Christ unto sinners, before, or without their faith; will it therefore follow, that now faith is unnecessary; or, if faith be asserted to be necessary, that therefore the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be denied? Why? what ground can be given for such fictions? Nay, will not this be as strong against the objecters, if Christ made full Satisfaction to Justice, what necessity is there for the Imputation of faith unto Righteousness? Thus we see, the objecter must either turn fully Socinian, or reject this way of argueing.

But he will not rest satisfied with the good pleasure of God, in this matter; for he addeth pag. 186. If the will & pleasure of God be to make no Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, but upon the Condition of faith intervening, then it is evident, that this Righteousness is not imputed unto justification, to any man, because the Condition of faith must necessarily interveen, so that if this Righteousness of Christ were imputed unto men, yet it must be only towards justification, not unto it; for faith hath the next & most immediate connection therewith. Ans. Not to trouble ourselves with that fond & fooli • distinction betwixt towards & unto, which rather renders the Adversaries Cause desperate, & himself fain to shelter himself under such fig leaves, to cover his nakedness, than evidenceth any apparent probability of a real ground of Scrupling here. We say, That the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which is God's Act, hath as immediate a connection with justification, as Faith hath, which is our Act: for there is no priority or posteriority here, as to time; for whensoever a Man believeth, in that same instant, Righteousness is imputed; and in that same Instant, the believer is justified; We cannot say, a Man is a believer, and yet hath not the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him, or is not justified; as we cannot say, a Man hath the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and yet is not justified. Nay, the very Argument will conclude as well, that the Imputation of Righteousness hath a more near connection with justification, than faith hath; for we may likewise say, though a man believe, yet without imputation, cannot be justified. But the truth is, all such argueings are but the Cavils of men, seeking to darken that, which they cannot destroy; & are mere sophisms, unbeseeming Christians, in such a concerning business.

Then (saith he further) faith doth not take hold of the Righteousness of Christ Imputed; but first takes hold of it, & then the Imputation followeth & then a man may have the Righteousness of Christ upon him by faith, & yet not be justified by it. Ans. Though faith at first doth not take hold of the Righteousness of Christ, already imputed; but of the Righteousness of Christ hold forth in the Gospel: yet faith may lean to that Righteousness imputed, and rest upon it (2) We assert no such Conditions, as this argument would say are the Conditions understood by our Adversaries, that is, such Conditions, as are like a price, that may be, for some time, in the buyers hand, before the bargane be made; and may also be paid down some time before he obtain the purchase. We own only such consequential conditions here, as are but the means and Methods appointed of God, for such and such ends, & which have an immedial connection with the end here intended. And therefore, we neither say, nor imagine, that a man may have the Righteousness of Christ, or Faith, & yet not be justified; for in the very moment, as was said, that a Man acteth true Gospel-and so justifying faith, he hath the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and is justified: Every priority in order of Nature doth not conclude also a priority, as to time; far less can a man be supposed to have the Righteousness of Christ, without God's Act of Imputation. But Finally all these Argueings return upon his own head; for when he saith, that faith is Imputed for Righteousness, meaning by faith our act of believing, he must also say, that a man may believe, and yet not be justified, until his faith be Imputed unto Righteousness, by God, whose work alone this is: and his reply to this will relieve us.

Obj. 24. That which was Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness, in his justification, is imputed to other believers also. But the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for Righteousness. Ergo &c. And for proof of all, he referreth us to what he hath said Chap. 2. upon Rom. 4. Ans. We shall not here anticipat the consideration of that place, and of this Argument founded there upon; seeing afterward we will have a fitter occasion to speak hereunto.

Obj. 25. Here is his last argument, which he largely prosecuteth Chap. 21. pag. 188. &c. and it would seem, that it is here adduced again (for we had it once, if not oftener before) that he may take occasion to vent his mind against the Imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Thus he Argueth. If the Righteousness of the Law be not imputable, or derivable, in the letter and formality of it, from one man's person to another, then cannot the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to any man, in justification. But the former is true, therefore▪ &c. Ans. What may be answered unto this Argum. the Reader may see in the foregoing Chapter. Object last & I shall not here repeat, but go on to take notice of what he saith to that objection, which he moveth against himself, and proposeth thus, If the transgression of the Law be imputable from one Mans person to another, then may the Righteousness of the Law be imputed also. But the former is hence evident, because the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity.

He first excepteth against the Major, and denieth the Consequence thereof, and giveth reasons of his denial. 1. There is (saith he) no such Emphatical restraint of the guilt and punishment to the transgressor, as there is of the reward to the performer of obedience: for Gal. 3: 12. the very man that hath done them shall live by them; which is nowhere said of the Transgressour. Ans. But all this is loose reasoning: for as the Law saith, God will visit the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth Generation; so it saith, that He will show mercy to thousands of them that love Him, and keep His Commandments: and here the one is as Emphatick, as the other. (2) As he readeth Gal. 3: 12. that the man that doth them, shall live in them; so we read Ezek. 18: 3. the soul that sinneth, it shall die. and Gal. 3: 10. Deut. 27: 26. Cursed is everyone, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the Law to do them; which words do Import as emphatical a restraint, as the other. But of that Gal. 3: 12. we have said enough above, we might also mentione that, which was said to Adam, in the day thou eats, thou shalt die, which seemeth to have no less an Emphatick Import.

But 2. he mentioneth this difference. Sin (saith he) is ever greater, in ration demerity, than obedience is, in ration meriti: Adam might by his transgression, merit condemnation to himself and posterity, & yet not have merited by his obedience Salvation to both; because, if he had kept the Law, he had only done his duty. Luk. 17: 10. & so had been but an unprofitable servant. Ans. All this saith nothing, where a Covenant is made, promising life to the obeyer, as well, as threatening death to the transgressor. Albeit Adam could not be said to have merited life, by his obedience, in way of proper and strick merit; yet in way of merit expacto, he could have been said to have merited; for the reward would have been reckoned to him, not of grace, but of debt; and there would have been ground of boasting and glorying. Rom. 3: 27. & 4: 2, 4. Howbeit he had done but his duty, when he had obeyed to the end; yet the condescending love of God, promising the reward to perseverance in obedience to the end, was sufficient to found this. Whether Adam had merited Salvation to all his posterity, if he had kept the Covenant to the end, or not, is not our present question to inquire j this we know, that by one man sin entered into the world, & death by sin, & so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. 5: 12. And upon the other hand, this we know, that Christ was made sin for His, as a public person, and all His promised Seed and Children are made the Righteousness of God in Him. 1. Cor. 1: 30. 2. Cor. 5: 21. and those are sufficient for our purpose.

3. He saith. The Imputableness of the transgression of the Law rather overthroweth the Imputation of the obedience of it, than any ways establisheth it: for the more Imputable, that is, punishable, the transgression is, the less imputable, that is rewardable, is the obedience of it. Ans. This is very true, when we speak of the same man, as of Adam, in both: for he could not both be a Transgressour, and a Final Observer of the Law; and so both obedience and Transgression could not be imputed to himself, Let be to any other; & the Imputation of the one did quite evacuat the other. But what maketh this mere shift to his present purpose, which is to show (if he could) that the Righteousness and obedience of the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, is not as imputable to His Spiritual Seed & Issue, as the Sin and Transgression of the first Adam, who was of the earth earthy. 1. Cor. 15: 47. was imputable to his Natural Seed.

Next, he cometh to the Minor, and denieth the Imputation of Adam's sin; and this seemeth to be his main buliness, wherein he complieth with the Socinians, and others. Let us hear him, first (saith he) the Scripture nowhere affirms either the Imputation of Adam's sin, or of the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. The contrary is sufficiently proven above; & all his reasons cannot evince what he saith. He tells us, that neither is the phrase, nor manner of such speaking any ways agreeable to the language of the Holy Ghost: for still in the Scriptures, wheresoever the word, imputing, is used, it is only applied unto or spoken of something of the same persons, to whom the Imputation is said to be made; & never to or of anything of another's. Ans. Though it be true, that some things are said to be imputed, in Scripture, unto persons, which are, or were theirs, before the Imputation: (though that Instance of faiths being imputed to Abraham Rom. 4. which he adduceth, doth not belong to this head, as shall be evinced in due time) whether it be good, or evil, as 2. Sam. 19: 19, Act. 7: 60. where this Imputation is deprecated. So 2. Chron. 24: 22. Gen. 30: 33. Psal. 106: 31. Yet it is also true, that we read of an Imputation of Something, that did not belong to, or was not possessed by the person, before the Imputation was made; as when Paul desireth Philemon, to impute to him what Onesimue was oweing; and that he would reckon both the debt and the injury, whereof Onesimus might beguilty, upon his score, and require it of him. Philem. verse 18. Thus do Sureties take upon themselves what formerly was not theirs; and so make that imputable to themselves, which formerly was not so, as we seen Gen. 43: 9. & 44: 32. and the Sureties payment or Satisfaction, according to what he voluntarily undertook, is according to Law and equity, imputable & to be imputed unto, or reckoned on the Score of the debtor, to the end he may be dealt with, by virtue of that imputed payment & Satisfaction, as if he himself had made the payment, or given the Satisfaction. And this is the very Nature & End of this Imputation; not that the person, to whom the Imputation is made, should be accounted one, who had that before the Imputation was made; but that the thing Imputed may become his, to whom it is imputed, and he thereupon be dealt with, as now an owner & possessor of that thing by Imputatio • .

Secondly, he saith, When a thing is said simply to be imputed, as sin, folly or righteousness, the meaning is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of things; as if to impute sin signified to repute the man to have committed a sinful act, but to charge the guilt or demerit of sin upon his head, of purpose to punish him for it. Ans. This is true of such things, as are either really or falsely by injustice supposed to be in the person, before that imputation be made. But notwithstanding hereof, there is, as we have seen, & as all acts of Suretyship do further clear, an imputation of what was not the persons before, whereby the thing itself, that is imputed, is legally made over unto them, & reckoned upon their score, & thereupon they are dealt with, as being now possessed of that, which is imputed; as when a person voluntarily becometh Surety for another, as Paul for Onesimus, Judah for Benjamin; first the debt itself is made their & reckoned upon their score, & then they willingly undergo the consequences thereof, that is, the payment or punishment.

Thirdly pag. 198. he cometh home to the point, saying. The expressions (i.e. of Christ's Righteousness & of Adam's sin) are unknown to the Holy Gost in Scripture. Ans. This is but the old exception of Bellarmine de Iustif. lib. 2. chap. 7. & of the Socinians; See Volkel do Vera Relig. lib. 5. pag. 564, 565. who, upon this same ground, reject several other fundamental points, as the Trinity & others. But we have already shown Scripture-proof enough of this matter; & himself in the following words granteth, that there are expressions in Scripture, concerning both the Communication of Adam's sin, & of Christ's Righteousness, that will fairly enough bear the term of Imputation. So that all the difference betwixt him & us is about the sense of the word.

Now, we come to the matter. He speaketh to Rom. 5▪ 19, giving this for the only meaning thereof, that the demerit or guilt of Adam's sin, is charged on his posterity, or that the punishment ran over from his person to them, i a main part of which punishment lieth in that original defilement, wherein they are all conceived & borne, & whereby they are made truly and formally sinners before God. Ans. But, if that sin of Adam be imputed, in its curse & punishment, the sin itself must be imputed, as to its guilt; else we must say, that God curseth & punisheth the posterity, that is no ways guilty, which to do suiteth not the justice of God, the righteous Governor of the world. We do not say, (as he supposeth, when he setteth down our sense of the words) that that sinful act of eating the forbidden fruit, in the letter & formality of it (an expression that on all occasions he useth, & whose sense, is not obvious, but needeth explication, & is excogitated merely to darken the matter) & as it was Adam's own personal sin, is imputed to the posterity: but it is enough for us, to say, with the Scripture, that by Adam's disobedience, his posterity became guilty; & that all sinned in him; & therefore death passed on all, & that guilt was by that one sin to condemnation Rom. 5: 12, 15, 16, 18, 19. & so that the posterity sinned legally & originally, though not formally, because not existing in Adam actually, but legally & originally; & became thereby obnoxious to the punishment threatened, that is, death both in body & Soul, here & hereafter: Whence it is manifest, that punishment being relative to sin, such as are punished because of sin, must be sinners, & judged to be sinners & so guilty, before they be punished for sin, Adam being the Head & Root of Mankind, & God entering into Covenant with him, as such, & therefore with all his posterity in him, when he broke the Covenant & transgressed, all Mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, being comprehended with him in the Covenant, became actually partakers of that guilt, so soon as they did partake of Nature actually; & being really guilty when existing, they were justly punished. But if this guilt were not imputed to them, they could not be justly punished for it.

On the contrary, he thinks they might be justly punished for that sin, though not guilty thereof: & he laboreth to establish this upon three pillars. 1. The demerit (saith he) & sinfulness of that sin which had so many aggravations, and in this regard, was beyond the sin of devils, that Adam had the estates of all his posterity in his hand, & knew, that if he sinned, he should draw all their souls after him into the same perdition. Ans. But if by Adam's having the estates of all his posterity in his hand, this truth be not included, that his sin should become their sin, & they should be looked upon as guilty thereof, & chargable therewith; how could he know, that by his sin heshould draw the souls of all his posterity after him into the same condemnation! And how could they be punished for that same guilt, if it was not some way theirs, by the just & righteous Judge & Governor of the world? The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great & heinous sins of their progenitors, than for their lesser sins, if they have no interest in these sins, nor partake of the guilt thereof: But as to Original sin, the Scripture giveth the Sin, as the ground of the punishment, & maketh the one to reach all, as well as the other, telling us Rom. 5: 12. that by one Man, sin • ntered in to the world, & death by sin; & so death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned; or, in whom all have sinned. See verse 19.

2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person, who could not beat that fullness of punishment, which God might require for that great sin; & we cannot think, that God should sit down with loss. Ans. This is his second pillar. But neither is it sufficient; for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin: but when the posterity is punished for that sin also, that sin must be theirs. Though for great crimes, as Treason & the like, the Posterity suffe • eth, when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin; nor can be said to be so; as we are punished for Original sin, because it is ours, & we sinned in Adam.

3. His 3 ^d . & main pillar is, the peculir & near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person; for then they were in it, &, as it were, a part, or some what of it; so that Adam was us all, & we were all that one Adam, as Augustine speaketh; & the whole generation of mankind is but Adam, or Adam's person, expounded at large. Ans. This is sufficient for us; for it will hold forth the Covenant relation, wherein Adam stood, as representing all his posterity; & so they were as well in him, & a part of him, in his sin, as in his punishment: which is all we desire, for hence it appeareth, that all sinned in that one Adam, as well, as they were all punished in him.

Then he tells us, that all these three are jointly intimate R •• . 5: 12. Where first there is the demerito, Imported, when death is said to enter; & the scantiness of Adam's person, when it is said, to have passed upon all men; & the relation of his posterity to him, in that all are said to have sinned in him. Ans. But the main thing, which he denieth, is there also imported, when it is said, that all men sinned in him, or became guilty of his sin: for thereby it is manifest, that only they had an interest in his person, but that they had such an Interest in & relation to his person, as so stated, & as standing in a Covenant-relation to God, that they sinned in him, or became guilty of his sin, & therefore suffered with him the demerit thereof. Whence it is evident (howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207.) That the Imputation of Adam's sin, or of his sinful Act as sinful, or as it was a sin; & not of the act as such (for that himself faith once & again, was directly & efficiently from God himself, & therefore was good) is the ground, or cause of punishment, that cometh on his posterity.

But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case, it is of every man's own sin, in Adam; for is was Adam alone that sinned, but all sinned in him: It is not said, that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity; but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam. Ans. If he will stand to this, we need not contend with him, about the word, Impute; this expression of Scripture comprehending & plainly holding forth all that we would say. And if he will grant as much, in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, as is here said of Adam, who was the type of him that was to come, he must, I judge, retract all that he hath said, against the same.

What followeth in that Chapter, being but founded upon what is already mentioned & examined, needeth not here again be repeated or expressed, & considered.

Thus we have taken notice of all, which this voluminous Adversary hath said, upon this matter, both against the Truth, & for his own Error: & no doubt, he hath scraped together all that he could find, giving any, seeming contribution unto the Notion, which he hugged; & hath labored after his usual manner, to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence, & with an affected pedantrie of language, supplying, with bombast expressions, the want of reality of truth & solidity of reasoning. What remaineth in that book, concerning the Imputation of faith, in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined, when we come to the second part of our Text, & to speak of the matter of justification. And as for other things, we may take notice of them elsewhere.

CHAP. XIII.

M. Baxter's opinion, Concerning Imputation, examined.

THere being so frequent mention made, in Scripture, of Imputation of Righteousness; or of Righteousness Imputed; & of Christ's being our Righteousness; or of our being Righteousness, or Righteous in Him, & the like, many, that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, maintained by the orthodox, must yet yield to it, in some sense or other; at least in such a sense, as may, in their apprehensions, not cross their other Hypotheses & Dogmas: Yea & sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense, at least in words, which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary. Schlightingius, in defense of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant, That Christ's Righteousness may be called & accounted ours, in so far, as it redoundeth to our good & righteousness, & is the cause of our justification. And Bellarmine, will also say ( de just. lib. 2. cap. 10.) That Christ is said to be our Righteousness, because He satisfied the father for us; & so giveth & communicateth that Satisfaction to us, when He justifieth us, that it may be said to be our Satisfaction & Righteousness.

Mr. Baxter, though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox, anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; yet will not profess himself an Enemy to all Imputation; but on the contrary, saith, he owneth it in a right sense: And it is true, men have their own liberty, in expressing their sense & meaning of Truths; & where there seemeth to be some considerable difference, as to words & expressions; yet there may be little, or none upon the matter. And it is not good, I confess, to make real differences of these, that are but verbal; nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions, as to exaggerat the expressions of others, whose meaning may be good, because not complying with our own, in all points,

Let us therefore inquire after Mr. Baxter's sense, & see wherein he really differeth from us, in this matter. In his late Treatise of justifying Righteousness against D. Tully. The first part (as the Title page showeth) is of Imputed Righteousness, opening & defending the true Sense, & confuting the false. Here then belike we shall find his meaning, as to this question.

In his preface to this book, he giveth us his sense, in these words, That Righteousness is imputed to us, that is, we are accounted Righteous, because for the merits of Christ's total fulfulling the conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father, by His Habitual Holiness, His Actual perfect Obedience, & His Sacrifice, or Sati • factory Suffering for our sins, in our stead, freely without any merit, or conditional act of man's, God hath made an act of oblivion & Deed of Gift, pardoning all sin, justifying & Adopting & giving Right to the Spirit & Life eternally to everyone, that beleevingh accepteth Christ, & the gifts with, & by, & from Him; & when we accept them, they are all ours by virtue of this purchased Covenant-gift. But this, I Judge, cannot give satisfaction, for upon the grant of the Act of Oblivion, (as he calleth it) which, in his judgment, is extended to all Mankind, no man in particular can be called or accounted Righteous, or have Righteousness imputed to him, more than another; & so upon this account, all are equally Righteous, & have equally Christ's Righteousness imputed to them, that is, no man hath it. As for these Effects, pardon, justification, Adoption, & Right to the Spirit & to Life, they cannot be called the Righteousness of Christ; no more than the Effect can be called the cause: And though they become ours, when we accept them, or rather when we accept of Christ; yet upon that account merely, it cannot be said, that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, & no other ways: for that is nothing but the Socinian Concession formerly mentioned, & it cannot Satisfie the orthodox. The questin is about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, & the Answer given is concerning the Effects thereof given to us; But these Effects are not the Righteousness of Christ; nor are they to be called a Righteousness; nor are they in Scripture so called, unless we say with John. Goodwin, that Righteousness Imputed is nothing but free justification. Yea these Effects must presuppose a Righteousness in the persons receiving them, either Inherently, or by way of Impu • ation: for God will justify no man, or declare no man to be Righteous, who is not Righteous: And concerning this Righteousness is our question: And Mr. Baxter giveth us nothing here for this, unless it be our believing: & this is that which Servetus, Socinians & Arminians say.

In opposition to this, which he calleth a short & plain explication of Christianity, he setteth down what others say, as necessary to go in to our Christianity; & so tells us, that according to them, we must say, That Christ was habitually & actually perfectly Holy & obedient, imputatively in our particular persons; & thath each one of us did perfectly fulfill that Law, which requireth perfect habits & act: in and by Christ imputatively; and yet did also in & by him suffer ourselves imputatively for not fulfilling it, & imputatively did ourselves both satisfy God's justice, and merit heaven; and that we have ourselves imputatively a Righteousness of Perfect holiness & obedience, as sinless; & must be justified by the Law of Innocency, or works, as having ourselves imputatively fulfilled it in Christ. And that this is our sole-righteousness: & that faith itself is not imputed to us for Righteousness, no not a mere particular subordinate Righteousness, answering the conditional part of the new justifying Covenant, as necessary to our participation of Christ, & His freely given Righteousness. As touching the latter part of this discourse, about the Imputation of Faith, & its being called our particular subordinate Righteousness, it is true, Several of the Orthodox have appeared against it, & we shall also speak our judgment of it hereafter. But as to the former part (which is only pertinent to our purpose now in hand) I know not, if ever any Orthodox person uttered his mind, after this manner: Yea, I wote not, if Antinomians themselves have at any time expressed themselves, in all points, as is here set down. But be it so, that they have thus expressed their meaning, & that these expressions, here set down, are not mere Consequences & Inferences, drawn by Mr. Baxter himself, from their opinions & assertions: yet Mr. Baxter cannot but know, that the Orthodox are against them, in these assertions, as well as he: & to me it appeareth no fair, to set down these words, as containing that opinion, which all must hold, who cannot fully embrace Mr. Baxter's own judgment; as if there were no Medium betwixt the Socinian or Arminian judgment, on the one hand, & the Antinomian opinion on the other hand; whileas he cannot but know the contrary. Nether is this a •• t & sure way to clear up the true sense of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, at least, that sense, which we own.

In the Book pag. 24. he again setteth down his own judgment, or sense of Imputation, which he taketh to be the true healing middle way; Part whereof is as followeth. That as Christ suffered in our stead, that we might not suffer, and obeyed in our Nature, that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification; and this in the person of a Mediator and Sponsor, for us sinners; but not so in our persons, as that we truly, in a moral or civil sense, did all this in and by him: Even so God reputeth the thing to be, as it is, and so far Imputeth Christ's Righteousness and Merits and Satisfaction to us, as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious Cause of our justification; & that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace, in which he freely giveth Christ, pardon and life to all that accept the gift, as it is; so that the Accepters are by this Covenant and Gift, as surely justified and Saved by Christ's Righteousness, as if they had obeyed and satisfied themselves. Not that Christ meriteth, that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves, and stand before God in a Righteousness of our own, which will answer the Law of works, and justify us; but that the Conditions of the Gíft, in the Covenant of Grace, being performed by every penitent Believer, that Covenant doth pardon all their sins (as God's Instrument) and giveth them a Right to life eternal for Christ's merits. As to this though it may seem fair & a far advancement: yet I shall crave leave to say these few things against it.

1. When he saith, That Christ suffered in our stead, I would know, in whose stead it was? Whether it was in the stead of some select persons, or in stead of all? If in the stead of some select persons only, then these select persons, must have another Interest, in the death of Christ, than all others; & it being done in their stead, must needs be accepted in their behalf, as it was undergone for them, & in their stead & place: & if it be accepted in their behalf, they must necessarily be freed from Suffering, after God's Method; & that upon the account of Christ's Suffering in their stead; and if so, must not that Suffering of Christ, in a Law-sense, be accounted theirs, and imputed unto them, & they as really & effectually freed from what they were under, and obnoxious to, & made partakers of was purchased thereby, as if they had suffered all that, in their own persons? If it be instead of all, then all must, upon the account of it, be delivered from Suffering, which cannot be said; or not one shall be delivered from Suffering, merely upon the account of it, but upon the account of some other thing Interveening, which he calleth, in the following words, the New Covenant, & the performance of the Conditions thereof: And if so, all Christ's Sufferings in our stead, will be but a Suffering for our good, as say the Socinians.

2. When he saith, That we might not suffer, is that meaned eventually viz. That none of us should ever be put to suffer the penalty? or is it only meaned potentially, that is, that it might be possible, that we should not suffer? If the former be said, then either all of us shall be saved, or the us must be restricked to the Elect. If the Latter be said, then this dying in our stead, is really but a dying for our good, which the Socinians grant.

3. When he saith, & obeyed in our Nature, this, in our Nature, must either be the some with in our stead, which he mentioned before; or something different, if the same, then it seems, when he said, Christ suffered in our stead, his meaning only was, that Christ suffered in our Nature. And will not all Socinians grant, that Christ Suffered thus in our stead, that is, in our Nature? If different, I would know, why he putteth such a difference betwixt Christ's Suffering and His obeying, seeing both belonged to that Law (as he speaketh in the foregoing words) which was His Covenant Conditions; and both were Satisfactory and Meritorious, though the one more primarily Satisfactory, & the other more primarily meritorious?

4. When he saith, That Christ obeyed in our Nature, that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification, I would ask, if this end did, or could flow from, or follow upon Christ's Obedience, merely because it was performed in our Nature? Had we no other Interest, or ground of Interest in it, or in Him, but that it was performed in our Nature? or did all the Benefit & Advantage, that we received, or are to receive thereby, flow from it merely upon this account, that it was performed in our Nature?

5. As to this end of Christ's obeying viz. that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification, I suppose his meaning is, that this perfection of obedience might not be required of us, in order to justification: but yet he doth not say (as he should) that this was our debt; and that Christ paid this perfect obedience as our debt, in order to life: for if he shall say this, then it will follow, that this payment must, in Law-sense, be imputed to those, for whom it was paid. How ever these words do plainly insinuate, that howbeit Christ obeyed in our Nature: that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification; yet notwithstanding an Imperfect Obedience might be accounted necessary to our justification; and thus the New Covenant be supposed to be of the same kind and Spece with the old; and Christ be supposed to have obeyed, only that the terms of the Old Covenant might be abated, as to the rigor of perfection of obedience required.

6. That Christ Obeyed and Suffered in the person of a Mediator & Sponsor, (as he saith) that is, that person God-Man, who was Mediator and Sponsor, did obey & suffer, is very true; but notwithstanding hereof, yea so much the rather, he obeyed and suffered, as a Public Person, that is, for others, and not for Himself personally considered. And therefore those, for whom He thus Obeyed and Suffered, must, in a just and consequent sense, be accounted as Obeying & Suffering in Him, that is, there was such a Relation betwixt this Mediator, or Surety, and those, for whom He was a Mediator and Surety (in the purpose & design of God appointing Christ hereunto, & in the purpose & design of Christ undertaking, and actually performing what He undertook) as gave them fundamentally another Interest in His Obedience & Suffering, then others had, or could have, to & for whom He was no Mediator & Sponsor.

7. Whence Christ may be said to have Obeyed and Suffered legally, in the person of, and as representing others; that is, in the construction of the Law & Law-giver, not for Himself, but for others, in whose Law-place He did substitute Himself, undertaking their debt, in order to their Redemption. And though Believers, who now come to have an actual Interest in Christ, cannot be said to have done all this in and by Him, that is, as by their delegat and Servant (as Mr. Baxter else where expresseth it) yet they may be said to have done it in and by Him, Civilly, juridically or legally, as the debtor is by Law said to have Satisfied the Creditor, in and by the Surety, who yet physically paid the debt by himself only, but legally in the person of the debtor, the debtor and Surety being in Law-consideration, but as one person, in so far as, they concur in, and are both obliged by, one and the same Obligation; just as the heir succeeding in jus defuncti, is eatenus repute & said to be una & eadem persona with him; whence it is evident, that one payment made by either must be accounted as made by both, and doth in effect dissolve the whole obligation; and the consequently the debtor is as effectually & justly absolved from all charge or danger of Law, upon the account of that debt, as if he had paid the money out of his own purse. But whether the term of Morally, or Civilly, or Legally, or the like, be most apposite, is of no great weight to occasion a debate, especially seeing the thing itself is so well known to all, who know what it is to have a friend paying their debt, or Satisfying the Creditor for them, and in their behalf; and thereupon bringing them out of prison. Though I know, the case of pecuniary debts doth not in all things quadrate with our case; yet it is sufficient to explicat what we are now upon.

8. We grant, That God reputeth the thing to be, as it is; and therefore it is very true, that God reputeth Christ to have obeyed and suffered, as being in the Law-place of others, and as making Satisfaction for them; and them, for whom He satisfied, to be in another manner in Him, than any others whatever.

9. He addeth, & so far imputeth Christ's Righteousness, as that it is reputed by Him, the true Meritorious cause of our justification. But it was reputed and estimate so to be, before this Imputation; for it was accepted as such: therefore Imputation must denote something more, than this Reputation, even a reckoning of it (as it were) now upon their Scoce, and accounting it theirs, or them to have a full, special and actual Interest therein, in order to their justification and absolution from the charge of guilt and death brought in against them, whereby they are accounted and reckoned to be Righteous, because of that Imputation, & therefor pronounced such in justification: so that now it is the objectum formal • , or the ratio formales objectiva of our justification.

10. When he addeth & that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace, if those words mean, that in this also Christ's Righteousness is said to be imputed, then, it seemeth, it is equally imputed unto all Adam's post • ity: for with him, all are comprehended within this Covenant. But this were as much as to say, it is imputed to none in particular. Moreover, it may be thought that this is explicative of what went immediately before: & so Christ's righteousness shall be repute the true Meritorius Cause of our justification, in that it was the Meritorious cause of the Covenant of Grace: now hereby the immediate ground of justification will be the Gospel-righteousness, he speaketh of, that is our performance of the conditions of the New Covenant of Grace; & Christ's Merits, Satisfaction & Righteousness shall be only a remote ground. But we shall show hereafter, how groundless it to say. That Christ procured the New Covenant by His Merits & Satisfaction.

11. He saith, in which (i.e. Covenant of Grace) He freely giveth Christ, pardon & Life, to all that accept the gift, as it is. That all these are holdforth in the Covenant, & that such as receive Christ, receive pardon and Life, is true. But what is that, to accept the gift, as it is? & what is meaned by this gift?

12. He addeth, so that the accepters are by this Covenant & Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness, as if they had obeyed & Satisfied themselves. But this is not by virtue of any immediate of that Righteousness unto them, whereby they are looked upon as Righteous in the sight of God; but by virtue of faith, whereby the gift is accepted, that is offered in the Covenant, which faith is indeed immediately imputed to them according to him, & reputed their Gospel-righteousness, & they thereupon are reputed Righteous, & so justified, as such: for the Righteousness of Christ is only imputed, in that it is reputed the meritorious cause of the New Covenant.

13. Though Christ hath not merited, that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves &c. Yet he will say, that Christ hath merited, that faith shall be the Condition of the New Covenant, & consequently, that we may stand before God, even as the great Law giver, & so before His Law also, in that Gospel-righteousness (as he calleth it) of our own, which will justify us.

14. In end, when he saith, the Covenant of grace doth pardon & give right to Life for Christ's Merits, I suppose (because of what is already observed) it is only upon the account that Christ's Me • ites have purchased this Covenant; & not because they become our Immediat Righteousness, whereupon we are justified & have pardon: & he should rather say, conform to what went before, that this Covenant doth Pardon & give Right to Life, for faith, our Gospel-righteousness, the condition thereof.

These are my Exceptions against this supposed healing middle way; & the grounds why I cannot acquiesce therein, as the right way. He tells us again pag. 45. Note 3. That it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants, that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, in the same sense, as our sins are said to be imputed to Him. And to this I also heartily acquiesce; & hence inferie. That as Christ was made sin by that Imputation, so we are made righteous by virtue of this Imputation: as our sins were laid on Him (as the sins of the people were laid on the scape goat, the type) so His Righteousness is put on us, as He came in our Law-place, so we come in His: As our sins imputed to Him were the immediate procuring cause of His stripes & punishment or suffering; so His Righteousness imputed to us is the Immediat procuring cause of our justification &c. As Christ was repute legally or juridically, though not inherently, a sinner, because of this Imputation of our sins to Him, & therefore dealt with, punished & chastened, as if He had been a real sinner, because He stood in our Law-place; to His Righteousness being imputed to us, we are repute legally & juridically, though not inherently; Righteous, & thereupon are dealt with, justified & accepted &c. as if we had been really Righreous, because now standing in His Law-place. So that if Mr. Baxter will stand to this, that ordinarily protestants agree unto, I am fully Satisfied: & had he done so from the beginning, many of his discourses would have been forborne: And whether he, or others who own what protestants agree unto, be to be reckoned among the self conceited wranglers, as he speaketh in the following page, indifferent men may judge: & I conceive, if he would yet stand to this, he should alter that, which he gave us, in the fore-mentioned words, as the only healing middle way; For that middle way (as he calleth it) giveth us a far other sheme, than can be drawn out of this, wherein protestants are commonly agreed as is obvious.

He tells us Chap. 2. (where he cometh to state the question) pag. 51. that we must distinguish of Imputation, & giveth us six senses thereof; five whereof are such, as I know not, if even Antinomians did own them. They are these. 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christit Acts, the Subjects of His Habites & passion, in a physical sense. I know not, who in their wits would affirm this: & to me, it is not a fit way to end, or clear controversies, to raise so much dust needlessly, & imagine senses out of our own heads, as if they were owned & maintained by some, what is the 2? Or to repute the same formal relation of Righteousness, which was in Christ's Person, to be in ours, as the Subject. But this is only a consequent of the foregoing 3. (saith he) or to repute us to have been the very Subjects of Christ's Habites & passion, & the Agents of His Acts, in a Political, or Moral sense (& not a physical) as a man payeth a, debt by a Servant, or attornay, ordelegate. If this be the only meaning of his Political & Moral sense, I suppose no man will own it either: for no man will say, That Christ was our Servant, Attornay, or Delegate. The 4. is but a consequent of this; and consequently, (saith he) to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said habits, acts & passions, one to Christ, as the Natural Subject & Agent; & another to us, as the Moral, Political or reputed Subject & agent (& so His formal Righteousnese not to be imputed to us in itself, as ours, but another to result from the same matter. This is too Philosophical for me to own, or follow. The 5, is, or else that we are reputed both the agents & Subjects of the matter of His Righteousness, morally, & also of the formal Righteousness of Christ himself. All these are but the effuvia of a brain floteing & swimeing in ill digested Philosophical Notions & School dregs, & contribute nothing to the clearing of Gospel-Truth, which hath little or rather no affinity with aery Philosophical Notions, but tend manifestly to the darkening of the same. But now, when all these Philosophical Notions & Relations are at an end, & we can proceed no further, where is that Imputation, which is legal, & plain to every ordinary Man viz whereby the Satisfaction made to a judge & Governor for a crime committed, by the delinquen'ts friend; or that payment & Satisfaction made to the creditor, for the debtor, by a friend Interposing, is in Law-sense accounted the delinquent's & debtor's; & he as really & effectually delivevered out of prison therefore, as if he had made Satisfaction in his own proper person, or had paid the sum out if his own Substance? If any Philosopher, after Mr. Baxter's manner here, should, with such Philosophical Whimseyes, (I call them so, for they are no other in this case) labor to disprove any such Imputation, & say, it must be in one of those five senses &c. would not any country man smille at this▪

But now let us see Mr. Baxter's sixth sense, wherein he granteth the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Or else (saith he) by Imputation is meant here, that Christ being truly reputed to have taken on the Nature of sinful Man, & become an Head for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature & office, in the person of a Mediator, to have fulfilled all the Law imposed upon him, by perfect Holiness & obedience, & offering himself on the cross a sacrifice for our sins, voluntarily suffering in our stead, as if He had been a sinner (guilty of all our sins) as soon as we believe, we are pardoned, Justified, Adopted, for the sake & Merits of this Holiness, obedience & Penal Satisfaction of Christ with as full demonstration of divine Justice, at least, & more full Demonstration of His wisdom & Mercy, than if we had suffered ourselves what our sins deserved (that is, been damned) or had never sinned. And so Righteousness is imputed to us, that is, we are accounted or reputed Righteous (not in relation to the Precept, that is, innocent or sinless, but in relation to the Retribution, that is, such as have right to impunity & Life) because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness, Obedience & Satisfaction, meritedour pardon & Adoption and the Spirit; or merited the New Covenant, by which, as an Instrument, Pardon, justification & Adoption are given to Believers, and the Spirit to be given to Sanctify them; and when we believe, we are justly reputed such, as have right to all these purchased gifts.

As to this I shall only note a few things (1.) Christ's fulfilling of the Law imposed on Him, doth not hinder, but that He paid our debt, & so came in our Law-place, & substitute Himself in our room, to do what we should have done & to suffer what we should have suffered according to the Law, in all the essentials & Substantials of that punishment: for had He not done this, He could not be said to have suffered in our stead: for he only suffereth in the room & stead of another, who suffereth what that other should have suffered. If one be condemned to suffer death, another that suffereth only Imprisonment for his delivery, cannot be said to suffer in this stead, but only for his cause & good, as the Socinians say, Christ suffered for us. (2.) Christ not only suffered in our stead, as if he had been a sinner & guilty, but as sinner legally & juridically guilty, having sins imputed to Him, though He was most free of all sin inherently, and knew it not: & the reason is manifest; for other ways Divine justice should not have shined forth in His sufferings, it being no Demonstration of justice to punish one, who neither inherently, nor Imputatively & legally, is or can be accounted & reputed a sinner. (3.) We cannot, with right, be reputed Righteous, except we be either inherently righteous, or righteous by Imputation; & so legally, juridically, & in Law-sense righteous, by virtue of the Imputation of the Surety-righteousness of Christ, our Sponsor. (4.) Righteousness must properly respect the Commands & Prohibitions of the Law, & but secondarily the Retribution, if not most Improperly; as unrighteousness is in reference to the Law, as commanding or forbidding, & very improperly attributed to any in reference to the punishment threatened. And therefore, if we be accounted Righteousness, it must be in relation to the precept, at least, in the first place: Nor can we be accounted Righteous, in reference to the Retribution, that is, have a Right to Impunity & life, in the sight of God, who judgeth & reputeth according to equity & right, unless we be first accounted Righteous, in reference to the precept; for this is the only just & legal foundation of the other. (5.) Upon this it doth not follow that we are Innocent or sinless inherently, far less, that we never transgressed; but on the contrary, it clearly saith, that we were sinners; but now are legally, or juridically innocent & sinless by the Imputation of the side jussorie Righteousness of Christ; & therefore are not obnoxious to the penalty, or to punishment; but have right to Impunity & life. (6.) When he speaketh of what Christ merited, he expresseth himself dubiously, not being positively clear, whether Christ merited our pardon &c. or the New Covenant: & the disjunctive particle Or, saith He did not merit both, in his judgment: but before, we heard him plainly affirming, that Christ merited the New Covenant, & consequently He did not purchase pardon, Adoption & the Spirit to any immediately, but only mediately, in purchasing the Covenant, which promiseth these to such, as perform the Conditions thereof. (7.) By this way, Believers are repute such, as have right to all these purchased gifts, not immediately by virtue of Christ's Merits & righteousness, imputed to them & bestowed upon them, but by virtue of their being inherently Righteous with that Gospel-righteousness, faith, which is the potestative Condition of the Covenant, & is now imputed to them, & accounted their Righteousness, according to his judgment.

Speaking afterward pag. 55. of Christ, as an Head & Root, he tells us, that He was no Natural Root or Head; which is undeniable; Yet He was a Super-Natural & Political Head. But he saith, He was not actually such an Head to the Redeemed, when He obeyed and suffered; but as an Head by Aptitude, office, power & Virtue. Ans. It is true, as to such, as were not then Believers, He was not a Supernatural Head actually, that is, by communicating actually Physical and supernatural influences of Spiritual life: Yet He was, as to all given to Him, actually a Political Head, or an Head in a Political sense, that is, by God's Appointment, and His own voluntary undertaking, He obeyed & Suffered for them, & in their stead; paying their debt answering for all that the justice & the Law did require of them, and so purchasing all Grace & Glory for them, to be certainly bestowed in due time. In this respect, that must be denied, which he addeth ( n. 12.) Therefore they were not Christ's members Political, when He obeyed & died: for they may as well be said, to have been then His members Political, as some, not yet within the sold, but that were to be brought in, & were to hear His voice, were by Himself called His sheep John. 10: 16. Whence, I pray, come the I • fluences, whereby they are made to believe, if not from Him, as their Political-head, or Surety-head, standing engaged for them? But possibly the ambiguous use of the word Political may occasion his mistake here.

A Natural Head (saith he n. 14.) being but a part of a person, what it doth, the Person doth. But seeing a contracted Head and all the members of his Body contracted, or Politick, are everyone a distinct person, it followeth not, that each person did really, or reputatively what the head did. Nay, it is a good consequence, that if he did it, as an head, they did it not (numerically) as head or members. Ans. Passing the Impropriety of the expression contracted head, whereby, it is like, he means a Conventional Head. I say, Though a Conventional Head and all the members of that Body, be everyone a distinct person Physically; Yet considered as such, they are all but one person Politically & in Law-sense: & so in Law-sense & Politically (as all lawyers know, & even Men of Common sense can acknowbedge) every distinct Physical person is supposed to have done what their Political Head & Representative hath done, as such. And though it be a good consequence, that if the Head did it, as an Head, they in their in their Physical persons did it not: Yet it were a ridiculous Consequence, to say, They therefore, as Political Members of that Political conventional body, did it not viz Politically (not Physically, or numerically.

Christ (saith he n. 15.) suffered & obeyed in the Person of the Mediator, between God & Man, & as a subject to the Law of Mediation. Ans. Though He suffered in the Physical Person of the Mediator; Yet because Suffering & obeying as a Mediator & Surety. He Suffered & obeyed, as a Political Head, & in a Political person. (2.) Though He was Subject to the Law of Mediation; Yet by virtue of that same Law of Mediation, He was subject to the Law, under which we were, both as to its Duty & Penalty: for Suffering & obeying, as a Mediator & Surety, He, in Suffering & obeying, did pay out debt, for He came into our Law-place.

Christ may be said (saith he n. 16.) to suffer, in the person of a sinner, as it meaneth His own person, reputed & used as a sinner, by His persecutors; & as He was one, who stood before God, as Undertaker, to suffer for man's sins. Ans. Seeing He was one, who stood before God, as an Undertaker for sinners; & not only to suffer for man's sin, did he not suffer as a sinner (not inherently, but) legally & juridically? and did He not represent and stand in the room of sinners, as their Political Head & Representative? These things cannot be handsomely, with any show of reason, contradicted, or denied. Nay, himself addeth (n. 17. pag. 56.) that Christ suffered in the place & stead of sinners, that they might be d • livered, though in the Person a Sponsor. Whence we see, that though He suffered in the person of a Sponsor. Physically taken; Yet He suffered in the person of others, Politically & legally, because He suffered as a Sponsor, in their stead, that they might certainly & eventually be delivered, & not possibly only.

But then (n. 18.) he cometh to an Accomodation, saying, When we are agreed that the person of the Sponsor & of every particular sinner are diverse (if the word Person be here understood in a Physical, or Numerical sense, & the word sinners be understood of the Elect only, I agree) and that Christ had not suffered, if we had not sinned: (true) & that he as a Sponser, suffered in our stead, & so bore the punishment; which not He, but we deserved (add also, & obeyed, & I agree: If any will here, instead of a Mediator, or Sponsor, call Him our Representative, & say, that He suffered even in all our persons reputatively, not simpliciter, but secundum quid, & in tantum only, that is, not representing our persons simply & in all respects, & to all ends, but only so far as to be a Sacrifice for our sins, and suffer in our place and stead, what He suffered, we take this to be but lis de nomine. And why is not His obeying also added? But again, if He suffered, as a Mediator & Sponsor, in our place & stead, He must needs have been our Political-Representative, according as we use to speak and understand these terms; & so must have suffered in all our persons reputatively, so far as was necessary to our Redemption & Salvation, & for more we inquire not. And seeing this is what the orthodox assert, Mr. Baxter is much to be blamed, for troubling the church so long by his opposition hereunto, & his own new Notions.

He proceedeth (n. 19.) Christ did not suffer, strictly, simply, absolutely, in the person of any one Elect sinner, much less in the millions of Persons of them all in Law-sense, or in God's esteem; God did not esteem Christ to be, Naturally, or as an absolute Representer, david, Manasseh, Paul, & every such other sinner, but only a Mediator, that suffered in their stead. Ans. Till we understand what is meant by these terms, Strickly, Simply & Absolutly, we cannot know well what to say to this. We grant, He suffered in the person of no Elect sinner, so as to become David, Manasseh &c. Yet, when He suffered in their stead, as Mediator & Surety, both in Law-sense, & in God's esteem, He did represent them; & did & suffered what He did & suffered, as a Surety for them, & as representing their Persons, in a Law-sense & Politically, simply & absolutely, to all ends necessary for their Redemption & Salvation.

He addeth (n. 20.) God did make Christ to be sin for us, that is, a Sacrifice for our sins, & one that by man was reputed, & by God & Man was used, as sinners are & deserve to be. Ans. Christ could not be made a Sacrific for sin, till He had the guilt of sin laid upon Him by Imputation, as the Sacrifices of old had typically. His being reputed such, & handled as such by man, is of no consideration here: And by God He could not be used, as a sinner, or as sinners are & deserve to be, unless our sins had been first caused to meet upon Him, & imputed to Him, to the end, He might properly be said to Suffer & become a Sacrifice for sin. We say with him (n. 23.) that God did not suppose or repute Christ to have committed all, or any of the sins, which we all committed; Nor to have had all the wickedness in His Nature which was in ours; nor to have deserved what we did deserve; nor did in this proper sense impute our sins to Christ. For indeed this had not been in a prope sense, to impute our sins to Him, but plainly to confound His Physical person with ours; & to speak thus, I should account to be horrid blasphemy: Yet it may be & must be said, that Christ, being made sin for us, & made to suffer for sin, in the room of sinners, had their sins laid upon Him; & so, was a sinner, not Inherently but legally by Imputation; that is, had the guilt of our sins, in order to punishment, imputed to Him, & He put to suffer for that guilt, or because a sinner by Imputation. And when the Scripture saith, that God made Christ sin for us 2 Cor. 5: 21. & Laid on Him the iniquity of us all, Isaiah. 55: 6. It is as emphatick (& to me more) as to say, God did impute our sin to Christ, which he some-way excepteth against (n. 23. pag. 57.)

He addeth (n. 26. pag. 58.) Though Christ suffered in our stead, and in a large sense, to certain uses, and in some respects, as the Representer, or in the persons of Sinners: yet did He not so far represent their persons, in His habitual Holiness and actual obedience, (no not in the obedience of His Suffering) as He did in the Suffering itself. He obeyed not in the person of a sinner, much less of millions of sinners, which were to say, in the person of sinners, he never sinned. He suffered to save us from suffering; but He obeyed not to save us from obeying, but to bring us to obedience: yet His perfection of obedience had this end, that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification and Salvation. Ans. Seeing Christ was appointed Mediator & Sponsor to take on man's debt and come in his Law-place, what reason can be given, why He should not, as well be said to represent them, in the paying of the one part of that debt, as in the paying of the other? We were under the Law and obliged to perform perfect obedience, in order to the obtaining of the reward promised; and because of sin we were under the Curse. Now when the Surety come to pay our whole debt, He did as much, and as well represent us, in paying of and in performing obedience, as in Suffering. And why may we not say, that He obeyed in the juridical and Law person of a sinner, as well as that He suffered? Though I should not use such improper and unusual expressions, as Mr. Baxter here doth; yet I must tell him, That Christ's obeying in the person of a sinner, saith no more than that, He being the person representing sinners, His obeying was and is repute, in Law-sense, their obeying. He Suffered, it is true, to save us from suffering of the Curse of the Law; But Mr. Baxter will not say, that He suffered to save us from all Suffering: He obeyed, it is true, to bring us to obedience, as He died also for that end, that we might have the Sanctifying Spirit bestowed upon us: yet notwithstanding He obeyed to save us from obeying viz. after that manner, that we were obliged to obey under the old Covenant, that is to obey perfectly, or never enjoy the crown, and to obey for that end, that we might enjoy the crown, as the legal reward of and due debt for our labor. And seeing Mr. Baxter granteth in the following words, that Christ's perfect obedience had this end, that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification; why may he not say, that to certain uses, and in some respects, Christ obeyed, to save us from obeying? Or why will he not say, that He obeyed for us, that we, who could not obey of ourselves, might be repute to have obeyed perfectly in Him? This is all we desire.

He saith next (n. 27.) It was not we ourselves, who did perfectly obey, or were perfectly holy, or suffered for sin, in the person of Christ, or by Him: nor did me (naturally, or morally) merit our own Salvation by obeying in Christ: nor did we satisfy God's justice for our sins, nor purchase pardon or Salvation to ourselves, by our suffering in and by Christ. Ans. However, Christ doing all this for us, as our Sponsor and Surety, we are so taken-in in a Law-sense, that the same is imputed unto us, and we enjoy the fruits thereof, pardon and Salvation; no less than if we had done and suffered all in our own physical persons.

As to what he saith (n. 29, 30.) it is nothing to the purpose (and therefore I shall not set down his words) for we are not here speaking of Relations and Accidents, physically, or metaphysical rather considered, which cannot pass from one Subject to another: nor do we speak of Christ, while speaking of the Imputation of His Righteousness, physically considered, but politically & legally, as a Sponsor and Surety some way representing us. I assent to him, that the meaning of this Imputation is not, That we ourselves, in person, truly had the habits, which Christ had, and did all that Christ did, and suffered all that he suffered, as by an Instrument, or legal Representer of our persons, in all this, meaning that we in our physical persons should have done all this, by Him, as our physical Instrument. But why He addeth here, or legal Representer, unless he mean thereby that which elsewhere he hath expressed to be, as our delegat, or Servant, I know not. And however it seemeth not to me appositely here annexed, if ingenuous and plain dealing be designed. But there is another sense, in which he will yield to Imputation, & he thinks there cannot be a third. Let us hear what this other sense is.

That Christ's Satisfaction (saith he) Righteousness and the Habites, Acts & Sufferings, in which it lay, are imputed to us, & made ours, not rigidly in the very thing itself, but in the effects and benefits. Ans. But if he shall yield to no other Imputation, than this, he shall grant no Imputation: for that Imputation, as to effects, is no Imputation at all: unless the meritorious cause be imputed, in order to the receiving of these Effects, there is nothing imputed; for they Effects are never said to be imputed. There is therefore a Third sense, wherein neither Christ's Righteousness, that is, His Habites, Acts & Sufferings are said to be physically translated, and put in us, or upon us; nor are they said to be Imputed to us merely in their Effects; as Socinians say; but wherein Christ's Surety-righteousness, consisting in His Obedience & Suffering, is in a Law-sense, made over to believers, & put upon their score, & now accounted theirs; & they, because thereof, accounted Righteous, legally and juridically; and have therefore the Effects bestowed on them. This being so obvious, I wonder that Mr. Baxter cannot see it. When a debtor is lying in prison, for debt, and a friend cometh & Satisfieth the creditor for him by paying the sum, in his place & stead; the Law doth not impute that payment to the debtor merely in the effects; but imputeth the payment itself, not in its Physical acceptation, as if it judged that he was the man, that in his own Physical person, told the money with his own hands, & brought it out of his own purse, as the other did, but) in its legal force, virtue, & efficary, unto him, & accounted him, in this Legal sense, to be no more a debtor unto the creditor; & therefore one that hath right to his liberty, & must therefore be set free from prison. So, in our case, the Righteousness of Christ, in a legal sense, as to its efficary & virtue, is made over to the Believer, & he thereupon is accounted Righteous, and no more a debtor, and therefore free of the Penalty. Further, Although he say, that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the Effects; Yet he knoweth, that that is (in his judgment) but very remotely; and that really these effects are more proximely the effects of Faith, which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness; and that the Immediat effect and product of Christ's Righteousness is the New Covenant; and this New Covenant being made with all Mankind (as he thinketh) Christ's Righteousness is, in this immediate Effect, imputed to all flesh, Reprobat, as well as Elect. And this is, in part, cleared from the words Immediatly following, when he saith, In as much, as we are as really pardoned, justified, Adopted by them, as the Meritorious Cause by the Instrumentality of the Covenants Donation, as if we ourselves had done & suffered all that Christ did. For this Instrumentality of the Covenant includeth the performance of the Condition thereof, i. e. faith; & this Faith is properly imputed for Righteousness, as he saith: And therefore, as the Covenant is the Effect of the merits of Christ; so pardon and Salvation must be the Effects of Faith; and the Effects of Christ's Righteousness only, in that he did procure the Covenant, which conveyeth these to us, upon Condition of our performing of this faith, which is therefore called, by him, our Gospel-Righteousness.

He giveth us next four ways (n. 31. pag. 60.) wherein the Lord is said to be our Righteousness (an Expression that doth emphatically & more than sufficiently express the meaning of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness ) 1. In that (saith he) He is the meritorious cause of the pardon of all our sins, & our full justification, Adoption & Right to glory: & by His Satisfaction and Merits only our justification by the Covenant of Grace, against the Curse of the Law works, is purchased. Ans. He cannot be said, by him, to be the Meritorious Cause of pardon, &c. But in as far as He is the Meritorious cause of the Covenant, in which these benefits are promised, upon Condition of faith, our Gospel-righteousness, which properly and only is our Imputed Righteousness, according to him; and so Christ is our Righteousness, in meriting that faith shall be repute our Gospel-righteousness in order to our obtaining of Pardon and Right to glory. But moreover, where is our Righteousness? For Pardon is no Righteousness; neither is justification, Adoption, or Right to Glory properly a Righteousness; But do presuppose a Righteousness, after which we are enquiring, and cannot find that Christ is made to be that to us; and consequently, either faith must be it, or there is none.

The other senses are 2. In that He is the legislator, Testator & donor of our Pardon & justification by this new Covenant. 3. In that He is the Head of Influx, King & Intercessor, by whom the Spirit is given to Sanctify us to God, & cause us sincerely perform the Conditions of the Justifying Covenant. 4. In that He i • the righteous judge & justifier of Believers by sentence of judgment. Ans. All these three will make the Father to be our Righteousness, as well as the Son: for He is legislator; He draweth to the Son & sendeth the Spirit to Sanctify us, & He judgeth by the Son & justifieth. (2.) But none of these, nor all of these give us the true Import of that glorious Name, according to the true scope of the place Ier. 23: 6. of which we have spoken above.

In like manner (n. 32.) he giveth us four senses of these words, we are made the Righteousness of God in Him. The 1. is, In that, as he was used like a sinner for us (But not esteemed one by God) so we are used like innocent persons, so far as to be saved by Him. Ans. As He was used by God like a sinner, so was He legally accounted a sinner, otherwise God would not have used Him as a sinner. Therefore if we be used like innocent persons, we must be in God's esteem, legally & juridically innocent, through Christ's Righteousness imputed; & so must be saved by Him. The 2. is, In that through His Merits, & upon our union with Him, when we believe & consent to Hi • Covenant, we are pardoned & justified, & so made Righteous really, that is such, as are not to be condemned, but glorified. Ans As I said, neither pardon, nor justification maketh us Righteous, but suppose us to be Righteous; and therefore, in justification we are declared & pronounced Righteous, & thereupon pardoned. Moreover, all our Righteousness, that we have, in order to justification & pardon, is, according to Mr. Baxter, our Faith, which is, & is reputed to be, our Gospel Righteousness; & is said to be properly Imputed to us: & thus Christ suffered in our stead, that our faith might be accounted our Righteousness. Though pardon will take away condemnation yet (as we have cleared above) more must be had, in order to Glorification. His 3. & 4. are. In that the divine Nature & Inherent Righteousness are for His merits. In that God's justice & holiness, truth, wisdom & mercy are all wonderfully Demonstrated, in this way of Pardoning & justifying of sinners by Christ. Ans. This last hath no ground, as the sense of the words; And as for the. 3. Before he make it the sense of the place. 2 Cor. 5: 21. he must say, That Christ was a sinner inherently (which were blasphemy) for other ways that beautiful correspondence, that is betwixt the First & the Last part of the verse, must be laid a side, contrary to the manifest scope of the place.

He tells us (n. 36. pag. 61.) It is an error, contrary to the scope of the Gospel, to say, that the Law of Works, or of Innocency, doth justify us, as performed either by ourselves, or by Christ: for that Law condemneth & curseth us; & we are not efficiently justified by it, but from, or against it. Ans. I shall not say, that we are justified by the Law of works efficiently; yet I hope, Mr. Baxter will not say, that upon the fall, that Law, or Covenant was quite abolished & annulled; & if it was only disp • nsed with, in order to the admitting of a Surety, which it did not provide▪ or give place to, in its primitive Institution, we may saifly say, That it must be satisfied both as to the commands, & as to the penalty, ere we can escape wrath & obtain Life: for this Law said (as himself confesseth pag. 63.) Obey Perfectly & Live, sin & die. And though it condemn & curse us sinners; Yet it hath nothing to say against our Surety; nor against any clothed with His Surety-righteousness, whereby all the demands of this Law and Covenant were Satisfied.

Hence he inferreth (n. 37.) Therefore, we have no Righteousness, in Reality, or Reputation formally ours, which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency: we are not reputed Innocent; But only a Righteousness, which consisteth in Pardon of all sin, & right to Life (with sincere performance of the condition of the Covenant of Grace, that is, true faith) Ans. If by formally ours, he mean Inherently ours, I grant what he here saith: but I deny it, if by formally ours, he mean that, by which we may be denominated formally Righteous: for by Imputation we have a Righteousness, whereby we are formally righteous, legally & Juridically; & this Righteousness must needs consist in conformity to the Laws commands. It is true, we are not repute inherently Innocent; Yet we are repute non-sinners legally; & hence cometh our Pardon & Right to Life, which of it self is no Righteousness, but the Result of a Righteousness. So that with him Believers have no Righteousness, in order to justification, but faith, the Gospel Righteousness, as was said above, & this he saith here in effect, & yet more plainly & fully pag. 64.

He addeth (n. 38. pag. 62.) our Pardon puts not away our guilt of fact or fault, but our guilt of and obligation to punishment. God doth not repute us such, as neversinned, or such, as by our Innocency merited heaven; but such as are not to be damned but to beglorified, because pardoned & Adopted, through the Satisfaction & merits of Christ. Ans. Though pardon, as pardon, will do no more, than he here granteth; Yet Righteousness & justification presupposing Righteousness will take away the Reatum culpae; not as if it would make us such as never sinned, for that is Impossible; but because by Righteousness imputed, we are now reputed sinless Legally, that is, not guilty of the fact in order to punishment, & this must be, that we may not only not be damned, but may be glorifeed, according to the Constitution, that said, Obey perfectly & live. And though now every pardoned man shall be glorified; Yet that is not merely and formally upon the account of Pardon; but because no man is pardoned, till he have the complete Righteousness of Christ, consisting in obedience and i • Suffering, imputed to him, whereby beside pardon, he obtaineth a right to glory.

He cometh to clear the matter of Imputation of Christ's Righteouss, by the Imputation of Adam's sin, which is a good Medium, the Apostle going before us herein Rom. 5. And though he saith some things (n. 41. p. 65.) wherewith I am not Satisfied, yet I pass, because not much to our present purpose, & come to (n. 42. p. 66.) where he saith, As Adam was an head by Nature, & therefore conveyed guilt by Natural Generation: so Christ is a Head (not by nature, but) by Sacred contract, & therefore conveyeth right to pardon. Adoption and Salvation, not by Generation, but by Contract, or Donation. So that what was to be Naturally in Adam, seminally and virtually, though not personally in existence; even that it is, in order to our benefit by Him, to be in Christ by contract, or the New Covenant, virtually, though not in personal existence, when the Covenant was made. Ans. As Adam was an Head by Nature, so was he by Covenant; and as Christ is an head by Covenant, so is He an Head by supernatural Influences, and conveyeth His blessings by Regeneration, as well as by Covenant; And therefore what was to be Naturally in Adam, seminally and virtually, though not personally in existence, that is, to be in Christ by supernatural Regeneration virtually. And as his Effects of Adam's fall are conveyed by Natural generation, so that we are made partakers thereof actually, by actual partaking of our Natural being; so the Effects of Christ's Righteousness are conveyed by Spiritual Regeneration, & we are actually made partakers thereof, when we partake of this Spiritual being.

He proceedeth (n.43.) They therefore that look upon justification, or Righteousness, as coming to us immediately by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, without the Instrumental Intervention, and conveyance or Collation by this deed of Gift, or Covenant, do confound themselves, by confounding and overlooking the causes of justification. That which Christ did by His merits, was to procure the New Covenant. Ans. Though the Instrumental Intervention of a Covenant be acknowledged; Yet Righteousness must come to us immediately by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; For His Righteousness imputed is our Righteousness, and is only that Righteousness, whereby we become formally Righteous in order to justification. The difference lieth here betwixt us: Mr. Baxter thinketh, tha • Christ's Righteousness is imputed, in that it purchased the New Covenant (and consequently is euqlly imputed to all; for the Covenant, with him, is equally made with all) and in and through the new Covenant, which conveyeth pardon and life to such, as perform the conditions thereof, i.e. believe, & so are inherently Righteous, these benefits are bestowed; & so Christ's Righteousness is not the immediate ground of our justification and Right to Glory; but our own Personal Righteousness, Faith, called our Gospel-righteousness: Christ's Righteousness is only the immediate ground of the Covenant, being the Meritorious cause thereof; & the immediate ground, whereupon our faith is so far advanced. But our judgment is, that though Christ convey the blessings purchased covenantwayes, yet the Covenant itself is not purchased by His Merits; & the way of conveyance is this, that He first by His Spirit worketh the soul up to faith in Christ, & then communicateth Christ & His Righteousness unto the believer; & upon that immediate ground of Christ's Imputed Surety-righteousness, whereupon they become Righteous, in the sight of God, they are justified, pardoned & receive a right to the Crown. And though the difference here may appear to be but small, yet to me it is such, that by Mr. Baxter's way, the whole frame of the Gospel is changed; & such, as hold it, do in my judgment, not only confound, but alter the causes of justification. If that, which Christ did by His Merits, was to procure the New Covenant, what was there in Adam, that can be said to answer this, or hold correspondence with it? With us, the Parallel runneth smoothly and clearly, thus. As by virtue of first Covenant, whereof Adam was the head, engaging for all his Natural Posterity, so soon as they partake of Nature, & thereby become actual members of that Political Body, partake of Adam's guilt, or breach of the Covenant, which is imputed to them; & there upon share of the consequences thereof, as immediately resulting therefrom, to wit, the corruption of the whole Nature, Privative & positive, wrath & the curse &c. This himself asserteth pag. 34. So by virtue of the Second Covenant, whereof Christ, the Second Adam is Head, engaging for all His Spiritual posterity, they, so soon as they come to partake of His spiritual Nature, & so become members of His mystical body (which is by a Phisical, supernatural operation, conveyed morally and Covenant ways, according to the Good pleasure of His will, & according to His wisdom, who doth all things well & wisely) are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, which is imputed unto them; & thereupon do share of the Consequences, which do immediately result thereof • om, viz. of justification, pardon, Adoption & Right to Glory.

He addeth (n. 44.) Though the person of the Mediator be not really, or reputatively, the very person of each sinner (nor so many persons as there are sinners, or believers) yet it doth belong to the person of the Mediator, so far (limitedly) to bear the person of a sinner, and to stand in the place of the persons of all sinners, as to bear the punishment they deserved, & to suffer for their sins. Ans. We do not imagine, that the Physical pe • son of the Mediator is, either really or reputatively, the Physical person of each sinner. It is enough for us to say, that the Mediator is an Head, Surety & public person; and so, that He & Believers are one legally and juridically. And we judge also, that it belongeth to the person of the Mediator, being Surety, to Satifie for the whole debt of these, for whom He is Surety: & therefore must not only so far stand in the place of sinners, as to Suffer for their sins, & bear the punishment they deserved; But also give that perfect obedience, which they were obliged unto, and were not able to perform, or pay.

He granteth (n. 45. pag. 67.) that Morally it may be said, that Christ's Righteousness was given to us, in that the thing purchased by it was given to us, as the money, given for the ransom of the Captive, may besaid morally to be given to the captive, though Physically it begiven to the Conqueror. But neither this similitude, not yet the other, of a man's being said to give anothe • so much money, when he giveth him the land, bought therewith, do not come home to the point in hand: for there is a near & close union betwixt Christ & Believers, which union is not supposed in these cases. Next Christ was in our Law-place, and undertook to do what He did, as our Surety; neither is this supposed in the cases proposed; & again, the benefit here following viz. Justification &c. doth presuppose us to be Righteous, & consequently we must have a Righteousness imputed, because we have none of our own; for we may not admit Faith to that high dignity. We have mentioned more apposite & fit Similitudes above.

I cannot assent to what he saith (n. 47. pag. 68.] That Christ is less improperly said to have represented all mankind, as newly fallen in Adam, in a general sense, for the purchasing of the universal gift of pardon & life, called the New Covenant, than to have represented, in his perfect holiness and sufferings, every believer, considered as from his first being to his death. For of His representing all mankind newly fallen in Adam, I read not in the Scriptures: nor yet of His purchasing the New Covenant. Whether these be not additions to the word of God, let Mr. Baxter (who oft chargeth others herewith) consider. Nor do I know, what Scripture warranteth him to say. pag. 69. That Christ, the second Adam, is in a sort, the root of Man, as Man, as He is the Redeemer of Nature itself from destruction; Nor what truth can be in it, unless he think to play upon the word, in a sort.

He seemeth to come nearer us, when he saith (n. 48. p. 70.) The sum of all lieth, in applying the distinction of giving Christ's Righteousness, as such in itself, & as a Cause of our Righteousness, or in the causality of it; as our sin is not reputed Christ's sin in itself, and in the culpability of it (for then it must needs make Christ odious to God) but in its causality of punishment. So Christ's material or formal Righteousness is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in itself as such, but the causality of it, as it produceth such & such effects, Ans. How Christ's Righteousness should be the cause of our Righteousness, if we speak properly, I know not; for we are here speaking of Righteousness, in order to justification, & in this case, I know no other Righteousness, but Christ's Surety-righteousness, imputed to us, and bestowed upon us: & it is improper to say, that Christ's Righteousness is the cause of itself, as given to us. But it may be, he meaneth, that it is the cause of our Faith; & this I grant to be true, but I deny, that this faith is our Righteousnese, whereupon we are justified, or the ratio formalis objectiva of our justifications. When we mention the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness, we mean the Righteousness of Christ itself, not Physically, but legally & juridically, & that is its worth or legal causality; not as it produceth, but in order that it may produce such Effects. Our sin is reputed Christ's legally, in its demerit of punishment, or in its reatus culpae, that He might be legally thereby reus culpae and yet He was not odious to God, because it was not His Inherently, but only legally & by Imputation.

Mr. Baxter in his following Chap. 3. fearing, that by all that he had said, he had not made the state of the controversy plain enough to the unexercised Reader, goeth over it again, in a shorter way, that he may make it as plain, as possibly he can. And yet, I judge, (such is my dullness) that he never made the matter more obscure, at least, to the Unexercised Reader, nor possibly could, than he hath done here; for if any man, how understanding so ever shall understand his Expressions, let be the matter by them, that is not very well versed both in Aristotle's Logicks or Metaphysics, and the terms thereof, and in justinian's Laws and the terms thereof, I am far deceived. He that would understand this plain discovery of the Question, must understand what Relations are; what Reatus culpae & poenae; what poena damni & sensus; what cessante capacitate Subdut, what pro-legal Righteousness; what quoad valorem & quoad ordinem conferendi, & rationem comparativam, What is Terminus & fundamentum in relations; what is Titulus & fundamentum juris; what causa fundamenti & donationis, & the like: And if all Unexercised Readers shall be able to understand this, I doubt: And sure I am, many a poor soul, that understands nothing of these terms, gets grace of God to understand the thing, better than all this explication (how plain so ever it be called) shall ever make him do. And if this be the plainest way, that Mr. Baxter can chose to make us understand this so necessary and fundamental a truth, I shall never choose him for my Teacher, as to this. It could therefore tend o no edification, at least unto his Unexperienced Readers, (whose edification, I judge, should be sought by us all, in handling of this matter) to fall upon any examination of, or debate with him about what he hath here said, seeing it would necessarily end in a debate about logical and Law terms; which I shall rather leave to others, who have delight therein. And beside, the matter itself, delivered by him in more plain & intelligible terms, (as I judge) both to exercised & more unexercised Readers, is already examined.

Notwithstanding (as we have seen) his opinion be different from what the orthodox do commonly hold, in this question; yet Chap 4. he stateth the question, against which he purposeth to dispute, so as he may be sure, none of these will oppose him: yea and it may be doubted, if Antinomians themselves will contradict him; for thus he proposeth what he denieth. That God did so impute Christ's Righteousness to us, as to repute, or account us to have been holy with all that habitual holiness, which was in Christ, or to have done all that He did, in obedience to His Father, or in fulfilling the Law; or to have suffered all that He suffered, & to have made Satisfaction for our sins, & merited our own Salvation & justification in & by Christ; or that He was, did, suffered & merited all this strickly in the person of every sinner, that is saved. Or that Christ's very individual Righteousness, material or formal, is so made ours in a strick sense, as that we are Proprietors, Subjects or Agents of the very thing itself simply and absolutely, as it is distinct from the effects; or that Christ's individual formal Righteousness is made our formal personal Righteousness; or that, as to the Effects, we have any such Righteousness imputed to us, as formally ours, which consisteth in perfect Habitual and Actual conformity to the Law of Innocency; that is, that we are reputed perfectly holy and sinless, and such as shall be justified by the Law of Innocency, which saith, perfectly obey and live, or sin & die. And the more to secure himself from all opposition from the orthodox, 〈◊〉 proposeth this Law (which is but equitable) to all that will answer him (I suppose he meaneth the Arguments that there follow) that he must keep to his words, & not alter the sense by leaving any out. I shall therefore be none of his Opposites here on these terms, but shall consider what he saith elsewhere.

CHAP. XIV.

How Christ is our Surety, and what Mr. Baxter saith, as to this, is examined.

OUr Lord Jesus being called a Surety in the Scriptures, may give us much satisfaction and clear light, anent the Doctrine of the Imputation of His Righteousness, if prejudice and Love to our own particular hypothesis do not blind us. The Apostle tells us Heb. 7: 22. that Jesus was made a Surety of a better Testament (or Covenant, rather) and though the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rendered Surety, be only in this place found in the N. Testam. yet that can give no colorable ground of Exception against the true & Native import of the word, and the truth, thereby hold forth, seeing one sentence of divine Revelation should captivat our faith & judgment, as well as Twenty, otherwise all divine Revelation, though never sooft reiterated, will hereby at length come to be questioned. And beside, the word properly signifieth a Surety, Cautioner, Praes, Sponsor, fide jussor: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is sponsio, expromissio, fidejussio: hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sub fide sponsionis trade, as it were, to deliver into hands, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spondeo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fidejussio, Vadimonium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fidejussor, vas, sponsor: and whether the word come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prope, or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appropinquo, or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in manibus, the same import and signification is hold forth; and the conjunction and nearness betwixt the Sponsor, or Surety, and the person for whom He is sponsor, with the ends, for which he engageth himself, who is a Sponsor, is manifestly hold forth; for the word Importeth one, who of his own accord engageth for another, taking upon him, the Cause and Condition of that other, & promising to do or pay what the other was obliged unto, or to see it done, and, thus engaging and promising, becometh the just & legal debtor for what he hath engaged, and obliged unto the performance. And this sense is both obvious and generally received by all men; which should Satisfie us, as to the acceptation of the word here, until it be demonstrate, that of necessity it must be taken in a peculiar & distinct sense, in this place; which yet the scope and circumstances of the place will not admit; but rather confirm the usual and generally received signification & Import of the word.

This is also confirmed by the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which hath many significations, all, or most, of which, as some think, may be reduced to two general heads: one is of mixing things together, or agreeing things or persons together, by compacts, Merchandice, pledges, or Caution. Hence it signifieth to become Surety Gen. 43: 9. & 44: 22. Prov. 11: 15. & 6. 1. & 17: 18. & 22: 26. Psal. 119: 122. as also to oppignorat, or give in pledge Neh. 5: 3. 2. King. 18: 23. Isaiah. 36.8. Job. 17: 3. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , arrabon, a pleage Gen. 38: 17:20. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fidejussion, sponsio, pignus, suretyship, & a pledge. 1. Sam. 17: 18. 2 King. 14: 14. This word then denoteth the Conjunction & Mixture, that is between a Surety, & him for whom he is Surety; for the word signifieth to mix or mingle together, so that they become hereby one person in Law; & an engaging. Ier. 30: 21. to show, that the Surety standeth engaged to perform what he hath promised, & become Surety for, having 〈◊〉 stricken hands, as it is rendered Prov. 22: 26. Whence we see that there is a near and close Union betwixt Christ and Believers; so as they (to speak so) become one person in Law; for a Sponsor, as such, standeth engaged with and for the debtor, as if they were both but one; for the Surety maketh himself the debtor; & the Creditor may pursue either of them for payment, and when payment is made by the one, both are free of the obligation: so that if the Surety pay the debt, the creditor cannot reach the Principal debtor. These things are clear and universally known and received. And hereby, we see how Christ, being a Surety, and Believers become one person, in Law-sense; so that as He did voluntarily engage for them, and put Himself in their Law place; so His payment and Satisfaction is accounted theirs, and justice cannot reach them, for that, which He, as their Surety, hath paid.

But Mr. Baxter, in his book ag. Doct. Tully. pag. 108. in answer to the first objection, which he there moveth, tells us, That when Christ is thus called the fidejussor of a better Covenant, it seemeth plain, that it is God's Covenant, as such; and so God's sponsor, that is meant. And for this he citeth Grotius & D. Hammond, in their Annot. Ans. This is the very same answer, that Socinians give, with whom both Grotius & Hammand do too well agree: and it is not much for Mr. Baxter's honor, nor for the credit of his cause, that he will forsake all the Orthodox, and embrace rather the Socinians, & such, as join with them, than abandon what he thinketh contributive to his Hypothesis. Whether Christ was at all a Surety, upon God's part, or not, needeth not here be discussed; some Orthodox being of the judgment, that He was, as we see in Mr. Gillespie's late Piece Chap. 21. others thinking, that He was not, as may be seen in D. Owen's book of the Doctrine of justification by faith. It is Sufficient against Mr. Baxter & the Socinians, to prove, that He was a Surety and Sponsor for man to God; & this is abundantly made good by what both these forementioned Authors have said, in the books mentioned, that more needeth not be added. But what doth M ^r. Baxter mean by God's Covenant? He can mean nothing here, but God's part of the Covenant; & so make Christ only a Surety for that part. But what ground is there for this in the Text, or context? The Apostle is proving, that Christ's Priesthood (which respecteth not God towards man, but man towards God; for every Priest is ordained for men in things to God, that he may offer both gifts and Sacrifices for sin Hob. 5: 1.) is more excellent than the levitica, He being made a Priest by oath, & a Surety of a better Covenant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & therefore his suretyship & His Priesthood must both respectmen, & the things of men to God; or the one should not be a fit Medium to prove the other; nor should there be any Coherence in the words; Unless, with the Socinians, we should pervert the Nature of Christ's Priestly office, & make it to be for God, in things pertaining to Men, contrary to Heb. 5: 1. and all the use of Priests from the beginning; as they do, when they make Christ's Priesthood to consist, in His making effectual to us the promises of God; or in his effectual Communicating to us the good things, promised to us of God; from which Mr. Lawson doth not much differ, when he saith (as Mr. Baxter citeth his words) That a Priest doth undertake to procure from God both the confirmation and performence of the Promises to the people; & to that end mediats between both.

He saith next, That Calvin seemeth to Intimate that, which he thinketh is the truth, viz. that Christ is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of God's Covenant, from the Sacerdotal appropinquation, mentioned verse 19. But no such thing appeareth in Calvin's Comment. And that appropinquation, mentioned verse 19. is the people their privilege now under the New Testam. He tells us further, that Marlorat and others by Sponsor mean a Mediator. And it is true, that the Sponsor here is a Mediator: But that the word Sponsor here shall denote nothing else, than what the word Mediator signifieth, I shall not readily believe, without clearer grounds, than any I see yet adduced; for I cannot think, that the Apostle would make use of a word, which nowhere else he useth, & which is nowhere to be found in the N. Test. but here, in a sense, that it is never found to have, neither in Scripture, nor in the common use of men. And how-ever; Yet it must be granted, that He is such a Mediator, as is a Priest, & so must offer Sacrifices to God for men, & therefore must as well be a Mediator and Sponser on man's part, as on God's. He saith, that Pareus on the place, calleth Christ a Sponsor of the Covenant, quia novum foedus sanguine & morte sua obsignavit. But for answer, he may read the same author on Chap. 8: 1. saying, est & Sponsor foeder is spondens Deo populi nomine fidem & obedientiam, non verbis modo sed & victimis. And thus he distinguisheth a Sponsor from a Mediator.

Mr. Baxter granteth ( pag. 109.) that a Mediator is not of one, but doth some what on the behalf of both parties: but addeth. That as Mediator, He is, Hath, Doth, Suffereth, Meriteth, Satisfieth, so as the Representer or Person of such a 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. Ans. Though this cannot be said of a Mediator, who is only a Mediator, strickly so taken, & no more; yet it may be said of him, who not only is a Mediator, but also a Sponsor and Surety, as we have several times explained it. He addeth 2. They that distinguish of a Natural & Political Person, do but darken the case, by an ill expressed distinction, which indeed is not of two sorts of persons, but between Reality & Acceptation, taking person properly for a Natural person: It is one thing to be such a person; and another thingh to have the Act, Passion, Merite &c. accepted for that other person: And this latter signifieth either, 1. That it was done by the other person raediatly, as being a chief cause acting by his Instrument. 2. Or that it was done for that other Person by another; the first is our denied sense, & the second our affirmed sense. Ans. And I think (such is the discordance of Men's apprehensions) that his explication darkeneth what is clear enough by the distinction given. His Reality & Acceptation, is, in our case, as darkening a distinction, as the others, if not more, and is against the Common sense of the Law, & the plain Common sense and understanding of men, when speaking of Law-matters. Who doth not understand how the Suretys payment is really, in the sense of the Law, the payment of the debtor, & not merely accepted for him? If the payment were purely accepted, neither could it be said, that the Surety was anteriourly obliged, nor that the Creditor might not refuse that payment, neither of which can be affirmed. As for the first sense of his Acceptation, we own it not, more than he: & the second is true, but not full & plain, being only general; nor is it, as thus generally expressed, any sense of his Acceptation: for when two persons are obliged for a sum conjunctly & severally, & the Creditor may distress either for the whole; when one payeth the whole, he may be said to pay for the other; & yet Common sense will not Suffer us to say, that his payment was only accepted for the other.

He tells us afterward, that Sponsors & Sureties with us, are of several Sorts, & that they, who lay all upon the very name of a Surety, as if the word had but one signification, & all Sureties properly represented the Person of the Principal obliged person, do deal very deceitfully. Ans. But there is no remedy against some Men's censures. Some will possibly think, that his dealing is not fair, to speak, in the Answer, of Sureties representing the principal debtors, when the Objection, as himself set it down, speaketh only of their being one person in Law sense; & these two are not every way the same; every one that representeth another, is not his Surety, or Sponsor; nor doth the Surety, in every case, represent the Principal debtor; neither is he said so to do. But, sure, it is plain dealing to take the word Surety, or Sponsor, in that sense wherein it is always taken by Men that use it, until he demonstrate, that of necessity it must have a peculiar sense, in this matter, & in this place; and it is not fair, to object deceitful dealing to us, in this, until he hath first discovered the deceit. He reckoneth up, three or four various things, in which persons may become Sureties, as Debt, Punishment, Duty, & the like; But to what purpose, I know not. Doth he think, that we make Christ such a Surety, as agreeth in all things with every Surety, among men? We know, there never was, nor never will be such a Surety, as our Lord Jesus is: A Surety, notwithstanding, we acknowledge Him to be; because He is so called; & in what respects He is a Surety, we know from the Scriptures, where that is abundantly declared, & not from the simple name of a Surety: The name tells us, that that must be said of Christ, which agreeth to all Sureties, or is commonly acknowledged to agree unto them; & that is, that they, in so far as they are obliged, or have obliged themselves, whether before or after the Principal Debtor stood obliged (for this maketh no difference as to the obligation Instit. fidejus. & ff.eod. l. & II.) are one person in Law-sense with the principal Debtor; so that their payment & Satisfaction is acknowledged in Law, as the payment & Satisfaction of the Principal Debtors. His Novices, that look into Calv. Lex. Iurid. for Fidejussor & Sponsor, will find nothing contrary to this; Yea they will find, that fidejussor dicitur, qui pro alio fidem suam obligat, & fide sua, id est, periculo suo esse jubet, quod alius debet; & that, fidejussor proprie decitur debitor; & that even fidejussor conditional is nomine debitoris continetur; & fidejussorem proprie esse debitorem fere omnes tradunt, quia jura eum plerumque appellant debitorem. The same is to be seen in Spigelius. As for that, which Mr. Baxter addeth, that fide juffor non est conveniendus, nisi prius principali debitore Convento, it neither altereth the case, nor was it universally so, but only in some certain cases, as he migt have read in the same place. So that it still holdeth true, that the Sponsor & the Debitor are one person in Law; & that so, that if the Debitor pay, the Sponsor is free; & if the Sponsor pay the Debitor is free. See Instit. lib. 3. Tit. 30. quibus modis tollitur obligatio & l. 13. § si. fide jussor; D. de Acceptil. Where it is said, that the debitor is liberat, if the Sponsor give only that, which is called, solutio imaginatia.

There must be (saith he) some what more than the bare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , once used of Christ, as Mediator of God's Covenant; or the name of a Surety as now used among men, that must go to prove, that the Mediator & the several sinners are the same legal Persons in God's account. Ans. What he meaneth by God's covenant, he would do well to explain. That the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used of Christ, as Mediator, if he take this as reduplicatively, he should prove. When he saith, the Mediator & the several sinners are the same Legal Persons, it is ambiguously uttered, & no clear Declaration of our mind. But as to the thing, we would fain know a reason, why we may not take this word, in its common acceptation among men, seeing there is nothing in Scripture to the contrary? yea, though this greek word be but here only found; yet, as we saw, we have an hebrew word of the same Import, several times used in the old Test; & the whole matter, that we seek after, clearly held forth thereby, if the places be but looked into

To put a close to this, we would call to mind that five fold Law-identity & sameness, that is betwixt Christ the Surety & Sinners, for whom He satisfied, mentioned by worthy Mr. Rutherfoord, in his Treatise of the Covenant part 2 pag. 251. which are these.

1. Though Physically the Surety & the Debtor be two different Men; yet in Law they are one & the same Person, & one & the same legal party, & the same object of justice, who so in Law pursueth the Surety, doth also pursue the Debtor.

2. The Debt & Sum is one; not two Debts, not two Ransomes, nor two Punishments; nor two Lives to lose, but one.

3. It is one & the same Solution, & Satisfaction; there cannot in Law-justice come another Reckoning, Dying, & payment asking, after the Surety hath paid.

4. There is one & the same Acceptation, upon the creditor's Part; if he accept of Satisfaction in the payment made by the Surety, he cannot but legally accept of the Debtor, & cannot pursue him in Law, but must look upon him, as no debtor &c.

5. It is one & the same legal effect. Christ crucified in the Spirit & risen again 1. Tim. 3: 16. & we in Him, as in the Meritorious Cause, are legally justified.

Mr. Gillespie in his late piece Chap. 21. hath several things, which will both clear up & confirm what is said; we shall mention only a few, pag. 373, 374. He tells us, [that 3. Suretyship imports not only a voluntary obligation for another person, but also union of parties, & Assumption of the Condition of that person, in the laws sense; so that the Surety & debtor are but one party in Law: therefore say the Iurists, fidejussor proprie dicitur debitor. Christ, by His Suretyship did not only take out Natures upon Him, but He took our condition upon Him. He put His name in our Bond, that the Law migt reach Him for our debt. 4. It imports a Communion betwixt the debtor & the Cautioner, whereby as the debt of the Principal debtor, becometh the debt of the Surety & affecteth him; so also the Satisfaction & Payment of the Surety & his Discharge & Reliefe, becometh the Satisfaction, Discharge & Reliefe of the principal Debtor, Christ's Suretyship imports not only an Union of Parties & Conjunction of interests & Condition with His People; but also a Communion with Debtful broken Man, resulting from His Bond of Suretyship; whereby as upon the one part our Debt becometh His entirely, as the jurists say of all Sureties, Singuli, in solidum tenenter; so upon the other part His Satisfaction & Discharge become ours 2. Cor. 5. last Gal. 3: 13. 5. It imports a Commutation, Surrogation, or Substituting of one in the room of another; & so Christ was substitute in our stead & room, as Judah was in Benjamin's. 1. Pet. 2: 21. Rom. 4. last & 5: 8. Gen. 44: 33.] So pag. 381. His Assert. 5. is [Christ the Surety & broken man the Debtor are one in Law, but not intrinsically one Isaiah. 1. They are legally one or in the Laws sense one; because by a legal Substitution & surrogation, Christ having put His name in the Believers Bond, by the Law▪ He is in his place, & the believer is put in Christ's law-place; so that by a legal act, the Surety 〈◊〉 the broken man: therefore Christ, being made Surety, saith, I am the broken man, all my friends debts be upon me, my life for their life, my soul for their souls Gal. 4: 4, 5. John. 1 • : 8. Gen. 44: v. 3. Asserts Neither the creditor, nor the Law can exact Satisfaction from both the Surety & the Debtor; but the Surety having paid all & Satisfied, the broken debtor can say, I have paid all, I am free; he may plead, my friend & Surety hath done all for me, & that is as good in fore, in the court of justice, as if I had paid all in mine own Person. Gal. 3: 13. Rom. 4: last, 1. Pet. 2: 24. The debt, that Christ paid, is our very debt, & the believer can say, when Christ my Surety was judged & Crucified for my sins, then was I judged; & what would you have more of a man, than his life? Isaiah. 53: 6, 7, 8.] So thereafter pag. 422. he saith [Among men usually, Sureties & Debtors enter into one & the same Bond with the Creditor; but here Christ's single bond lieth for all Psal. 89: 19. here Christ our Surety hath changed Bonds & obligations with us, & putteth out our name, & putteth in His own, in the bloody Bond of the Law, that the Debt, Satisfaction & Curse may be upon Him alone Gal. 3: 13. Isaiah. 53: 5. • Among men, the Creditor hath it in his choice, which of the two he will seize upon, the Surety, or the debtor, as he seeth it best for his Satisfaction: but it is not so here, for the Lord, the Creditor hath declared, that He will take Him to Christ for all; & hath Determined, that all the Satisfaction shall be made by Him: and Christ the Surety is content that it shall be so, and that the poor broken Creature shall go free, and no execution of the bloody Bond of the Law shall pass against him, he being a bankrupt creature, which hath obtained a liberation, as where there is cessio bonorum Psal, 89: 19. Heb. 10: 7. Rom. 8: 1. Isaiah. 53: 6. 3. Among men, usually the Principal Debtor is first convened for the debt, before the Surety be pursued: But it is not so here, the curse of the Law, and the execution of the bond thereof doth not first strick upon us, and then afterward upon Christ, to seek from Him what it cannot find in us: But the Lord, the Creditor, having astricked Himself to the Cautioner, the Law stricks first upon Him, and can never come to strike against the Believer, unless it should not find complete Satisfaction in our Surety, which is Impossible Isaiah. 53: 8. Gal. 3: 13. 4. Among men the debtor is the Principal Bondsman, and his obligation and Bond is the Principal obligation; & the Sureties obligation is but an accession to it, for strengthening the Security: but here the Surety is the Principal debtor; and by His Bond of Suretyship, He hath changed the Nature of the Believers Bond and Obligation, and put His own name in it, so as He is become the Principal Debtor. His Suretyship hath swallowed up the Debtor's Obligation to satisfy justice, the Surety being the Head and Husband of the poor broken Debtor Rom. 7: 4. and having changed the Bond of Satisfaction. and put out our Name, and put in His own, whereby He hath transferred the debt upon Himself, as Principal Debtor Heb. 10: 7.—9. Among men, usually the broken Debtor's Name stands still in the Bond, even after the responsal Surety hath interveened: But here Jesus, the Surety of the New Covenant, when He put in His own name, He puts out our names, that the Law might reach Him, and might not at all reach us. He wrote Himself the sinner legally, and wrote us Righteous persons. 2 Cor. 5: 21. Ier. 50: 20.]

CHAP. XV.

Mr. Baxter's Answers to some of our Argum. for Imputation, examined.

MR. Baxter, in his book against D. Tully proposeth some Objections, that he may make answer unto them, according to his own Grounds: Though some things, here repeated in his answers, have been already considered by us; yet we shall examine briefly his answers, as here given.

His answer to the first Objection hath been examined, in the foregoing Chapt. The 2. is this. Christ is called tht Lord our Righteousness, & He is made Righteousness to us, & we are made the Righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor. 5: 21. & by the Obedience of one many are made Righteous. He answereth to this 〈◊〉 . And are we not all agreed of all this? But can His Righteousness be ours no way, but by the foresaid personating R • presentation. Ans And will not Socinians; who overturn all the foundations or Christianity, and ought not be called, or accounted Christians, say the same, as to the Scripture-expressions? are we therefore agreed with them in judgment? or is there no difference betwixt us: His not agreement in the words, but in the sense of Scripture, that maketh a true agreement (2.) Christ's Righteousness may be, and is Ours another way, than by that Personating and Representating, which he stated, as the butt of his arguments & another way also, than he proposeth as his own judgment, as we saw.

He rels us next, how Christ is our Righteousness, & how His obedience maketh us Righteous, in his judgment, in 8 or 9 particulars. 1. Because the very Law of Innocency, which we dishonored & broke by sin, is perfectly fulfilled & honored by Him, as a Mediator, to repair the injury, done by our breaking it. Ans. The Law, which the Devils dishonored & broke by sin, was perfectly honored & fulfilled by the Angels, who stood; is therefore their Righteousness to be called the devils? But he will say; They obeyed not, as Mediator; True: But then the ground of Christ Righteousness, becomning ours, must be some other thing, than His honoring that Law by fulfilling it, which we dishonored by breaking. But he saith, Christ repaired the injury, done by our breaking it True; yet 〈◊〉 there be no more, that will not make His Righteousness ours; because, as is obvious, ere this be, we must have an Interest therein; & this obedience must be performed by Him, a our Mediator & Surety, undertaking & Satisfying the demands of the Law for us, & in our stead.

2. In that (saith he) He suffered to satisfy justice for our sin. Ans. Neither is suffering, as such, Righteousness; Nor could He satisfy justice for our sin, in & by suffering, if He had not done it in our stead, & as one Person with us in Law. If Titius steal from Sempronius a 1000. Pound; & Maevius givius Sempronius a 1000. Pound upon some distinct account. Sempronius receiveth no satisfaction, for what Titius stole from him, but if he come & give it for Titius & he be satisfied there-with, then there is a Law Union & oneness betwixt Titius & Maevius, whereby the Satisfaction given by Maevius, becometh the satisfaction of Titius.

3. He saith, 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 qualitative, or Active; that is, our right to Christ in union, to the Spirit, to Impunity & to glory, 2. the grace of the Spirit by which we are made holy, & fulfill the conditions of the Law of grace: we are the Subjects of these, & he is the Meriter; & the Meritorius Cause of out life is well called our Righteousness, & by many the material Cause (as our own perfect obedience would have been) because it is the matter of that merit. Ans. That Righteousness, which he saith here Christ hath merited, is not that Righteousness unto justification of life, as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5: 18. And which we have by the Obedience of Christ, made ours by Imputation verse 19. whereof we are here speaking, & in respect of which Christ is said to be our Righteousness (2.) Our right to Christ is not our Righteousness, in order to justification; nor is our Right to Impunity & Glory that Righteousness, but a consequent thereof (3.) In respect of the Graces of the Spirit, which follow justification, & do not precede it, Christ is called our Sanctification: & Mr. Baxter knoweth, there is a difference betwixt Righteousness & Holiness. (4.) The Meritorius Cause of our life is well called our Righteousness. when it is Imputed to us & put upon our score, as the Ground of our justification & Absolution; & upon this account only is it by many called the Material Cause.

4. And also (saith he) Christ's jntercession with the Father still procureth all this, as the fruit of His Merits. Ans. Of Christ's procuring our holiness we make no Doubt: but that upon this account, He is called our Righteousness, is denied: for this is not His Obedience & Righteousness, whereby we become Righteous unto justification of life.

5. And we are related (saith he) as His members (though not parts of His person, as such) to Him, that thus merited for us. Ans. if we be related to Him, as members, in order to our partaking of His Righteousness & Merit • s, we must be parts of His legal Persons though not of His Physical Person • for by Members here I suppose, he meaneth Members of His Mystical body or members of His Ransomed & Redeemed body: And head & Members here make one Political body, & become one Political Person, or one in Law-sense.

6. And (saith he) we have the Spirit from Him, as our Head. Ans, This is but what what was said before in the 3. place. And this Spirit is given for holiness: but Christ is our Righteousness, as well as our Sanctification; & it is of His being Righteousness, that we are speaking.

7. And he is our Advocate (saith he) & will justify us, as our judge. Ans. His being our Advocate, is the same with His Intercession spoken of in the 4. place. (2.) The Father will judge us, & justify us by Him; therefore God the Father shall be our Righteousness, as well as Christ; & consequently shall have merited all for us, by His blood & Sufferings, & that in a more principal manner, according to this Reason.

8. And all this (saith he) is God's Righteousness, designed for us, & thus far given us by Him. Ans.