Heaven They are no more Strangers and Forreigners but fellow-citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Ephes. 2 19. 3 Being by Adoption Children they are heirs heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ Rom. 8 17. Gal. 4 7. They are now begotten to an Inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in heaven for them 1. Pet. 1 4. Hence they are heirs of Salvation Heb. 1 14. Being Abrahams seed they are heirs according to the promise Gal. 3 29. these promises they do inherite Heb. 6. 12. What a life hath the Son and heire of a great King when he may look upon the many great Dominions Kingdomes of his Father as his own But what a greater life is it when a poor sinner that is now adopted through faith may look thorow all the great and precious promises contained in the Book of God and say all these are mine and may look up to Heaven to that glory which eye hath never seen nor ear heard nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive say all that is mine through Jesus Christ I am served heire thereunto have the begun possion thereof in mine Head Elder Brother Jesus Christ 4. Being adopted they have the earnest of the Spirit sealing them to the day of Redemption for in Christ they have obtained an inheritance are sealed with that holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession Ephes. 1 11 13 14. 4 30. And who can express what a life this is 5 Being adopted they have free access to the throne of Grace with boldness God being their Father the door standeth open they may approach with liberty freedom filial Boldness for through Christ they have an access by the Spirit unto the Father Ephes. 2 18. And in Him they have boldness access with Confidence by the faith of Him Ephes. 3 12. They may now come boldly unto the throne of Grace that they may obtaine mercy finde grace for help in time of need Heb. 4 16. By Him they have access by faith into the grace wherein they stand Rom. 5 2. And here certainely is a life the riches of the joy Comfort whereof cannot be expressed 6 Being adopted they receive the Spirit of adoption whereby they are delivered from that Spirit of Bondage under which they were formerly are now Principled Spirited â—mboldened to cry Abba Father Rom. 8. 15 That slavish fear under which they some time were is away they have now the reverential fear of Children which doth not hinder but encourage them to approach with freedom Enlargment of Spirit now they have the Spirit of prayer Supplication whereby they can call on God as their Father in Christ because they are Sones God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into there hearts crying Abba Father Gal. 4 6. What a resurrection from Death unto life is this to have heart tongue loosed to be in case to speak unto the Father in the language of the Spirit through Jesus Christ 7. Being adopted they have a right to all the Privileges of the Sones of God are under the Fatherly Care Inspection Provision Protection Leading Teaching Chastisement of their kind God Father Psal. 103 13 Prov. 3 11 12. 14 26. Mat. 6 30 32. 1 Pet. 5 7. Heb. 12 6. And o what a bundle of Mercies of life is here The beleever may welcome all the Dispensations of God receive them as out of the hand of a tender-hearted Father say Thus thus doth my Father unto me this is the hand working of a Father about me This how sharpe so ever it seem to be yet is the effect of tender love floweth from the heart bowels of a kinde compassionat Father to me 6. Their justification saith They are translated out of nature delivered from that death under which they did lye formerly unable to performe any even the least vital act of life for before justification they are united unto Christ by faith life is begun in their soul the seed of life is beginning to bud in them to bring forth fruit when they are enabled to beleeve to act faith upon to receive Jesus Christ as He is offered in the Gospel The spiritual life is in them is working when it moveth them Christ-ward powerfully draweth inclineth their Soul to close with Christ. This faith is the work of the Spirit of God alone It is not of our selves but the gift of God Ephes. 2 8. This beleeving is according to the working of his mighty Power which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Ephes. 1 19 20. Therefore is the Spirit called the Spirit of faith which all beleevers have 2 Cor. 4 13. for now in order to the effectual producing of this grace of faith in the Soul their mindes are enlightened to understand Spiritually Savingly the things of God Act. 26 18. For God revealeth them unto them by His Spirit who only knoweth the things of God which Spirit they have received that they might know the things that are freely given them of God 1 Cor. 2 10 11 12. Now they have received the Spirit of Wisdom Revelation in the knowledge of Him the eyes of their understandings being enlightened Ephes. 1 17 18. And as their mindes are changed so is their heart for the heart of stone is taken away the heart of flesh is given according as was promised Ezek. 36 26. their wills are renewed inclined unto good They have gotten the one heart the New Spirit Ezek. 11 19. The Lord hath wrought in them both to will to do Phil. 2 13. Their heart is circumcised to love the Lord according as was promised Deut. 30 6. And the Lord hath put His Spirit in them Ezek. 26 27. thereby hath drawn them unto Christ Ioh. 6 44 45. all which saith that the life of God of Grace is begun in their souls the Spirit of life hath taken possession of them abideth there worketh These things cleare how justly the justified soul may be said to live in what respects the justified state is a real state of life CHAP. VI. What mysteries are in Justification WHat was said in the foregoing Chapter may by way of use First discover unto us that Kindness and Love of God our Saviour that hath appeared unto men whereof the Apostle speaketh Tit. 3 4. For this is one remarkable Instance thereof and calleth for Admiration and praise from us upon that account O! what Tenderness Love and Pity appeareth here And what a wonderful Grace is this that is here manifested what condescension of Love and free Grace is clearly legible in this business And how clear and distinct will all this appear to a self condemned sinner arraigned
as a cause so is our Righteousness Justification inseparable as the full Effect CHAP. IX Other passages of the N. T. briefly mentioned which plead for this Imputation of Christs Righteousness THere are other passages of Scripture beside these mentioned in the preceeding chapter and against which I finde no Exceptions made by Mr. Goodwine in the forecited Book which yet do with no small clearness and fulness of evidence plead for the truth which we owne to wit The Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Beleevers in order to their Justification These we shall not insist upon but only mentione in short seing the full insisting upon them will not be necessary after what is said in the Explication Vindication of foregoing passages 1 Rom. 1 17. For therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The Apostle is here giving a reason proving the Gospel whereof he was not ashamed to be a preacher of to be the power of God unto Salvation that to every one that beleeveth be he jew or be he Gentile viz. Because there is a Righteousness revealed therein which sinners only stand in need of that Righteousness of God that is not only a Righteousness which is devised by God and is accepted in His sight but an excellent Righteousness even the Righteousness of one who is God and a Righteousness revealed for faith to lay hold on receive that which faith leaneth to first and last when it is weakest and when it is strongest that thereby the poor sinner who formerly was dead by law may live as one reconciled to God So that hence we see Sinners have need of a Righteousness and this Righteousness is the Righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel that it may be received by faith and so Imputed made over to the poor sinner in order to his Justification and acceptance with God 2 Rom. 4 11. And he i. e. Abraham received the signe of circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also Here is a Righteousness and a Righteousness called the Righteousness of faith because received applied only by faith and a Righteousness whereof circumsion was appointed a seal granted to Abraham as such and a Righteousness which was imputed to Abraham that he might be the Father of all them that beleeve for it is added that Righteousness might be Imputed to them also And this must be the same Righteousness that was Imputed to Abraham the same way Imputed the same way received that there migt be no essential difference betwixt the way of justification of Father and Children The Aethiopick Version may serve for a commentary and he had circumsion a signe of his righteousness which He gave him and the signe thereof that this might be made known unto him that God justified Abraham by faith when he was not at that time circumcised that they may know that they also are justified by faith 3. Rom. 4 24 25. But for us also to whom it shall be Imputed if we beleeve on Him who raised up tesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences was raised againe for our justification Here is some thing said to be Imputed this must be in order to justification And this that is Imputed cannot be faith it self or our act of beleeving for what is said to be Imputed is promised to be Imputed upon condition of faith or our beleeving on Him who raised up Iesus our Lord. So that it must be the Righteousness of Christ consisting in His Mediatory work which He undertook performed for His owne for it is added that He was delivered for their offences that is He was delivered unto the death to make satisfaction for their sinnes He rose againe that He might declare He had given full Satisfaction that He might apply this Surety-righteousness of His to the end they might be justified Socinus doth not understand this therefore de Servat part 4. p. 333 saith It is most certaine that the Apostle doth not speak of any Imputation of the righteousness of Christ but assert that the faith or credite we give God because He hath called Iesus Christ our Head from death to eternal life shall be accounted unto us in the place of righteousness just as faith whereby Abraham gave credite to the words of God was Imputed to him for righteousness But the Text hereby is manifestly perverted for it saith that some thing shall be imputed if we beleeve which can not be faith but something distinct from faith which is to be Imputed upon condition of faith And what can this be else than the Surety-righteousness of Christ who is here mentioned as dying riseing in the place and for 〈◊〉 good of His people that they might be justified And further if it were faith it self that were here said to be Imputed in order to justification the justified man should not be one that is in himself ungodly because he hath a Righteousness in himself and he who hath a Righteousness in himself is not ungodly yet it is said Rom. 4 5. That God justifieth the ungodly Againe That which is Imputed must be a Righteousness without works vers 6. but if faith it self be Imputed a work is Imputed and not a Righteousness without works and this would also lay down a ground of boasting make the reward of debt not of grace v. 14. 4. Rom. 10 10. For with the heart man beleeveth unto Righteousness with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation The Apostle had been before vers 4. telling us That Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth thereafter he discriminateth the way of justification by the law and by the Gospel under the Notion of a Righteousness which is of the law and a Righteousness which is of faith then more particularly he describeth the Righteousness of faith or a Righteousness is had unto Salvation in through faith vers 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus shalt beleeve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved which he proveth in the 10. vers now cited therein sheweth how by this beleeving that God hath raised the Lord Jesus from the dead Salvation is brought about viz. That by beleeving with the heart a Righteousness is obtained received and this righteousness must be Christs even His Surety-righteousness for faith looketh on Him as raised from the dead that by God as having now received full Satisfaction from Him thereupon bringing Him as it were out of prison And in the Text cited we see that by faith a Righteousness is received or faith is the way unto the possession of a Righteousness as Confession is the
cause of the formal objective cause which some call the Formal others the Material cause and the Inferiour Meane or Instrumental cause Here also these two are confounded made one viz. We are justified by faith faith is Imputed unto Righteousness That these are far different shall be cleared hereafter But what answereth he He saith 1. If their meaning be simply so that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth they speak more truth than they are aware of But that whatsoever faith apprehendeth should justify is not true Ans. Who speaketh thus I know not yet I see little danger in it their meaning being only this in that expression we are justified by that which faith apprendeth that Christ His Righteousness which justifying faith in the act of justifying laith hold on is the formal objective cause or that upon the account of which we are justified this no way saith that our faith is that Righteousness for which we are justified Next he saith If men ascribe justification in every respect to that which faith apprehendeth they destroy the Instrumental Iustification of faith Ans. No man that I know doth or will ascribe Justification in every respect unto that which faith apprehendeth so they need not destroy the Instrumental use of faith in Justification for as to the Instrumental justification of faith I understand it not it seemeth to be a very catachrestick expression In end he addeth If faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation or account from God for righteousness because it is all that God requires of men to their justification in stead of the righteousness of the law Therefore if God shall not impute or account it to them for this righteousness it would stand them in no stead at all to their justification because there is nothing useful or available to any holy or saving purpose but only to that whereunto God hath assigned it If God in the New Covenant requires faith in Christ for our justification in stead of the righteousness of the law in the old this faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousness but his command and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it self of beleeving will both become void of none effect the intire benefite of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure purpose of God in the designation of them to their end Ans. Whatever interest or place Faith hath in the New Cov. in the matter of justification it hath it from Gods sole appointment designation it is all that which is now required of us in order to our justification entering into Covenant with God yet unless we change alter its true nature and assigne another place power to it that God hath the Crown is keeped on the head of the Mediator His Righteousness is only owned received produced by the sinner as it were in face of Court rested upon by faith in order to justification But when faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness that is when our act of beleeving is made our Righteousness said to be so accounted esteemed by God all this to shoot out the Righteousness of Christ and to take away the Imputation thereof to us as the only ground of our justification not only are the native kindly actings of justifying faith destroyed but the very nature gentus of the New Covenant is altered it is made to be the same in kinde with the first Covenant with this gradual difference that the first Covenant required full perfect obedience the second one act of obedience only viz. Faith as a Peppercorn as some speak in stead of a great rent our whole Righteousness for no other Righteousness will our adversaries grant to be really imputed to us save what they grant of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness only as to Effects and thus they make the Lord to repute for that is the meaning of imputing with them that to be a Righteousness which at best is but imperfect not every way conforme to the command of God enjoining it Whereby thus one imperfect act of obedience viz. Faith is made that whereupon the wakened sinner is to rest and lay his whole weight wherein he is to refuge himself from the wrath of God which he is to hold up as his legal defence against all accusations coming in against him and all this use is to be made of faith immediatly in stead of Christ His Surety-righteousness Whence we see that it is false to say 1 That if faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation for righteousness For it justifieth as the mean appointed of God to lay hold on an Imputed Righteousness and to carry the soul forth thereunto The reason added is vaine for though it be all that God requires of men to their justification it is not that Rightheousness which is imputed unto Justification or the ground thereof but the Mean or Instrument of a soul 's partaking of that Righteousness of Christ which is the only ground or formal objective reason 2 It is false to say That if God shall not account it to them for righteousness it shall stand them in no stead to justification For it is required as the meane whereby the Sinner is married unto Christ partaketh of His Righteousness in order to justification and is as the legal production of the righteousness of the Surety in face of court as the ground of absolution to be pleaded stood unto The reason he here addeth is of no force because faith is assigned of God to this end purpose as the Gospel cleareth only to this end that so the Mediator alone may weare the Crown beare the weight of sinners nothing in us or from us may share with Him in that glory It is false 3 to say or suppose as his following words intimate That faith in the New Covenant hath the same place force efficacy which the righteousness of the law had in the old Covenant For then Faith should be Meritorious ex pacto should give ground of glorying before men It is 4 false to say That if faith hath not this place force efficacy in the New Covenant the command for beleeving beleeving it self shall be vaine Seing it hath another use designed to it of God and it is required for another end as is said according to the gracious pleasure purpose of God Lastly Chap. 8. pag. 93. c. he argueth from Gal. 3 12. thus If the Scriptures do not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the Righteousness of Christ from one person to another then there is no Imputation of Christ's Righteousness But the former is emphatically true from this place Ergo c. Ans. This upon the matter is but what Socinus said lib. 3. cap. 3. viz.
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 justifie 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 Lawes 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 joine 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 bargaine 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 any thing that yet appeareth his whole Argument is but a meer 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 beleever 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 separat 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 vertue or value to that Righteousness Ans. This being God's free Constitution His will should serve us for a Law and in stead 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 turne 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 interveening 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 immediat connexion therewith Ans. Not to trouble our selves with that fonde fooliâ— distinction betwixt towards unto which rather renders the Adversaries Cause desperat himself faine 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 immediat a connexion with justification as Faith hath which is our Act for there is no priority or posteriority here as to time for whensoever a Man beleeveth in that same instant Righteousness is imputed and in that same Instant the beleever is justified We cannot say a Man is a beleever 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 neer connexion with justification than faith hath for we may likewise say though a man beleeve 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 meer sophismes 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 leane 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 obtaine the purchase We owne only such consequential conditions here as are but the means and Methods appointed of God for such and such ends which have an immedial connexion 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 returne upon his own head for when he saith that faith is Imputed for Righteousness meaning by faith our act of beleeving he must also say that a man may beleeve and yet not be justified untill 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 beleevers 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 seing 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 againe for we had it once if not oftner 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 mans 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 transgressour 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 no where said of the Transgressour Ans. But all this is loose reasoning for as the Law saith God will visite the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children unto the third and fourth Generation so it saith that He will shew mercy to thousands of them that love Him and keep His Commandements 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 every one 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 ratione demerity than obedience is in ratione meriti Adam might by his transgression merite 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 threatning death to the transgressour Albeit Adam could not be said to have merited life by his obedience in way of proper and strick merite yet in way of merite 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. How beit 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 enquire 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 publick 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 wayes 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 meer 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 maine buliness wherein he complieth with the Socinians and others Let us hear him first saith he the Scripture no where affirmes 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 tels us
abstracto i. e. without the receiving subject thereof in concreto i. e. together with the beleever The first which signifieth Remission of sins and Righteousness to Acceptation prepared though not yet conferred upon the Elect he saith hath a being before Faith and so the object is before the act though the ather be after faith But I conceive there is no great necessitie of this for answering of the argument if any should propose it to evince justification before faith and Bellarm. adduceth it not to this end as we saw for I see no ground to assert justification to be the object of justifying faith as if in order to justification we were called to beleeve that we are justified and that our sins are pardoned as was said above And as for this justification considered in the abstract which is said to have a being not only in the Purpose of God but also in the Covenant between the Father the Mediator in the Purchase of Christ not only is it not called justification in Scripture but also in so far as it is the object of faith as all other revealed truthes are it is of the elect in general and not of this or that particular person so that though justifying faith may beleeve that God Purposed Christ Purchased the Covenant of Redemption did expresly containe the justification of the Elect yet it doth not beleeve in order to the mans justification that he in particular so was justified either in the Purpose of God or in the Purchase of Christ or in the Covenant betwixt Iehovah the Mediator nor is this Faith called for because this object is not a revealed truth Yet this same justifying Faith is of that Nature as to produce afterward reflecting acts whereby the man may see his own justification be perswaded of it in truth hence also be perswaded that the Lord Purposed to justifie him in particular that Christ Purchased his justification in particular and that it was an article of the Covenant of Redemption that he in particular should be justified 2. While it is said That the just liveth by faith we see that faith is the way whereby persons come actually to live the life of justification and hence it can not it self be the matter of their life What interest properly faith hath in this affaire must be debated afterward to wit whether it be properly imputed as the matter of our Righteousness or only be to be considered as an Instrument or as a Condition how so 3. We see That this living by Faith proveth that there is no justification by works in the sight of God whence it is manifest that faith here cannot be considered as a work of the Law or as a duty enjoined by the Law or under any such consideration 2 That works have no interest as a cause or condition with Faith in justification 3 That the life of justification as to its continnation is by faith and by faith as opposite to works for the just or the man already justified liveth by faith This being also questioned we will have occasion to speak more to it afterward 4. While it is said the just liveth by faith it is considerable That this faith in its kinde and not in such or such measure is here said to be the meane whereby persons come to live the life of justification So that this true Faith how weak so ever is the only mean of interessing a soul in this privilege of justification This will give occasion to speak of the object of this justifying faith which will help to cleare the nature of it Our larger Catechisme qu. 72. giveth us such a definition or description of justifying faith that may satisfy us as to most of these difficulties The answere is this justifying faith is a saving grace Heb. 10 39. wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit 2 Cor. 4 13. Ephes. 1 17 18 19. word of God Rom. 10 14 17. whereby he being convinced of his sin misery of the disability in himself all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition Act. 2 37. 16 30. Ioh. 16 8 9. Rom. 5 6. Eph. 2 1. Act. 4 12. not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gosspel Ephes. 1 13. but receiveth resteth upon Christ and his Righteousness therein hold forth for pardon of sin Ioh. 1 12. Act. 16 31. 10 43. for the accepting and accounting of his person Righteous in the sight of God for salvation Phil. 3 9. Act. 15 11. And this question is none of these particulars wherein Mr. Baxter in his Confess desireth to dissent from the said Catechisme as the next Question is as we shall hear We may hence take notice of these particulars concerning this faith ' whereby it may be known distinguished from what some may mistake for it 1. As to its nature kinde it is saving for all such as have this grace of justifying faith are in the sure way of salvation whatever faith persons may have if they have not this they are not in the sure path of life There is a faith of miracles both Active Passive as we may say that is a faith to do miracles and a faith to receive miracles wrought upon them The first was that which the Apostles had and others who wrought Miracles and is to be understood Mat. 17 20 21. Luk. 17 6. The other is that which some of those had who received miraculous cures as the woman Mal. 9 21 21. and that Man who cried out I beleeve help mine unbeleefe Mark 9 24. and the man of lystra Act. 14 9. and others This in it self considered is not a saving grace Iudas had this faith whereby he cast our devils and had commission to work miracles with the rest Mat. 10 8. Luk. 9 1 6 10. So also the Seventy disciples Luk. 10 9 17 19. And how great a privilege so ever this was yet Christ told them vers 20. that it was a far greater matter and much greater ground of joy to have their names written in heaven whereby he giveth us also to understand that these are distinct different from other and also separable Many saith Christ Mat. 7 22 23. will say to me in that day Lord Lord have we not prophesied in thy name in thy name have cast out devils in thy name have done many wonderful works And then will I professe unto them I never knew you depart from me ye that work iniquity And it is of this Faith that Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 13 2. though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have no charity I am nothing Importing that this Faith may be where there is no saving Christian Love There is an Historiâ—al faith that is a beleeving not only of the histories recorded in the word of God but of the whole Revelation of God's minde there yet only
Salvation But the meaning of the Assembly is plaine enough against that which is the opinion of Socinians Arminians as the words of the Answer to quest 73. of the larger Catech. make manifest where it is said in answere to that Question How doth faith justifie a sinner in the sight of God Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God not because of these other graces which do alwayes accompany it or of good works that are the fruit of it nor aâ— if the grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for his justification this is confirmed from Rom. 4 5. comp with Rom. 10 10. but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth applyeth Christ his Righteousness And in the Confess of Faith Ch. 11. f. 1. nor by imputing faith it self the act of beleeving nor any other evangelical obedience to them as their Righteousness Nor is this a determining of a point expresly against the words of God as he supposeth for it is not the bare words as Hereticks interpret them that is the minde of God but the true sense meaning of his words And in Confessions Catechismes I judge that matters should be made plaine and that it were not plaine ingenuous dealing to set down the truth in these expressions that hereticks can subscribe unto when it is known they have an exposition of these words contrary to truth It seemeth that Mr. Baxter will not say in the explication of the Sacrament of the Lords supper that the bread is not changed into the body of Christ lest he seem to contradict expresse Scripture which saith that Christ said of the bread this is my body But now as to the matter I assert with our Confess Catechis and with all the orthodox against Socinians Arminians That faith considered as our act of obedience is not that which is accounted our Righteousness in order to Justification nor that which is properly imputed to us for that end Nor is that the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 4. And of this I give these reasons 1. The Apostle in his whole Disput about Justification opposeth Faith Works as inconsistent with yea as repugnant to other as is notoure But this could not be if Faith as our act of obedience were imputed to us as our Righteousness for faith as our act of obedience is a work and a work commanded by the Law of God otherwayes it should be unlawful or a work of supererogation The meaning then of the Apostles Conclusion Rom. 3 28. should be this a man is justified by one dead of the Law without all works or deeds of the Law which were a contradiction And it is certaine that when the Apostle excludeth the works of the Law he excludeth their from being looked upon as our Imputed Righteousness for Adversaries did plead for their interest in justification as a Righteousness to be imputed to the doers where upon they might be justified if then faith as our work were imputed as our Righteousness Pauls disput should be whether all works should be imputed for Righteousness or one work of faith only Nor can it be said that by the Law here the Apostle understandeth only the Law of Moses as such for he is speaking this even of the Gentiles who never were under the Law of Moses and instanceth Chap. 4 in Abraham who was justified long before the Law of Moses as such had a being And he is speaking of the Law by which is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3 20. which worketh wrath Rom. 4 15. which cannot agree to the Law of Moses only 2. By asserting that Faith properly taken is accounted our Righteousness the whole scope all the Arguments which the Apostle useth in this matter should be enervated and contradicted as a very light view of them might make manifest and the following Arguments will evince 3. Faith considered as our act of obedience and as a work of ours is not that Righteousness of God without the Law which is witnessed by the Law and the Prophets Nor is it that Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve Rom. 3 21 22. Neither Law nor Prophets did bear witness that faith as our act work was accounted all the Righteousness that was to be imputed to the beleever Nor said that our act of faith was the Righteousness of God without the works of the Law Nor is it imaginable how faith can be that Righteousness of God which by Faith is imputed unto all and put upon all that beleeve Shall we think that the Apostles words have but this sense That faith is unto upon them that have faith or that faith is imputed by faith Sure the Apostles words must be so understood as to import that the beleever hath by his faith something imputed to him which is distinct from faith as is obvious 4. If faith as our work were imputed as Righteousness how could the Righteousness of God be declared in the justification of sinners God be just when he was the justifier of him which beleeveth in Jesus as the Apostle saith Rom. 3 26 Is our Beleeving such a perfect compleat Righteousness that God cannot but account us Righteous because of it so justifie us as Righteous upon the account of it Is it not sick of the same discemper of weakness with other graces 5. If Faith as our act work were imputed to us as our Righteousness how should boasting be excluded all occasion of glorying though not before God before whom even Adam though he had continued in his state of innocency unto the end could not have gloried yet before Men taken away as it is in the matter of justification Rom. 3 27. 4 2. The Law of works will not exclude boaâ—ing faith as our work belongeth to the Law of works and if we were justified by Faith as our imputed Righteousness we should certainly have ground of glorying before Men as well as Adam should have had if he had stood in his integrity obtained the crown by his doing 6. If Faith as our work were imputed to us for our Righteousness Justification the reward should not be of grace but of debt as the Apostle expresly affirmeth Rom. 4 4 5. Now to him that worketh he who beleeveth in this which he now opposeth worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but beleeveth beleeving then here is opposite to working therefore cannot be considered as a work of obedience in us but as carrying us out of our selves to seek lay hold on the Righteousness of Christ without us on him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is counted for Righteousness that is the Righteousness of Christ which Faith laith hold on is counted for Righteousness 7. If Faith as our act of obedience were accounted our Righteousness
which is had by Faith and which every one partaketh of that beleeveth as the following words show 16. When the Apostle saith Rom. 5 19. by the Obedience of one shall many be made righteous doth he meane by that obedience of one our Faith not rather the Obedience of Christ which is imputed and whereby we become Righteous As the disobedience of Adam was not some particular after deed of his posterity which was imputed to them for their disobedience but it was the particular fact of Adam eating the forbidden fruit which was imputed to all his posterity and whereby they were constituted sinners so this obedience of Christ cannot be any act of obedience in us be it Faith or what you will but the acts of Christ obeying the Law imputed to us whereby we become Righteous are constituted Righteous in the sight of God 17. When Paul said Phil. 3 9. and be found in him i. e. Christ not having mine own righteousness which it of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith can he meane by this Righteousness which he was desirous to be foundin only Faith If he had meaned Faith had not that been his own Righteousness Is not our Faith called our owne If not why saith Iames Chap. 2. shew me thy faith I will shew thee my faith And should not this Righteousness if his beleeving had been it been of the Law Or is faith according to no Law If it be according to no Law it is no act of obedience Moreover how could Faith be said to be through Faith Is Faith a mean to it self How can Faith be the Righteousness of God which is by faith Was not the Apostles scope desire to win Christ And is Faith Christ 18. If our act of beleeving be imputed to us as our Righteousness then we cannot say In the Lord have we righteousness contraire to Esai 45 24. in order to a saying in the Lord we shall be justified as vers 25. but rather in ourselves have we Righteousness in order to this end for Faith or our act of Beleeving is in our selves immediatly and is said to be our Righteousness Nor can we thus call the Lord our righteousness contrate to Ier. 43 6. But rather our own act of beleeving shall be our Righteousness trusted to as such Nor yet could we say that Christ is made of God to us righteousness As it is 1 Cor. 1 30. unless that because by vertue of his mediation our act of beleeving is made of God to us Righteousness sure I am the emphasis of the words pointeth out some other thing as hath been seen 19. Is our beleeving that rob of Righteousness wherewith the Lord covereth such as have ground to rejoice greatly in the Lord and to be joyful in their God Esai 61 10 Such might as well rejoice greatly in themselves be joyful in themselves in their Beleeving 20. Is Faith that everlasting Righteousness that the Messias was to bring in Dan. 9 24 Doth our act of beleeving last for ever Paul hinteth some other thing 1 Cor. 13. 21. When Paul saith Rom. 10 10. that with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousness must not this Righteousness be something distinct from beleeving If not we may as well say that Confession with the mouth is the same with Salvation for he addeth with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation wherefore as Confession is but a mean way unto Salvation so Beleeving is but a mean way unto Righteousness 22. Can we with any coloure of reason suppose that our act of beleeving is that Righteousness of God which is revealed from faith to faith Rom. 1. 17. Can faith be said to be revealed from it self to it self 23. Our act of Beleeving cannot be that Righteousness whereof Noah become heir Heb. 11 7. for he became heir of this Righteousness by Faith he could not be said to be come heir of Faith by Faith 24. Faith is among the works of Righteousness which we do and alâ— these works of Righteousness the Apostle excludeth from an interest in that Righteousness where-upon we are Justified as opposite to mercy Tit. 3 5. Therefore our Beleeving cannot be our Righteousness unto Justification 25. If our act of Beleeving be imputed to us for Righteousness then it alone must be that fine linen wherein the lambs bride is arayed and it must be the fine linen that is clean and white for this fine linen is said to be the Righteousness of the saints Revel 19 8. But that cannot be because our Faith is not so pure as that it may be called clean white linen the Saints themselves are ashamed of their faith as being so full of blemishes and imperfections as also because this favour granted to her to be arayed in this linen cometh in after that she hath made herself ready vers 7. which as Mr. Durham on the place sheweth is to be meaned of Faith 26. All this work about the Imputation of Faith taken properly for our act of Beleeving is made of purpose to shoot out the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ as is clear by Iohn Goodwines whole disput from his very stateing of the question part 1. pag. 7. saying But the Question in precise termes is this Whether the Faith of him who truely beleeves in Christ or whether the Righteousness of Christ himself be in the letter propriety of it that which God imputes to a beleever for righteousness or unto righteousness in his Justification Now let any judge which of the two hath more countenance in Scripture when the one to wit the Imputation of Faith is but to be drawn with any show of probability from one place of Scripture and yet how small countenance that giveth to it shall be seen hereafter and the other is so emphatically expressed in so many places both in the Old New Testament And which of the two deserve most the name of Righteousness in order to our Justification and the Imputation of which of the two is most consonant unto the genius of the Gospel Covenant which we must suppose to be far different from the Nature Constitution of the Covenant of Life made with Adam withall which of the two wayes speaketh out most distinctly the riches of the Love Grace of God giveth most sure ground of hope Confidence unto a poor wakened and distressed Soul finally which of the two is that which the seriously exercised Christian dar with fixedness of Resolution Lean the weight of his soul upon exercised Christians finde to be that whereupon they Loaning resting finde Peace Quietness of Soul CHAP. XXIII Some Arguments against the imputation of Faith Vindicated from the Exceptions of John Goodwine AFter these Reasons against the Imputation of our act of Beleeving drawn from the Scriptures we come here to Vindicate some Arguments adduced
by others to the same end from the Exceptions of Iohn Goodwine in his Treatise of Iustification part 2. Ch. 6. The first Argum. is thus framed That which impeacheth the truth or justice of God can have no agreement with the truth This is undeniable But the imputation of our act of Beleeving for Righteousness doth so because then he should esteem account that to be a Righteousness which is not Therefore c. He excepteth against the Assumption its probation thus 1. This was in effect the plea of Swencfeâ—dus as recorded by Zanchy Epist. lib. 1. p. 215. likewise of the Councel of Trent as Calv. hath observed Antidot ad Sess. 6. p. 324. to prove that the word Justification in the Scripture was not to be taken in a juridical sense to wit for absolution but in a physical or moral sense for making of a man compleetly just righteous Ans. What Swencfeldus said I finde not recorded by Zanchie in the place cited in my edition if his words be rightly repeeted in the margine he hath had the same judgment that Papists have which is sufficiently known with whom none in reason will say we conspire upon the account of this argument who but observeth this which abundantly discovereth the impertinency of this Exception That the minor its Probation speak not of the act of God Justifying but of his simple act of Estimating or Judging which must alwayes be according to truth therefore we cannot think or say that God judgeth or estimateth that to be a compleat Righteousness which is nothing so And beside though Justification it self were here understood yet it might be said without any ground of imputation either of Popery or of Swencfeldianisme that God who is the just Righteous Judge will not absolve a person as Righteous who is not Righteous nor pronunce him Righteous who hath not a Righteousness as he hath not who hath nothing but his act of Beleeving imputed to him Except 2. Any action conformable to a righteous Law may be is called Righteousness as that fact of Phineas Psal. 106 30. And faith being an obedience to a special commandement 1 Ioh. 3 23. 2 Pet. 2 21. Rom. 1 5. it may be with truth sufficient propriety of speach called a righteousness Ans. But of a particular Righteousness we are not here speaking nor of a particular Justification of such an act but of a Justification as to State and of a corresponding Righteousness which must be universal answerable to the challenge of the Law and no particular act of Obedience will be accounted such a Righteousness by God who is Truth Justice it self in order to the condemned mans Justification Beside himself tels us in end that this exception is nothing to the purpose for he doth not conceive that by Faith when it is said to be imputed is meaned an act of conformity to any particular precept of God And therefore he Excepteth 3. That which we meane is this that God looks upon a man who truely beleeveth with as much grace favour intends to do as bountifully by him as if he were a man of perfect righteousness Ans. But this Excepter should have said that Faith in the letter formality of it is imputed for thus he disputes against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and he should have said that God looketh upon the simple act of Faith as Perfect Obedience to all the Law for when we plead for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness he said that thereby we make God to look upon us as performing that Righteousness in our own persons Neither will he others understand any other Imputation and yet we see how they can speak when explaining the imputation of faith that they may think to evite the force of an argument But 2 though it be true that God dealeth thus as is said with Beleevers Yet that can give no ground to think that he imputeth Faith for Righteousness because it is not upon the account of Faith taken as an act of their obedience that the Lord dealeth so with them but upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith 3 A Justified person is accounted Righteous not inherently but imputativly and is accepted as such and pronunced such and therefore must be righteous indeed for the judgment of God is according to truth And if nothing be imputed to the justified but his faith unto Righteousness that faith must be accounted to be a Perfect Righteousness which yet it is denied to be He Excepteth 4. Nothing is more frequent with the best writers than that God accounts those just who in strickness of speach are not such but only have their sinnes forgiven them Ans. And their ground is good because they alwayes suppose that such as have their sins pardoned have a perfect Righteousness imputed to them and received by Faith without which their could be no Pardon Argum. 2. If faith should be imputed for Righteousness then should Justification be by worksâ— or by some what in our selves But the Scripture every where rejecteth works all things in our selves from having any thing to do in Justification He excepteth That by works or some what in ourselves may be understood either by way of merite and in this sense the Consequence of the Proposition is false or by way of simple performance then the Assumption is false for the Scripture expresly requireth faith or a work of us in order to Iustification When Faith is required in order to Justification in way of simple performance it is not required as our Righteousness far less as all the Righteousness which the Justified soul must have but only as a mean or Instrument laying hold upon and putting on the Righteousness of Christ which is offered and imputed and whereby the beleever resteth upon and wrappeth himself in that Righteousness as the only Righteousness wherein he can think to appeare before God's tribunal and thus Faith is not considered as our act making up our Righteousness but as bringing in with a begger 's hand a Righteousness from without But when faith or Beleeving is purely considered as our work and as an act of obedience in us and yet is called our Righteousness said to be all that Righteousness which is had is imputed in order to Justification it justifieth as a work upon the account of it as something in our selves we are said to be justified all this in perfect opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 2 It is but a Popish evasion to say that by Iustification by works the Scripture only meaneth justification by works that are meritorious as if either any work of ours what somever could be meritorious or as if such against whom Paul disputed did meane a meritoriousness in their works or as if the Scripture did not inferre merite from every work that is ours and that we do to make up a
of nature if not also in order of time And if matters be thus sins are first forgiven and then Faith is imputed 2 If the supposing of a righteousness will follow to wit Remission of sins then there is no answere to the argument for the argument speaketh of a Righteousness anterior to Justification and in order there unto 3 It is againe said but was never proved that to forgive sins is to give a Righteousness And I would ask what for a Righteousness this pardon of sins is is it a Righteousness perperly so called But that cannot be for all such Righteousness consisteth in obedience to the Law therefore it must be a Righteousness improperly so called if so it cannot be called our formal righteousness as he said it was 4 When he saith we are made righteous in justification yet will not grant an Imputed Righteousness and his Remission of sins is not yet found to be a proper Righteousness the sense must either be Popish or none at all I shall not here adde other reasons against this Assertion whereby it might be made manifest how dangerous this Opinion is if it be put in practice how it tendeth to alter the Nature of the Covenant of Grace It may suffice at present that we have vindicated these few reasons against it that we have found it in the foregoing Chapter inconsistent with the doctrine of grace in the New Testament repugnant to the Nature of Justification as declared explained to us by the Apostle and that we shall finde it in the next Chapter without any footing in the Apostles discourse Rom. 4. which is the only place adduced for its confirmation CHAP. XXIV The imputation of Faith it self is not Proved from Rom. IV. THe maine if not only ground whereupon our Adversaries build their Assertion of the Imputation of our act of Beleeving is Rom. 4. where they tell us the Apostle doth frequently expresly say that Faith is imputed unto Righteousness We must therefore in order the vindication of truth vindicate this place from their corrupt glosses to this end we shall first show that that can not be the meaning of the Apostle in this place which our Adversaries contend for next we shall examine what they say to enforce their Exposition of the place That the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 4. where it is said Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousness afterward his faith is counted for righteousness and faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness c. is not that Abraham's act of beleeving was accounted the Righteousness whereupon he was accepted was imputed unto him as a Righteousness in order to his justification and consequently that the act of Beleeving is now imputed to Beleevers for their Righteousness as said Servetus Socinus his followers Arminius his followers Papists others that I say this is not the true meaning of the place may appear from these particulars 1. If the act of Beleeving be accounted a Righteousness it must either be accounted a Perfect Righteousness or an Imperfect Righteousness If it be accounted for an Imperfect Righteousness no man can be thereupon Justified But Paul is speaking of a righteousness that was accounted to Abraham the father of the faithful in order to Justification that behoved to be a perfect righteousness for all his works wherein was an Imperfect Righteousness were rejected It cannot be accounted for a perfect righteousness because then it should be accounted to be what it is not and this accounting being an act of God's judgment it would follow that the judgment of God were not according to truth contrare to Rom. 2 2. The reason is because our faith is not perfect in it self there being much drosse admixed many degrees wanting in it far lesse can it be a Perfect Righteousness seing a Perfect Righteousness must comprehend full Obedience to the whole Law of God 2. The Imputation whereof the Apostle speaketh is of some thing to be made the Beleevers by the Imputation of God which the Beleever had not before But this cannot be Faith or the work of Beleeving because Faith is ours before this Imputation for Abraham beleeved God then followed this Imputation and vers 24. it is said that it to wit some other thing than the act of beleeving shall be imputed to us if we beleeve therefore it is not the act of Beleeving properly taken that is imputed or accounted here 3. Faith being antecedent to this Imputation if the act of Beleeving be imputed the word impute or account here must not signifie to Bestow Grant or Reckon upon their score but simply to Esteem Judge or Repute and thus Faith or the act of beleeving shall be in a beleever and yet not be a Righteousness till God repute it to be so But when God esteemeth judgeth or reputeth any thing to be in us he doth not change it nor make it something that it was not before but judgeth it to be what it is indeed for his judgment is according to truth Rom. 2 2. 4. This sense glosse is quite opposite unto and inconsistent with the Apostles maine scope in the first part of that Epistle which is to prove that Righteousness is now revealed from faith to faith Rom. 1 17. and that we are not Justified by the works of the Law but freely by grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3 24 25. And therefore not through the Imputation of Faith the act of Beleeving or any work of Righteousness which we have done for that should not exclude boasting or glorying but through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ received by Faith 5. That which was accounted to Abraham for righteousness did exclude all works and that to the end that all ground of boasting even before men might be take away vers 2. 3. Therefore Faith as a work or the act of beleeving can not be it which is here said to be reckoned or accounted to Abraham for righteousness for this is a work and being made the Ground Formal Objective Cause of justification can not but give ground of glorving before men 6. This glosse maketh the Apostles discourse wholly incoherent for he saith vers 4 5. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned ef grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth tht ungodly his faith is counted for Righteousnese Now if Faith properly taken be imputed the reckoning shall be of just debt for to reckon a men righteous who is righteous antecedent to that act of accounting is no act of grace but of just debt but Faiths being accounted for Righteousness is an act of grace and therefore it must be the Object of Faith or the Righteousness that Faith laith hold on that is here said to be counted upon
the Beleevers score and this indeed is no act of just debt but of grace 7. Againe as was said above if Faith properly taken or the act of Beleeving be imputed for Righteousness God should not be the justifier of the ungodly nor could Faith act upon God as such with truth And yet the Apostle tels us here expresly that Faith acteth upon God as one that Justifieth the ungodly He who hath a Righteousness in himself is no ungodly man and God justifying a righteous man could not be said to justifie the ungodly But if we take faith here for the object of faith or for the Righteousness of Christ which faith fleeth unto and layth hold on all is clear harmonious for then that man is not a worker but beleeveth he beleeveth on God that justifieth the ungodly that is one that hath no Righteousness in himself but must have it elsewhere even imputed to him and bestowed upon him through Faith when he thus heleeveth or layelh hold on Christ's Righteousness this Righteousness which by faith he leaneth to is counted on his score for Righteousness he is thereupon justified 8. Leaving what was formerly adduced against this glosse from vers 6 7. 8. of this Chapter Chap. XVIII we shall see what other passages in this chapter will say against it The Faith that was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in uncircumcision vers 9 10. is the same with the Righteousness of faith which he had being uncircumcised vers 11. But this Righteousness of faith is not his act of Beleeving nor Faith taken properly as an act of Obedience but the Righteousness of the promised seed of the woman in whom all Nations of the earth should be blessed embraced by faith for it is this and not the meer act of beleeving that was sealed by the signe of Circumcision vers 11. for this Sacrament was a seal of the Covenant we know Sacraments seal the whole Covenant all the promises thereof to such as beleeve never seal our Faith or the like to be our Righteousness 9. The same that was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness will be imputed to all beleevers vers 11. But that is not the pure act of Beleeving for Abrahamt act of Beleeving was a strong act and is declared and explained to be such but every beleever who yet must be justified hath not such a strong act of faith as Abraham had And we cannot say that some are lesse some are more justified because the faith of some is weak and the faith of others is strong and yet this must be said if the act of Beleeving be imputed for a Righteousness for the Righteousness of one shall be greater than the Righteousness of another their Justification must hold correspondence with the ground thereof 10. That which was imputed to Abraham will be imputed to all beleevers for a Righteousness vers 11. must be a Righteousness which such have imputed unto them who do beleeve for it is added that he might be the father of all them that beleeve though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them also Abraham had Righteousness imputed to him or reckoned upon his score through faith while he was uncircumcised that he might be the Father of Beleevers among the Gentiles to whom also when they beleeve a Righteousness will be imputed as it was to Father Abraham 11. It is againe called vers 13. the Righteousness of faith through it he sais the promise was to Abraham to his seed but the promise is not through faith as an act of virtue obedience in us for then it should be through the Law but as the promise was made upon the account of the Righteousness of the promised seed our faith can not be said to procure or purchase the promise so its application is by Faith laying hold on gripping to that Righteousness 12. If faith properly taken were imputed it should be made void the promise of none effect they that are of the Law should be heires for faith taken properly for the act of Beleeving belongeth to the Law when it is made our Righteousness it is opposite to the free promise for what is promised or given upon the account of Righteousness or any thing within us is not a free gracious promise And when a free gracious promise is taken away all the right use of Faith is taken away so Faith is made void for the very essence of justifying faith lyeth in looking to laying hold on leaning to a free gracious promise 13. The Apostle vers 15. proveth that they who are of the Law cannot be heirs consequently that Faith or the act of Beleeving cannot be imputed for Righteousness as it is our act done in obedience to the Law by this reason because the Law worketh wrath c. And this also maketh against the Imputation of faith properly taken because that is an act of obedience to the Law cannot become our Righteousness being Imperfect consequently not conforme to the Law which requireth Perfection in all duties or other wayes threatneth wrath And if any shall deny this of faith viz. that it belongeth to the Law they must say that there is no Law for it consequently that not to beleeve is no sin for the Apostle addeth where no Law is there is no transgression 14. The ground of the free promise is that which must be Imputed and laid hold on by Faith But that cannot be Faith properly taken as our act for then the promise should not be of grace as it is expresly said to be vers 16. nor should it be sure if it depended upon our faith not upon that which faith laith hold on These things beside what was mentioned before from this same Chapter vers 6 7 8 23 24. may satisfie us in this matter and sufficiently evince that it is not the Apostles meaning that Faith properly taken as our act or our act of Beleeving is imputed unto Righteousness but that the Object of Faith or the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on and applied by Faith is that Righteousness which is reckoned upon the beleevers score Let us now in the next place see what the Adversaries say to make us beleeve that Paul saith Rom. 4. That our very act of Beleeving is imputed to us for Righteousness that thus the Apostle must be understood not as meaning the object of faith or the righteousness of Christ. The forecited Author Iohn Goodwin of Iustifie Part. 1 Ch. 2. adduceth some grounds for his glosse which must be examined His first ground is the letter of the Scripture that speaks it once twice yea a third a fourth time vers 3 9 22 23 24. Certanely saith he there is not any truth in Religion not any article of â—he Christian beleefe that can boast of the letter of the Scripture more full expresse
and paying our debt by his Righteousness Active Passive 4. Nor do we when we speak of Faiths acting on Christ as a Priest so limite restrick the same unto his Sacerdotal work as to exclude any thing that is presupposed thereunto concomitant thereof consequential thereunto depending thereupon or is necessarily requisite unto the effectual application of the same unto our Justification Advantage When therefore it is said that in Justification faith eyeth in a special manner the Sacerdotal office work of Christ there is no exclusion of the Consideration of that fountaine Love Grace favoure of God whereby Christ was given unto the chosen and appointed to be their Priest and to make Satisfaction for them Nor of his foregoing Incarnation Obedience Resurrection Asctnsion c. nor of other thlngs that are necessarily requisite hereunto for all these are necessarily herein included 5. When we speak of the Souls acting faith in order to Justification we do not suppose that at that time the troubled soul can have no other end or designe before his eyes nor be troubled with no other evil or with the thoughts thereof that he would be delivered from and so in order to getting help therein and a remedie thereof cannot eye some-thing else in Christ answering suiting the same for a Sinner in that case may be troubled with the sense of the great Unbeleef Hardness Impenitency of his heart the Unholiness of all his wayes his Blindness Ignorance as well as with the sense of his Guilt and of his being under the Curse and so may must be supposed in coming to Christ for reliefe to eye in a special manner that in Christ which is answerable to these his Necessities And in this respect a Sinner may be said to go to Christ as a Prophet and as a King as well as to him as a Priest But in reference to these evils they are not said or supposed to go to Christ for Justification for that respecteth merely their state of Sin Guilt 6. But the real question should be what is the special practical meaning of these words we are justified or live by faith and to this end the true Question is what special way doth faith act on Christ for it is here presupposed that Christ must be the Object of Justifying Faith in order to the sinners Justification or what is that in Christ that faith specially eyeth and carrieth the soul out unto when Justification before God is only designed Or when the wakened sinner is earnestly desireous of delivery from the Guilt of sin from the Curse of God and of enjoying the Favour Reconciled Face of God whether he is to apply himself by faith unto Christ as King or unto Christ as a Priest to what he did as a Priest for the reliefe of sinners In answere to the Question thus proposed I say That the wakened sinner in that case while seeking reliefe from sin guilt and from the curse by Absolution Justification in the sight of God in compliance with the Gospel methode designe making Justification to be by faith in obedience to the Gospel command saying Beleeve be justified is to act faith in a special manner on Christ's Mediation Satisfaction to betake himself to Christ as a Priest and rest on him on what he diâ— as a Priest that is on his death Bloud and Satisfaction This is it which others call the justifyinh Act of Faith or that special act of faith required in order to Justification Though what was said in the foregoing Chapter to prove that Christ's Righteousness is the Object of Justifying faith may serve for confirmation of this Yet we shall in short lay down these grounds of proof and First Several Scriptnre-expressions where Justification is spoken of and cleared in its causes shew and pointe forth what is which faith should specially eye and be employed about in order to the interesting of the soul in this benefite such as 1. Rom. 3. 24 25. Being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood Here as justification is said to be brought about effectâ—at through the Redemption of Christ who was a Propitiation this respecteth only his Priesthood so the special object of faith in this affair ' is expresly said to be his Bloud through faith in his blood to tell us that all such as would have interest in this Privilege of justification must by faith eye the Propitiation the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ And by blood we finde it oft said that Remission of sins is had Col. 1 14. Ephes. 1 7. Mat. 26 28. and not without it Heb. 9 22. 2. Rom. 4 24 25. to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences was raised againe for our Iustification As justification here is held as procured brought about by Christ as a Priest for as such was he delivered for our offences and as such was he raised or brought out of prison so faith here even when acting upon God yet it is with a special relation to Christ's Priesthood or to his Satisfaction for it is a Beleeving on him that raised up Christ Jesus our Lord from the dead that is in God as declaring he hath now received full Satisfaction from the Cautioner Christ by bringing him out of prison consequently in that Satisfaction given by Christ wherewith the Father is now well pleased See also Rom. 10 9. 3. Rom. 5 9 10. Much more then being now justified by his blood for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. As the way is here pointed out how justification Reconciliation was effectual by Christ to wit by his Bloud Death or by what he did suffered as Priest Cautioner so accordingly is our faith directed to look in order to a partaking of this Justification Reconciliation especially when this is so clearly expresly explained to us 4. Rom. 8 33 34. It is God that justifieth It is Christ that died yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh Intercession for us All which grounds of justification belong to his Priestly Office And if these be here laid down for grounds of Comfort Assurance unto Beleevers to fottifie them against all Assaults of the Accuser of the brethren and against all Accusations or Condemnations of men or devils sure the way is also pointed out how faith should act in order to their being brought into a state of justification 5. 2. Cor. 5 19 21. To wit God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them for he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no
to act faith upon him sutablâ—e with hope confidence Therefore as he is a King to subdue Enemies the faith of his people is to act upon him as such when they would have their spiritual Enemies subdued as He is a Prophet to teach the faith of his people must act upon him as such when they would have Light Counsel Direction so as He is a Priest to Die Satisfie make Atonement Reconciliation Peace their Faith is to act upon him as such when they would have Guilt removed Peace made up betwixt God their souls Sixtly The end designe of asserting Christ as King to be as specially the Object of Faith in Justification as is Christ as Priest may sufficiently render it suspicious for it is as we touched above to bring-in our Obedience as distinct from Faith or as included in it to be the Condition of Justification the same manner of way that Faith is though as was cleared above the consequence will not be fouâ—d good The reall question here as is well observed by others is not whether any thing of Christ â— to be excluded from being the Object of Justifying Faith But what in and of our selves under the name of Receiving Christ as King is to be admitted to share with Faith in its place and interest in our Justification Seventhly To say that faith acteth in order to justification in as special a manner on Christ as a King as on Christ as a Priest is to alter the Nature Use Ends of Faith in this work to give it the Place Power of a proper potestative condition as it is a vertue work of ours not to look upon it as bringing all sutable supplies in a distinct manner from Christ as was shown above and this is but sutable to that alteration of the Nature of the New Covenant that is made by the asserters of this whereby it is of the same specifick nature with the Old Covenant of Works as if it were no more but a new Edition thereof with some alterations as to the Conditions Let us now see what Mr. Baxter saith to the contrary in his Catholick Theol. p. 2. of moral works Sect. 7. p. 55. c. He tels us n. 105. That to be justified by faith in Paul's sence is all one as to be justified by becoming Christians Ans. We grant with him that to be a Believer a Disciple and a Christian are all one in the Gospel sense that by the same Faith by which one is justified he is a Christian also but this proveth not that Faith in order to justification acteth not in a special manner on Christ as a Priest and we have found how Paul both in his Doctrine and in his own Practice explaineth the acting of Faith in Justification This may serve for an answere also to what he saith n. 106. to wit that the faith by which we are justified is essentially a beleeving fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father Son Holy Ghost for we grant that it is but one the same Faith which doth all this but yet this Faith may be conceived as acting in a peculiar manner in order to justification We grant also that it is the same faith by which we have Right to the benefites of the Covenant by which we are justified Yet we say that in order to Justification that same Faith which receiveth whole Christ and thereby a Right to the benefites of the Covenant acteth in a peculiar manner on Christ as Priest in order to Justification He tels us next n. 108. That the faith by which we are justified hath God the Father for its object as essentially as Christ the Saviour Ans. And we do not deny God the Father to be the Object of that Faith by which we are justified And will he say that Faith in God without Christ will justifie a sinner or that there is any beleeving in God the Father now without beleeving also in Christ The places he citeth Ioh. 17 3. 13 1. shew the contrary Adam's Faith indeed was such before the fall but our Faith now must be of another kinde It is to as little purpose for him to say n. 109. That it is as essential to this faith to beleeve in Christ as the Purchaser of Holiness heaven as to beleeve in him as the purchaser of pardon For he purchased all as a Priest not as a Prophet or King when faith acteth on him as a purchaser it acteth on him as a Priest But he addeth And to beleeve in him as the Teacher Ruler of the Church as to beleeve in him as the justifier of beleevers True because beleeving in him as a Ruler beleeving in him as the justifier of beleevers are both to beleeve in him as a King And this is not the thing that is denied Beleeving in Christ as the justifier of beleevers is not the same with beleeving in him as a Priest in order to justification which is the thing he should have said here if he would have spoken to the purpose What he saith n. 110. concerning Faith's being the act of the whole soul having for its object God the Father Son Holy Ghost in Christ all that is essential to him as a Saviour was granted asserted also by us formerly but it maketh nothing to our present question He tels us n. 111. That to say that some one only of these parts of Christ's office as they are conceptus inadaequati of a Saviour is the only object of justifying faith or that by beleeving in Christ as our Teacher Ruler as well as Priest as a Iustifying judge as well as a justifying Sacrifice and as a fulfiller of the Law is to â—xpect justification by works as Paul denyeth it This is a vaine distinguishing a falsifying the doctrine of Faith Iustification a departing from the Scripture simplicity by corrupting seeming subtility one of those humane Inventions which have wronged the Church Ans. These are but angry words carry with them no force of reason And who is most guilty of vaine distinguishing of falsifying the doctrine of Faith Justification c. he or such as he opposeth in this matter indifferent persons are at freedom to judge And whether his new Doctrine or the old which he so violently in all his writtings oppugneth hath more of seeming subtility in it to the wronging of the Church in its peace quiet every one may judge by the effects But as to the matter in hand he may know 1 that there is a difference betwixt saying that some one only part of Christ's office is the only object of justifying Faith as he here speak saâ—ing that faith whose adaequate object is confessed to be as large as he himself doth make it in order to a souls justification acteth in special manner on Christ as a Priest not excluding Christ as a King or
that Iames standeth for that he accounteth undeniable by any thing but prejudice Ignorance siding peevishness So that it must be unquestionable that Iames speaketh of all those particulars that he speaketh of justification by works in no other sense the contrary whereof we have seen already Yet let us see what these particular respects are wherein as he saith works are not excluded from being Conditions of our justification or the matter of it 1. Saith he That faith itself which is our act an act of obedience to God is the fiducial accepting beleefe in God the Father Son Holy Ghost for the benefites of the Covenant is the Condition of our first Cevenant-Right to these benefites Ans. To speak of Saving Faith in its full latitude or of that faith whereby the Covenant is fiâ—st made up as such is not to the present purpose but of faith only or of its acting in order to justification and as to this himself lately told us that Paul by the word Faith doth especially direct our thoughts to Christ beleeved in so that faith in this matter is not considered as our work or as an act of obedience in us as our personal Righteousness but as the Mean Hand or Instrument laying hold on Christ his Righteousness And if this be the meaning of Iames when he saith we are justified by works that we are justified by faith we shall not contend as to the thing though we conceive Iames handleth another purpose as is said 2. Saith he That this faith is not actual obedience to Christ as Christ at first but only to God as God But it is the souls subjection to Christ as Christ which is our Covenant-consent to our future obedience virtually though not actually containeth our future obedience in it Ans. This upon the matter is but the same with the former needeth no furder answere as to our present question concerning the meaning of Iames when he saith we are justified by works for if this faith be not actual obedience Iames doth not mean actual obedience by the word works but only that Faith which is a consent to future obedience But what the Faith is whereby we are justified what is its peculiar acting in order to justification we have shown elsewhere And to distinguish betwixt obedience to Christ as Christ and to God as God is to be unnecessarily critical by Mr. Baxeer we see that all the after obedience of beleevers is obedience to God as God though their first Faith be said to be a fiducial accepting beleefe in God the Father Son Holy Ghost and this be said virtually to containe after obedience which therefore must be obedience to God Father Son Holy Ghost And their first Faith is no obedience to Christ as Christ though Christ as Christ call invite yea command sinners to come unto him beleeve in him 3. He saith That there is somewhat of Love Consent or willingness of Desire of Hop of Repentance which goeth to make up this Moral work of Faith as it is the Condition even our first Christianity itself Ans. All this somewhat of Love Consent c. which necessarily attendeth Faith for that they make up this moral work of Faith as integral parts thereof I see no ground to assert only shew the true nature genius of that Faith whereby we are justified for it is no where said that we are justified by Love Hop or Repentance as for Consent or willingness desire they are included in Faith But all this yet saith nothing for the Interest of Works as it is pleaded in our justification And if Iames mean no other thing by works he shall give little ground to any to assert justification by works as is done this day by too many 4. He saith That at the making of a Covenant is for the performing of it subjection is for obedience Marriag for conjugal duties so our said first Covenanting-faith is for our future faith Hop Comfort grateful obedience Holiness And these are the secondary parts of the Condition of Salvation And so are the secondary parts of our justifications Condition as continued or not lost consummat For to justifie us is to justifie our Right to Impunity Glory Ans. How different Faith as justifying or in its acting in order to justification is from this Covenant making Subjection Marriage as explained applied to this purpose by Mr. Baxter is elsewhere showne 2 That these graces are required in order to Salvation we grant shall not stand to call them secondary parts of the Condition of Salvation as to its possession But 3 we are here speaking of justification and not of Salvation which two differ as we conceive much more being required to the one in case persons live after their first Faith than to the other 4 We have shown elsewhere that justification as continued hath the same Conditions that justification as begun hath of loseing of justification we read not in the Scriptures nor yet consummat justification these are Mr. Baxters new Notions with which we are not satisfied 5 Our Right to Impunity Glory is had by Christ alone when we are possessed of his Surety-Righteousness through Faith and thus are justified by Faith And how justification is a justification of that Right Mr. Baxter would do well to explaine In the last place he saith That our own performance of the Condition of the free Gift of Impunity Glory by the New Covenant purchased by Christ's Righteousness is the thing to be tried judged in God's judgment And therefore we must so far be then justified from the charge of not performing that Condition of being Infidels unsanctified Impenitent hypocrites Apostats so of having no part in Christ the free gift even by our personal Evangelical Faith Holiness Repentance Sincerity Perseverance Ans. Then it seemeth Iames speaketh only of works in order to final Salvation or our justification at the day of judgment and not in order to our justification here when first brought out of nature into the State of Grace And if so what ground can any hence have to inferre our present justification to be by works unless they think that whatever is required antecedent unto our Final Salvation is required also antecedent to our first justification which I know Mr. Baxter will not say And if this be all that Iames saith why did not Mr. Baxter give this as a ground of reconciling Iames with Paul that Iames speaks of works in order to Final Salvation but Paul excludeth them in reference to justification This would have had greater agreement with what the Orthodox say than to tell us of works being the secondary parts of the Condition of our Justification and that Iames includeth them as such when he saith we are justified by works and not by Faith only CHAP. IX John Forbes his Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's
such expressions in this matter that we finde no mention made of two fold Righteousness of a twofold Justification the one subordinat the other Principal in the Scriptures but all expressions in this matter framed designedly to abase man make all appear to be of free grace that he who glorieth may glory in the Lord. And as Self will be ready in this to make that which is called a Subordinat Righteousness a Prinpal Righteousness so it will have this faire plausible ground to do so to wit That upon our own Righteousness we are Immediatly accepted of God as Righteous especially when the Merits of Christ are made subservient unto our personal Righteousness as procuring the New covenant that therein our Personal Righteousness shall be accepted accounted perfect compleet though it be not so in it self we thereupon immediatly justified accepted of God as Righteous as they love to speak who assert these things 12. Though faith be indeed the mean of our justification that is the onely thing required of us in order to our Interest in Christ actual participation of the benefites of His Redemption of justification in the first place according to the Gospel methode Yet it is too favourable to proud Self to call it such a Condition as hath a far more dangerous Import That is 1. To call it a Condition withall deny that it is an instrumental Cause or that it is to be considered in the matter of justification as it laith hold on Christ His Righteousness 2. To say that the very act of faith or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed for Righteousness that Paul is to be so understood Rom. 4. as speaking properly not metonymically 3. To say that this is the Righteousness which is imputed to us in order to justification not the Righteousness of Christ except as to its Effects in respect of some whereof Yea the chiefe only immediat it is equally Imputed to all Reprobat as well as Elect. 4. To say that this faith is our Gospel-Righteousness because a Righteousness is perfect adequate to the Rule of the New Covenant 5. To say that this faith hath the same place consideration consequently the same force efficacy in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant with Adam 6. To say that Christ hath purchased the New Covenant that this shall be the condition of persons partaking of the benefites thereo◠withall 7 To say that Christ hath died for all by his death made Satisfaction to justice for the breach of the Law so purchased freedom from the Curse of the Law to all equally at least conditionally whereby it is apparent that all are put in statu quo prius in the state they were once in that equally now have new conditions proposed unto them which if they performe they are righteous upon that performance are freed from the Curse made heirs of Glory and thus the New Covenant is of the same Nature kinde with the Old only its Conditions are a little altered made more easie their Performance of the condition must-have a 〈◊〉 with it at least ex pacto though not ex condigno as neither Adam's Perfect obedience could have had And the performers of this condition in this case may reflect upon their own deed lay their weight on it it being their Righteousness may plead upon it as their immediat ground of right before God unto justification Acceptance Let any man now consider these things see whether or not the asserting of faiths being such a condition as this be not a plaine gratification of proud Self the laing down a ground for vaine man to boast of glorying though not-before God yet before others And whether this be not an ascribing more to faith than is done by such as yeelding it to be a condition of the mean appointed of God required of us in order to justification say with all that it is to be considered not in it self nor as an act of our obedience but as an Instrument or mean laying hold upon the Righteousness of Christ without us that it may be ours our onely Righteousness where upon we may expert according to the Gospel justification absolution c. 13. It tendeth too much to blow up proud Self to say That if works of Obedience be not the Condition of our first justification yet they may be called the Condition of our Second justification or of the Continuance of our justification for as the Scripture speaketh nothing of a Second justification so to assert our works to be the Condition thereof is to crosse the argueings of the Apostle manifestly to lay a foundation of glorying for Man for if even Abraham had been justified by works a considerable time after he was first justified and first a beleever he should have had whereof to glory though not before God as saith the Apostle Rom. 4 2. And vers 3. he proveth that he was justified by faith that after he had been a beleever for that passage Abraham beleeved God it was imputed to him for righteousness was not spoken of at his first beleeving so cannot be properly meaned of his First justification onely but some yeers there after therefore must be true of his Second justification if there were any such Yea the just liveth by faith a passage that the Apostle useth as wee have seen to prove justification by faith both here in our Text Rom. 1 17. all alongs both first last so that the beginning continuance of this life of justification is by faith not by works 14. It is also dangerous to say That the work of the Law convining of sin with the Effects Consequences thereof Sorrow griefe Anxiety Legal Repentance c. are either Dispositions Preparations or Conditions of justification or Meritorious thereof by way of Congruity as if there were a certaine constituted connexion betwixt these the blessing of justification made by any Law or promise of God as if none could be justified that had not these sensible affecting Effects going before Sure the asserting of this cannot but contribute much to stirre up foster pride in Man give occasion to think that man himself hath done or suffered something that calleth for procureth in congruity at least meriteth justification CHAP. IV. Justification is so contrived in the Gospel as man may be abased have no ground of boasting THirdly we come to speak to the third thing mentioned above to wit That justification is so contrived begun carried on that man hath no real or apparent ground of glorying before men or of boasting in himself A few particulars will sufficiently cleare this I. The Lord 's ordinary usual Method in bringing His Chosen ones into a justified State is
a Mediator Surety for us accept of His Mediation and Satisfaction most freely out of free Grace and Love when we neither had done nor could do any thing to move Him hereunto or to procure this at His hands yea when all our carriage all that He could see in us did rather cry aloud for the contrary dealing 4 Was it no Act of Soveraigne Grace that God should provide all this remedie for a few whom He did choose for Him self out of free Grace and Love and gave away to Christ to bee redeemed by Him leaving the rest passing them by though no more unworthy than such as were chosen 5 Is it no Act of grace mercy that in order to this great favour of justification no more should be required on our part than faith in Jesus Christ seing this very faith including an Union with and a marriag-consent unto Christ is in it self a favour nothing in a manner inferiour to the pardon of all our sinnes to the accepting of us as Righteous in His sight 6 Is justification no Act of grace and mercy though it be upon the account of the obedience and Satisfaction of Christ when that very faith which is only required of us in order to our full interest in Christ His merites is also the free gift of God Ephes. 2 8 If these particulars will not aboundantly say that we are saved in justification by grace by the exceeding riches of Gods grace kindness towards us through Christ Jesus according to Ephes. 2 7. what will 9. Here is a great and wonderful mystery in this matter That the Innocent should suffer and the guilty escape go free The Socinians that they may strengthen them selves in their mischievous prejudices against the Satisfaction of Christ imagine an Impossibility here an Inconsistency with Justice that an Innocent person should be put to suffer But what ever they dream who will walk in these mysterious matters by no other guide than the dim light of corrupt nature it comporteth aboundantly with Justice that the Surety be put to pay what he hath undertaken to pay for the principal debtor And here was no wrong done to our Surety Jesus Christ who willingly undertook this debt and was lord of His own life having absolute power to lay it down and power to take it up againe and to raise him self from the dead knowing withall how richly to compensate make up that loss another way so as He should be no loser when He should see His Seed and receive the rich reward of His laboures from the Father whose Servant He was in this affaire Here is then a mystery of wisdom Grace and Love that the Innocent Lamb of God who knew no sin who did no violence nor was guile found in his mouth 2 Cor. ◠21. Esai 53 9. Who when He was reviled reviled not againe 1 Pet. 2 22 23. Who was Holy harmless undesiled and separat from sinners Heb. 7 26. That He should be made sin by God 2 Cor. 5 21. And so legally guilty obnoxious to the punishment due for sin that He should be made an High Priest to offer up Him self a sacrifice for sin Heb. 9 14 28. That He should bear our grieves carry our sorrowes and be wounded for our Transgressions and bruised for our Iniquities that the punishment of our peace should be upon Him He should stripes be oppressed afflicted and be cutt off out of the Land of the living have strokes upon Him make His grave with the wicked be bruised be put to griefe and make His soul an offering for sin Esai 53 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. That he who could not be charged with sin should yet be put to suffer most grieveous torments immediatly in his soul Mat. 26 37 38. 27 46. Luk. 22 44 Ioh. 12 27. And paines in his body Mat. 26. 27. Chapters That He should die and that He should die the Shamful Painful and cursed death of the Cross Gal. 3 13. Phil. 2. 8. And upon the other hand that we who were the sinners and guilty and so obnoxious to all the miseries of this life to death it self and to the paines of hell and wrath of God for ever should escape and be healed by His stripes Esai 53 5. 1 Pet 2 24. become the righteousness of God in Him 2 Cor. 5 21. And be justified and made heirs of the promises O! what an unsearchable mystery of Love and free grace shineth forth here 10. This is also a Part of this Mystery That nothing should be forgiven yet all should be forgiven Nothing was forgiven to our Surety He paid all that was required of Him for the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all He gave full obedience to the Law in all its demandes made a perfect compleat Satisfaction for our Offences so that the Father was well pleased in Him the same was at two several times declared expressed out of heaven once at His Baptisme Mat. 3 17. againe at His Transfiguration Mat. 17 5. The sword of Justice was awakened against Him though He was Gods fellow Zech. 13 7. And did abate Him nothing of what was due The Lord Jesus gave him self for us an offering and a Sacrifie to God for a sweet smelling savour Ephes. 5 2. He is a perfect High Priest continueing for ever having an unchangable Priest-hood and therefore is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him for He needeth not daily as the High Priests under the Law to offer up Sacrifie first for His own sinnes then for the People for this He did once when He offered up Himself for the word of the Oath maketh Him a Priest who is consecrated for ever more Heb. 7 24 25 26 27. And yet though He had nothing forgiven or abated to Him while standing in our room but paid all to the outmost farthing all notwithstanding is freely forgiven to us and we have blessedness by the Lords forgiving our Iniquities covering our sins or not imputing them to us Psal. 32 1 2. Rom. 4 7 8. Our Redemption is forgiveness of sinnes Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. And all sinnes must be forgiven to us or our Redemption should not be perfect nor we saved for one sin would ruine us for ever because if the Lord should mark iniquity enter in to judgment no man should stand no flesh should be justified Psal. 130 3. 143 2. 11. Here is another Mystery considerable in our justification That though thereby we be declared pronounced righteous so acquite absolved from what was or might be charged upon us Yet we have need of Pardor must be freely pardoned Socinians cannot or will not 〈◊〉 Conexion that Infinite Wisdom hath made here therefore make use of forgiveness free pardon of sinnes as an Argument wherewith to fight
against true Gospel justification or the justification of a sinner upon the account of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to this end that the sinner may be absolved pronounced righteous accepted as such But the Scripture seeth no Inconsistenry or Repugnancy here but an harmonious sweet accord betwixt the Lord's causing people their iniquities passe from them His clothing them with change of raiment Zach. 3 4. And the Apostle joineth both as inseparable yea he declareth the necessity of both saying Rom. 3 21 22. That now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all upon all them that beleeve where upon it followeth vers 24. that they are freely justified by His grace But then what need is there of Remission might one say doth not this quite take away all Remission No for he addeth vers 24 25. through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath setforth to be a propitiation through faith in His bloud to declare His righteousness for the remission of sinnes that are past Yea the forgiveness of sinnes establisheth confirmeth the Imputation of righteousness where by we are justified for thus speaketh the Apostle Rom. 4 6 7 8. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven whose sinnes are covered blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin Where we see that non-imputation of sins is so far from shutting out Imputation of Righteousness that it confirmeth it proveth it is in separable from it must necessarily presuppose it for we being sinners can have no Absolution untill the Satisfaction of Christ be applied to us made ours by Imputation where this is imputed by God the soul must be absolved from all that can be laid to its charge Therefore in justification as we are declared righteous by reason of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith so have we thereby a full remission of all our sinnes Paul tels us 2 Cor. 5 19. That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them And what giveth he for the ground of this See vers 21. for saith he He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him 12. It is also observable in this mysterious business That though our jestification be an act of God's free grace wherein only upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ Imputed to us by God not upon the account of any thing in us or done by us He pardoneth our sins accepteth our persons as righteous Yet this is not with an exclusion bur rather with an Inclusion of faith which is a Receiving a laying hold upon a Leaning unto the righteousness of Christ imputed to us Soâ—inians others are utter strangers unto this mystery make use of their wit here to plead against the imputation of Christ's Righteousness the onely ground of our justification because faith is required of us in order to our justification and 〈◊〉 as they say it self 〈◊〉 to us as our Righteousneis upon the account of which we are justified They suppose that if Christ's Righteousness be imputed to a person he thereupon acquite pardoned of all his sinnes that person must be righteous pardoned Justified whether he beleeve or not the Righteousness of Christ must be his before he beleeve But leaving the debating of that Question whether faith properly taken that is as our act done in obedience to the command of God be Imputed to us as our righteousness untill we come to the next part of the words I shall only now say as to the other thing here alleiged That they as ignorant of the Gospel feigne an opposition in things among which the Gospel pointeth forth to us a perpetual harmonious agreement upon the other hand they will patch up a reconciliation agreement betwixt those things which the Gospel setteth at perfect Opposition variance for Paul better acquainted with the Gospel with the nature of Gospel-justification than they tels us yea he proveth it by many Arguments That by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be-justified consequently not by faith as one deed or work of the Law And he maketh mention of the righteousness of God without the Law saith that that righteousness of God is imputed to upon all them that beleeve And notwithstanding of this he tels us that this Righteousness is by faith of Iesus Christ imputed to all that beleeve exclusive of others Rom. 3 20 21 22. And againe he tels us that as we are justified freely by bis grace yet it is through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His bloud vers 24 25. And againe vers 26 as God is declared in this matter to be just so is he the justifier of him only that beleeveth in Iesus Moreover vers 27. he mentioneth the Law of faith as opposite to the Law of works in that it excludeth boasting concludeth againe vers 28. That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law and vers 30. that God justifieth by faith through faith Yet we never hear that he faith we are justified for faith or upon the account of faith Further That faith is required in order to justification is clear from Rom. 9 31 32. where it is said that Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness hath not attained to the Law of righteousness because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law This also is fully proved by the same Apostle in this Epistle to the Galatians knowing saithe he Chap. 2 16. that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. And to pointe forth this Interest of faith yet not as imputed for our righteousness when properly taken the same Apostle Phil. 3 9. calleth that righteousness which he opposeth unto his own righteousness which is of the Law a righteousness which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith By all which many other passages mentioning our justification by faith which might be cited we see that the Lord hath so ordered the matter that faith should have an Interest in justification as an Instrumental cause or some such thing for to contend about words is not much to edification as may fully denote pointe forth the Emphasis of the Scripture expressions herein such as are to be found
Gods act the person justified must be righteous ere God can judge pronounce him to be such for the judgment of God is alwayes according to truth no person having a righteousness of his own all that are justified must have a Righteousness imputed to them and there is no Righteousness that can be said to be imputed but the Surety righteousness of Christ and particularly in satisfying all the demands of the law He Excepteth pag. 211. against the Minor 1. That however it be true that justification cannot take place without a perfect Righteousness being nothing else than the making of a man perfectly Righteous yet a Righteousness consisting determinatly of such a tale of righteous acts as Christ performed unto the Moral law is not absolutely necessary for in reference to the jewes there must have been righteous acts performed unto the ceremonial law also Ans. 1 Justification is not the making of a man perfectly righteous but the judicial pronouncing declaring of a man to be so through the Righteouseness of Christ imputed to him received by faith 2 A perfect Righteousness consisting in compleat obedience the law is required we urge not such a determination of acts in number tale to the moral or to the Ceremonial law only we assert the necessity of a full obedience to the Rule of Righteousness which God prescribed unto men this was the Moral law Though as to the jewes there were other prescriptions proposed than were to others of the world yet these same prescriptions consisting in Ceremonials or in Judicials were reduced to the Moral law were enjoined thereby so long as they stood in force and were not repealed by the Supream Law giver Except 2. Neither is it so absolutly true that there is no perfect Righteousness to be found beside Christs There is a Righteousness in the law as absolut compleat And it is much more probable that if God Imputes a legal Righteousness unto Men in justification He fournisheth them this way out of the law Ans. But what is that Righteousness in the law doth the law hold forth any Righteousness but perfect obedience and how can God furnish them with this but by Imputing unto them the perfect obedience of Christ seing He hath not so ordered matters as they shall be in case while here perfectly to keep the law themselves 2 He remitteth us to what he said formerly in the same Treatise and in that place he maketh this compleat Righteousness to consist in Remission of sinnes And yet it is certaine that Remission is no obedience nor is it a Righteousness held forth in the law not is it any Satisfaction to the law yea it agreeth noth with common sense nor with Reason to say that by Remission of sins men are made formally Righteous Except 3. That perfect Righteousness wherein justification consisteth and where with men are made formally Righteous when they are justified is nothing else but Remission of sins Rom. 4 6 7. Ans. Remission of sins is not a perfect Righteousness This hath no countenance from Scripture nor from Reason or common sense Who ever thought or said that a pardoned Thiefe or Murderer was a Righteous man or that his pardon made him formally Rightheous and an observer of the law Though thereupon he be freed from the penalty or from the punishment threatned in the law against such transgressours yet is he nor thereupon either made or declared to be Righteous but his pardon is a virtual declaration that he is not Righteous but a Transgressour How that place Rom. 4 6 7. is perverted when adduced to give countenance to this fiction is declared already He addeth pag. 215. two Reasons for this the first is That remission of sins is equivalent unto and virtually containeth comprehendeth in it the most absolute and entire obedience unto the law Ans. Remission of sins as such is so far from being equivalent to this or from comprehending this in it that it is a plaine declaration of the contrary for where entire obedience is there Remission hath no place and Remission must presuppose a Transgression The next is Because swaith he it hath all these great and high privileges annexed to it and depending upon it which a Righteousness most strickly so called could have as the Love Favour acceptation and approbation of God Ans. If we speak of Remission of sinnes in it self and abstractly considered this is also false for though a pardoned man be freed from the punishment due to Transgressours yet as meerly pardoned he hath no right to Reward promised to the perfect observers of the law Nothwithstanding hereof we grant that the man pardoned of God hath all these high and great privileges but not by vertue of his meer pardon but because there is a Righteousness imputed to him upon which these privileges do depend and Exemption from punishment dependeth upon his pardon He hath two other Reasons elsewhere pag. 5 6. to this purpose as 1. That Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law even as the Imputation of the law fulfilled necessarily includeth the non-imputation of sin Ans. Though in our justification this might be granted to be true upon the matter because there is an Imputation of the whole Surety-righteousness of Christ together and the one part is not separated from the other so that the one consequently inferreth the other But when it is thus reasoned against the Imputation of the one the Inference here must be understood of a formal Inference and so it is false that Remission includeth the acknowledgment of the observation of the whole law for it only includeth the non-Imputation of guilt notwithstanding that the law was broken yea as is said it manifestly supposeth the contrary viz. That the law was not perfectly observed for had the law been perfectly observed there had been no place for pardon Moreover Remission as such giveth no Right to the reward promised unto perfect obedience but only impunity from the punishment threatned for disobedience 2. saith he He cannot be said to have all this sinnes fully forgiven who is yet looked vpon as one that hath transgressed either by Omission or Commission intended to be dealt with all as such Ans. Though he whose sinnes are fully forgiven cannot be dealt with as one guilty of sin that is as one liable to the punishment yet he may be looked on as one that was guilty and so did not give full and perfect obedience and therefore though he cannot be dealt with as a Transgressour yet neither can he be dealt with upon the account of his Remission as one that hath yeelded perfect obedience did never transgress Wherefore seing he cannot be looked upon as one that never transgressed he cannot be looked upon as one that hath a perfect Righteousness and so a Right to the Reward The similitudes taken from a phisician restoreing his patient to health by recovering him from his sickness and
obvious Sense of the whole purpose and of every sentence used by the Spirit of the Lord in that matter is to usurpe a Supra-papal power and Authority over the Scriptures of truth and a most ready way to render them wholly useless 2 As for our sense of this Expression who that will willingly be ruled by the Scriptures cannot submit unto it Let us but look to the very first place cited by himself Rom. 3. consider the whole preceeding discourse of the Apostle from Chap. I 18. forward particularly Chap. 3 19. Where the Apostle closeth his discourse tending to evince both jewes Gentils to be under the Curse by saying Now we know that what things so ever the law saith it saith to them who are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Is not this to be understood in respect of their own personal deeds works See then his conclusion vers 20. Therefore by the deeds of of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight Can any man that hath not renounced common sense understand this otherwise than that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by his own personal works seing this is the only native conclusion that floweth from the premisses seing by their own personal works they can be justified before men seing the following words for by the law is the knowledge of sin that is the law proveth evinceth all that we do to be short sinful enforce this likewise Is not this also enforced by these words vers 23. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Is it imaginable that justification through the Imputed obedience of Christ to the law can evince that we are not justified freely by His grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ vers 24 If this general sense were the true meaning what ground was there for that vers 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works no by the law of faith Would Justification by Christs obedience give ground of boasting And what ground were there for that objection vers 31. Do we then make void the law c. in the following Chapter when speaking of Abraham doth he or can any man imagine that the Apostle doth mean any other works when be denieth that Abraham was justified by works than Abraham's own personal works And meaneth he or can he meane any other works when he saith vers 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt But it were tedious to prosecute this matter further that is so clear in it self to every ordinary Reader that it must needs argue a desperat designe together with unpasrallel'd boldness thus with confidence peremptoriness to assert the contrary He saith 2. If the Apostles charge had been in delivering of this doctrine either to have made or to have given allowance for any such distinction certainly he should have been unfaithful in his trust in giving the honour due to the works of Christ unto a thing of a far inferiour nature viz to faith as he doth Gal. 2 16. Where he saith not but by the works of Jesus Christ but by faith Ans. This answere is in a great measure sick of the same distemper of presumption with the former We must not think that the Apostle is still to be blamed for unfaithfulness when he speaketh not as we would have him speak Christian sobrâ—ety should reach us to search for Gods mind in the expressions He hath thought good to use for signifying of His mind These against whom the Apostle here wrote whose errour in the matter of justification he was confuting never had a thought of such a general groundless sense as we have here obtruded upon us nor can it come into the thought of any rational man when then should we suppose that the Apoâ—â—le should have spoken to such a thing 2 Paul giveth not the honour due to the works of Christs unto any thing of an Inferiour Nature no not to faith whatever this Author misunderstanding the Apostle's mind perverting his words would make his Reader beleeve as we shall have occasion to shew hereafter This Author setreth Christ and Faith at variance whileas the Apostle every where sheweth their agreement indissoluble union 3 Taking faith in this Authors sense we see That by his own Confession the ascribing of that unto faith which he doth ascribe to it in the matter of â—ustification is a giving of that honour unto it which we say is due to Christs obedience So that the question betwixt him and us is whether Christ and His obedience or Faith of a far inferiour Nature must have that honour We see no ground to imagine that Paul would give the honour that Universal obedience might call for unto one act of obedience or think that he would cry up one act of obedience that is faith cry down all other acts of obedience far less that he would cry up faith in prejudice of the full perfect obedience of Jesus Christ the Redeemer and Surety He saith 3. If Paul's intent had been to have reserved a place in Iustification for the works of the law as performed by Christ his indefinite expression would have been as a snare upon men to cause them passe over the great things of their Iustification Ans. Paul's indefinite expression neither was nor could have been a snare unto any nor came such an imagination ever in the head of any man but such an one as can stumble in the most even path being blinded with prejudice at the truth drunk with love to his own Inventions which he cannot otherwise maintaine but by new and unheard-of fictions What great things of justification could I pray Paul's expressions cause any passe over Why are not some of these great things mentioned He saith 4. If this had been Paul's meaning it cannot be once imagined but that he would have made use of such a distinction or reservation would have been glad if without trenching upon some Gospel-truth he could have come over so neer unto the jewes who where chiefly incensed against Paul for passing over the law in justification Now had he said that be did not exclude the righteousness of the law by faith but advance it rather only he preached that they could not be justified by their own observation of it who seeth not how this would have taken off great part of their opposition Ans. It is a wonder to see how some men can shut their eyes that they should not see what is most obvious and what is in plaine termes asserted in the Scriptures Did not Paul say expresly enough Rom. 3. ult That he did not make void the law through faith but did establish it doth he not also plainly tell us where the difference lay betwixt him the jewes what it was especially
if it were necessary but we said enough of this in answere to the foregoing objection He saith 3. The works of the law are never the less the works of the law because performed by Christ. Ans. Yet when performed by Christ they are not the works of the law done by us who did lye under the obligation and by the Imputation of such an obedience as was performed by Christ we have no ground of boasting or of glorying either before God or Man and it is against such an obedience to the law as the ground of justification as doth not exclude glorying or boasting and such as consisteth in works of Righteousness which we have done is exclusive offree grace that the Apostle disputeth He saith 4. This righteousness is said to receive testimony from the law that is from that part of Scripture which is often called the law and from the Propheâ—â— Now neither of these give any testimony to such a Righteousness but to a Righteousness procured or derived upon a man by faith Gen. 15 6. Hab. 2 4. Ans. It is true this Righteousness receiveth testimony from the law and from the writtings of the Prophets we plead for no other Righteousness but such as is so testified of hath the concurrent consent both of the O. and of the N. Testament Both law Prophets that spoke of the seed of the Woman of the Messiah of His being the Lord our Righteousness or spoke of the peoples duty in reference to Him as such did bear witness to this Truth 2 What is that Righteousness which is here said to be procured or derived upon a Man by faith Is it the Righteousness of Christ Then the cause is yeelded Is it the Righteousness of men themselves Then justification by works is established the whole Gospel is overthrown And how I pray can this besaid to be procured or derived upon a man by faith The places cited speak of no such thing but have a far contrary Import as may hereafter appear He saith 5. This Righteousness of God is said to be unto all upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through faith by way of opposition to the works of the law Now between Faith the works of the law there is a constant opposition but between the law and the works of righteousness of Christ there is no opposition Ans. 1 If this Righteousness be unto and upon all by or through faith it must of necessity be the Righteousness of another in bringing home and applying of which faith is an Instrument to this way of bringing in the Righteousness of God by faith from without is the seeking of Righteousness by our own works or by our own acts of obedience to the law manifestly opposite irreconcilable this is the opposition which the Scripture alwayes maketh betwixt justification by the law by faith as the very Scriptures cited by himself make manifest to wit Rom. 3 27 28. 4 13 14. 9 32. 10 5 6. Gal. 2 16. 3 5 11 12. c. 2 This argument all the steps of its prosecution make against himself who will have our act of faith to be the Righteousness of God though it be no where so called cannot be that which is by or through faith for faith is not by or through faith nor doth faith become a Righteousness by or through faith nor is faith as our act against the law otherwise it should be no act of obedience but a piece of willworship and consequently no righteousness at all but an unrighteousness a plaine disobedience or a work of Supererogation nor do the law or Prophets any where testify to this as our Righteousness Thirdly Chap. 5. pag. 73. He reasoneth from Rom. 5 16 17. thus The gift of righteousness as it is called vers 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel is said vers 16. to be a free gift of many offences unto justification that is the forgiveness of many offences cannot be a perfect legal righteousnes imputed unto vs or made ours by Imputation but the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel is the gift of many offences Ergo c. The Major he thus confirmeth That righteousness which extends unto a mans justification by the forginess of sins can be no perfect legal righteousness imputed But the righteousness of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgiveness of sins Ergo c. The Major of this he thus proveth Because a legal or perfect righteousness doth not proceed to justifie a mans person by way of forgiveness of sinnes but is of it self intrinsecally essenâ—ially a man's justification â—t yea such a justification with which forgiveness of sins is not competible for what need hath he that is legally righteous or hath a legal righteousness imputed to him of forgiveness of sins when as such a rightousness excluded all sin all guilt of sin from his person To all which I ans 1 The Major propos of the two Syllogisâ—es is true only of a perfect righteousness wrought by our selves in conformity to the law and not of the Righteousness of another imputed to us which though it may be called legal as to Christ as consisting in perfect obedience conformity to the law yet is rather to be called Evangelical as to us upon the account of its discovery and revelation and manner of communication unto us 2 The confirmation of the Major is likewise only true of a righteousness performed by our selves for that indeed excludeth all Remission and therefore if our faith be accounted our righteousness as he faith it must be our justification so inconsistent with free forgiveness 3 As to the Scripture where upon all this founded I say The text saith not that our righteousness is only free forgiveness but that in reference to pardon free forgiveness there is a gift bestowed that this gift by grace which aboundeth unto many is attended with free forgiveness as a necessary consequent It is the free gift that cometh upon all men unto justification vers 18. that by which many are made righteous vers 19. therefore is called the gift of righteousness vers 17. He objecteth against himself thus A man's sins are first forgiven him and then this perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified But this is not the thing we would say but on the contrary That first the perfect Righteousness of Christ is imputed whereupon the beleever is justified pardoned Let us hear his answer 1. He saith If we will needs distinguish the effects of the active passive obedience of Christ so as from the active part to fetch a perfect righteousness for Imputation from the passive remission of sins yet whether it be any wayes reasonable to invert the order I leave to sober consideration Christ did not first die after
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 yeelding perfect obedience to the Law of God in answering all the demands of the Law in the behalf of His owne And so though the Law doth not justifie us because we are sinners yet neither can the Law now condemne 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 beleevers whether of Jewes 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 sinnes imputed to Christ the same manner But this is not so Ergo. The Minor he proveth thus If the sinnes 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 Beleevers 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 truely 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 truely sinned were to look upon Him as deserving in Himself what was inflicted upon Him that God's judgment is alwayes according to truth that Christ knew no sin in Himself but was made sin as having the guilt of our sinnes 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 favour in our justification Rom. 4 4. with Rom. 11 6 But if any favour be shewed it is only in this that He reputeth us worthy to be justified or puts a worthiness upon us for justification whereas the Scripture expresly 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 yeelded 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 our selves 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 merite 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 merite 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 our selves 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
that so much the rather that Satan without corruption within many are so far at enmity with this doctrine of the grace of God that they laboure by all meanes either more directly or more indirectly to perverâ—tit to presse for a mixture of works upon one consideration or other in this matter which it will not admit and that because it is so crosse contrary to the corrupt inclinations of Man who is so proud of nothing that he will not be beholden to Christ for less and for more and for all We see Paul was most jealous in this matter and most zealous for the truth therefore on all occasions did assert vindicate it as we may see especially in his Epistle to the Galatians where he did so zealously withstand Peter Chap. 2 14. and immediatly did state the question vers 16. saying knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ not by the works of the Law c. adding vers 18. that he for his part would not build againe the things which he had destroyed so make himself a transgressour Nor would he vers 21. frustrate the Grace of God 12. Finally all such as have by faith laid hold on Christ his righteousness and are by faith justified and so made partaker of this life through faith in Christ must resolve to abide in Christ by faith that life may be preserved and by new acts of faith dayly on Christ get as it were new breath that their life may be continued and thus live continually the life of justification by faith by faith take their new sinnes to Christ that they may be done away in his blood for the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by Faith But of this we are to speak more hereafter CHAP. XIX Of the Life of Justification as to its continuance WHen it is said that the just shall live by faith there is a State pointed forth a Condition intimated that is not momentany of short continuance but such a condition or change of state is hold forth as is of a lasting Nature not only because Life doth connote some permanency for a longer or for a shorter time but chiefly because this Scriptural axiome saith especially as else where applied by the Spirit of the Lord that the just or justified man hath through faith a life in the worst of times that he is made partaker of that privilege of life which shall prove lasting continueing to the end a life that is keeptin fed nourished by Faith Having spoken therefore of this life of Justifi on as begun that we may more fully explaine the nature of it we must speak a litle of it also as continued But first we must premit some things to shew what that Justification is of the continuance of which we here speak and what we do not hereby understand when we speak of the continuance of the Life of Justification 1. We do not speak here of Justification which Antinomians tell us is from Eternity for that can be nothing but God's eternal Purpose to justifie and which cannot more be called Justification than his eternal purpose to Condemne the Reprobate to save the Elect can be called condemnation Salvation and we can no more say That there was a Justification of any man from Eternity than that there was a Condemnation or Salvation of men from eternity we must distinguish betwixt God's Purposes the Effects which he hath purposed His purposes are indeed eternal but the Effects or Events purposed have their being in time according to the Season meane and Methode when whereby God hath purposed to effectuate them And sure we are that Justification whereof the Scripture speaketh is a relative change wrought in Man in time when and not before he laith hold on Christ by Faith according to the tenor of the Gospel 2. Nor do we meane here that Justification which the same Antinomians call only declarative in this life for the true Gospel Justification is a real Relative Change whereby the beleever is brought out of a State of Wrath and Judgment where they were lying under the Curse of the Law and the sentence thereof unreconciled to God and enemies to him having their sinnes lying upon then according to the sentence of the Law therefore strangers to God's favoure countenance and so without God without Christ brought into a new State of Peace Pardon Reconciliation Friendshipe with God of which we spoke above Chap. V. We cannot then look upon the Iustification mentioned explained in the Scriptures and of which we have hitherto spoken as a meer Declaration to the beleevers Conscience of what God did from Eternity as if the admittance into favoure and Pardoning of sinnes were nothing but his Declaration to their consciences that they were accepted from eternity had pardon from eternity a notion sure that hath no feeting or foundation in the Scriptures 3. We do not here speak of that which some call Baptismal Iustification whereby they say all Infants baptized are justified which they must yeeld to be such as can doth meeth with a final total intercision yea amission as to many so be quite of another nature from that which adult beleevers partake of from which there is no final or total Apostasie to be granted according to the Scriptures But we owne no such Justification of all baptized Infants 4. Nor yet do we here speak of that which others being more wary must owne as consequentially following upon their opinion of Baptismal Regeneration of all baptized elect infants to wit a Baptismal Iustification of all baptized elect infants it being certain that there can be no Regeneration without a corresponding Justification for as such a Regeneration is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures so were it granted no Actual Justification but only a Seminal Potential Justification could be hence inferred because such as the Regeneration is said to be by such as maintaine this opinion such must the Justification be but this Regeneration which is thus owned is only said to be Initial Seminal or Potential is distinguished from Actual Regeneration See D. Burges of Baptismal Regeneration pag. 14 15 As concerning the justification of Infants though we cannot say that there is no such thing yet as the knowledge of the way of the Lords effectuating it doth not much concerne us so the Scriptures are spareing in speaking of that Subject Sure the Lord hath a way of uniteing their hearts to Christ and of justifying Regenerating Saving such of them as die in their Infancy belong to the Election of Grace though we cannot distinctly understand determinatly explaine the manner how It is more of
our concernment to enquire after know the way how adult persones come to partake of these Privileges 5. We do not here speak of that Justification which some call a Iustification of the cause and distinguish from that which they call a justification of the person for that is but the justification of a person falsly accused as to some particular as David was frequently accused of many things by his Adversaries of which he was Innocent laying to his charge crimes he knew not about which he was in case as we finde he did several times in his Psalmes to appeal unto God the righteous Iudge being conscious to himself of no guilt in the particulars alledged knowing his own innocency in the sight of God who knew all things Such was the matter of that question concerning Job's sinceritie so much agitated betwixt him his friends in the book of Iob and at length decided in Iob's favours by God himself for though this was not concerning one or a few particular acts but concerning his whole deportment and concerning his State before God upon the account of his deportment and the Lord's dispensations with him yet it was a justification of his Cause rather than of his Person for in the justification of our Persons we have to do immediatly with God and not with man and the question was properly about a matter of fact to wit whether he had been a real beleever or an hypocrite though such a matter of fact as meerly concerned his whole State 6. Nor do we here speak of that justification even as to our state which is before men or in the judgment of men which oft proceedeth upon mistakes and unsure grounds as the now-mentioned instance of Iob's friends evidenceth and so varieth according to the various judgments apprehensions of men yea and of the same Man at several times according as the grounds whereupon he judgeth are to him clear or dark Neither is this sentence or judgment of men who are but fallible and judge by outward appearance not being able to see into the heart and judge how matters are there alwayes according to truth even though according to that judgment of Charity which the Law of God requireth Nor is it Constant and equable 7. Nor do we speak of that Iustification whereof the Apostle Iames speaketh Chap. 2. which is not the justification before God whereof the Apostle Paul speaketh in his Epistles but the evidencing proving and demonstrating thereof by effects and works obvious to the eyes of others and demonstrative of the cause Those I grant will oft admit of an intercision through Temptation and the prevalency of Corruption and so the cause or true justification may as to this manifestation he eclipsed though not in it self 8. Far less do we here speak of a groundless fancied supposed justification whether in the apprehension of deluded persons themselves or of others for this is no true Iustification but a meer delusion as to themselves and a conjecture as to others and the sooner this be quite cast away and renunced the better 9. Nor do we here speak of that Iustification which is in the court of mans own conscience or as it is there and opposed to that Iustification which is in God's court for it is certaing this Iustification which is said to be in the court of conscience is but a manifestation of the other unto the mans conscience and is some times had sometimes missed sometimes it is more clear some times more dark and therefore can be oft repeated and reiterated and intended and remitted yea and some may for a long time if not their whole life time be wholly without it Walking in darkness without all light as to this some may once get a cleare sight thereof and never see more of it till nigh the landing in eternity yet all this while the Iustification which is in the court of God remaine fixed invariable and without any interuption 10. By Justification here we meane not that which some call a Particular justification and do distinguish it from an Universal Iustification by this understanding an universal pardon of all sins past and committed and by the other understanding a particular pardon of this or that sin that is committed after the man hath been universally pardoned and accepted of God and now pardoned after a new act of faith in Christ Though it be needless to debate whether this Particular Pardon can be called a Iustification or not yet it is certaine it is not that Iustification whereof Paul speaketh so much and explaineth in all its causes in his Epistles nor that Iustification which connoteth a change of State before God and the translation of a person out of an estate of Enmity into an estate of Favour and Friedshipe in reference to which there must be a juridical sentence passed in the favours of the man through the impured Righteousness of Christ received by Faith while as this posterior act of pardon of a particular transgression is rather a Fatherly act pardoning the failing of his Son receiving him againe into his Fatherly embracements 11. Nor finally do we here speak of that sentence of Absolution that shall be pronunced at the last day for howbeit that may be called a Iustification yet it is not that Iustification whereof we are now speaking it doth not make such a change in the state of such as are thereby absolved as this doth and therefore in respect of this it is rather a publick Declaration and Manifestation before Angels and Men of their Iustification or being in a Iustified state who shall be adjudged unto eternal life than any Iustification connoteing a change of state seing none in that day will be justified but such as have been here partakers of this Iustification whereof we speak they who have been in heaven will need none such as have been in hell will expect none none of the living who have not by faith laid hold on Christ will hear any other sentence then depart from me ye cursed 12. The justification then whereof we here speak is That change of state before God which such are made partakers of as lay hold on Christ by faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ whereby they are brought into an estate of Favour Reconciliation with God who were before under his Wrath Curse and upon which they have all their iniquities whereof they are guilty actually pardoned are accepted of as Righteous and pronunced such through the Surety-Righteousness of Christ imputed to them and freed from the sentence Curse of the Law under which they were lying That we may cleare the nature of this life of Justification as to its continuance we shall lay down these few Propositions Propos. 1. Justification denoteth a State wherein the beleever is brought a real change as to state as a man accused of some crime keeped in prison till he be tryed
charity Concil Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 10. whereby we see this Justification whereof they say Iames speaketh Chap. 2. is manifestly nothing else but the very grouth of Sanctification and so they know no Iustification at all distinct from Sanctification wherefore we need say no more against the same it being Justification formerly explained which we treat of and not of Sanctification whereof they seem only to speak when they mentione Iustification and indeed this their Iustification which is true Sanctification admitteth of various and different degrees of this they may imagine not only a first and a second but according to the various degrees thereof a third and a fourth yea a Tenth Twentieth if they please The Scripture it is true maketh mention of twosold Iustification one by the Works of the Law another by Faith but it asserteth with all that these are inconsistent and that no man living can be justified the first way by the works of the Law Mr. Baxter beside the difference he maketh betwixt Justification as Begun and as Continued in reference to the different conditions required to the one and to the other imagineth a twosold Iustifieation or two Iustifications or as he saith against D. Tullie pag. 167. rather two parts of one yet in his last Reply to Mr. Cartwright pag. 46. he maketh them as distinct as are the two lawes he speaketh of the first he saith is by God the Creatour the second by Christ the Redeemer and in order to the vindication clearing of this he speaketh much of a twosold Righteousness In his writtings against Mr. Cartwright pag. 70. giving us several to the number of thirteen differences betwixt them making the one to consist in out Non-obligation to punishment by the Law of works because of its dissolution upon Satisfaction made by Christ to be without us in the merite satisfaction of Christ to be in substance the same with Pardon to be opposite to that guilt which sin in general procureth to be but the tantundem of what the Law required to justify us from a true Accusation that we by sin deserve death c. And the other to consist in our Non-obligation to the far greater punishment to be within us done by us to consist in innocency or notguiltiness to be opposite to that guilt which one particular sin procureth to be the idem required in the new Law to justifie us from a false Accusation that we have not performed the Conditions of the new Covenant c. all which to examine is not my present purpose only I shall say as to this two sold Justification that it is an explication of the matter which we have not in Scripture which I judge should only regulat both our Conceptions Expressions in this affaire and what ever pleasure men may take to give way to their Luxuriant phancies yet it will be safest for us to follow the threed of the Word and to speak of this mysterie according to Revelation and not according to our Apprehensions And of all men I judge Mr. Baxter should be most averse from creating new Termes Words Expressions in these divine things who expresseth himself so angry-like especially in his later writtings in words which to some may seem to favour little of sobâ—iety or of modesty against such as contend about words when it may be they are but defending the received orthodox doctrine from his new Notions and Expressions as being Censorious dividers Word-souldiers I know not what But as to the matter in hand in particular as to this second Iustificaâ—ion or rather first for it is supposed to be first in order of nature if not in time also which is founded upon our Innocency or performance of the Conditions of the new Covenant Faith Repentance New Obedience so is a declaring of us Righteous because of our inherent Righteousness I shall only say these few things 1. That I finde not this new Iustification explained expressed nor so much as hinted by the Apostle in all his discourses and disputes about this subject though he hath spoken very much of Iustification and on all occasions did vindicate clear up the gospel-truth thereanent If it be said That all this is sufficiently hinted more then hinted by the Apostle when he tels that Faith is imputed unto Righteousness I answere What the proper meaning of this Expression is shall be shown hereafter where it shall also be manifested that the Faith here said to be imputed is not our act of Faith but Christ his Righteousness laid hold on by faith or the object of Faith held forth in the Gospel received by Faith And for answere to this I judge it sufficient to say That the Apostle is manifestly there speaking of that other Iustification which we owne for the only Iustification hold forth in the Gospel whereby Remission of sins is had Peace with God through a Righteousness without of that Iustification which taketh away all glorying both before God man and wherein God is hold forth to be laid hold on by Faith as one that justifieth the ungodly and of that Justification which is from the Accusation of the Law by all which many other Particulars observable in the Apostles discourse there it is undeniable that he is speaking of that other Iustification which we asserte If it be said That all this is sufficiently imported when Faith is made the Condition of Justification we are said to be justified by faith I answer What way Faith is the Condition of Justification is so to be called shall be seen afterward only I say that what the Scripture speaketh of this can give no ground for a new distinct Justification because this new Iustification is rather a Iustification of Faith or of the Beleever because of his faith purely upon the account of his Faith for it is a sentence of judgment pronunceing the man to be a Beleever because he is so his faith to be right Faith because it is so than any Iustification of him by faith Not to mentione this that together with faith as the Condition Repentance New Obedience is joyned then there must be a Iustification of works or of the man by yea because of works which cannot be imported by being Iustified by faith because that is alwayes opposed to Iustification by works Beside that even in mens courts there are not two distinct sentences of the judge required in deciding of a Controversie depending upon the clearing of a Condition one anent the truth of the Condition the other anent the thing depending upon that Condition but the Condition being instructed to be performed the one sentence is given out much less is this requisito here where we have to do with God who knoweth whether the Condition be performed or not and needeth not that we instruct the same against the Accusations of Satan or of the
Covenant of Grace securing them from Condemnation they have accless ground in Law to plead this Right so to plead for actual Pardon in the termes according to the methode of the Gospel I do not say that the justified while lying in sin without making application to Iesus Christ acting faith on him in order to pardon have ground to plead for actual pardon for that is repugnant to the Methode of the Gospel requireing new acts of faith in order to new acts of Pardon I mean the implicit acts if faith to speak so in reference to dayly infirmities unseen sins the more explicit acts of faith in reference to grosser sins seen lamented But they have ground to plead for grace to discover their sins to humble them for their sins to excite their soul to renewed acts of faith in Christ and thereupon to expect according to the Gospel methode Remission and to plead for it in the merites of Christ unto which they have a sure Right Therefore 4. New sins cannor annul the state of justification because not only are beleevers secured that de eventu they shall not come into Condemnation for these sins but even as to any legal dueness of punishment that new sins may bring them under there is a sure saife remedie at hand the blood of Christ that taketh away all sin to which they are called to go that they may wash their souls there by faith and be clean be delivered from guilt 4. For further clearing of this we could consider that there is a difference to be put betwixt Sin in order to its direful effects considered in it self and considered as it is in the Iustified Though sin in it self is alwayes mortiferous and exposeth to the curse and wrath of God having a malignant demerite constantly attending it Yet it is not so being considered as it is in the justified for as poison is alwayes deadly in it self working towards death yet it is not so as in a person who hath received a sufficient antidot Though every act of felonie in it self make obnoxious unto death according to the Law yet some acts as committed by one who can read will not have that effect so the beleever is antidoted by the Covenant of Grace that howbeit sin remaine still deadly in its own nature yet as to him it cannot produce these effects 5. Though after sins in a justified person may have before they be pardoned very sad effects in reference to Comfort or comfortable Improvment of their Privileges Advantages yet they cannot disinherite them or put them from their Right Though leprosie did deprive the leper of the comfortable enjoyment and use of his own house yet it did not destroy his right though the miscarriages of the prodigal son did incapacitate him for any present enjoyment of his interest in his Fathers affection yet they did not destroy his Sonshipe Luk. 15 17. So though sins not yet washed away in such as have been justified may and will certainly prejudge them of many comfortable Advantages which they might otherwayes have yet they do not take away their Sonshipe nor their Right to the Inheritance of sones 6. Though after sins not yet pardoned through faith do and will stirr up Fatherly Anger Displeasure against them who are justified and become his Adopted children Esai 54 7 8. Yet they bring not justified man under pure judicial wrath and under the Curse and Law-anger so as God is no more their Father but hath cast them out of his familie fatherly favour It is one thing to be under the frowns gloomes of an angry Father another thing to be under the severe aspect of an angry judge 7. It is considerable also That through grace and the Lord 's great love and wisdom after-sins are so far from destroying their State and Right to the inheritance that upon the contrare they are ordered to the Justified mans good and further establishment in grace not that sin it self hath any such natural tendency but it is by accident to sin which is so ordered by the wise disposal of a loveing Father making all things work togerher for good and thus counter-working Satan without Corruption within making that which Satan had designed to their ruine and destruction contributo to their good advantage by giving them fresh occasion of exercising Humility Repentance of Renewing their gripping of Christ by Faith of Watching more with Diligence here-after as also hereby they are put to search examine themselves to try their Rights Securities thus to make their calling election sure to their further establishment comfort in the Holy Ghost 8. Thus we see whatever present alteration after sins not yet taken to Christ to the end they may be pardoned through his blood do or can make as to the present Condition of the justified yet their State remaineth firme unshaken for thereby they fall not againe under the old Covenant nor under the sentence thereof nor under pure Law wrath pure Justice the Curse of a broken Covenant but being under Grace not under the Law they are secured as to Condemnation Rom. 8 1. as to the loss of the favour friendship of God Rom. 8 35 39. for not only is the guilt of Original sin of all their preceeding Actual sins taken away through faith in Christ when they were justified but there is a sure way condescended upon betwixt Jehovah the Mediator how their after-sins shall be Pardoned taken out of the way the same method and way is declared in the Gospel made sure by the Covenant of Grace and by their being in the Covenat they have a right unto the promises thereof and ground to press for the performance so for Remission for all things requisite thereunto or following thereupon yea they have a sure pledge of Remission already to wit the actual Pardon of what is past and their past Justification that is a comforting strenthening word Rom. 5 9 10. much more then being now justified by his bloud we shall be saved from wrath through him for if when we are enemies we were reconcile â— to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life so is that Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his own son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things 9. We may adde That if sins afterward committed could take away Justification then they should also take away Adoption Regeneration so the justified man should by after sins not only become an unjustified man but also the child of God should become againe the childe of the devil the Relation should be quite broken off he who was borne againe should return unto his former state of black Nature thus there should be a second a
as things historically recorded working up the man in whom it is unto a voluntary profession of that truth This though true in its kinde yet is not saving seing many may have this who are strangers to true saving Faith Simon Magns beleeved thus Act. 8 13. who yet was but in the gall of bitterness in the bond of iniquity vers 23. Many beleeved in the name of Christ when they saw the miracles which he did to whom notwithstanding Christ did not commit himself Ioh. 2 23 24. Christ had many disciples who professed the truth and yet went back walked no more with him Ioh. 6 66. This faith when it cometh no further is but such a Faith as devils have who beleeve there is a God tremble Iam. 2 19. This is the fruitless workless Faith that iames speaketh of Iam. 2 14. that cannot save which he calleth a dead faith vers 17 20. a faith that cannot work with works vers 22. There is a Temporary faith which whether we look upon as distinct from the preceeding historical faith or as an higher measure degree thereof the matter is not much is also different from far short of this saving Faith whereby a man cometh to live the life of Iustification though it hath some effect wrought upon the affections this is the stonie-ground that receiveth the sowen seed Mat. 13 20 21. These are they who hear the word and anon with joy receive it yet have no root in themselves but endure for a while only for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word by by they are offended 2. Every act of saving Faith is not the justifying act of faith or that act thereof whereby we are Justified before God Saving Faith hath many several acts as we may see Heb. 11. Though where ever there are any of the real acts of saving faith that man hath also acted justifying faith yet we may look on Justifying Faith or on the act of faith whereby the soul becometh Justified as some way distinct from other acts of Saving Faith Though by saving Faith we come to understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God Heb. 11 3. not in a meer historical manner but savingly yet that act of saving Faith is not the Justifying act thereof to speak so Though the same Faith by which the Ancients subdued kingdomes stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the violence of fire c. was that by which they were justified yet these were not justifying acts of that faith that is in order to justification faith acteth in another peculier manner Though it be one the same saving faith whereby a beleever is united unto Christ in order to answer the Challenges Accusations of the Law to free him from guilt condemnation and maketh use of Christ's Right Strength Support c. in times of Darkness Temptations Difficulties yet these acts of the same faith are not the same but may be looked upon as distinct Faith acteth one way on Christ in order to Justification another way in order to Sanctification Faith acteth one way when it receiveth in and another way when it giveth out as it were Faith acteth one way on Christ as Priest and it acteth another way upon him as Prophet as King yet we would know that in all these actings of faith whole Christ is laid hold upon though more expresly explicitly in the uniting act whereby the soul is married unto Jesus thereby becometh one spirit with him There can be no use making of Christ for any end whatsomever untill the soul be united with himself and in every act of faith whereby Christ is made use of for what ever particular mercy the Beleever would have be it Pardon Light Strength Comfort or such like Christ himself is gripped to laid hold on for there is no separating of Him his favours yet the Beleever while gripping laying hold on whole Christ taketh him up under that Relation and eyeth that Office that most neerly answereth to and correspondeth with his present necessity and pointeth forth that good which he is now desirous of so acteth faith suitablie or putteth forth faith in suitable acts as for example when the beleever is troubled with conscience of guilt he runneth to Christ yet in a special manner he goeth to him as Priest eyeth that Blood that only can purge consciences from dead works Heb. 9 14. When he is troubled with Raging Corruptions would have them subdued or would have his hard Rebellious Heart made more soft pliable to God's will he goeth to Christ yet in special manner he eyeth Christ as a King acteth Faith upon him accordingly So when he is troubled with Ignorance Doubts and Darkness he goeth to Christ yet he eyeth him thâ—n especially as a Prophet accordingly acteth Faith upon him Yet we would know that when the Beleever acteth thus in this different manner upon Christ whether as a Prophet or as a Priest or as a King there is no exclusion far less any denyal of the other offices which cannot be because Christ himself consequently whole Christ is alwayes He to whom the beleever goeth though with a more express explicite special application to usemaking of that office work of Christ which most suiteth the beleevers present necessity Now though all these acts of faith be acts of saving faith yet they are not all that act of faith which is or may be for distinctions sake called the Justifying act of faith for this is that act of faith only which the soul exerteth in order to Justification and Absolution from the Curse of the Law 3. This Faith is no product of the power of Nature accompanied with all its advantages elevated to its highest pitch to the highest measure of accomplishments Nature as now corrupted depraved not only will not willingly complye with the designe of Grace in the Gospel but it cannot being nothing but pure enmity to the holy Wayes Counsels of God all its mindings are of the flesh and all the minding of the flesh or the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be Rom. 8 7. Persons deluded by Satan may imagine suppose with themselves that it is so wholly in their power to beleeve that they can exerte that Faith at what time so ever they will But howbeit out of their own mouths such unbeleevers stand convinced condemned for their not beleeving yet the mighty power of God's Spirit must be exerted ere they be brought unto a beleeving frame or their souls be made to look towards Jesus in earnest so as to lay hold on him by Faith Therefore is Faith called the gift of God Ephes. 2 8. There is the working of the might of God's power requisite unto beleeving Ephes. 1 19. Such then as have not the workings of the
Spirit of God Inclining Drawing Perswading Causing the heart beleeve are real strangers to this grace whatever great Enduements Gifts or ordinary effects of the Spirit they may be possessed of The author of a Discourse of the two Covenants a book recommended to us by Mr. Baxter in his preface prefixed thereunto as a Treatise which will give us much light into the Nature of the Gospel pag. 24. tels us that man himself is not wholly passive in this change or what goes to the making of it but is so far active in it as to denominate what he doth by God's assistance to be his own act Whereby he sufficiently discovereth an Arminian designe yet so qualifieth his expressions as may abundantly show he intendeth to evade For he will not say that man is not at all passive in this change but only that he is not wholly passive and yet he dar not say this confidently but must adde or what goes to the making of it and how much he may comprehend under this who can tell But if man be not passive he must be active How far then is he active So far saith he as to denominate what he doth by God's assistance to be his own act That the act of Faith is mans act is most certain for it is he that beleeveth but the question is what change is wrought in the soul by the Spirit of God before the act of faith be exerted and what hand mans labours and endeavours have in the infusion of the new Principle the Divine Nature Is not the man purely passive in the receiving of the effect of that creating act or in the work of Regeneration That the Lord prescribeth the use of ordinary means wherein the man is to waite for the free gracious working of the Spirit is true but there is no connexion made by the Lord by any Law or Constitution betwixt the use of these meanes and the gracious work of faith nor betwixt ordinary Light Conviction and the like common effects of these meanes and Saving Grace Yet he tels us afterward that if man do but what he can do through the assistance of God's common providente in whom we live move have our being God is most ready through his good pleasure or out of the goodness of his will pleasure to work in him both to will to do savingly to carry the work quite thorow But what Scripture doth teach us this Sure I am that Phil. 2 12 13. with which he ushereth in this discourse giveth no ground for this for that is spoken to such in whom the work of Salvation is already begun and who are commanded to work it out to say that the case is the same is to overturne the whole Gospel and present us with pure Pelagianisme is there as sure certane a connexion betwixt mans work of nature God's gracious works of Grace as is betwixt the work of grace Begun Carried on His adducing afterward p. 25. the commands to make ourselves a new heart to repent c. to enforce this is but the old Pelagian argument brought againe upon the stage to which I have said what I hope will befound Consonant to the Scripture in my book against the Quakers But this man discovereth himself more plainly afterward pag. 28 where after mentioning some acts of men which cannot be called acts of super-natural grace he tels us if men will but go thus far as they can out of a real-desire to â—e happy I should make no question but that the Spirit of God would yeeld them his assistance to carry them quite through in the work of conversion Beside that connexion whereof he maketh no question though the orthodox have hithertill denied it writting against Pelagians Iesuites Arminians we may observe this here That nature can carry the work of conversion quite through having only the assistance of the Spirit of God and what difference is there then betwixt Nature Begun Grace for begun Grace needeth the assistance of the Spirit of God to work Salvation quite thorow and Nature needeth no more where are then the Infused Habites Is Regeneration only brought about by assistance Need they who are dead no more but Assistance If this Author help us to clearness in the doctrine of the Gospel it must be the Gospel that only Pelagians Iesuites Arminians Quakers owne but not the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed to us in the Word which telleth us of something more requisite unto the Conversion of a sinner to the bringing of him to Beleeve Repent than the Cooperation of God's assistance as he speaketh pag. 25. mans endeavours He tels us pag. 26. that there is a promise of divine assistance to Man using his â—ndeavours in doing what he may can do towards the performing the condition of the Covenant But he showeth us not where that promise is to be found and pag. 17. he talks of an implicit promise and this he very wonderfully inferreth from the Gospel that was preached to Abraham for thus he speaketh for God in promising blessedness to the Nations through Abrahams seed therein promised all that was absolutly necessary for him to vouch safe to make them blessed without which they could not be blessed And if so then he therein implicitly promised to assist the endeavours of men to perform the condition of the promise without the assistance of whose grace they cannot savingly beleeve repent obey Whence it would seem 1 that all men are comprehended within this promise and 2 That no more is promised in reference to the Elect than to the Reprobat 3 That the promise of faith Repentance is but a promise of of Assistance 4 And this promise of Assistance is not to assist Grace but to assist Nature 5 That the promise of Faith Repentance was but an implicite promise This is a sufficient taste of this Authors Pelagian-Gospel 4. We proceed This work of the Spirit upon the soul whereby the man is brought to a closing with and to a resting upon Christ is ordinarily wrought by the word for faith cometh by hearing hearing by the word of God Rom. 10 17. The Lord hath established that great Ordinance of Preaching for this end and for this end he blesseth it unto his chosen ones we meane not this exclusivly as iâ— the word could no other way be-blessed for he blesseth as he seeth good for this end the Reading of Meditation on the word also though the grand special mean be the Preaching as we see Act. 2 37 41. 8 26-30 26 18. The Lord it is true may send wakenings by his Judgments by other like Occasions may blesse the private Endeavours of Parents friends by their private Instructions Admonitions yet all these are no way prejudicial unto but rather contribute to the confirming of the privilege of the word as the Principal Mean
we never read that we are said to be justified by Love or by Patience or by Hope or any other but alwayes by Faith This certanely must instruct us that Faith here hath a peculiar and singular interest must be considered as looking to Christ in a different way from Hop Love which also have Christ for their object or Christ must be the object of Faith in another manner under some other consideration than he is the object of other graces 12. It is also considerable that it is simply said the just man liveth by faith or we are justified by faith and not the just man liveth or we are justified by a strong faith or by a faith continueing to the end Though it be true that a true lively Faith is of that Nature that it will continue to the end and will grow yet we may not say that only a strong Faith or a Faith as continueing to the end is the condition of the Covenant or of Justification for hence it would follow that as no man of a weak yet true and sincere Faith could be said to be Justified so no man could be said to be Justified untill his Faith had endured to the end which is contrary to Scripture speaking of beleevers while in their infancy as justified adopted as partakers of or at least as having a Right to the consequences of Justification such as Pardon Peace Glorying in Tribulation and Comfort c. The promise granteth Justification and Adoption to Faith that is of the right kinde no mention is made of that Qualification thereof He that beleeveth is passed from death to life and shall never die c. Ioh. 3 36. Ioh. 3 16 18. Ioh. 1 12. If the meaning of such as make Faith as continneing to the end the condition of the Covenant and of Justification were this That Faith as continued in to the end is the Mean of Continuance in the Covenant and in the state of Justification they should speak truth for the just liveth by faith first last as by Faith they are brought into the estate so by faith they are continued therein Faith maketh the first Union Faith continueth it But of this we shall have occasion to speak more afterward 13. This faith is not one single act of the soul nor seated in one faculty The various things spoken of it in Scripture and the various objects it acteth upon and is exercised about and the various and different necessities which beleevers stand into with the corresponding uses which faith serveth for in these necessities cleare it to be no one single act of the Soul I would rather call it the act of the whole Soul than the act of any faculty whatsomever CHAP. XXII Our act of Faith is not imputed to us a Righteousness Wproceed now to cleare at some further length several Particulars touched in the foregoing Chapt. contributing to the explication of our Justification by Faith The first great Question anent Faith is whether it be imputed unto the Beleever as his Righteousness whereupon he is justified Adversaries to the truth both Socinians Arminians do plainly assert that our faith or that grace of faith is the very thing which is imputed to the Beleever for his Righteousness They are all convinced that the sinner must be clothed with a Righteousness some way or other in some sense or other ere he can be Justified for the Lord is Righteous will not justifie the wicled that is such as have no Righteousness and being willing to yeeld to the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ they substitute in place of Christ's Righteousness Faith properly taken or our act of Beleeving as is it performed by us in obedience to the Gospel-command Socinus de Serv. lib. 4. c. 4. Cum igitur c. i.e. seing he teacheth by the example of Abraham that Righteousness is imputed when can doubt that nothing else can hereby be under stood but that we arerighteous before God because it hath seemed good to the Lord to account our faith in place of Righteousness And thereafter That faith is imputed unto righteousness is nothing else than that faith is accounted to us in place of Righteousness but not that the Righteousness of christ is imputed to us cap. 11. Themselves say that that saith justifieth not by its proper worth but because it apprehendeth Christ But that apprehension of Christ of yours is a meer humane fiction a most vaine dream And when we read that faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness or unto Righteousness we have no reason to think that mention is there made of the Righteousness of another when it is manifest that he is speaking of his own In his dial de Justis f. 14 15. he tels us that faith is by God imputed to us for Righteousness he accounteth that in place of Righteousness faith is in very deed that whereby the Scripture witnesseth that we are justified that is accounted Righteous before God have our sinnes pardoned This faith maketh us acceptable unto God unto eternal life And in not ad dial f. 27. Nothing else was said than that faith is accounted to us of God imputed for Righteousness that that faith is truely in us who will deny seing these words are said to exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness The Arminians do homologate with the Socinians in this Arminius himself cont Perkins faith expresly that faith it self is imputed to us in Praf ad Hyppolit this faith he is my opinion about justification that faith that alone is imputed unto Righteousness that by it we are justified before God absolved from our sins and accounted righteous pronunced declared by God giving sentence from the tribunal of grace Some blaine ine for saying that the act of faith it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed unto Righteousness that in a proper sense not metonymically I say faith is imputed unto us unto righteousness for Christ for his righteousness sake He owneth the same decl Sent. ad Ord. f. 65. 66. in Resp. ad 31. Artic. f. 152-154 John Goodwine in his Treatise of Justification Part. 1. Ch. 2. asserteth the same most considently from Rom. 4. whose reasons hereafter shall be examied The same purpose he prosecuteth Part. 2. Ch. 6. answering the arguments of the orthodox against that imputation which shall be considered in due time Mr. Baxter in his Confess pag. 18 19. Excepteth against some words in our larger Catechisme Confession of faith to wit that it is denied that the grace of faith or any act thereof is imputed for Justification unless it be thus understood that our faith is not imputed to us as being in stead of a perfect Righteousness of Obedience to the ends as it was required by the Law of works nor is our faith the matter or the meritorious cause of the remission of our sin or of our right to
faith He not only will have us beleeve that Christ's Righteousness is not reckoned amongst the objects of faith as justifying but he will also give a reason why it is noâ— so reckoned to wit because though it ought to be cannot but be beleeved by that faith which justifieth yet it may be beleeved also by such a faith which is so far from justifying that it denyeth this Christ to be the Son of God Thus some jewes gave testimony to his innocency who yet received him not for their Messiah not beleeved him to be God this is the frame of the Turkish faith for the most part concerning him at this day Ans. It is one thing to beleeve a Righteousness but it is another thing to beleeve in it rest upon it The innocency of Christ as man before men is one thing but his compleet Surety Righteousness as one that was both God man is another thing Now Justifying faith looketh to resteth upon his whole Surety-Righteousness looketh upon him as God-Man Therefore it cannot be thus beleeved which is the only right way of beleeving it but only by such as leane to this Righteousness as the Righteousness of the promised Messiah Mediator God-Man as Abraham did and as all his children do and this is the only Faith that is Justifying Saving It seemeth by this expression that there is no more to be regairded in Christ's Righteousness but the meer innocency of a man Fiftly he tels us That faith which is here said to be imputed vers 3. is that faith by which be beleeved in God that quickeneth the dead c. vers 17. But the Righteousness of Christ can in no tolerable construction be called that Faith Ans. That the Proposition is false appeareth sufficiently from what is said And these words vers 17. shew how firmly fixedly Abraham received and rested on the promise and thing promised but it is not said that that was imputed to him for his Righteousness but that which was imputed was the Righteousness of the Faith that was to come whereon he beleeved and rested Sixtly Sevently he saith that the faith that was imputed unto Abraham was that wherein he was said not to be weak vers 19 is opposed to doubting vers 20. by which he was fully assured that he who had promised was able to do it vers 21. Ans. This is like wayes denied for the thing that was imputed was not that act of Faith but the Righteousness of the Messiah whom he undoubtedly expected to come out of his loines as Man that even when he had no appearance of an issue for it is this Righseousness which is the Righteousness of Faith and is distinct from the act of Beleeving for it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve which expression could be no way satisfying if nothing were meaned to be imputed here but our Beleeving for then the sense would be this we shall be reputed beleevers if we be beleevers Eightly he saith That which shall be imputed unto us for Righteousness is said to be our beleeving on him that raised up the Lord Iesus vers 24. Ans. This is sick of the same disease with the foregoing nothing like that is here said but rather we may see that some distinct thing is promised to be imputed to us if we beleeve on him that raised up Christ from the deed which clearly saith that the Imputation of something to us for Righteousness is promised when we beleeve shall any man then think that Beleeving it self is the thing which is to be imputed Lastly he tels us which is but what we heard before is shortly this That a tropical metonymical interpretation turneth Paul's perspicuity into greater obscurity than any light of the Scripture knoweth well how to reâ—â—eve Ans. Whatever darkness he conceive herein Yet others see in these tropical expressions a greater beauty of illustration a greater emphasis of strength signification than all his Rhetorick is able to darken The Apostle not only here but almost every where while speaking of this subject followeth this same manner of expression Especially Gal. 3. Nor do we say that the word Faith is here taken simply for Christ's Righteousness but for Christ's Righteousness laid hold on applied by Faith so that what is in one place called the Righteousness of Christ is in another place called the Righteousness of Faith the Righteousness which is by Faith through faith as Christ is called our hope not simply but as our hope acteth upon him as the real true object thereof He cannot deny but Faith is sometimes taken for its object even for Christ yet he saith 1. That though the faculty be sometimes put for the object yet the act seldome or never The act or exercise of the grace of hope is never put for the things hoped for but hope it self is sometimes found in that signification as Col. 1 5. Tit. 2 13. Nâ—w that which is here said to be imputed unto Abraham was not the habit or grace of Faith but the act Ans. Neither habit nor grace nor act of Faith is here said to be imputed but the object which the act may also denote as well as the habite And if he limite restrick this to any particular act he must say that Abraham was not â—ustified before â—his time that after this act was past it could not be said that his Faith was imputed to him for Righteousness But 2. he saith That though it were granted that as well the act it self as the faculty or habit may be sometimes put for the object yet when the act object have been named together the act expressed by an object proper to it further something immediatly ascribed to this act under that consideration all which is plainly seen in this clause Abraham beleeved God it was imputed to him for Righteousness in this case to conceive affirme that what is ascribed is neither ascribed unto the act it self there mentioned nor unto the object mentioned but unto a third thing not once mentioned in the text is to turn our back upon the text Ans. Do we not see Tit. 2 13. where it is said looking for that blessed hope glorious appearing of the great God our Saviour Iesus Christ that Christ is denominated by the act or habite of hope and called our hope and that here both act object are named together to wit looking looking for our Saviour Jesus Christ It is true there is nothing here immediatly ascribed to this act but not withstanding thereof we see Christ the object of hope denominated by the act or habite of hope And whereas it is said that this third thing the Righteousness of Christ is not once mentioned it may suffice that it is sufficiently included clearly enough expressed when mention is made of Righteousness of the Righteousness of faith of
Righteousness imputed 2 It is also to be considered that in that clause Abraham beleeved God it was counted to him for Righteousness it is not said that Faith or his Beleeving was counted to him for Righteousness but that it was counted c. and that is not his Faith but the marrow of the Gospel which God at that time preached unto him and so there is nothing in this clause immediatly ascribed to this act but a third thing is understood Lastly he saith The righteousness of Christ is not the object of faith as justifying only the Scriptures propose his Righâ—eousness or obedience to the Law as that which is to be beleeved so it may be termed a partial object as is the creation of the world that Cain was Adam's son But the object of faith as justifying properly is either Christ himself or the promise of God concerning the Redemption of the world by him Ans. 1 Hereby we see that in stead of a justifying faith he giveth us a meer historical faith and indeed such as deny the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must of necessity substitute a new sort of faith in room of that which we owne for the only Justifying faith But though justifying faith containe in it that historical faith presuppose it yet it includeth more hath other peculiar actings of soul upon and towards Christ his Righteousness which here we cannot separate far less oppose to other as our Adversary doth in reference to the mans liberation from the sentence of the Law the Curse due to him for the breach thereof now charged home upon him by the Lord an awakened conscience 2 By Christ's Righteousness we do not understand his simple innocency or freedom from the transgression of the Law but his whole Mediatory work in his state of humiliation as satisfying the offended Law-giver answering all the demands of the Law both as to doing suffering which debt we were lying under 3 Justifying Faith eyeth him thus runneth to him accepteth of him as he is thus set forth by God to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood Rom. 3 25. and as making Reconciliation for faith receiveth the atonement Rom. 5 11. and it receiveth abundance of grace of the gift of Righteousness vers 17. Justifying faith must receive him as the Lord our Righteousness as made of God to us Righteousness Therefore is this Righteousness of God called also the Righteousness of Faith or the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve Rom. 3 22. A Righteousness which is through the Faith of Christ or the Righteousness which is of God by Faith Phil. 3 9. Thus have we examined all that this Man hath brought by way of Reason for as for Authorities on the one hand or other I purposely wave them in this whole discourse to prove that Faith properly taken is imputed for Righteousness that the tropical sense commonly received by the orthodox which we have also chosen to follow notwithstanding that there is another sense given of the words by some to evite in part this tropical sense and by which the Adversaries against whom we here deal can receive no advantage is to be utterly laid aside rejected in answering him we have answered others also who do but-urge the same things Yet if any should enquire If the Apostle doth not meane that faith properly taken is our Righteonsness is imputed to us accounted our Righteousness why would he say so plainly that Faith is imputed or counted for Righteousness I Answere The expressions which the Holy Ghost hath used should satisfie us though we should know no reason beside his good pleasure why he did express the matter so It is our part to search into his meaning according unto the surest rules of finding out the sense of the Scriptures among which this is to be reckoned as a â—â—ite one not to be rejected viz. to attend the scope with the connexion cohesion of the words as they lye contribute unto that scope together with the common plaine frequently reiterated expressions assertions of the Spirit of God in other places where the same matter is treated of for to the end that we may be exercised in the study of the Scriptures in comparing Scripture with Scripture for finding out the mind of the Lord hath he thought good to express the same matter in diverse places in various wayes in some places more plainly what in other places appeareth more obscure And it cannot be judged a saife way of interpreting Scripture to fix upon one expression give it a sense or take it in such a sense as tendeth manifestly to darken the whole doctrine of the Spirit of the Lord concerning that truth and to crosse the scope to mat the connexion and to contradict multitudes of other passages of Scripture It is not unusual for the Apostle to use several expressions in a figurative sense How oft is the word Law taken for obedience to the Law What sense could be made of Gal. 3 25. if the word Faith should be there taken properly not for its object as also vers 2 5. of that same Chapter And what sense shall we put upon these expressions They which are of faith Gal. 3 7 9. as many as are of the works of the Law vers 10. upon many such like if all these words must be taken properly Nay how little of this whole matter of Justification is expressed to us without Trops figures which yet do not darken but give a more special divine lustre unto the Truthes so expressed How oft is the word Hop put for its object for the thing hoped for And though this might satisfie us herein yet further if I might adventure to give a reason of this manner of expression here ot rather to pointe forth what this expression should signifie hold forth to us I would say That Paul is not handling this Controversie about Justification in a meer speculative manner therefore doth not use such Philosophical Metaphysical Notions expressions there about as some now think so necessary that without the same they judge themselves not in case to explaine the matter to the capacity of the meanest which would rather have darkened then explained the matter to the ordinary capacity of Christians as I judge the way that some of latetake in explicating this matter contributeth much more to the darkning of the same at least to me But the Apostle is handling this matter in a practical manner so as both such he wrote unto the Church of Christ to the end of the world might so understand this necessary fundamental truth as to put the same in practice And therefore doth say that Faith is imputed unto Righteousness to shew that it is not the Righteousness of Christ conceived in our heads that
words and termes be laid aside because the terme itself by which we express our Conceptions of the truth is not in so many letters syllabs to be found in Scripture if so indeed we had quickly lost a fundamental point of our Religion and yeelded the cause unto the Socinians If the Scripture may be explained we may make use of such expressions termes sentences as will according to their usual acceptation contribute to make the truthes revealed in Scripture intelligible to such as heare us And when some termes have been innocently used in Theologie for explication of truthes whether to the more learned or to the more unlearned have pâ— ssed among the orthodox without controll or contradiction beyond the ordinary time of prescriptions it cannot but give ground of suspicion for any now to remove these old Land-marks especially when it is attempted to be done by such meanes arguments as will equally enforce a rejection of many Scriptural expressions for should all the Metaphorical expressions sentences which are in â—ature be so canvassed rejected because every thing agreeing properly to them when used in their own native soile doth not quadrate with them as used in the Scriptures in things divine where should we Land If these divine mysteries had been expressed to us only in termes adequatly corresponding with suiting the matter how should we have understood the same Therefore we finde the Lord condescending in the Scriptures to our low Capacities and expressing sublime high mysteries by low borrowed expressions to the end we might be in case to understand so much thereof as may prove through the Lord's blessing saving unto us And thereby hath allowed such as would explaine these matters unto the capacity of others to use such ordinary expressions as may contribute some light understanding to them in the truthes themselves Now when the orthodox have according to their allowed liberty made use of the word Instrument in this matter and maintained that Faith was was nothing more then an Instrument in Justification it is not faire to reject it altogether because improper though fit enough to signifie what they did intend thereby because all the properties that agree to proper Physical or artificial Instruments do not agree to it and because if the same be strickly examined according to the rules of Philosophie concerning Instrumental Causes it will be found to differ from them Mr. Baxter himself writting against D. Kendal § 47. tels us that the thing which he denieth is that Faith is an Instrument in the strick logical sense that is an Instrumental efficient cause of our Iustification that he expresly disclaâ—meth contending de nomine or contradicting any that only use the word instrument in an improper large sense as Mechanicks Rhetoricians do So that the question saith he is de re Whether it efficiently cause our Iustification as an Instrument But it may be conceived to have some efficient Influence in our Justification not as that is taken simply strickly for God's act justifying but as taken largely comprehending the whole benefite as activly coming from God as Passively received by or terminated on us that as an Instrument though not in that proper sense that Logicians or Metaphysicians take Instrumental causes and explaine them in order to physical natural Effects We know that Justification is a supernatural work effect and therefore though in explaining of it in its Causes we may make use of such termes as are used about the expressing of the Causes of Natural or Artificial Works Effects yet no Law can force us to understand by these borrowed expressions the same proper Formal Efficacy Efficiency and influence which is imported by these Expressions when used about Natural Causes Effects But Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 5. tels us what great reasons he had to move him to quarrel with this calling of faith an Instrument viz. he found that many learned divines did not only assert this Instrumentality but they laid so great a stress upon it as if the maine difference betwixt us the Papists lay here And yet any might think that they had reason so to do when Papist's on the other hand laid as great stresse upon the denying of Faiths Instrumentality He tels us moreover that our divines judged Papists to erre in Justification fundamentally in these points 1. about the formal Cause which is the formal Righteousness of Christ as suffering perfectly obeying for us 2. About the way of our participation herein which as to God's act is Imputation that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith which justifieth 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in justification which is as the Instrument thereof I doubt not saith Mr. Baxter but all these four are great errors But we neither may nor can call all errors which Mr. Baxter calleth errors We have seen above how necessary truthes the two first are and have explained in part the third wherein I confesse too many yet not all of the forraigne divines have as to expression missed the explication of true Justifying faith it may be it was not their designe to describe it so as it might agree to the faith of every sincere though weak beleever but rather to shew its true nature grounds tendency when at its best yet what Papists hold on the contrare is more false absurd But as to this fourth it seemes that it hath a necessary dependance upon the foregoing and this to me seemes to be the maine reason why our Divines did owne plead for Faiths Instrumentality in the matter of Justification viz. because the Righteousness which they called the Formal or others the Material Cause thereof was not any Righteousness inherent in us as Papists said but the Surety-Righteousness of the Cautioner Christ without us And therefore they behoved to look on Faith in this matter otherwayes then Papists did and not account it a part of our Formal Righteousness but only look upon it as an hand to lay hold on bring-in the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ and therefore judged it most fit to call it only an Instrumental Cause And how ever Mr. Baxter exaggerat this matter as complying with Papist's in condemning us as to all these controversies and think it no wonder they judge the whole Protestant cause naught because we erre in these and yet make this the maine pairt of the Protestant cause yet we must not be scarred from these truthes Yea because this point hath such a connexion with the other concerning that Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be Justified in the sight of God we are called to contend also for this that so much the rather that though Papist's do utterly mistake the Nature of Justification and confound it with Sanctification yet Mr. Baxter
hath more rational apprehensions there about and yet will not have Christ's Righteousness to be that Formal Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified Yet notwithstanding we need not owne it for such an Instrument or such an Instrumental cause as Philosophers largely treate of in the Logicks Metaphysicks knowing that the Effect here wrought is no Natural Effect brought about by Natural Efficient Instrumental Causes Only we say the Scripture affirming that we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giveth us ground to call Faith if we will use such termes to expresse our mind an Instrument seing these expressions pointe forth some special interest influence that Faith hath in Justification no other Influence or Causation can be allowed to it conforme to the Scriptures but that which we express in our ordinary discourse not in a strick Philosophical sense by an Instrument And that so much the rather that hereby is pointed forth that which is the maine ground designe of using this terme viz. the Application of the Righteousness of Christ which is made by Faith as a meane or mid's laying hold upon without which we cannot be Justified according to the Gospel And though in these borrowed expressions from Causes metaphysical accuracy be not intended yet the true meaning intendment of the users of these termes being obvious it is but vanity to raise too much dust thereabout unless difference about other more Principal Questions in the matter of Justification enforce it as indeed all such as place the Formal Cause or reason of our justification before God in our own Inherent Righteousness and not in the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith must of necessity deny all interest of faith here as an Instrument or as any thing like it because having all their Righteousness within them they have no use for Faith to lay hold-on bring-in one from without There things may satisfie us as grounds of this Denomination 1. That in justification we are said to be receivers do receive something from the Lord not only the Passive justification itself expressed by our being justified but of some thing in order thereunto as of Christ himself the Abundance of Grace of the Gift of Righteousness the atonement the word of promise yea every thing that concurreth unto justification or accompanieth it we are said to receive Ioh. 1 12. Col. 2 6. Rem 5 11 17. Act. 2 41 10 43. 26 18. Heb. 9 15. 2. That the only Grace whereby we are said to receive these things is Faith receiving is explained to be beleeving Ioh. 1 12. Act. 2 41. comp with vers 44. we receive forgiveness of sins by faith Act. 26 18. 3. That the Surety-Righteousness of Christ is that only Righteousness â—pon the account of which we are justified before God not any Inherent Righteousness within ourselves hath been evinced above 4. That this Righteousness of the Surety must be imputed unto such as are to be Justified or reckoned upon their score hath also been evinced 5. That this Surety-Righteousness of Christ must be laid hold on by us in order to our justification hath been showne must be granted by all that acknowledge it to be the Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified 6. That the Scripture saith expresly that God justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith Rom. 3 24 25 28 30. Gal. 3 8 2 16. and that even when justification is denied to be by works So that Faith must have a far other interest in must otherwise concurre unto our Justification than any other Works or Graces and therefore must be looked upon as having some peculiarity of interest and influence here and this peculiarity of interest can not be otherwayes better expressed so as the matter shall be cleared then by calling it an Instrument Not as if it did concurre to the produceing of the effect of justification by any Physical operation as Physical Instruments do but as a medium mean required of us in order to Justification according to the free pleasure of God who disposeth the order methode of his bestowing of his Favours upon us aud the Relation Respect that one hath unto another as he seeth most for his own glory and for our good and that such a mean as concurreth therein and thereunto according to what is said in such a way as we be can best understand by calling it an Instrument for we can not allow it to be called any way meritorious or any formal disposition of the soul or Preparation unto the Introduction of an Inherent Formal Cause of Justification as Papists say nor can we allow it to be called such a proper Potestative Condition as some would have it to be as we saw in the forgoing Chapter 7. That no real inconvenience can follow upon the owning of Faith for an Instrument in justification for Justification is not here taken simply strickly for that which is properly God's act but more largely complexly including other things requisite unto Justification such as the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ which Faith as the Instrument or hand of the soul layeth hold on bringeth-in for this end that the man being clothed therewith may be acquitted before the Tribunal of God Pardoned accepted of as Righteous And howbeit it be God that justifieth as to this act of God justifying Faith hath no real interest or influence yet the Scripture saying that God justifieth by Faith and through faith we must acknowledge some interest that Faith hath in the work Effect as when the Scripture saith that He purifieth the heart by faith Act. 15 9. the purifying of the heart is God's work and yet it is said to be done by Faith which is our work It is said Heh 11 11 that through faith Sara herself received strength to conceive seed vers 33 34. that some through faith subdued Kingdomes stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the violence of fire c. all which were the works of God yet while they are said to be done by faith faith must have had some interest influence in these effects So in working faith in the soul which is God's work alone the Lord useth the preaching of the Gospel and ministers the peoples hearkning listning to what is preached as meanes midses thereunto though preaching hearing be mens work yet God useth them for his ends and as he sendeth Preachers to preach moveth persons to hear that thereby he may according to his own will pleasure work Faith in then so he worketh Faith in souls that he may thereby Justify them Nor is it of any weight to say that if Faith be an Instrument it must work as an efficient cause because the Instrumental Cause belongeth
knoweth that the orthodox do of purpose call faith an Instrument in justification in opposition to the Papists that Christ may weare the honour alone and man may be abased if they have been unhappy in falling upon the medium to that end Yet their Intention was honest But when Faith is called an Instrument in justification justification is not taken for an act of accepting pardoning alone for they knew that it was God only that accepteth pardoneth that it is he only who Justifieth but they took justification in a more comprehensive sense as including Christ's Righteousness the only formal ground of justification in reference to which Faith is said to act as an Instrument receiving And this may satisfie such as will not have the mysteries of God cast in a pure Philosophical mould because some such termes are used for explications sake Mr. Baxter Confess p. 95. saith Such as say faith justifieth qua instrumentum de most certainly make it to justifie as an action And in his postscript to Mr. Cartwright Those that make faith to justifie as an Instrument or as apprehensio Christi do set up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere which they cry down for that which they call instrumentality is the apprehensive act apprehendere credere are here all one They contradict themselves in saying that Paul excludes all works because faith say they justifieth not as a work for to justifie qua instrumentum or qua apprehensio Christi is to justifie as a work or as this work And so this doctrine sets up justification by works that in an unlawful sense for it maketh the formal reason of Faiths justifying to be its apprehension that is that it is such an action or its instrumentality which is an operation Ans. This is no new Objection for Schlichtingius the Socinian Cont. Meisnerum p. 130. did object the same upon the matter It is true when we say faith Justifieth as an Instrument we make it to Justifie as an action taking qua specificativè as he himself also must do when he faith it justifieth as a Condition Potestative for a potestative condition is some action performed himself as we heard called it actio voluntaria de futuro But he knoweth that when it is said that Faith justifieth as an Instrument the meaning is but more emphatically to shew that it is the Righteousness of Christ which faith apprehendeth by which we are justified that they who cry up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere make that the Righteousness by which we are justified so that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in their sense who will have it imputed to us for Righteousness respecteth immediatly the benefite to wit Pardon Acceptation c. Faith as an Instrument or apprehension in our sense respecteth Christ his Righteousness immediatly which it receiveth as an Instrument in order to the benefite which is had upon the account of Christ his Righteousness made ours In our sense faith is no more but as the hand receiving bread and as the mouth eating it in order to food nourishment thereby in their sense faith is made the very food nourishment or meat it self that nourisheth When we say that Faith Justifieth as an Instrument it is but as if we said man liveth by his hands taking meat and by his mouth eating it when they say that faith justifieth as a work that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed for Righteousness it is as if they said the hand the mouth are the very food or the meat it self by which we live and are nourished we looking upon Faith as an Instrument as upon the hand and mouth as instruments of nourishment ascribe all the vertue of nourishment unto the meat They denying the hand and the mouth to be considered here as instruments and saying that we live and are nourished by the hand and the mouth just as they do when they make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere our Righteousness in reference to justification ascribe all the vertue of nourishment unto the hand the mouth and so set up the hand the mouth in the place that is due unto the meat and rob the meat of that power vertue that is only proper to it Yet withall when we say that hands and mouth nourish us as Instruments we do not deny but in a general sense our receiving of meat with our hands eating of it with our mouth are conditions of nourishment importing hereby that the wise God hath appointed this order and methode giving us hands to receive meat mouths to eat it a stomach to digest it in order to the living and receiving thereby nourishment only we do not say they are such conditions as have all the vertue of nourishment in them This is but a similitude and so must halt in some things as all similitudes do yet it serveth to illustrate the matter and to shew the difference betwixt our expressions and the expressions of our Adversaries in this matter how little ground there is so this objection and particularly how when we say faith justifieth as an Instrument we do not withall say it justifieth as a work in our Adversaries sense And how when we say Faith is a condition we do not withall say that it justifieth as a potestative proper condition in our Adversaries sense as also how we cannot admit that faith shall be called no more than a causa sine qua non seing it is so manifest that eating digesting of meat hath another influence into nourishment by food than a meer causa sine qua non hath into any effect Mr. Baxter Confess p. 95. 96. I must therefore professe that after long consideration I know no one terme that properly expresseth this neerest formal interest of faith in justification but only the terme condition as that is usually taken for the condition of a free gift when the Scripture telleth us how faith justifieth it is in such termes as these if thou confess with thy mouth c. he that beleeveth shall be saved c. In all which if the conditional if the conditional forme of the promise express not a condition I despaire of ever understanding it in this life Ans. As for the neerest formal interest of Faith in Justification if all other questions touching that fundamental truth of Justification were satisfyingly determined put to an end there needed not be much controversie but when as we have seen the decision of this hath such an interest in the decision of more substantial points or necessarily attendeth the same enquirie with sobriety after the truth even in these lesser things cannot be condemned And on the contrare receding from condemning received termes expressions which have an obvious plaine sound meaning being taken according as they have been constantly used because not quadrating every way with mens new Philosophical
and too metaphysical apprehensions notions in this matter cannot but be displeasing And too much Philophical accuracy in the clearing up of these mysteries is not the most edifying saife way of explication 2. We are not against the use of the terme Condition in this matter knowing that faith may well be called a condition but the question is in what sense we must take the word condition And to say that it is taken as commonly used for the condition of a free gift will not satisfie in our case because though the gift which we expect by faith is to us indeed free yet it is a purchased free gift such a free gift as these who get it have all the legal title Right thereunto through the Caâ—tioners purchase payment only come to the possession of it through Faith according to the wise methode Connexion made by the Soveraigne Lord. Adam's perfect obedience might have been called the condition of a free gift and we cannot give the same place power to Faith in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old for Adam if he had perfectly obeyed had gote his reward without any intervention of a Price by a Mediator purchasing it but we must hold all our reward solely of Christ that he may have the glory of all 3 as if can denote a Condition so by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can denote an instrumental cause Himself tels us som-where in his Confut of Ludom Colvinus alià s Ludov Molinaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth an efficient cause we read that we are Iustified by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And further though these passages which he citeth and the conditional if and the conditional forme of the promise do indeed express a Condition yet they do not say or prove that the terme Condition is the only one terme that properly expresseth the nearest formal interest of faith in Justification or that the terme of an Instrument is no way fit to express this neer formal interest of faith in justification seing to be justified by faith or through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which the Scripture useth is as expressive of an Instrumental interest as if thou beleeve c. is expressive of a condition He saith ibid. p. 89. Conclus 10. That the difference betwixt him others is not that he giveth any more to works than they but that they give more to faith than he consequently to man if he be guilty of equalling faith obedience too much it is not by bringing up works too high to be Instruments of Iustification as they make Faith but in taking down Faith too much consequently in too much abaseing all acts of man Ans. If he bring up works to Faith in our Justification give a like interest to both he giveth more to works than the orthodox will do And when we call faith an Instrument in justification we give not so much to it as they do who call it conditio potestativa and give it the same place in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old as was seen above And who ever say this are so far from debasing man his actions that they give him as much ground of glorying boasting as ever Adam would have had if he had fulfilled the condition given full perfect Obedience And he cannot but know that that terme Instrument was of purpose applied to Faith in this matter to depresse man to keep the crown upon the head of Christ as it is apt enough to do if it be but candidely understood taken as it is applied and no further nor vexed with metaphysical niceties a way that might render every borrowed terme whether from arts or sciences how expressive so ever of our meaning explicative of the matter intended utterly useless It is true when he calleth faith only a causa sine qua non he seemeth to giveless to Faith than we do if that terme be taken in its strick sense as it is by Philosophers taken who will not have it called a Cause at all but rather conditio sine qua non But thus he depresseth it below that place interest which is due to all the institutions appointments of God as such for none of them can rightly be called conditio sine qua non and no more in reference to that effect end for which they are appointed of him and far less can Faith be said to be only conditio sine qua non in reference to justification seing by the unalterable appointment of the Soveraigne Lord justification so dependeth upon is connected with Faith that who ever beleeveth to wit savingly or with that Faith which here we only understand whensoever he beleeveth doth immediatly passe from death unte life and is justified But no man will say that the effect doth so much depend upon or is connected with that which is but a conditio sine qua non as was before shewn in several Instances And where is then his Conditio Potestativa is that but a causa fatua But ibid. Conclus 9. he tels us that one maine reason which constrained him to deny that Faith is an Instrument in justification is because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficiont cause of pardoning himself Ans. When we make Faith an Instrument in justification we make it not an Instrument of the act of pardoning which is solely the Lords act but taking justification largly as including the Righteousness of Christ the only ground thereof we say that in reference to Christ this Surety-Righteousness of his which is imputed in order to the Lord 's justifying Pardoning of us faith acteth as an Instrument apprehending Christ his Righteousness upon that account is to be considered as an Instrument in the matter of justification And himself Concl. 11. ibid. saith that he ever held that it is only faith that is the receiving of Christ that faith being the only receiving grace wherein no meer moral duty or grace doth participate of its honour or nature it was therefore by God peculiarly destinated or appointed to the office of justifying as fittest to the glorying of free grace of God Redeemer therein And if this be the all as to the substance of what we say or the most of that which we meane when we call faith an Instrument what ground was there of differing from his brethren or what ground was there to feare that Christ's honour should have been wronged thereby Sure while Faith is called an Instrument as receiving Christ his Righteousness in order to justification Christ is more honoured in that affaire than when our Faith is made our Gospel-Righteousness called a perfect Righteousness so our whole Righteousness as some a chiefe part of it as others upon the account of which we are
closed entered into this â—s denied and abundantly confuted by Mr. Durham in the forecited Digression 4. But the Question is if Repentance hath the same Place Office Use Consideration in Justification that Faith hath so that it may be every way as well as fully called the Coudition of Justification as Faith is so that it is called for in order to Justification upon the same account and under the same formality that Faith is called for Socinians Arminians as we heard above joine Repentance Faith in the same Order Place ascribe the same Office Use Power unto both in order to Justification And Mr. Baxter tels us Confess pag. 37. n. 19. That Repentance is made by God in the Gospel a proper Condition of our first general pardon of sin as well as Faith is And he laith down a ground for this interest of Repentance which I suppose will reach to the including of other works also in the foregoing n. 18. saying a quatenus ad omne valeâ— consequentia If faiths formal interest in pardon be as it is the Condition of the act of pardon then whatsoever is such a Condition must have the same Kind of formal interest as faith By the first general purdon of sin here he meaneth Justification for with him Remission of sins Justification is all one thing And yet afterward pag. 96. Concl. 29. he hath words which would seem to give some peculiar interest unto Faith so contradict what is here said for he saith If any say that seing faith hath a peculiar aptitude to this office therefore it must have a peculiar Interest I answere so it hath For I it doth alone without merites or any positive Gospel works of obedience as such at least procure as far as belongs to its office our first full Justification 2. The love of Christ received Gratitude c. are but as modification of Faith which is called the receiving itself Though some of them be distinct physical acts yet all the rest morally considered are but as it were the modification of faith I mean of that act which is the acceptance of Christ life freely given c. Now I suppose he will grant as he doth above as we may see that Repentance hath not that peculiar aptitude to this office that Faith hath consequently cannot have that peculiar Interest as he confesseth I suppose also that he will put Repentance in the same rank with Gospel-Works of Obedience consequently it must no more share of that special Interest that belongeth to Faith in this office than they I suppose likewise that he will grant Repentance to be but a Modification of Faith as well as Love Gratitude and then I would know how Repentance can be said to be as proper a Condition of Justification as Faith is Sure if it be as proper it must have as peculiar an interest for this peculiarity of Interest cannot respect its aptitude meerly but it s deâ—â—gned appointed state in that office otherwayes the objection which he moved and answered should have this sense seing Faith hath a peculiar aptitude to this office therefore it must have a peculiar aptitude to this office which were non sense Now that Repentance hath not the same Interest in Justification that Faith hath we judge evident from these grounds 1. The Scripture tels us that we are justified by Faith and that several times not only saith it but proveth it as we saw above But it no where saith that we are justified by Repentance And reason would require that such as say that Repentance hath the same Interest in Justification that faith hath should tell us where it is said we are justified by Repentance for when it is thus said of Faith no where thus said of Repentance there must be a vast difference as to their interest in Justification unless they can give us some Scripture expressions concerning the Interest of Repentance aequivalent to this we are justified by Repentance If it be said That this is equipollent when it is said Repent that your sins may be blotted out Repentance Remission of sins are joyned together the like I answer Leaving the particular examination of these the like passages alledged untill afterward I shall only say this at present 1 That justification Remission of sins are not every way the same Though Mr. Baxter hath several times said it yet in his Catholick Theolog. of God's Covenant c. Sect. XIII n. 203. he saith our first constitutive justification is in its own Nature a Right to impunity this as he oft elsewhere tels us is Remission to life or glory Now what is beside a Right to Impunity also a Right to life glory is more than Remission of sins And therefore the consequence from Remission to Justification cannot stand 2 In like manner because it is said Luk. 6 37 forgive it shall be forgiven you it may be inferred that for-giving of our Neighbour some fault that he hath done us is the Condition of our Constitutive Justification hath as great an interest in our Justification as Faith it seâ—f and by it we have as really Right to impunity and Right to life glory as by Faith It is true Mr. Allen will not think this very absurd who reasometh from this same passage not far otherwise In his discourse of the two Covenants pag. 52. Yet I suppose others will I doubt if Mr. Baxter shall make this one the same thing with Faith as he laboureth in his Catholick Theol. to make Faith Repentance one It will be said when we are said to be Justified by Faith it is all one as if we were said to be Justified by Repentance for Mr. Baxter cleareth Of God's Govern Sect. XII how Faith Repentance is all one thing I Ans. 1 if the Spirit of the Lord had but once said in his word that we were justified by Repentance we might then be allowed to think of such explications as might make either both one thing or shew how both hath the same interest in Justification but when the Scripture never once saith that we are justified by Repentance for us to devise such explications as to make the Scripture speak what it never speaketh is not faire nor is it to edification because it hath no tendency to explaine the matter as expressed in the Scriptures and is so far from clearing up the truth that it darkeneth all for hereby we are taught to understand faith wherever we hear of Repentance Repentance where mention is made of Faith so that we may ascribe all to Repentance that is spoken of Faith Heb. 11. say that Repentance is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen c. 2 Though it is true the word Repentance as we have seen is sometime taken so largely as to include faith yet that will not allow us
to say we are Justified by Repentance as we are justified by Faith It is best for us to follow Scripture language The Scripture expresly denieth that we are justified by works yet Repentance is sometimes taken in such a large sense as to include all acts of Obedience This way then would allow us to sav we are justified by all works of obedience even as to constitutive Justification as we are by Faith Yet Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 89 90. putteth a difference betwixt Faith Evangelick Obedience as to this Constitutive Justification making the one like consent to marriage relation or taking one to be my Captaine the other like conjugal fidelity obedience or obeying the captain sighting under him tels us that he no more comprizeth all Obedience in Faith than conjugal obedience in the marriage consent 3 That Repentance is not the same with Faith in the matter of justification in reference to which we now speak of both will appear from our following reasons So that whatever paines be taken to make them one on other accounts will be to no purpose as to our present business 2. If Repentance have the same interest in Justification that Faith hath then works shall have the same interest with Faith but this is diametically opposite to all the Apostles disput Rom. 3. 4. Gal. 2. 3. The reason of the Consequence is because Repentance includeth works is a special work act of obedience itself Mr. Baxter tels Confess p. 94. That Paul's scope is both to take down Moses's Law especially its necessity conceited sufficiency the Dignity of legal works consequently of any works that therefore by works Paul meaneth to exclude only merites or works which are conceited Meritorious or which for the worth of the dead done should procure Pardon acceptance with God without a Mediators blood so Paul himself described the works that he speaketh against Rom. 4 4. That they are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt Ans. This is but the same we heard before from Iohn Godwine and the same answer may suffice 1 If the scope of Paul had been only to take down Moses's Law why did he speak so much of the Gentiles shew how they were all under sin therefore must be justified by Faith not by the Law or by works This had no manifest tendency to that scope 2 Why brought he in the Instance of Abraham who was before the Law of Moses Abraham's not being justified by works could not prove the insufficiency of Moses's Law thereunto 3 To think that the Jewes did conceite that they would obtaine Pardon Acceptance with God only by their laborious performance of Ceremonies costly Sacrifices excluding all Moral acts of obedience is apparently groundless contrary to Rom. 9 30 31 32. 10 3 4 5. would say that Paul took not a right medium to destroy that conceite for his neerest surest course had been to have shown the nullity of that Law now under the Gospel hereby all occasion of further debate being perfectly removed 4 Paul is so far Rom. 4 4. from describing the works that he speaketh of to be such only as make the reward of debt that he proveth that Justification cannot be by works by this medium because then the reward should be reckoned not of grace but of debt and so telleth us that all work make the reward of debt This is a manifest perversion of the Apostles argument for he saith not now to him that so worketh as to conceite his works meritorious the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt but now to him that worketh far less can this be the meaning or construction of the words now to him that maketh the reward to be not of grace but of debt for what sense is here And further the meaning of the following words must accordingly be this but to him that so worketh as not to make the reward of debt but of grace his working is counted for Righteousness While as the Apostle saith a plaine other thing But to him that worketh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Sure working without this conceite of merite is not beleeving on him that justifieth the ungodly neither are these works counted for Righteousness for holy Abraham wrought without that conceite yet he was not justified by works vers 2 3. Nor did David meane that mans blessedness did consist in the imputation of such works nor did he describe that blessedness when he said blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Consider 1. Cor. 4 4 Ephes. 2 9. Phil. 3 9. Tit. 3 5. 3. Repentance hath no instrumentall acting on Christ his Righteonsness in order to our being justified But Faith hath this as was shown in the foregoing Chapter Therefore Repentance hath not the same Interest in Justification that Faith hath It is requisite necessary in order to our Justification that we be clothed with a Righteousness even the Surety-Righteousness of Christ and Faith only can lay hold on this put it on not Repentance Repentance doth not act so upon any thing without a man to bring it home that it may become the mans Righteousness it hath other work acteth upon another object upon sin within the man It is true Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. of God's Government Sect. XI will have faith rather to be called a receiving cause than an Instrumental a medium or dispositive cause of the effect justification as as received but not as given And then Sect. XII he calleth Repentance a disposit to materiae recipientis too a part of the condition of the Covonant But we think it needless here to distinguish with him betwixt receiving Iustification being Justified we do not call Faith an Instrument of God's act Justifying as was said above If Faith Repentance be dispositive causes of the effect causa dispositiva be part of the causa materialis as he also saith I suppose they are not meer causae sine quibus non as he said elsewhere But to our business we have cleared before how â—aith acteth in the matter of Justification how it receiveth an imputed Righteousness laith hold on this Surety-Righteousness of Christ applieth it to the end the accused impeached man may have wherewithall he may stand before the Tribunal of God be accepted of as Righteous in his Cautioner through his Cautioners Righteousness imputed to him now received by Faith though Mr. Baxter do account Faith's accepting of Christ life offered on that condition only its aptitude to the office that the formal reason of its office as to our Justification is its being the performed condition of the Covenant as he there speaketh yet that will not invalidat our argument for 1 Faiths aptitude as he calleth it or
rather its work acting in Justification is not meerly an accepting of Christ life offered on that condition but it is the accepting laying hold on leaning to applying the Surety-Righteousness of Christ presupposing the accepting of Christ himself 2 Though it may be said that the neerest formal Reason of Faiths office is the Lord's appointment yet this being too too Philosophical here contributeth nothing to the clearing up of the matter in order to practice so neither was Philosophical accuracy the ground whereupon they went who said that Faiths interest in Justification was as an Instrument but rather their end was to cleare the matter in order to Practice so as poor souls might not fall into mistakes this I judge to be the best Theological acuracie howbeit he should account many such speaches nothing but unintelligible phrases and such doctrine to containe such senselesness consequents as the opening up of would offend as he there speaketh 3 It is certaine that Repentance doth not so act on Christ and his Surety-Righteounsness in order to Justification as Faith doth Repentance as such is no acceptance of a free gift far less of a gift of Righteousness of an Atonement there-through Repentance acteth not thus on Christ Yea the reason he giveth Confess p. 39. why Repentance was made a condition of pardon doth sufficiently shew that it cannot have that interest that Faith hath His reason is this Because without it Repentance God the Redeemer cannot have their end in pardoning us Nor can the Redeemer do all his work for which we do accept him for his work is upon the pardoning of us to bring us back in heart life to God from whom we were fallen strayed This was Christ's work Therefore the condition which Christ maketh are as if he should say If you will be saved by me are willing that I shall bring you back to God I will both bring you into his favour by Pardon and into a capacity of personal pleasing enjoying of him Now our Repentance is our consent to return to God the change of our mindes by turning from former sin that was our idol being willing by Christ to be restored to obedience By this I say it is clear that Repentance hath a more direct aspect upon reference to the consequences of Pardon Justifiction itself we grant its necessity unto all the ends mentioned and its necessary presence in such as are Justified that its contrare or positive impenitency cannot consist with Faith in such as are to be Justified Yet that will not give ground to inferre that it hath the same Interest Influence Consideration in Justification that Faith hath Mr. Baxter In his Confess p. 39 40. seemeth to grant this whole Argument when he expresseth himself thus This I say that man may see I do not level Faith with Repentance much less as they charge me with actual external works of obedience which in this first remission justification I take not to be so much as existent What he addeth concerning the Ratio formaâ—ts why faith or Repentance have such an interest in our Pardon to wit because God hath made them the Conditions of the promise cannot hinder our conclusion untill first it be proved that God hath made Repentance such a Condition we are speaking here of the difference that is betwixt the two as to their Nature Aptitude which he confesseth to be very great also as to their place use because of the great difference that is betwixt them as to Nature Aptitude 4. If the Interest of Faith be not as it is a work or inward grace inherent in the soul but as such a going out of the soul from it self all its own inherent good and from all external privileges or what may be called adherent personal good unto an offered Mediator that it may embrace him lay hold on and lean to his jussorie-Righteousness then Repentance cannot share in this Interest with it But the former is true Therefore c. The Conncection may be cleared from what is already said we are not speaking of that here which Mr. Baxter will have to be the neerest formal reason nor of that only which he will have to be its nature aptitude but of its Use proper Actings in this office in reference to the end Justification which are such as cannot agree to Repentance as is manifest Himself tels us in his Confess p. 89 90. That he takes Repentance to be to our faith in Christ as the breaking off from other Suitors Lovers turning the mind to this one is to Marriage Whereby we see that though Repentance be necessarily required in one that is a beleever and that faith can not be without Repentance Yet Repentance hath no place in the office of Justification it hath no plaine formal immediat interest in the receiving of Justification as that turning to the minde from other Suitors to that one hath no formal interest or place in closeing the Marriage Covenant though it be a very necessary prerequisite unto right closing consenting the marriage Covenant This giveth ground for another Argument 5. As upon the account that a woman hath changed her minde from other Suitors to one it cannot be said or inferred that therefore the Marriage Relation is made up with that one Suitor which is done only by a formal full explicite Consent so upon the account that one is a penitent it cannot be formally inferred that that persons is in Covenant with Christ and is Justified Because as Mr. Baxter hath told us Repentance is unto Faith but as the womans changing her mind from other Suitors to one is to the consenting unto the Marriage proposal And if upon a Persons being a Penitent it cannot be formally inferred that he is in Covenant with God a Justified person then Repentance hath not that interest in Justification that Faith hath for upon a mans beleeving it can formally immediatly be inferred that he is in Covenant and is Justified I say formally because consequentially it will also follow that a Penitent man meaning one that is truely penitent is justified upon this account that where ever there is true Repentance there is also true Faith But as the change of the womans mind is not formally the making up of a marriage Covenant So neither is Repentance that which formally constitutes a man a Covenanter with Christ and a Justified person only Faith doth this as the womans consent maketh up the marriage-Relation 6. Iâ— Repentance hath the same interest in Justification with Faith then as our Adversaries say that Faith is imputed to us as our Gospel Righteousness so must they say that our Repentance is imputed to us for Righteousness But beside the reasons whereby we proved above that Faith was not imputed to us as our Gospel Righteousness which will also serve here mutatis mutandis we may adde
Revelation of this mysterie so it cannot but be offensive to use such expressions as not only are not scriptural but also seem inconsistent with Scriptural expressions when the Scripture saith expresly frequently that we are Justified by faith and that in opposition to works and not only saith it but proveth it it cannot be justifiable in us to say that we are Justified by Love seing that would at least seem to crosse the Apostle's assertion the force whereof is as ours abundantly evince against the Papists that we are Justified only by Faith consequently by no other grace neither by Love nor by Hope nor by Patience c. 3. By the Scriptures telling us that we are Justified by Faith never saying that we are Justified by any other grace as by Love c. we are given to understand that Faith hath other Operations Uses Ends in the office of justification than Love or any other grace hath And therefore to insinuate that love hath the same Interest Office in about justification that Faith hath is to deny or overturn the proper specifick actings of Faith in order to justification And how small a matter soever this may appear to be at first yet when it is further prosecuted or the ground of this searched into or its designe tendency considered impartially it will befound of a deeper consequence to tend to the alteration of the whole specifick nature of the Covenant of Grace as it is distinct from the Covenant of Works for though both Faith Love may must be looked upon as acting upon the same object Christ yet when Faith is conceived as acting no other way than Love and both as potestative Conditions or as parts of one Potestative Condition and no other way it is plaine enough how the special actings of faith in compliance with the designe of God's Wisdom Grace and Love in the Gospel contrivance and thereupon in receiving resting upon Christ as the alone propitiating Sacrifice and on his Surety-Righteousness as that alone by vertue of which they are to expect Justification Acceptance with God to receive the Atonement are laid aside And the beleeving soul is supposed not to act on Christ nor apply Him his Righteousness in order to the being Acquit from the sentence of the Law from the Curse due for the breach of the same in that particular manner that both its case condition requireth and the Gospel pointeth forth and the experience of soul attaining hereby to Peace doth confirme 4. It is true there is Love to Christ in the soul that beleeveth and it must be so and it is true also that this Love is called for in the Gospel but hence it will not follow that Love is the Condition of Justification or that every thing that is present with or accompanieth faith in justification hath the same Life Ends and Interest in Justification or the same Influence thereupon that faith hath far less will it follow that that which followeth faith and whereby faith worketh through all the after-carriage of a Beleever hath the same Place Power and Interest in about justification that faith hath as we shewed above of Repentance 5. If by this Love nothing else were meaned but that Love of desire that necessarily accompanieth the souls accepting and closeing with what is good or offered as good sure it would have given no ground of offence to have called it so would have been more acceptable than to have called it otherwayes even though speaking strickly the Love of desire may be called Love and is a Love in its own kinde and therefore I judge that denomination might have been rather chosen which would have given no offence than the other which to avoide suspicion and offence calleth for so much waste of words to render the expression less noxious especially seing for all that is said in clearing of the same all ground of suspicion is not removed but that some other thing was intended than that meer Love of desire that is inseparable from the will 's earnest pursuite after or embraceing any good thing offered especiasly when it is said That Ioh. 16 27. 14 21. make Love the antecedent Condition of God's Love Christ's Love to the person And that that goeth with Remission and is a Love of Reconciliation and Reconciliation comprehendeth Remission At least you will never shew out of Scripture that the procureing God's Love and the Procuring Remission Reconciliation have not the same conditions for hereby it is manifest that Love even as distinct from faith as it is Ioh. 16 26 because ye have loved me have beleeved that I am come out from God is made as formal full a Condition of Reconciliation Pardon consequently of justification as faith his Yea that both faith Love are made Conditions procuring God's Pardon Reconciliation Thus speaketh Mr. Baxter against Mr. Cartwright pag. 202. But lest any should think that either of these places cited should prove what Mr. Baxter alledgeth them for it would be considered 1 That Ioh. 14 21. He is speaking of such as are already beleevers justified when he is speaking of such as have already Christ's commandemants keep them 2 He speaketh of the Fathers of his own Love of such in the future time which cannot be meaned in reference to his Disciples unless we think they were not yet justified contrary to the very forgoeing verse many other passages in that discourse particularly Chap. 14 1 15 3 4 5 9. 3 This is meaned of a Love of Manifestation as Christ's own words added exegetically declare And I will Love him will manifest my self to him 4 This same sort of expression of Love is also to be understood Ioh. 16. as the whole scope cleareth this being spoken to perswade them that they should receive the returne of their prayers should not ask the Father in vaine for such a Love carrieth he towards you as if he had said that in a manner I need not intercede for you 5 And so the Love of the disciples here mentioned is that Love of complacencie which they had in Christ in abiding still in his Company and delighting in him whom they had followed as their Master all alongs and the cause from whence this flowed is added and have beleeved that I came out from God As to the second particular to wit Purpose of obedience M. Baxter in his Aphorismes told us that as the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts Subjection is as essential a part of justifying faith as the accepting him for Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath as much to do in justifying us before God as some Affiance which is the fruit of the latter Hereby he would seem to give the same Interest unto actual Obedience in Justification that he giveth unto Affiance which cannot be
same purpose Rom. 10 4. tels us that Christ was the end of the Law in his doctrine having taught that Righteousness of living which the Law itself taught but in a more excellent spiritual effectual manner Which is a very Socinian like gloss but no way suiting the words nor the scope of the Apostle as the very reading of them may evince the following words vers 7 8 9 10. may put beyond all question His citeing thereafter pag. 146. Rom. 7 4. Gal. 2 19 20. is to no purpose for in neither of these nor any where else doth he cry up holiness performed in any manneâ— whatsomever as a Condition of Justification and this our Author should show or he doth nothing for we are not against the necessity of holiness but see more Sure more Comfortable more Heart quieting more Divine and more Gospel-like grounds whereupon to presse holiness than any he discovereth in all his book or can according to his principles His 3. ground is p. 147. That Regeneration or the new creature as including Evangelical Obedience is opposed to works of the Law in the business of mans Iustification as well as Faith is as well as the grace of God it self is And this he thinketh to prove from Gal. 6 15. as Schlightingius the Socinian did before him cont Meysner p. 148. But one thing is to be proved to wit that the Apostle is speaking this in order to justification and so contradicting all the former disput he had which neither Reason nor Religion will allow us to think nor do the words nor any Circumstance of the words nor any thing of the scope or of the threed of the Apostles discourse give the least countenance hereunto His 4. ground p. 148. is also from Schlichtingius ubi supra That Evangelical obedience as well as faith together with faith is opposed to the works of the Law in reference to Iustification Salvation Gal. 5 6. Ans. He supposeth here that Circumcision is the same with the works of the Law while as these that were crying it up at that time took it only for a privilege which might be keeped together with Christianity and therefore the Apostle told them vers 3. which they did not take notice of that by their taking on that badge of circumcision they made themselves debtors to do the whole Law 2 All that is required in reference to Salvation is not required in reference to Justification 3 Faith working by Love denoteth the right the livly Faith which only is Justifying Saving but bringeth not in all Evangelick Obedience under Love as sharing with faith in the same prerogative of justification as was shewed above His 5. ground p. 149. is That Evangelical Obedience alone is opposed to the works of the Law in reference to Iustification And this he confirmeth by 1. Cor. 7 19. borrowing it from Schlightingius the Socinian where only two things are wanting to make this passage a confirmation of his Assertion one is that by Circumsion here is meaned the keeping of the Law and what shall then be understood by Uncircumcision The other is that the Apostle is speaking this in reference to Justification contrary to the whole context His 6. ground ibid. is That faith itself is an act of Evangelical obedience Unto which we need say nothing here having said so much above to shew that Faith in the matter of justification is not considered as an act of Gospel-obedience but as an Instrument laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ the Cautioner His 7. ground is p. 152. That by Gospel-obedience Christians come to have a Right to Salvation Revel 22 14. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty as it is translated 1. Cor. 8 9. Power or privilege as it would seem to import 1. Cor. 9 18. elsewhere is no proper Right for all that can be called proper Right the Saints have it through the purchase of Jesus Christ his blood his blood alone hath bought the inheritance to us And hereby we see the true tendency of this Man's doctrine even to give us heaven as that which we have bought with our labour obedience that is to give us heaven by a new Covenant of Works which Christ hath procured to be made with us But this Right is but a liberty to take possession of the crown of life purchased by Christ promised at the end of the journay in the way wherein the Lord hath appointed us to walk towards the possession thereof And can only prove what we deny not to wit the necessity of Holiness in order to the actual injoyment of life But what saith this unto justification He will not have us put any difference betwixt them alledging that such as do are more curious nice in distinguishing than Paul was And why so Paul cals Iustification the justification of life Rom. 5 18. Therefore Justification Glorification is one the same have every way the same conditions Ans. It followeth not He citeth next Rom. 8 30. which clearly maketh them distinct What more He i.e. Paul proves that men shall be justified by faith because it is written the just shall live by faith Gal. 3 11. with him to be justified blessed are all one Gal. 3 8 9. Rom. 4 7 8 9. Ans. What that from Gal. 3 11. can be made to prove by him I know not And as for the next it will prove as much that is just nothing He might as well inferre that Poverty in Spirit Mourning Meekness Hungring Thirstâ—ng after Righteousness Mercifulness Purity in heart Peacemaking Suffering of persecution were all the same with glory because of what is said Mat. 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Yet he proceedeth at this rate tels us p. â—54 That Paul useth Righteousness or Iustification life as Synonimous termes Gal. 3 21. Ans. As if Justification were not a state of life unless it were the same with Glory We have shown above what a life it is And saith he Iustification Condemnation are put in direct opposition to eachother Rom. 5 18. 8 33 34. Ans. And what then In short saith he Salvation as well as justification is promised to beleeving Ioh. 3 16. Act. 3 31. Heb. 10 39. therefore both must be the immediat effect of faith Ans. Himself answereth all this by adding if we take Salvation as begun here in this life as the Scripture represents it to be Ioh. 5 â—4 1. Ioh. 3 14. 5 12. He would further prove it from Iam. 2 14. As if in one Chapter the Apostle could not speak both of Justification Salvation unless he would make them both one thing But though there be a life begun in Justification that shall at length end in Glory we see no ground to say for all that he hath brought forth that they are so the same as to require the same previous Conditions How profitable so ever Mr. Baxter account this Treatise
Faith to distinguish it from that Historical Faith which though true in its kind yet is not from the saving grace of God nor hath it effects accompanying Salvation 3. Though this Faith be one the same by which the Beleever liveth first last and which proveth serviceable useful to him on all occasions to all ends uses that his several necessities call for Yet in reference to these various ends uses it acteth not after one the same manner in all points Faith acteth not every way after one the same manner in order to get Strength for Duties that it acteth in order to get Sin Pardoned It acteth not the same way for Subdueing the reigning power of sin that it acteth for Justification nor doth it act the same way for Comfort and upholding strength in a day of trial that it acteth in order to Justification And yet we need not say that it acteth distinctly differently according to every distinct benefite and blessing that is had thereby The diffeâ—ent natures of the necessities we stand into with the different wayes of the â—ord's communicating what we stand in need of according to the various Relations he standeth in various offices he hath taken on in reference to his peoples good may satisfie us herein according as these several particular necessities may come under one head reliefe may be conveyed to them after one the same manner All which will be best discerned by the understanding Christian in his application to Christ according to his Condition wants which he would have helped supplied 4. Hence though the Principal Object of this Faith be alwayes one and the same Yet there may be some peculiarities in that object which Faith eyeth more in one case than in another As we finde the Saints in their adresses to God in their several straits necessities sometimes pitching upon one attribute of God sometimes upon another according as thereby Faith presented God to the soul in a sutablness to the present case it was in and so when dispensations seemed to crosse the promises Faith eyed God as Faithful Unchangable when enemies appeared strong difficulties invincible and the like Faith took hold on God as the Almighty to whom nothing was impossible when sin appeared as a discouragment to drive them from their hopes Faith took hold of the mercy of God c. So when a poor sinner is under the convictions of sin threatnings of the Law Faith must take up Christ in a sutableness thereto eye something in Him that peculiarly suiteth that case when againe the beleever hath need of Light Instruction Strength Comfort Throwbearing the like he fixeth his eye on some thing in Christ that suiteth that particular necessity and so Faith acteth accordingly And thus though the object remaine the same and Christ be alwayes made use of Yet Faith may and doth act more immediatly on Christ as Prophet when in one case whereunto this office carrieth a respect and at another time more immediatly directly on Christ as a King when the present necessity calleth for help from Christ as King againe faith acteth on him as a Priest when only that which Christ as a Priest did can answere their present necessitie Yet which is carefully to be observed to prevent Mr. Baxter's challenge I do not say nor see I any necessity to say that these several acts of Faith are as so many several Conditions unto the receiving of the several favours taking the terme Condition in his sense I do not say that Faith acting one way on Christ is a proper Condition of Justification Faith as acting another way on Christ is the proper Condition of Adoption that Faith acting a third way on Christ is the proper Condition of Sanctification c. but that as the effects benefiâ—es which sinners stand in need of are ascribed unto several effectuating acts of Christ to the several Relations offices he hath taken on so Faith in order to the receiving of these benefites acteth suitably on Christ the Beleever is taught so to do by the Spirit of the Lord to his Comfort Hope Encouragment 5. I presuppose here the Formal Object of all divine faith which is the Truth Veracity of God for all divine faith giveth credite unto divine Revelations upon the Credite the Truth Veracity of the Revealer Thus saith the Lord who is true who is Truth itself is the sole Formal ground Ratio of this Faith 6. I presuppose here also that Comprehensive Material Object of all divine Faith which is the whole will mind of God concerning whatsomever thing it be revealed whether by the Scriptures or by the Light of Nature If the Truth Veracity of God be the only Formal Ground of this Faith then all that this God revealeth must be beleeved received as true when known to be revealed by Him By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God Heb. 11 3. we beleeve all things which are written in the Law the Prophets Act. 24 14. Yea in the whole word of God I do not here determine what particular Truthes revealed in the word are necessarily to be expresly explicitly beleeved by every one that hath a true Saving Faith what not only this I say that many particular truthes are revealed whereof a true Beleever may be ignorant yet have a true Saving Faith receiving all which he knoweth to be revealed by the Lord rejecting no one Truth whatsomever that he knoweth to be revealed But we are here to speak of that Object of Faith which immediatly directly concerneth our delivery from our natural state of sin and miserie and our eternal Salvation And this we judge to be whole Christ Iesus as he is hold forth and revealed in the Gospel We say Christ Jesus 1 wholly and 2 as he is held forth and revealed in the Gospel And both these for explications sake may be branched out in several particulars I say then first That whole Christ is the object of Saving or Justifying Faith Hence are we so often times commanded to Receive him to Beleeve in on Him in his name Faith is expressed by a Coming to him Eating Drinking of Him Receiving of him c. Ioh. 1 12. 3 16 36. 6 29 35 37 40 44 47 51 54 55 58. 7 38. Act. 10 41 13 38 39. 26 18. Rom 3 22. Gal. 2 16. and many moe places Hence this Faith is called the Faith of Christ Gal. 2 16. and the Faith of the Son of God Gal. 2 20. So then Saving and Justifying Faith taketh whole Christ. 1. Faith taketh him closeth with him wholly as to his Natures Faith receiveth him as Mediator God Man in one person though it be formally terminated on him as God Ioh. 14 1. as the Son
Righteousness to us is a consequent act after faith of God as judge and not an antecedent donation Yet it is such a consequent act of God as necessarily presupposeth God's free antecedent Donation for it is God's reckoning that Righteousness upon the beleevers score in order to the Justifying of him thereupon and because this Righteousness must be given we not having it of ourselves there must a free donation antecede and this groundeth Faiths accepting thereof and receiving of it And himself immediatly before this saith that God giving us all the effects or Salvation merited in it self properly is said also not unfitly to give us the merit or Righteousness which procured them that is as it was paid to God for us to procure them And if so why doth he inveigh so much in the foregoing pages against the orthodox doctrine of Imputation seing he cannot but know that they do not say that God doth give us the very habits of holiness as he speaketh there which were in Christ nor the transient acts which he performed nor the very sufferings which he under-went nor the Relation of Righteous Satisfactory Meritorious as it was that numerical relation which immediatly resulted from Christ's own habits acts and sufferings They dreame of no such Translation of accidents But only say that seing as Mr. Baxter here elsewhere saith this satisfactory Righteousness was paid to God for them and accepted of God as a compleat Satisfactory Righteousness they by faith coming to be united unto Christ according to the way methode which the Lord hath wisely condescended upon have an interest in that Satisfactory Righteousness as legally made over unto them and therefore have the benefites purchased thereby as when a stranger who was not under the Obligation cometh to pay the debt of a debtor lying in prison the payment must in Law sense be made and accounted the debtors or put upon his score and received upon his account ere he can therefore be relieved out of Prison But in the fore-cited place against Mr. Blake he maketh this Righteousness Remission all one thing And indeed if it were so it could not belong to the Object of Faith other wayes than as an end intended to be obtained thereby But to us Remission is a benefite purchased by this Righteousness and followeth upon our having interest therein through Faith according to the appointment of God a Pardoned man as such is not a Righteous man But he tels us there that our divines of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying Faith to be a receiving resting on Christ alone for Salvation as he is offerest in the Gospel It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying faith to be the receiving of justification or Righteousness Ans. Here we have Justification Righteousness made one and the same which with me differ as Cause Effect our divines of the Assembly give a more full definition or description of Justifying Faith in the Larger Catechisme and there tell us that thereby the convinced sinner receiveth resteth upon Christ N.B. his Righteousness therein i.e. in the Gospel held forth for pardon of sin for the accepting accounting of his person Righteous in the sight of God for Salvation And if Mr. Baxter would say so much as is here this debate would be at an end and yet I finde not this among his exceptions against that Catechisme in his Confession And when our devines mentione this Receiving Resting upon Christ's Righteousness they make not Justifying Faith to be a receiving of Justification but the one a cause of the other And he addeth a little thereafter which is considerable to our present purpose That receptio Ethica activa of justification or of Righteousness for they are both one thing with him goeth before Iustification as a small secondary part of condition it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the maine condition And we never spoke of the receiving by Faith of Christ's Righteousness as exclusive of the receiving of himself He tels us next That Christ's Satisfaction or Redemption solvendo pretium merit cannot properly be received by us for they are not in themselves given to us We grant the price was payed to God but it being payed to God for us it may be imputed to us and reckoned upon our score and we may that way receive it by faith and Lean our soul upon it to the end that the fruit of it may be given to us And likewise he granteth ibid. that justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christ's satisfaction merit as it doth our Iustification thereby procurea If he will grant that Justifying Faith respecteth Christ's Satisfaction Merite as the Cause in which we are to have an interest and under which we must refuge our selves and upon the account of which we are to be accepted of God and accounted Righteous in his sight all is granted that I desire But his following exceptions are founded upon a manifest mistake of his own taking this Righteousness whereof we speak and Justification for one and the same thing for he saith To say therefore that the justifying act of faith is only the receiving of Christ's Righteousness or of Iustification is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way even to exclude him as Satisfier from the justifying act to exclude from that act his Redemption by Bloudshed Satisfaction Merite The mistake here is palpable for we look on Righteousness which faith receiveth as the Cause and on Justification as the Effect when this Righteousness of Christ the causa procaâ—arctica of our Justification is received by faith it is impossible but Christ himself must be received as a Satisfier his Redemption Bloudshed Satisfaction Merite cannot be excluded for therein was the Righteousness which faith laith hold upon in order to Justification He addeth for confirmation for if it be only the receiving of Righteousness that is the justifying act than it is neither the receiving of Christ himself nor yet the acknowledgment of his Satisfaction Redemption by his blood But this is nothing but what was said repeated againe Neither do we say that the Justifying act of Faith as it is called is a receiving of Christ's Righteousness as distinct from himself nor is it imaginable how Christ's Righteousness can be received without the acknowledgment of his Satisfaction and of the Redemption by his blood How he can say that Christ's Righteousness our Justification are but one and the same thing I do not understand when as he saith himself Cath. Theol. of moral works Sect. 13. n. 208. that our first constitutive justification which is it whereof we are here speaking to wit that by which a soul is brought from an Unrighteous to a Righteous State as he speaketh n. 207. is in its nature a right to impunity to life or glory Now sure this Relation or Relative state is one thing and the Righteousness of
as a Prophet but rather including whole Christ according to the manner above mentioned which is the thing we say 2 Where readeth he of Faith in Christ in order to justification as our Teacher or Ruler or Justifying judge or justifying Sacrifice He should remember what he said n. 107. when speaking against the Phrase justifying faith faith justifying us as being humane not Scriptural at all 3 Indeed beleeving in Christ as Teacher Ruler c in our sense cannot inferre justification by works but he knoweth that it was for this end to bring Works in with Faith as equal Conditions or parts of one Condition of Justification that this new question was stated by him in his Aphorismes And whether such doctrine be consonant to Paul's or not we have seen in part above He addeth n. 112. That it is but the same deluding subtilty vaine curiosity playing with deceitful words to say that we are justified by faith quatenus recipit Christ justitiam as it beleeveth in Christ's Sacrifice perfect obedience only not as it beleeveth in him as Teacher Ruler Sanctifier judge when the Scripture saith no such thing at all but simply maketh faith in Christ supposing faith in God the Father to be that by which we must be justified Ans. We minde not to be startled at his bold angry expressions for we meet with them so oft Whether the Scripture warrandeth us to say what we have said or not the Reader is at liberty to judge from what is said And we have nothing here yet said by him to prove that we are justified by Faith in Christ as Teacher or Ruler which is it we are looking for here More of this Stuffe we have n. 113. This distinction saith he is founded on another falshood supposed which is that the effects of all Christ's saving works are as distinctly to be ascribed to Receiving acts of faith as they are to the the several procuring acts of Christ the object of Faith which is another corrupting addition to God's word Ans. Who it is that saith so as to all the several effects I know not Nor do I see any necessity to say so as to some in special as to Justification we but follow the Scripture going before us as is shown And we make no addition but he is the man that is singularly guilty of adding to God's word in this pointe for he saith that faith in order to justification acteth not only in a special manner on Christ as Priest which is the truth we say and owne with the Scriptures but also on Christ as a King and as a Prophet as a judge yet giveth us us not one passage of Scripture to confirme this but thinks we must be satisfied with his assertions subtile distinctions vaine curious expressions answering his own Philosophical Notions with which he seemeth to be much taken and we very little What followeth there I have nothing to do with He hath a large discourse of various Receivings n. 114. 115. to what purpose as to the business we are now upon I do not well see yet let us see how he endeth it God's Covenant saith he doth give us Christ life that is Iustification Sanctification Glorification in title or right in one gift to be accepted by one entire faith as the Condition not making at all the order of the gifts faiths respect to them in that order to be any of the Ratio Proprietatis Ans. 1 Will he not distinguish betwixt having of these benefites in Title or Right having them in possession He must sure or he must say that beleevers are already perfectly Sanctified and Glorified 2 Will he say that there is no more required to the actual Possession of Glory full Sanctification than here he saith is required unto the Title But it is like he will comprehend under this Faith all after Gospel-obedience But then all this must preceed to justification c. as well as to actual Glorification so none shall be justified till they be Glorified or he must admit of differences here 3 As notwithstanding of what he saith here he will I suppose grant that Faith hath a Further special acting or manner of acting on Christ in order to obtaining of Light Life Strength and other things necessary in for grouth in Sanctification so he may suffer us to say that notwithstanding of this Faith in a special manner eyeth acteth upon Christ as a Priest in order to justification for there is no more inconsistency in the one than in the other The humane instances whereby he thinks to make this plainer n. 116. do not help here A wifes relation saith he is founded in her marriage consent Now if he be a noble man a rich man a wise man a good man they knew all this by knowing it were induced to consent are to have their proportionable benefites by his Nobility Riches c. Yet their Title to these benefites ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respecteth these benefites distinctly but meerly by consent unto their Relation Ans. Notwithstanding hereof when the woman is charged by her Creditors to pay her debt her running to her husbands Wisdom Nobility Goodness will not avail her but she must in a special manner run to his Riches must from thence bring a Satisfactory payment unto her Creditors And if he whom she hath taken for her husband hath already satisfied the debt she is to instruct that before the judges before whom her alleidging that her now-husband is a great Noble man and a most Wise man c. will not avail We grant also that by Faith the Beleever is united married unto Christ hath thereby a Right unto Him to all his Benefites according to their necessity Yet will the Lord have that in order to their actual justification they shall apply his Merites lay hold thereon as it were produce the same in face of Court as the only ground of their Discharge as in order to their actual Glorification he will have them doing many other things In end n. 117. he tels us that to say faith justifieth me as it is the receiving of Christ's Righteousness not as it is the receiving of Christ as a Teacher Ruler c. is a confounding or seducing saying But as yet we have seen no strong reasons evinceing this to be such a seducing or confounding saying but the contrary is apparent from what is said Let us see why he judgeth thus For sayeth he if it intimate that faith justifieth us as an efficient cause principal or instrumental it is false But we have seen before that faith may be considered here as an Instrument to say this is neither to confound nor seduce otherwayes all the Reformed yea his friend Iohn Goodwine have been Confounders deceivers none but Mr. Baxter with Papists Socinians some Arminians
are free of this charge 2. saith he If it meane that faith is the condition of justification as it receiveth Christ's Righteousness only it hath either one or two falshoods We only say that in order to the obtaining of justification Faith acteth in a peculiar manner on Christ's Righteousness Merites conceive that in this there is neither one nor two falshoods 1. saith he if it mean that faiths receiving act is the formalis ratio conditionis or that it justifieth not quà conditio donationis but qua receptio justitiae Christ it is false Ans. We are not here speaking precisely of the formalis ratio conditionis in such a Philosophical Notion for we say that Faith in order to Justification receiveth Christ's Righteousness that the Lord hath so appointed Let Philosophers break their heads on these rationes formales the qua's quae's we speak of this matter so as every soul concerned may understand it And then saith he 2. that only the Accepting of Righteousness justifieth us that is is the condition of justification is a falshood This he should have proved to have been a falshood but in all this discourse of this we have had nothing like a proof only confident Assertions that in great number But in his Confession pag. 35. where he hath the same discourse for substance he citeth several passages of Scripture on the margine as if they were confirmations of what he saith And yet not one of them cometh home to the point in hand as a short view may discover For Col. 2 6. proveth what we deny not to wit that Beleevers receive Christ Jesus the Lord We have shown above that whole Christ belongeth to the Object of Faith that is Justifying but we are here speaking of the special acting of that faith in order to Justification Psal. 2 12. only proveth that such shall perish as do not kisse submit to the Son that kissing submitting unto him is required in order to being saved Mat. 11 28 29. saith that such as would have rest ease that is freedom from sin misery here hereafter must come to Christ take his yoke upon them Learne of him And in order to that particular rest ease had in Justification we say also that they must come to Christ take on his Righâ—eousness which is easie though it seem a yoke to unrenewed Nature Luk. 19 27. Proveth indeed that such as will not have Christ to reigne over them shall perish but doth doth not prove that in order to Justification Christ must be received as a King Rom. 10 9 10. proveth that faith eyeth Christ as raised from the dead by God which respecteth his Death Sacrifice that for a Righteousness in order to the life of Justification which is what we say Mat. 17 5. Mark 9 7. prove what is not denied to wit that it is the will of God that Christ his only beloved Son should be heard obeyed in all things And Ioh. 10 3 4 9 27. only proveth that Christ's sheep know hear his voice And who denieth this Ioh. 12 46 47 48. showeth what benefites beleevers shall receive what shall be fall unbeleevers but touch nor the point now in hand Act. 2 30 33 34 36 38. Proveth that Christ is indeed a King that all such as would be saved must receive him as the exalted King Act. 3 22 23 26. Proveth that he is that Prophet that was spoken of by Moses that he Died Rose againe sent forth the Gospel to the end that poor sinners might be turned from their iniquities But there is nothing here to prove that Faith in its special acting in order to justification receiveth layeth hold on Christ as well as a Prophet as on Christ as a Priest Act. 5 31. saith that Christ is exalted to be a Prince a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel Remission of sins but what is this to the question now in hand Ioh. 13 35. 15 8. 8 31. sheweth the genius disposition kindly work of his disciples to wit to love one another to bear fruite to continue in his word all which we willingly grant Luk. 14 26 27 33. Evinceth that right coming to Christ is inconsistent with a predominant Love to any terrene thing how neer dear so ever But toucheth not the question now in hand These are all the passages he adduceth there none of them come neer the question CHAP. XXXV Faith is the only Condition on our part of the continuance of justification HAving spoken of Iustification as to its beginning or as to a Beleevers entering into that State of Life having spoken to some Questions for further clearing of the truth We come to speak a word or two of the Continuance of this Privilege State That it is a continueing and permanent State we have seen above The Question then that we have to discuss is Upon what termes Conditions is this State continued or what is it which the Lord requireth in order thereunto or whether any thing more be required of us for continueing this Relation than was at first required to the making of it that is whether Faith alone or Faith together with Works of sincere obedience Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 47 n. 40. tels us that there is much more goeth to the continuing consummating our Iustification then doth at first to justifie us as to the condition on our parts to be performed to that end This Continueing of our State of Iustification Not-losing of it he maketh one the same and that which he requireth as necessary unto the Not-losing or Continueing of this State he maketh to be Sincere obedience many particular materials of that obedience as to be humble to forgive others to confess Christ suffer for him if called to it That we may know both the State of the difference the Consequence thereof we would premit these things 1. It is readily on all hands granted yeelded unto that there is an Holiness Personal Obedience Conformity to the Law called for at the hands of all Justified persons that are come to age The denial therefore of what Mr. Baxter others that joyn with him do here assert cannot with any shew of reason be loaded with this foule inference that hereby we cry down or lay aside all necessity of Holiness of sincere obedience for we still affirme that the Law is in force obligeth unto obedience and that all such as are justified have received a new frame disposition of soul inclineing them to obedience Yea that they have now both peculiar Obligations unto Holiness and also Advantages Helps thereunto They are his wormanship created in Christ Jesus unto Good Works which God hath before ordained that they should walk in them Ephes. 2 10. 2. Mr. Baxter tels us Confess p. 102. that it
is his strong opinion that he is confident of it that no justified person shall ever lose his justification that God hath promised to cause them persevere This State then is not to be compared with other States which are losable changeable among men nor can we with such freedome speak of Conditions of not loseing that which is fully secured from all loseing as we may speak of the Conditions of keeping Not-loseing that which may be oft is lost We can not then speak of the State of Justification as we do of Marriage betwixt man woman here there may be are indeed Conditions required of each part in order to the keeping up of the Relation they may be called Conditions of not loseing that Relation or Privilege But as to justification which is not so loseable to speak of Conditions of not loseing it may occasion Apprehensions in the mindes of men of its being losable It were saifer then in my apprehension to enquire how or what way is this State Relation continued or what is required on our part in order thereunto then to enquire what are the Conditions of Not-loseing this State 3. Seing Mr. Baxter granteth Confess p. 109. that no new sin destroyeth their State of Justification nor maketh them cease to be God's reconciled Children seing they are still united unto Christ and have his Spirit and have Faith Repentance at least as to the habit pag. 129. That the habite of Faith Repentance which is ever in them qualifieth them for present Remission of ordinary sins of infirmity at least And it is undeniable that the Lord's Spirit preserveth them from such sins as are inconsistent with a State of Justification or that make an intercision in that State consequently in their Adoption Union with Christ seing I say all this is granted to what purpose is such a question as this here moved and stated anent the Conditions of Not-loseing this state 4. The terme Condition here is taken in the same sense that it was understood in when the question was about the Condition of our first entry into the State of Justification and so they must take it here for a proper legal antecedent Potestative condition for if by condition here were meaned no more than a mere Consequent Evangelick Condition the question only would be What is the Lord's Way Methode Manner how by which he preserveth his own in that State of Justification But according to their acceptation of the word condition the question really cometh to this What that is which beleevers betake themselves unto which they can may should plead with God upon for the continuance of their state that is of their Reconciliation unto Acceptance with God of the Pardon of their sins Right to glory 5. The question is not what is the Condition or what is required on our part for keeping the sense evidence of our justification in our own Consciences many things may be useful herein that yet cannot be called Conditions of the Continuance or Not-loseing of Iustification But the Iustification here spoken of is that which is before God whereby the Beleever is indeed brought into a State of Peace Reconciliation with God hath obtained a Right unto the Inheritance of Life 6. When we speak here of the continuance or Not-loseing of Iustification the Iustification spoken of must be that State or Relation where into the Beleever is already brought for that only can be said to be continued while we are living and that only can be said properly to be losed or Not-losed which a man hath These seeme then to be two distinct questions What is the Condition of our final Absolution in Iudgment what is the Condition of the continuance of our justification here which Mr. Baxter seemeth to confound Confess p. 83. as the Papists do confound their second justification with the last judgment when they are pleading for works being required as the causes thereof 7. Though as we have seen before Iustification importeth more than Remission of sins Yet in this question of the Condition of the Continuance of Justification the matter seemeth to be brought to this issue whether works of Obedience be the Condition of future Remission of sins in the justified And though these may be conceived of as distinct questions yet the clearing of the way of the Remission of future sins may serve much to cleare the present Question for if it befound that the same course is taken for Remission of future sins that was taken at first it will be manifest that justification is continued upon the same termes or in the same manner that it was at first obtained if properly we can speak at all of the Conditions of its Continuance Having premitted these things the Question is Whether faith alone or works alone or faith with works are the condition required on our part for the Continuance or not-loseing of the state of justification And I judge as faith alone was required at first in order to justification so that alone is to be called the Condition of the continuance of justification or that the Condition both of our first installing in that state of justification of the Continuance of the Privilege or of Beleevers continueing in that state is the same grace of Faith Yet these two things would be noted 1. That though the first act of Faith in Christ doth suffice to the entering of a soul into the state of justification Yet we do not meane that that one first solitarie numerical act sufficeth for all time coming albeit it sufficeth for making up of the Relation according to the appointment of God for the same Faith is to continue in its habite Yea in its actings So that we state not the Question so strickly as Mr. Baxter seemeth to do Confess p. 47. when from the Continuance of the habite of Faith from the renewing acts of that Faith required after the first act of Faith he inferreth that much more goeth to the continueing of our justification than doth at first justifie us But our question is about the addition of sincere Obedience which he there mentioneth 2. When we suppose the Continuance of Faith not only as to its habite but as to its renewed actings we do not suppose that the actings Effects or Concomitans of Faith afterward are every way the same with what they were at first so that we may also yeeld to this difference grant that some thing more may be requisite afterward Particularly in order to the Remission of some hainous sin in the acting of Faith or in the Effects or Concomitants thereof at least as to measure or outward significations to wit in Godly sorrow Humiliation Forgiving of others Restitution or the like yet it will still remaine true that justification is continued by Faith not by Works For the proof of what we conceive to be
which is not by a dead faith or by a faith that cannot produce works of Obedience or by such a faith as devils have but by a faith that is working making the soul prompt ready to yeeld all Obedience unto the Lord and this is the true meaning of the words as was showne above and the whole scope of the place evidenceth Will Mr. Baxter say that by a dead Faith and by a Faith that cannot save and by a Faith that is in devils is attended with no Christian Love we are brought into a justified state at first No sure and yet this is the faith that Iames opposeth unto works or rather unto a working faith whereby we are justified first last as was Abraham vers 21. whose faith was such as it wrought with his works and by the same was manifest to be what it was the true saving faith of God's Elect. And sure this Faith of Abraham and the faith that wrought in Rahab was another sort of Faith than is the Faith of devils or that Faith that is but a dead carcase Mat. 6 14 15. speaketh of Remission of sins And I suppose it will not be said that every one who forgiveth his neighbour doth thereby and thereupon obtaine Remission of his own sins at the hands of God otherwayes Heathens wicked persons may be said to have their sins Pardoned before God because they may forgive others some wrongs done unto themselves If it besaid that such cannot forgive others a right not having a principle of grace and not being in Christ. True but then we see that it is not this forgiving abstractly considered that is spoken of here but a Forgiving flowing from faith principled thereby and so the meaning of the place is That without such a Faith in Christ as principleth prompteth to Pardoning of others we can expect no pardon of our own sins from God not have ground to suppose that we are indeed pardoned of God our forgiving of others then is here mentioned as the native Effect evident Signe of Faith as our Commentators manifest upon the place speaking against the Papists See Pareus Gualter others Pareus particularly disproveth the Papist's gloss sayeth that our pardoning of others must follow upon God's pardoning of us as he cleareth from Mat. 18. and will not have our forgiving of others said to be the causa sine qua non of our obtaining Remission from God This place then saith That while we cannot finde in our heart a readiness cheerfully heartily to forgive others we have no ground to imagine that our sinnes are pardoned for all such as are pardoned of God have this Christian disposition flowing from faith in Christ They may have this as to the seed root but till it grow up to yeeld this fruite they want the evidence of their faith consequently of pardon 1. Ioh. 1 9. meaneth such a Confession of sins as is accompanied with the making use by faith of the bloud of Christ that cleanseth from all sin vers 7. and with a running to the Advocat with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous who is a Propitiation for sins Chap. 2 1 2. Most wicked persons as Saul may make confession of their sins but not so as to run to the fountaine the blood of sprinkling And by a Confession that is not accompanied with this acting they can attaine to no Remission before God And therefore faith only acting in humble Confession to the glory of God to the taking of shame to themselves is the condition of Pardon of Continuance of Justification as to this Revel 22 14. is also abused by the Papists to prove their second justification to be by works The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hereused doth not alwayes denote right or jus for it sometimes signifieth meer freedome liberty power to do such or such a thing as 1. Cor. 9 4 5 6. And so here the words import that such as do his commandements are blessed for thereby they have free access unto the tree of life unto Christ their objective blessedness which is the same with that which is commonly said viz. that Works of Obedience are the way of the Kingdom but not the cause of reigning It will not suite with the Gospel to say that by our works of obedience we buy a right to the tree of life even in part or in subordination to Christ's blood for Christ hath purchased the whole Right nothing of ours must be joined as a part of that price otherwise must we have a proportionable share of the glory to ourselves Nor can it be said that by our works of Obedience we obtaine a Right to Christ to his Merites for before we have a Right to Christ we can do no works of Christian Obedience and Christ alone hath bought to us both Grace Glory But our works of Christian Obedience though they cannot precede our Right to yet they may go before our Possession of the Inheritance purchased now Right Possession are different things But in fine we say that this place speaking of the possession of glory is not apposite to the purpose now in hand for Justification is different from Glorification Rom. 8 30. And of justification as continued are we here speaking Ioh. 15 3 4 5 6 8 9 10. Verse 3. 9. can prove nothing in reference to what we are upon Vers. 4. sheweth that there is no fruitfulness in Grace but by a constant abiding in sucking of sap by faith from Christ the true Vine which none denieth Verse 8. sheweth that by fruitfulness in good the Father is Glorified thereby a demonstration is given to the world who are indeed the true disciples of Christ vers 6. holdeth forth the dreadful punishment that attendeth Apostates but we hope true beleevers are secured against full final Apostasie Vers. 10. proveth indeed that keeping of Christ's commands is a mean to keep the sense of our being beloved of Christ fresh in our souls to enjoy the fruites of his Love of Beneficence but saith nothing of good works being the Condition of our Continuance in the state of justification unless we will also say that Christ's obedience was the Condition of his Continueing in the State of Justification 1. Ioh. 2 24. c. proveth that full final Apostasie from the faith truth of the Gospel will indeed cutt off from all Interest in Christ from benefite by him But as true beleevers are secured from this as vers 27. cleareth So this will only prove that continuance in Faith is the Condition of continuance of Justification Mat. 18 35. Only proveth and so confirmeth what was said to Mat. 6 14. that such as do not from their hearts forgive their brethren their trespasses can have no ground of Assurance that God hath forgiven them theirs ... our Cruelty Unmercifulness towards our Brethren may give us sufficient ground to doubt of
our Pardon whatever seeming assurance we had formerly So that this place speaketh nothing of the Condition of our pardon but of the condition rather of our Sense Feeling grounded Assurance of Pardon which is a far different thing These are the Scriptures whereby he would prove his first argument His 2. Arg. is this Our first faith having the nue nature of a Covenanting with Christ giving ourselves to him taking him for our Lord Redeemer therefore it followes that as the Covenant making accepting was of necessity as the condition of our first right remission so is our Covenant keeping of the same necessity to our continued right And that God is as it were disobliged if we should not keep Covenant And the keeping hath more in it than the bare making No Covenant-relations usually are entered among men but the Covenant keeping is more than the making and the conditions of their continued right more then of their first right So it is with a Subject to his Prince wife to a husband Souldier to a commander Scholer to his Teacher Servant to his Master c. Promising will give them the first right but performing in the essentials must continue it it or will cease for the end of the promise was its performance And in that respect faith which is the Covenant is inferiour to obedience which is promised though in other respect it may be superiour Ans. 1 Though Justifying Faith be also a Covenanting faith and of uniteth he soul with Christ Yet in order to Justification it hath not to use his words the true Nature of a Covenanting with Christ nor a giving up ourselves to Him but rather it is a receiving resting on Him and his Righteousness and a fleeing to his Merites for refuge 2 Nor doth faith in order to Justification as we cleared above receive Christ or goe to him as Lord King but rather as Priest 3 Nor doth the receiving of Christ at first as King formally include Obedience or a promise of obedience as was also manifested above 4 Therefore from this first acting of faith in order to justification it can no way follow that Obedience or Covenant keeping as he speaketh is the condition of our continued Right or of our continued justification 5 What God hath promised upon Covenant-keeping he is it is true disobliged from giving to speak so when the Covenant is not keeped But we find not that he hath promised Justification or the continuance thereof upon these termes 6 There is no Covenants among men that can fully quadrate either with God's Covenanting with us or with the matter of Justification about which we are now speaking The sentences of judges absolving the debitor upon the payment of the Cautioner instructed agreeth more with this and we finde not in such sentences any such-like Conditions mentioned of their Continuance in force 7 Some of these Relations or Covenants mentioned are purely aliene being betwixt a Master his servant and the Captain and the Souldier these are meer mercenary contracts having Obedience service for their only end promiseing a reward upon that Condition Our justification hath no likeness to this 8 Even in these Relations every act of disobedience or non-performance of the duties required doth not dissolve the Relation and therefore it cannot be said that upon the contrare performance as a condition the continueing of the Relation dependeth Mr. Baxter seeing this addeth a restriction in the essentials And in our case I would require what he will account Essential It must be that sure the contrary whereof is inconsistent with a Justified state and what can this be but a total Apostasie From which there is full securitie laid-in in the New Covenant which is not in any of the Covenants among men which he hath mentioned And this total Apostasie must include a full renuncing of Christ his Righteousness as to Justification And this rather would say that the continuance of Justification dependeth on the continuance of Faith adhereing to Christ his Righteousness to this I shall willingly assent And this taketh away the force of the 3. Arg. which he adduceth saying 3. Arg. If there were no more necessary to the continueing of our Iustification but only the same thing which did constitute it then we should be justified by no none act of faith to our lives end but only the first instantaneous act so our faith after that instant should never more be justifying faith But that 's false c. Ans. This whole argument I yeeld unto for I plead not against the interest of faith here but against our works being the condition of continued Justification as was said above CHAP. XXXVI Of the Interest of Repentance in the Pardon of after-sinnes WE spoke before Chap. 29. of Repentance in order to the first pardon of sinnes or to justification and in the foregoing Chapter we shew that the continuance of Justification did not depend on our works as the Condition thereof But now the question will be moved touching Repentance Whether it may not be said to be required as a Condition of the Continuance of Justification or at least as a Condition of the Pardon of sins committed after justification Concerning which we would premit these things 1. It is granted that Repentance is not only necessary at the first Conversion of a sinner but is a Grace that is constantly to be exercised by a Beleever so long as he liveth both in respect of its terminus a quo of its terminus ad quem or both in respect of its aversive of its conversive part for he is still more more to depart fâ—om sin and to turne unto God and to all the wayes of his Commandements Psal. 119 59. The very body of death is constant matter of groaning and mourning unto him Rom. 7 24. his dayly iniquities transgressions ought to keep him low and to put him to this exercise Beside what at extraordinarie times of publick wrath or judgment against the Land Church or Place he liveth in or judgments upon his own neer Relations Familie c. or upon occasion of his own more hainous out breakings as in David Psal. 51. 2. It is also granted That where is no Repentance or no true Repentance for sinnes committed there is no ground for that man to suppose that his sin is pardoned I do not here speak of the measure or expressions of Repentance for there may be mistakes on both hands some thinking their Repentance is naught because not in such a sensible measure as they think is required may therefore inferre that their case is worse than indeed it is others upon the other hand may suppose they have repented when it is not so so inferre pardon when they have no ground But this is granted that where true sincere Repentance is not there is no Pardon from God of sins whereof such are guilty for to such as
of the Second Justification But their opinion of a first second justification is vaine having no ground in the word and the whole of their fabrick is sufficiently demolished by the Reformed writting against them so that we need not insist thereupon Others there are who suppose that James is here shewing how justification is continued therefore say though faith alone be the Condition of Justification as begun Yet unto the continuance thereof works are required as the Condition But all that speak thus think that Iames pointeth forth the Condition of Justification as continued must say that those persons who had this faith whereof James speaketh were really justified that James doth presuppose them to be justified speaketh to them of them as such But then it must be granted that the Popish faith consisting in a meer assent unto the truth revealed is justifying faith and that that faith which is no more true saving faith than that is true Christian Charity which saith to a brother or sister that is naked destitute of daily food depart in peace and giveth not those things which are needful to the body is sufficient to bring one into a justified state and that a dead faith a faith of the same nature kinde with the faith of devils a faith which a vaine man puft up with a vaine conceite a fleshly mind may have a faith that cannot will not worke with works is a justifying faith which if true it would follow that all men who beleeve that God is Devils also who beleeve this should be justified But none who understand the Gospel can think or speak thus And therefore this place carrieth no shew of proof that works are the Condition of Justification as continued Nor can this place give any countenance to such as say that Faith Works together are the Condition of Justification making no difference betwixt justification as begun as continued For 1 James'â— scope as we manifested above is not to cleare up explaine the way how justification is brought about or to shew what are the Causes or Conditions thereof but to discover the vanity of that ground whereupon some professours who indulged their Lusts deceived themselves supposed that they were in a state of justification salvation notwithstanding they neglected all duties of holiness 2 James opposeth a faith here unto works a faith which he called unprofitable dead c. doth not ascribe justification hereunto as to a Condition in whole or in part But such as speak thus include faith works as making up one full compleat Condition 3 The Instances which James here adduceth should not then serve his designe if his purpose was to prove faith works to be the Condition of Justification for Abraham was long justified before that particular act of obedience in offering up his son Isaac was called for And so was Rabâ—â— justified before she sent away the spies 4 This work by which Abraham is said to have been justified was a work that seemed contrary unto the Moral Law And therefore if this be urged as a ground of justification by works it will rather prove justification by other works then by works commanded in the Moral Law of God 5 The works mentioned in both the Instances are outward external works obvious to the eyes eares of others And hence it may as well be proved that only external works are required unto justification and no other And indeed if it had been Iames's designe to prove justification by works he had named other works then meerly external that he might have prevented a mistake But more fully to discover the vanity of this supposition let us see what can be alleiged from the several parts of this passage for justification by works from vers 14. it is said Faith alone cannot save but is unprofitable but yet faith works is profitable will save Ans. This maketh nothing for justification by works because it is denied that whatever is requisite before Salvation is requisite also before justification for if so no man could be said to be justified as long as he lived But next the faith whereof Iames here speaketh availeth not to Salvation because it is not of the right kinde we say also that this faith availeth not to justification because it is but meer empty profession deceiving puffing up it is but a faith that a man saith he hath From vers 15 16 17. It is said As charitable wishes joined with real acts of Love Alms deeds is profitable no other charitable wishes so Faith with works is available to justification but not without them Ans. These charitable wishes not accompanied with Alms deeds as they are not profitable unto the indigent brother sister so they are far from that Christian charity that is called for in the Gospel as that charity is not true Christian saving charity so neither is the Faith which he proveth to be dead true saving or justifying Faith Nor doth the Apostle say that faith with works is available unto justification but that that faith which hath not works is dead not available to prove evidence that the man that hath it is in a saife in a justified state But the maine ground of this apprehension is vers 21 22 23 c. for it is objected that it is expresly said that Abraham was justified by works Ans. That it is so said we grant but the difference is about the sense meaning in which it is said so We have shown that the meaning is That by works Abraham was declared proved manifested to be a justified person and one that had a true lively faith for it is added that hereby the Scripture was fulfilled declaring him to have been justified by faith or that he beleeved God it was accounted to him for Righteousness And this is it which others have called justification before men in opposition to justification before God that is a justification declared manifested to the mans own conscience to others not the justification before God in its causes And this Mr. Baxter seemeth to have mistaken in his Aphorismes when he argued against this justification before men as if it had been meerly a justification from Mens Accusation not the true justification before God as evidenced proved to men And when we speak of justification in this sense we do not make the world lawful judges of our Righteousness before God or in reference to the Law of God or say that they are competent or capable judges But we only say that by works of obedience Faith Justification by Faith is evidenced And where as he saith That works are no certaine medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be Righteous for there is no outward work which an hypocrite may not performe inward works they cannot discerne nor yet
exception upon condition of acceptance as also an offer of Faith Repentance Conversion with all the consequences thereof 7. An Universal will in God to call into this Covenant and unto the Participation of the benefites thereof all every man 8. An Universal execution of this will or promulgation of this Gospel or New Covenant unto all every one by common favours benefites bestowed on all whereby all are called to believe in a merciful pardoning God and all have abundance of Mercies Meanes of Recovery of life for the Lord now governeth the world only on termes of grace 9. Upon this followeth an Universal Command to all men to use certaine duties meanes for their Recovery by Faith Repentance 10. An Universal pardon of the first Sin so far at least that no man shall perish for the meer Original sin of Nature alone unless he adde the rejection of grace 11. Hence followeth an Universal Judgment Sentence on all in the great day only according as they have performed the new Gospel Conditions 12. Some also adde an Universal Subjective Grace whereby all are enabled to performe the conditions of the new Covenant 13. Universal proper Fruits Effects of this death whereby all the outward favours that Heathens enjoy are said to be purchased for them by Christ why not also what Devils enjoy Finally 36. This assertion of Universal Redemption layeth the ground of maketh way to a new frame of the Covenant of Grace quite overturning its Nature and transforming it into a new Covenant of Works making it one the same with that as to kinde only to differ as to the change of Conditions to be performed by man for as in the first Covenant Adam was to obtain right to possession of life promised in by for through and upon the account of his fulfilling the Condition of perfect obedience imposed by the Lord so in the New Covenant man is to obtaine acquire to himself a right to possession of the Life promised in by for through upon the account of his performance of the Condition of Faith new obedience now imposed in the Gospel and all the difference is that in stead of perfect obedience to the Law which was the Condition of the first Covenant now Faith sincere Gospel Obedience is made the Condition And thus we can no less he said to be justified by works of the Law or which we do then Adam should have been said to have been so justified had he stood and this justification giveth as great ground of boasting unto man of making the reward of debt not of grace as justification by the first Covenant would have done for though it be said that Christ hath made satisfaction to justice for the breach of the first Law thereby purchased to all upon Condition Justification Salvation yet this removeth not the difficulty for what is purchased by Christ's death is made Universal Common to all and so can be nothing according to our Adversaries but a putting of all men in statu quo prius in case to run obtaine the prize for themselves as God's absolute free love put Adam in that Condition at first Christ's death though thereby as they say he purchased the New Covenant which with them is the chiefe if not the only effect fruit of his Death Merites can be no more than a very remote ground of Right to Life Salvation unto any person for it is made Universal Common to all so that all have equal share therein advantage thereby man himself by performing the new Conditions only making the difference so that the immediat ground of the Right to life which any have is their own Faith Obedience or performance of the New Covenant-conditions Whereby it is manifest that as to our Particular and Immediat Right to Happiness we are to plead our own works lean to them as our ground whereupon we may stand appear before God's Tribunal and upon the account thereof plead for the crown as our due debt having now run for it performed the Condition agreed upon and so sing praises to our selves in stead of singing praises to our Redeemer Hence the Righteousness wherein we must appear before God is not the Righteousness of Christ but our own for the Righteousness of Christ say they is only imputed in regard of its effects whereof the new Covenant is the All or the Chiefe and so that doth not become the Righteousness of any man nor can be said to be imputed to any man properly which also they assert but his own Faith is only imputed properly which also they plead for as his Righteousness not as a Way Medium or Methode of Gospel-Righteousness especially when Gospel-Obedience is adjoyned The Righteousness of Christ being thereby only accounted to be imputed in that it hath procured that our own Gospel Righteousness Faith new Obedience shall be imputed to us as our Immediat Righteousness the ground of our Right to Glory What accord is betwixt this frame of the Covenant of Grace that way of justification held forth by Socinians Arminians Papists the learned will easily see and how contrary it is to the Covenant of Grace held forth in the Gospel hitherto professed maintained by the orthodox every one acquainted therewith cannot be ignorant it is obvious how opposite this is unto what the Apostle saith Phil. 3 8 9. yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and do count them but dung that I may win Christ and be found in him not having mine own Righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith And Tit. 3 5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Iesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his grace we should be made heâ—rs according to the hope of eternal life And Rom. 3 20 21 22 24. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified but now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifest even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ. And many other places It is no less clear how hereby the true nature of justifying faith and Gospel Obedience is perverted withall how dangerous this is if put into practice or if men act live accordingly every serious exercised Christian knoweth FINIS The Contents of the Chapters CHAP. I. THE Introduction to the Work and the Text Gal 3.
first to convince them of their Sin and Misery by setting home the Law wekening their Consciences as Paul doth Doctrinally follow this method when he is about to cleare-up explaine the truth about Gospel-justification in his Epistle to the Romans where in the first place he convinceth all of Sin both jewes Gentiles Chap. 1. 2. 3. concluding vers 23. That all have sinned come short of the glory of God vers 9. he giveth an account of his foregoing Discourse saying we have before proved both jewes Gentiles that they are all under sin And againe vers 19. that every mouth may be stopped all the world may become guilty before God Now this work of Conviction layeth the sinner low before God for thereby the Man is discovered to himself to be undone in himself to be under Sin Wrath under the Sentence of the Law having his mouth stopped having nothing to plead for himself neither by way of Extenuation nor of Apology having nothing in himself wherewith he can come before the Lord to make Atonement for his Transgressions to make Satisfaction to justice And thus the man is made to despare in himself as being irremediably gone undone if free grace prevent him not II. Whereupon the man is made to renounce all his former grounds of Hop Confidence all his former Duties good works civility Negative Holiness what else he placed his Confidence in formerly Yea all his Righteousnesses are as filthy rags accounted as loss dung So that he hath nothing within himself as a Righteousness that he can expect to be justified by before God but on the contrary he findeth himself under the Curse that what he thought before to be his Righteousness is now by the light of the Law the discovery he hath of his natural condition founde to be sin iniquity before God therefore to be so far from bringing any reliefe unto him that thereby his anxiety is made greater his case more desperat III. The way of Gospel-justification is so contrived the wakened man whom God is about to justifie is now convinced of it that Man must be abased for he is now made to see that he is empty poor hath nothing to commend him to God no Righteousness of his own to produce nothing within him or without him except the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator Cautioner that can stand him in stead Nothing of his own must here come in reckoning neither alone nor in conjunction with the Righteousness of Christ for what is of Grace must not be of works otherwise Grace is no more Grace Rom. 11 6. Christ must have all the glory he who glorieth must glory alone in the Lord. And therefore is Christ made Righteousness unto us 2. Cor. 1 30. is become the Lord our Righteousness Ier. 23 6. And all His must say That in the Lord they have righteousness Esai 45 24. IV. Nothing that preceedeth faith no motions or workings of the Law no legal Repentance the like have any infallible connexion with justification nor are they any congruous disposition thereunto or a Condition thereof there being no promise made that all such as are convinced awakened have some legal terrours works of the Law upon their Spirites shall certainely be justified experience proving that several who have had deep convictions Humiliations have with the dog returned to their vomite become afterward worse than ever doth also confirme this So that after the deepest legal Humiliations works of Terrour outward Changes the like Effects of the Law though when they are wrought by the Lord intending bringing about the Elect sinner's Conversion justification they have this kindly work upon the heart to cause the Soul more readily willingly listen to the offers of Salvation Mercy in the Gospel to submit to the termes Method which God hath in His great wisdom mercy condescended unto as to the actual Conferring bestowing of the blessings purchased by Christ for His own chosen ones justification is an Act purely of God's free Grace undeserved of them on any account an act of His meer mercy Love So that they are justified freely by His grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Rom. 3 24. V. Unto this justification their good Works are not required upon what somever account for good works must follow justification not preceed it They must be first accepted through Christ before their works of holiness can be accepted The whole Gospel doth most plainely exclude works of the Law under whatsoever Notion Qualification or Restriction as we manifested above shall more manifest hereafter Yea all works upon what somever account are excluded as opposite to justification by faith through Jesus Christ. The man who had no more to say but God be merciful to me a sinner went home justified when he who said God I thank thee I am not as other men nor as this Publican c. did miss that Privilege Paul hath so directly plentifully proved that no man is justified by works that we need say no more of it and therefore in this matter of justification man hath no ground of boasting but must glory in the Lord alone VI. As without a Righteousness no man can be justified before God because His judgment is alwayes according to truth He will pronunce no man Righteous who is not so or who hath no Righteousness And as no man hath a Righteousness of his own in himself that will abide the trial of God's judgment for if He should enter into judgment with any that liveth they should not be able to stand before His judgment seat be justified but all who are justified are in themselves ungodly void of all Righteousness that can ground a sentence of absolution from the Condemnation of the Law So it is the Righteousness of Christ as Mediator Cautioner which is to them the only ground of their absolution justification this Surety-Righteousness of Christ is imputed to them by God they are clothed therewith being considered as clothed there with are pronounced Righteous by the Lord the righteous judge dealt with as such So that all the Righteousness which is the ground of their absolution from the Condemnation of the Law is without them in another who was appointed their Cautioner therefore all appearance of any ground of boasting in themselves is quite taken away by the Law of faith Rom. 3 27. the reward is now wholly of grace not of debt Rom. 4 4. VII Though faith faith only be required of us in order to our having Interest in Christ His Righteousness to justification therethrough Yet this leaveth no ground of boasting unto man or of glorying in himself for it is in it self a plaine solemne Declaration of the Beleevers Sense
disease Otherwise he should make sins of Omission to be no disobedience be cause Omissions are no Acts. Ans. The Apostle so compareth the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as the Satisfaction with the provocation or as the Remedie with the disease as that withall chiesly he cleareth up the manner way thereof to be by Imputation thus That as Adam's sin of disobedience which includeth both Omission Commission being a Violation of the Law of the Covenant was imputed to his posterity they hence became guilty obnoxious to death yea were punished with original Corruption which cometh by propagation the consequences thereof so Christ's obedience which was full compleat is imputed unto Beleevers whereupon they become Righteous in order to their recovery out of their Natural state of sin and misery Further He saith By that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made Righteous that is jusâ—ified we cannot understand that Righteousness of Christ which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law but that Satisfactory Righteousness or obedience which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiesly consisted in his sufferings Ans. By the obedience of Christ unto the Law of Mediation strickly so taken as distinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law beleevers could not be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience for that could not be properly imputed as this is as hath been shown so Paul's similitude should halt But 2. Why is Christ's obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to His obedience to the Moral Law seing this was a part of that unto this He obliged Himself in undertaking the Mediation Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law as to suffer the penalty And was He not obliged to both as Surety in room place And then why may not both be imputed unto them 3. Why should obedience here be thus restricked to the Law of Mediation He addeth two reasons but neither are valide The 1. is this Because otherwise the opposition â—etwixt Adam's disobedience which was but one single Act and Christ's Obedience if it were his universal conformity to the Law would not hold Ans. This same man told us in his former exception That Christ's obedience in respect of Adam's disobedience was considered opposed as the Satisfaction to the provocation as the Remedie to the disease now if this be true Christ made Satisfaction for no provocation but for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit what He did suffered should be only a Remedie for that one distemper if so how shall the rest of the Provocations and diseases be taken away or are there no more Provocations or diseases 2. Adam's disobedience was no Single act of disobedience but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law Saith not Iames that he who offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2 10. prove it too in the following vers The 2. is this The Effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ to wit justification or Righteous making of many is constantly appropriated to the death blood of Christ. Ans. This that is attributed to the blood death of Christ elsewhere to wit our justification sheweth that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively for by His death exclusivly considered we cannot-be made Righteous for the Imputation of another's suffering though it may exeem from death suffering yet it cannot constitute Righteous in reference to the commanding Law 2. The death of Christ must not be looked on as one act of obedience but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience belonging to His State of humiliation whereof His death was the crowning piece so as including as His whole suffering so His whole obedience to the Law under which he was made for He is said to have been obedient unto death even unto the death of the cross Phil. 2 8. not that the death of the cross was all His obedience as it was not the whole state of His humiliation but the terminating remarkable act thereof as it was not all His suffering His whole life being a life of suffering 3. If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying justification be looked upon as the effect of this only what shall become of His Soul-sufferings while He was in an agonie in the garden But if the act of obedience in His death include these why not His whole state of humiliation And if it include all this why not also His obedience to the Law seing His being made under the Law belongeth to His state of humiliation as the Apostle tels us Gal. 4 4. He excepteth furder saying Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here undorstand His active obedience to the Moral Law yet it will not hence follow that men must be justified or made Righteous by it in such a way of imputation Ans. If by Christ's obedience to the Moral Law we be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam that obedience of Christ must necessarily be imputed to us as Adam's disobedience was imputed to his posterity for there is no other way imaginable Let us hear his reason to the contrary For certaine it is said he that that justification or Righteous-making whereof the Apostle speaketh vers 19. is the same with that which He had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that Righteousness vers 17. is described vers 16. to be the gift i.e. the forgiveness of many offences i.e. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty of before God unto justification and evident it is that that Righteousness c. cannot stand in the Imputation of a fulfilling of the Law Ans. 1. Though making Righteous and justification be inseparable yet they are not formally one the same but Righteous-making to wit by Imputation is antecedent unto justification the ground thereof as becoming sinners is not formally to be condemned but is prior to it the ground thereof 2. That free gift mentioned vers 16. is not free forgiveness but is that which is opposite to judgment or guilt or reatus tending to condemnation so is the same with that which is called the Grace of God the gift by Grace vers 15. and the gift of Righteousness vers 17. which is in order to justification free pardon As therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guilt is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation but tendeth thereunto so neither is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justification but leadeth thereunto is followed therewith 3. Nor can the Adversary Himself take these words vers
understandeth the difference thus That faith hath nothing to do with the Righteousness of Christ but must be considered alone as our act of obedience wherever the law or the righteousness thereof is excluded in the matter of justification there the righteousness of Christ is as well to be understood as our own personal acts of obedience But how crosse this is unto the whole doctrine of the Gospel is already abundantly shown and we may have further occasion to touch upon this matter hereafter CHAP. XII Some other objections proposed by John Goodwine examined MR. Iohn Goodwine 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 Beleevers 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 warre 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 despaire 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 falshood 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 compleat legal righteousness requireth a punctual through-obedience unto all things in the Law in reference to each mans place Calling Ans. But we may distinguish the proposition thus That righteousness which will not furnish all beleevers with every specifick individual act of obedience which is required of them in their places Stations i.e. Is not made up of nor expresly 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 specifick numerical Act required of them nor yet was infinitly 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 every one 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 confirme the Minor he tels 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 separat from sinners Heb. 7 26. He knew no sin 2. Cor. 5 21. No man could convince Him of sin Ioh. 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 mans 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 Supream Law-giver was fully Satisfied And Sure every unprejudiced person may easily see and be convinced that this perfect and compleat obedience of Christ is moreable to furnish beleevers 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 beleevers 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 Wâ—ence we see that whatever shew 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 it self He answereth 1. The Law will not know any
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 meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical termes notions that thereby the truth may be more darkened We are not obliged by any Law of God to explaine or interpret these mysteries of Salvation according to these Notions which men explaine 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 termes But as to the present â—rgument no answer can be given untill it be known what is the true meaning of these words formally just Possibly he will understand hereby the same that others meane by Inherently just so indeed do all the Papists And if so we can answere 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 it self 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 it self Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners that is guilty obnoxious to wrath so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute beleevers 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 formes this Philosophical Notion is here adduced to darken the mystery we are treating of It were a sufficient answere then to say That the Minor though it be true in natural formes 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 conferre 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 beleever 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 forme 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 certaine 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 expresly 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 tels 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 satisfie 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 assigne the real just ground of this necessity yet I judge it should satisfie us that the Lord in His wisdom Goodness hath thought fit to appointe and ordaine this methode manner of justification so far should we be from disputing against this Truth with such Arguments from rejecting of it untill we be satisfied as to
Bonefites which are freely given us for the sake thereof Ans. This is but what we heard when he was clearing the state of the question there Chap. XIII we shewed that his sense was not satisfying for in his judgment as we found there is no Righteousness truely ours in order to justification but our Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness which by Christ's Merites is advanced to this dignity of being the potestative Condition of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to life is promised upon Condition of Faith so faith is our Immediat Righteousness in order to the obtaining of these favoures Christ's Merites have only procured them remotely in procuring this Covenant But we hear no mention made by him of any such Imputation as whereby Christ's fide jussory or Surety-righteousness is really made over and Imputed to Beleevers that they thereby may become formally Righteous in the sight of God and be justified as such so pardoned and have right to life immediatly upon the account of this Surety-righteousness made theirs Nor hear we any clear ground laid down by him whereupon Christ's Righteousness can be called Ours we thereupon be reputed of God legally Righteous dealt with as such We hear of Benefites bestowed because of His Merites But we hear not that Pardon and Right to Glory are made the Immediat result and effect of Christ's Merites Righteousness but only mediat by the Interveening of the New Covenant whereby our Faith the condition thereof called our Gospel Personal Righteousness is made the Immediat cause of our possessing these benefites whereby he giveth occasion at least to judge that he maketh our faith the Immediat procuring Meritorius Cause of Pardon and Right to life However between his way that which he here rejecteth which we also reject neither asserting that Christ was our Instrumental Second cause nor claiming a strick propriety in the same Numerical Habites c. which were in Christ as if we became Subjects of the same Accidents speaking of what Christ did suffered in a Physical sense we know owne a Midway whereby Christ's Obedience Suffering considered not Physically but legally juridically are transferred communicated unto us not as Physical accidents from one Physical subject to another but in a Law juridical sense And though this Imputing communicating of Christ's Surety-righteousness cannot be explained by nor appear consistent with Logical or Metaphysical Notions applicable only to Physical Entities as considered as such to wich Mr. Baxter in all his Explications of this matter doth so frequenily laboure to restrick us contrary to all Reason Yea and to Common sense Yet we must owne it for a truth knowing that these fundamental truthes recorded in Scripture and held forth to us only by divine Revelation stand in no need of Aristotle's learning in order to their being Savingly understood practified And that Law-termes are more fit to help us to some understanding in this matter which is hold forth in Scripture as a juridical act than Metaphysical termes and yet we see no ground to say that this matter whereof we treat must in all points keep even a resemblance unto Iustinian's modes knowing that it is a divine Mystery and unparallelable He saith 2. He that is made Righteousness unto us i◠also made wisdom Sanctification Redemption to us but that sub genere causae Efficientis non autem constitutivae We are not the Subjects of the same Numerical wisdom and Holiness which 〈◊〉 Christ plainly the Question is whether Christ or His Righteousness Holiness Merites and Satisfaction be our Righteousness constitutivly or only efficiently The matter and forme of Christ's personal Righteousness is ours as an efficient cause but it is neither the neerest matter nor the forme of that Righteousness which is Ours as the subjects of it that is it is not a Constitutive cause nexly material or formal of it Ans. 1. It is true He who is made Righteousness to us is also made Sanctification c. and that He is made Sanctification by being an Efficient cause but it will not follow that He must be also the Efficient cause and no other of our Righteousness which is of a far other Nature and is no Inherent inwrought thing as is Sanctification 2. It is true we are not the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ neither can we be if they be considered Physically but yet we can be Subjects of the same Numerical Righteousness Legally and juridically considered thus we are to consider it here not Physically however Mr. Baxter ad nauseam usque inculcat this for we consider it and must consider it as a Surety-righteousness we know that that same Individuat payment and Satisfaction made by the Surety is in Law-sense the Debtor's and imputed to him as the ground of his liberation from trouble and distress at the hands of the Creditor 3. Hence we see that Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience and Sufferings is that whereby we are constituted Righteous in the sight of God in a legal sense and need not enquire whether it be the neerest matter or forme or both of our Righteousness for these Metaphysical termes have no place here though Mr. Baxter can never hold of them We are made Righteous in a Law-sense not Physically by Christ's Imputed Righteousness and upon this account it is ours legally it is folly to enquire for Physical matter and forme or Constitutive causes of Moral or juridical Beings or Effects as Phylosophers do when speaking of Physical or of Metaphysical beings He saith 3. If our Union with Christ were Personal making us the same person then doubtless the accidents of his person would be the accidents of ours so not only Christ ' Righteousness but every Christians would be each of ours But that is not so nor is it so given us by him Ans. We acknowledge no Union with Christ making us the same person with Him Physically it seemeth Mr. Baxter will understand it no otherwayes But we acknowledge an Union legal Political foederal whereby we become one person juridical in Law-sense and as to this Mr. Baxter's accidents have no substantial place or Consideration The 4. Object is you do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all which consisteth in Perfect Obedience Holiness but only a Right to Impunity and Life with an Imperfect Inherent Righteousness in our selves The Papists are forced to confess that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law not only the Retributive part But they say it is in our selves and we say It is Christ's Imputed to us Thus he proposeth it but if I were forming the objection I would say That Mr. Baxter Supposeth we have no Righteousness at all in order to justification beside our Act of Faith for as
alter many a time in one day But the Lords thoughts are not as our thoughts nor are his wayes as our wayes Esai 55 8 9. His sentence judgment remaineth the same how alterable so ever ours be He is in one minde though we be in many Propos. 4. Hence also it is manifest that Iustification is an Instantaneous act that is it is not a work that is carried on by degrees but a sentence pronunced by the Lord the Righteous Judge once for all Though hereafter they still need renewed pardons so may have moe sinnes actually pardoned this yeer than they had the last yeer yet Justification as relating to their state is no progressive work We hear not of a grouth in Iustification as we hear of a growth in Sanctification for as for that word Revel 22 11 he that is Righteous let him be Righteous still or let him be justified still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not import a growth or progress in Iustification but a continuance in that state beside that others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Ar. Mont. The complut edition as also the Syriack Arabick Versions This relative change that is made in Iustification is like the relative change that is made in Adoption now the act of Adoption is an Insantaneous act and not a work that is carried on by degrees nor doth it admit of a grouth so that an adopted childe of God can not be more the adopted childe of God this yeer than they were the last yeer though the sense and clear Perception of the one and of the other may doth admit of degrees is not so full clear alwayes at the first as it may be afterwards Propos. 5. Hence it followeth That justification is equal in all that is that all who are justified are alike justified none more than others as none are more Adopted than others speaking of these who are made partaker of the privilege None can be said to be more a son than another so none can be said to be more justified than another who is also justified the Lord's sentence absolveth all equally from all their sins who beleeve and admitteth them all equally into a State of Favoure and Reconciliation They equally passe from death unto life they have equally peace with God they have all an equal imputation of the Righteousness of Christ or a share therein none more or less then others though the faith which laith hold on the Righteousness of Christ be not a like strong in all for it is faith in the same kinde in all and the promise is to the kind and not to the measure or degree of faith It is no where said that we are justified by a faith of such a measure or degree but by faith importing that how weak so ever saith be if it be faith of the right kinde it inteâ—esseth a soul in Christ in his Righteousness whereupon he is justified It is true one may have many moe sins pardoned than another Yet both being Pardoned Iustified they are equally absolved from all that could be laid to their charge he that was the greater sinner is not more liable to the Law then he who was the least offender for the sentence of Pardon or Absolution doth equally free both from all hazard of Condemnation as when two persons are pardoned the one whereof hath committed many crimes worthie of death the other but one they are both equally pardoned freed from prison and from the sentence and set at liberty So also when two persons are pardoned the one whereof hath a greater debt remitted the other a lesser they are equally pardoned the one is not more discharged though discharged of more than the other but both are alike discharged of all their debt freed from all trouble of Law upon the account of their debt So in Iustification all who are justified how great so ever the difference be among them as to the sinnes whereof they were guilty are alike justified because alike freed from the accusation and curse of the Law alike made partakers of the Privileges of Persons pardoned have alike interest in the Favoure of God Right to glory As to what difficulty may arise from the consideration of after sinnes we shall speak to that afterward Propos. 6. The State of Iustification is perfect at the first or Iustification is perfect and compleet to all ends and uses This is clear from what is already said for if Iustification be not an act privilege that admitteth of degrees or of increase and doth not grow more and more dayly it must be perfect at first or adequate to all ends and purposes for which it is appointed or have that perfection that is competent to it It is true it is not so perfect as that it can never be out of sight or as if the sense feeling of it might not grow or become greater nor yet is it so perfect compleet as it thereby the justified person were freed from all sin or all the consequences of sin in this life for it is not hereunto appointed nor granted for these ends But in these respects and for these ends it is may be said to be perfect I That all their former sins are pardoned how many how hainous so ever they have been for then all their sins are cast into the depths of the sea Micah 7 19. are not found Ier. 50 20. In those dayes in that time saith the Lord the iniquitie of Israel shall be sought for and there shall be none the sins of judah they shall not be found for I will pardon them whom I reserve He taketh away all iniquity Hos. 14 2. Then he imputeth no iniquiâ—y Psal. 32 2. but covereth forgiveth sins without exception Rom. 4 7 8. Thus he redeemeth Israel from all his iniquities Psal. 130 8. He forgiveth their iniquitie remembereth their sin no more Ier. 31 34. Heb. 8 12. 10 17. He cast all their sins behinde his back Esai 38 17. Hereby is remission of sinnes without any exception Rom. 3 25. Mat. 26 28. Mark 1 4. Luk. 3 3. Act. 2 33. 5 31. 10 43. 26 18. Eph. 1 7. Col. 1 14. He forgiveth all trespasses Colos. 2 13. and forgiveth all iniquity Psal. 103 3. 2 These sins once pardoned blotted out and cast behinde God's back are not againe laid to the charge of the justified persons once forgiven alwayes forgiven It is true Satan may renew the charge and use false summonds against the Beleever it is also true that after-sins may waken feares bring old sins againe to remembrance the Lord may let them see their former debt not to charge it upon them but to bring them on their knees to humble them the more to cause them cry for and seek out new extracts of the Pardon received yet the sinnes that God once pardoneth he never writteth down againe upon
the score of Beleevers as if he had recalled the former pardon granted for he remembereth their sin no more Ier. 31 34. Heb. 8 12. 10 17. And for future sins by vertue of their State they have access to seek for pardon and have ground 3 The Righteousness of Christ which is a perfect Righteousness is fully and perfectly communicated and imputed so as thereby they become the Righteousness of God in Christ 2. Cor. 5. last He is their whole Righteousness in order to Iustification and wholly their Righteousness as made of God Righteousness unto them Ier. 23 6 1. Cor. 1 30. And with this Righteousness they are wholly perfectly covered to expect it as found hid there Phil. 3 9. are made Righteous Rom. 5 19. 10 4. 4 They are now wholly Reconciled unto God and have Peace with Him and not by halfes or in some certain respects only as if in other respects they were still Enemies or in a state of Enmity Being justified by faith they have Peace with God Rom. 5 1. once they were enemies but now they are reconciled vers 10. by Christ they have now received the Atonement vers 11. once alienated enemies in their mindes by wicked works but now reconciled Col. 1 21. once a far off but now made neer Ephes. 2 13. the enmity being staine vers 16. No more strangers or forreigners now but fellow citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God vers 19. Then is the Lord pacified toward them for all that they have done Ezek. 16 63. 5 They are compleetly translated into a new Covenant state not halfe the children of Saran and half the children of God not halfe in Nature and halfe in the state of Grace not half translated halfe not Ephes. 2 13 19. Col. 1 21. not halfe quickened with Christ and halfe not Ephes. 2 5. They are not now halfe without Christ or aliens from the common wealth of Israel or strangers from the Covenants of promise c. Ephes. 2 12. There is a perfect change as to their state 1. Cor. 6 11. 6 They are secured as to final Condemnation There is no condemnation for them Rom. 8 1. being beleevers they shall not perish but have eternal life Ioh. 3 15 16. He that beleeveth is not condemned vers 18. See also Ioh. 3 36. 6 47. They are passed from death unto life Ioh. 5 24. 1. Ioh. 3 14. being discharged of all guilt of eternal punishment which formerly they deserved by their sinnes And all this holdeth good notwithstanding of their after sins which as we shall shew do not annull or make any such breach upon their state of Justification It is true these sins must also be Pardoned will be Pardoned but yet when they are pardoned their Justification as to their state is not hereby more perfected as to these respects formerly mentioned It holdeth good also notwithstanding of what shall be at the great day for that will put no man in a new Justified state who was not Reconciled to God before It is true there will be many additions as to the Solemnitie Declaration Consequences Effects thereof in that day but not withstanding hereof the state of Justification here as to what respecteth its grounds the essential change it maketh together with the Right that beleevers have thereby unto all that in that day they shall be put in possession of is perfect may be said so to be Propos. 7 By what is said it is manifest how in what respects this life of Iustification differeth from the life of Sanctification 1 Sanctification maketh a real Physical change Iustification maketh a Relative change And thereby they come to have a new State or Relation unto the Law unto God the judge 2 Sanctification is continueing work wherein beleevers are more more built up daily Iustification is an act of God or a juridcial sentence Absolving a sinner pronunceing him free of the charge brought in against him and not liable to the penalty 3 Sanctification is a groÌ„wing and increasing work admitteth of many degrees is usually weak and small at the beginning Iustification doth not grow neither doth it admit of degrees but is full compleet adequate unto all ends here 4 Sanctification is ever growing here and never cometh to full Perfection before death Justification is perfect adequate unto all ends as we shewed 5 Sanctification is not alike in all but some are more some are less sanctified But Iustification is equal in all none being more justified then others 6 Some measures degrees of Sanctification which have been attained may be lost againe But nothing of Iustification can really be lost for we are not here speaking of the sense and feeling of Justification which frequently may be lost but of Justification it self 7 Sanctification is a progressive work Iustification is instantaneous as was shown 8. Sanctification respecteth the Being Power Dominion of â—in in the beleever and killeth subdueth and mortifieth it Iustification respecteth its guilt demerite taketh away guilt and the obligation to punishment or obnoxiousness to the paying of the penalty 9 In justification a man is accepted upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him and received by Faith But in Sanctification grace is infused and the Spirit given to perfecte holiness in the fear of God 10 In Iustification there is a right had unto life and unto the rich recompence of reward upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed whence they are said to have passed from death to life But in Sanctification they are made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in light 11 Unto Iustification nothing is required but faith in Christ whereby the soul may become united to Him have a right to his benefites But unto Sanctification all the graces of the Spirit are requisite and all the exercises of the same all diligence is required and an adding of Vertue to Faith of Knowledge to Vertue of Temperance to Knowledge of Patience to Temperance of Godliness to Patience of Brotherly kindness to Godliness of Charity to Brotherly kindness 2 Pet. 1 5 6 7. Propos. 8 Hence it followeth also thar there is no ground to assert a first a second Justification as Papists do meaning by the first an Infusion of an inward Principle or Habite of Grace which is no Justification nor part thereof but the beginning of Sanctification and by the Second another Justification which with them is an Effect or Consequent of the former having good work which flow from the foresaid infused principle of grace love for its proper formal cause This Justification they say is by works where as the former is by faith and yet this second they make to be an Incrementum an increase of the first and for this they say the church prayeth when she saith Lord increase our saith hope
third yea multiplied Regeneration whereof the Scripture is silent nay it clearly depones the contrary 10. And if it be enquired how it cometh to passe that after sins may not at least gradually impaire the State of Justification as sins do impaire and weaken Sanctification I answere and this may further help to clear the business under hand The reason is manifest from the difference that is betwixt these two blessing and benefites Iustification is an act of God changing the Relative-state of a man and so is done and perfected in a moment Sanctification is a progressive work of God making a real physical change in the man whence sin may tetard this or put it back but cannot do so with the other which is but one single act once done and never recalled the gifts and calling of God being without repentance Rom. 11 29. In justification we are meerly passive it being a sentence of God pronunced in our Favours in Sanctification as we are in some respect patients so are we also Agents and Actors and thus sin may retard us in our motion and as it evidenceth our weakness for acting so it produceth more weakness Moreover Sin and Holiness are opposite to other as light and darkness therefore as the one prevaileth the other must go under and as the one increaseth the other must decress But there is no such Opposition betwixt sin pardon which is granted in Justification And whereas it may be said that sin expelleth also grace Meritoriously yet that prejudgeth not the truth in hand for it can expell grace meritoriously no further than the free constitution of God hath limited and so though it can and oft doth expell many degrees of Sanctification yet it cannot expell make null the grace of Regeneration or the Seed of God so no more can it expell or annul Justification because the good pleasure of God hath secured the one the other made them both unalterable By these particulars we see how the first doubt is removed out of the way we shall next speak to the Second which is concerning afflictions Punishments which are the fruits and deserts of sin and seem to be part of the curse or penalty threatned in the first Covenant To which we need not say much to show that notwithstanding hereof the State of Justification remains firme and unaltered These few things will suffice to cleare the truth 1. Though all affliction and suffering be the fruite consequent of the breach of the Covenant by Adam the head of mankind for if he had stood and the Covenant had not been violated there had been no Misery affliction Death or Suffering and though in all who are afflicted in this world there is sin to be found And though it cannot be instanced that God ever brought an afflicting or destroying stroke upon a Land or Nation but for the provocations of the People yet the Lord may some rimes afflict outwardly or inwardly or both a particular Person in some particular manner though not as provoled thereunto by that persons sin or without a special reference to their sin as the procuring Cause thereof as we see in Iob and as Christ's answer concerning the blinde man Ioh. 9 3. Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents that he was born blinde but that the works of God should be made manifest in him giveth ground to think 2. Though it doth oftner fall out that God doth afflict Punish and Châ—sten his people even because of their sinnes as well as other wicked persons yet the difference betwixt the two is great though the outward Camitie may be materially the same To the godly they flow from Love are designed for good are sanctified and made to do good they are covenanted mercies but nothing so to the wicked They are mercies to the one but curses to the other They speak out love to the one but hatred to the other They are blessed to the one but blasted cursed to the other They work together for good to the one but for evil to the other and all this notwithstanding that the outward affliction calamity that is on the godly may be double or treeble to that which is upon the wicked Yea there is mercy and love in the afflictions of the Godly when the prosperity of the wicked is cursed Whence we see that all these afflictions cannot endanger or dammage their Justified state 3. Though the Lord may be wroth smite in anger his own people chasten punish them in displeasure yet this wrath anger is but the wrath and anger of a Father and is consistent with fatherly Affection in God and therefore cannot be repugnant to a state of Sonshipe in them Prov. 3 11 12. Heb. 12 5-8 Psal. 89 30 33 34. Revel 3 19. 4. In all these afflictions that seem to smell most of the Curse and of the death threatned and are most inevitable such as death c. there is nothing of pure vinâ—ictive justice to be found in them when Justified persons are exercised with them for Christ did bear all that being made a curse for them and as to this the Lord caused all their iniquities to meet together upon him He drunk out the cup of Vindictive anger and left not one drop of the liquor of the Curse of the Law for any of his own to drink He alone did bear the weight of revenging justice and there is nothing of this in all that doth come upon beleevers So that the very sting of death is taken away the sting of all these Afflictions is sucked out and now they are changed into Mercies Blessings 1 Cor. 3 21 22. Therefore we must not think that they contribute the least mite unto that Satisfaction which justice required for sins Christ payed down to the full justice was fully satisfied with what he paid down nor must we think that God will exact a new satisfaction for sins or any part thereof of the hands of beleevers after he hath received a full satisfaction from the Mediator Christ did rest satisfied therewith The afflictions and Punishments then that the godly meet with being no parts of the Curse nor of that Satisfaction that justice requireth for sin nor flowing from vindictive justice but being rather fatherly chastisments mercies meanes of God can do no hurt unto their state of justification nor can any thing be hence inferred to the prejudice of that glorious state 5. But it is said Pardon and Justification is one thing and a man is no more Justified than he is Pardoned and Pardon is but the taking off of the obligation to punishment and consequently of punishment it self and seing punishment is not wholly taken off but there remaineth some part of the curse or of the evil threatned for sin and will remaine untill the resurrection it is cleare that pardon is not fully compleet not consequently Justification so long as we live But
is conceived to have when justified upon the account of which he is justified he should not only have occasion but even cause of boasting before men notwithstanding of the disproportion betwixt faith the weight of glory for it might then be said that he had made himself to differ that he had laid down out of his own purpose the whole price that was required and so had according to the termes of the Compact made a purchase of glory to himself as the man with the pin in his sleeve if the Law Covenant had so stood that all that gave the Prince a Pin out of his sleeve shall receive such such great things he only a few moe were so good merchants as to give the Pin when others did not might well have boasted said he had not gotten those great things for nothing for he laid down the full price condescended upon by Law Covenant and had ground of boasting at least before men though not before the Prince who graciously condescended to reward so richly such a mean gift 3 This answere will say that there had been no ground of boasting even by the old Covenant of works though man had keeped the Law perfectly for even then it might have been said that the weight of glory was not given for the really worth excellency of perfect Obedience Perfect Obedience Holiness having its sufficient reward in its own besome for it is a reward to it self But he saith If men had fulfilled the Law bin justified that way there had been some pretence of boasting or glorying in themselves Ans. And why not also if faith be now accounted the fulfilling of the Law and be now imputed to us as all our Righteousness Let us see if the reasons which he bringeth for the former will not also evince this His first is this Because such a Righteonsness had held some proportion at least that should have been given to it Rom. 4. vers 4. God had given them no more than what they had at least in some sort deserved Ans. But who can tell us what that proportion or that sort would have been And may not also the Righteousness of Faith which is here supposed to be of our selves and not the meer gift of God be said to hold some proportion at least in some fort Yea may it not in this respect be said to hold a greater proportion viz. that the exerting of the act of Faith now would argue more strength of free will to that which is good that Perfect Obedience in Adam for though we should suppose that man now had as full a power to beleeve if he would as Adam had to obey yet it cannot be denied but there is much more opposition now even within to that which is good than there was in Adam and consequently that the vertue appearing in the acting of Faith must be conceived as greater than what could have appeared in Adam's full obedience who had nothing within to oppose him or prove a remora in his way As it would argue more valour for a weak souldier to go a quarter of a mile fighting with his enemies in the way then for a giant to go twentie miles wherein he should meet with no opposition But though the proportion were granted to be greater betwixt the reward and Adam's Obedience than is betwixt the reward Faith yet there must be will be a proportion granted for majus minus non variant speciem degrees make no variation in kinde 2 Can or will it be said that God had given the perfect obeyer no more than he had in some sort at least deserved if we should suppose there had been no promise made of such a reward to obeyers or antecedently to a Covenant And if this cannot be said as it cannot be said by any I suppose who seriously consider the matter then the reward was made such only by God's free Condescension God had in that case given what they had deserved according to the Covenant made wherein such a reward was promised to obeyers and in justice bestowing it as a reward upon such as did fulfill the condition Now when Faith is said to have the same place in the New Covenant that Perfect Obedience had in the old and so the same Efficacy influence in the reward withall it is supposed that Faith is now no more the gift of God than Perfect Obedience was under the old Law is it not as true now that God giveth no more than what beleevers have by Faith at least in some sort deserved by vertue of the Compact New Covenant wherein this reward is promised as it would have been under the old Covenant And is it not hence also manifest that the New Covenant is made to be of the same Nature with the Old and that the reward is as well now of debt as is would have been by the Old Covenant Is it not also hence undeniable that hereby there is a proportion acknowledged in some sort betwixt Faith the Reward where is then the difference Let us see if his next reason will helpe here Secondly he saith because if they had made out their happiness that way they had done it out of themselves that is out of the strength of those abilities which were essential to their Natures in the strickest most proper sense that can be spoken of or applied to a creature their owne Ans. 1 When he supposeth as we saw in the Exception the act of Beleeving to be from a mans self must we not also say that the beleever making out his happiness this way doth it out of himself though not out of the strength of abilities essential to his Nature 2 I much doubt if those abilities if he speak of moral abilities as he must or speak nothing to the purpose can be said to have been essential to mans Nature for then it would follow that man after he lost these abilities as it must be granted he did when he fell was no more a compleet man wanting something that was essential to his nature These abilities may be said to have been natural or con-natural to him considering the state the Lord thought good to create him in and so not meerly supernatural but how they can be said to have been Essential to his Nature I see not 2 When God gave Adam these Abilities and thereby furnished him with a sufficient stock was he not to acknowledge God for all that he did or was he afterward to act without dependance upon or influence from God the first Cause If not as it is confessed when it is said to be so only in a sense that can agree to a creature and when Faith is here supposed to be from mans self acting in the same dependance on God and receiving the same influence from him as the first Cause may not Faith also be said to be mans own in as strick
proper a sense as can be spoken of or applied to a Creature And even though we speak of Faith in the orthodox sense as being the gift of God yet seing it floweth nativly from the new Nature given in Regeneration is said to be mans faith his act all this difference will not exclude all occasion of boasting glorying before men more then Abraham's works would have done if he had been justified by them And yet the Gospel-way of Justification perfectly excludeth all boasting being so contrived in all points as that he who glorieth may only glory in the Lord. Argum. 5. If Faith be imputed unto us for Righteousness then are we justified by that which is Imperfect which it self needeth a Pardon seing no mans Faith is perfect in this life But there is no Justification to be looked for before God by that which is Imperfect but by that which is Perfect Therefore c. He excepteth These words then we are Iustified by that which is imperfect may either have this sense that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparativly imperfect may some wayes concurre contribute towards our justification In the first sense the proposition is false in the later sense the assumption goeth to wreck Ans. This distinction is to no purpose for it doth not loose the difficulty in regard that the argument speaketh of a Righteousness as the formal cause or as the formal objective cause of Justification or as that upon the account of which the person is Pronunced Declared to be Righteous and Justified and so is levelled against Faith concluding that it cannot be our Righteousness or the formal Objective cause of our justification as it is said and supposed to be by such as say that it is imputed to us for Righteousness for it is made by them to be all the Righteousness that is imputed to us that because of its Weakness Imperfection He addeth in application of this distinction The truth is that the Imputation of faith for Righteousness presupposeth somewhat that absolutely perfect as absolutly necessary unto justification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himself made a perfect atonement for sin there had been no place for the Imputation of faith for righteousness for it is through this that either we beleeve in him or in God through him it is through the same atonement also that God justifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our faith unto us for righteousness Ans. This presupposal doth not helpe the matter for notwithstanding thereof Faith it self is made the only Imputed Righteousness and faith is not considered as an Instrument receiving Christ's Righteousness and the Atonement there through but as a work making the reward of the Atonement to be of debt ex pacto and not of free grace and so to have a worth a merite in it Our Adversaries will not grant that this presupposed Righteousness of Christ whereby the perfect Atonement was made is imputed unto us for this is expresly denied and beside they say that it was equally made for all and so is equally imputed to all so far as that thereby all are put into such a state as notwitstanding of the former breach made they may now upon the new termes of Faith receive the promised reward And thus it is manifest that with them this imperfect thing saith is that for upon the account of which they are justified As for example that we may hereby illustrate cleare the matter if we should suppose that Christ had by his Atonement delivered all from wrath due for the former transgression of the Covenant and had put them into the former state wherein Adam was before he fell procured that God should take a new essay of them and make promise of life unto them upon the old termes as some who plead for Universal Redemption say God might have done had he so pleased after the Atonement was made in this case might it not be said that every person that should now be Justified upon the performance of these termes were justified by the performance of the Condition as by his own Righteousness that this new Obedience were all the Righteousness he had declared to have when justified should he not be justified upon the account thereof solely And was he more obliged unto the Atonement of Christ than others who did violate of new these Conditions And seing now Faith is put in the same place and made to have the same Force Efficacy shall we not now be Justified by this one act of Obedience as we would have been in the other case by perfect Obedience And if it be so is it not manifest that we are justified by a Righteousness that is Imperfect that all the presupposal of a perfect Atonement doth not availe 2 When it is said that it is through the Atonement made by Christ that we beleeve in him or in God through him it must be granted that Christ hath purchased Faith that either to all or to some and if to all then either absolutly or upon condition if to all that absolutly then all should have faith if upon condition we desire to know what that condition is If not to all but to some only then Christ cannot be said to have died alike for all 3 as to that he faith viz. That it is through the same atonement that God imputeth our faith to us for righteousness justifieth us upon our beleeving it being the same that others say who tell us that Christ hath procured faith to be the condition termes of the new Covenant we shall say no more now than that we see no ground to asserte any such thing here after we shall give our reasons Argum. 6. If faith be imputed to us for Righteousness then God should rather receive a Righteousness from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousness from us but we from him in Iustification Therefore c. He excepteth by denying the consequence upon these reasons 1 Because God's imputing Faith for righteousness doth no wayes implye that faith is a righteousness properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having performed that condition or Covenant upon the performance whereof he hath promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death sufferings of his owne son formally with the pardon of all our sins Ans. All this can give no satisfaction for 1 If no Righteousness be imputed to us in order to Justification but Faith and if faith it self be hereby made no Righteousness then we are justified without any Righteousness at all God shall be said to pronunce them Righteous who have no Righteousness
had been reckoned to Adam if he had stood of debt not simplie and absolutly but ex pacto by reason of the compact So that we see the cases run parallel the Covenant is of the same nature kinde The difference betwixt the Power granted to Adam now to man to performe the conditions required is with him the same upon the matter for if man will go the length he can may he may be sure of God's help to convoy him all the length he should And what had Adam more And as for the diversitie of the conditions which then were Perfect Obedience now only Sincere that can make no alteration in the Nature of the Covenant and beside I see not why this Man can not as well say that if man now will go as far as he may can by his own stock of power unto the performance of Perfect Obedience God will certainly give him his help to carry him forward as he saith that if man will now go all the length he can unto the performance of Faith Repentance new sincere obedience God is ready willing to contribute his help to carry him forward thereunto 5. He confoundeth the right to with the possession of life eternal as to their Causes Antecedents for as new holy Obedience is by us made the way to the possession of the Kingdom so by him it is made the way or cause of the Right jus to the Kingdom for he requireth it as antecedent to a mans Justification first being brought into a Covenant state with God when he first receiveth the Right to the inheritance And thus the Inheritance is made to be of the Law not of promise contrare to Gal. 3 18 for the whole and sure Right thereunto is had by Obedience to the Law with him I shall say no more to this here because there is a sufficient confutation of this to be found in Mr. Durham on the Revel pag. 234. c. where that digression is handled concerning the way of Covenanting with God of a sinner obtaining of Iustification before him And in all such as write against Papists and Sociniant on this head But if it be asked may not faith be called our Gospel-Righteousness be said to be imputed to beleevers as such a Righteousness without any wrong done to the Righteousness of Christ which keepeth still its own place of being our legal or pro legal Righteousness I Ans. Though it be true that Faith is now required of all that would be Justified yet I no where finde that it is called our Gospel Righteousness and I judge it not saife to admit expressions without warrand of the word in this tender matter especially such expressions as have a manifest tendency to corrupt rather then explicate the truth in this particular as I judge will be found true of this expression for how beit it be said by the Asserters thereof that Faith is but a less principal Subordinat Righteousness Yet in effect according to their explication of the whole doctrine as may be seen by this Treatise last mentioned answered it is made the Principal only Righteousness that is imputed to us for Christ's Righteousness say they is only imputed as to is effects or in its causality See Baxter against D. Tully p. 70. just as Suarez said de divin gr lib. 7. de sanct hom c. 7. § 39. cited by Mr. Rutherfoord Exercie Apel. Exerc. I. c 2. pag. mihi 64. the merites of Christ are not given to us that we might be formally justified but that they may be a price wherewith we may buy a Righteousness whereby we may be formally justified as he who giveth a price to another whereby he may buy clothes is said to clothe him not foomally but effectivly morally as is manifest And even as to these effets it dependeth wholly upon Faith and this Faith is only said to be properly imputed for our Righteousness And beside they tell us that the Righteousness of Christ is alike common to all to the Reprobat as well as to the Elect and so it can be imputed properly to none And as to its effective â—mputation as Suarez calleth it or Imputation as to its effects or in its causality as others speak after that it is offered held forth to all hath the same common effects unto all untill the condition be performed that dependeth wholly upon mans performance of the Condition And as to its antecedent effects it is equally absolutly imputed to all that is it is imputed to none but the effects thereof are equally made common to all in making Salvation possible the condition to be faith and the like And as to the special effects as they may be called which depend on faith when one beleeveth so fulfilleth the Condition he hath thereby a Gospel-Righteousness or this Faith of his is reckoned upon his score for a Gospel-Righteousness thereupon he receiveth Pardon Justification c. Now let any Judge whether or not these effects are not more the effects at least more immediatly of their own Gospel-Righteousness than of Christ's for Christ by all his Righteousness did purchase these effects to all a like that conditionally and now they themselves by their own personal Gospel Righteousness of Faith do make an actual purchase of these effects according to the Covenant ex pacto And to say That Christ did by his merites purchase the New Covenant doth but confirme what I have now said towit That all that which Christ procured was That all such as should acquire a Gospel-Righteousness of their owne shonld be justified c. And thus Christ died to purchase a vertue merite to our faith that to this end it should become a Gospel-Righteousness whereby they might have whereof to boast to glory before men at least Hence we see that Christ's Righteousness might rather be called the Subservient ours the Principal And further which may justly make Christians ab horre this opinion Thus this poor convinced sinner pursued by justice for a broken Law is called to leane his whole weight of Acceptance with God found all his hope of Pardon Justification upon his own Faith or Gospel Righteousness as the only Righteousness wherewith he is to be covered the only Righteousness which is imputed unto him not upon Christ his Righteousness for what Christ did or purchased was common to all had only a conditional vertue which the personal Righteousness reduceth into act so must have a principal share of the glory for as to what Christ did Iudas had the same ground of thankfulness praise that Peter had Peter no more then Iudas and thus Peter was to sing the song of praise for his Justification Pardon unto his own personal Faith Gospel-Righteousness If this be not the Native result of this doctrine let any put it in to practice which I shall be
to the Efficient for neither do all Philosophers agree to this some holding Instruments to be a fift kinde of Cause nor are we obliged to stand to their prescriptions rules especially in these things that are no natural causes or effects no man saith that faith hath the same kind measure of Efficiency in towards the effect justification that all Instrumental causes or Instrumental causes so called have in the Effects which they concurre to the producing of what efficiency hath an examplary cause which some Philosophers reduce to the efficient viz. Keckerman But that Faith hath some Influence is manifest from the Scripture not of it self it is true but by the gracious appointment of God and that this Influence cannot be better more saifly expressed than by the name of an Instrument appeareth to us clear hereby nothing of the glory due to God or unto Jesus Christ and to his Righteousness is ascribed unto man nor is any more hereby granted unto Man than to a beggar as to the enriching of himself when it is said his hand made him rich by receiving the Purse of gold that was given unto him yea hereby is Christ his Righteousness more fixedly established in their due place because faith is considered not as a Righteousness of it self nor as a part of Righteousness but purely and simply as an Instrument of the soul laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ and pleading the same as the only Formal ground of his justification before God If it be said that it were saifer to call it a causa sine qua non We must first know what is properly signified thereby whether it will help us more to understand the just true import of the Scripture expressions about Faith in Justification for no termes ought to be used that attaine not this end or have not a direct tendency thereunto such termes however we may please our selves in the invention of their application unto the business in hand and think we are in case to defend the same against opponents yet if they do not contribute manifestly to the clearing and explaining of the matter according to the Scriptures can only darken the matter And no reason can enforce us to embrace them with the arbitrary explications limitations of the Authors and to reject or lay aside such as do more obviously explaine the matter unto all such as have orthodox apprehensions of the matter and have given offence to none nor have been excepted against by any but such as were not orthodox in the point of justification whose erroneous Principles led them to deny or except against the same And what for a cause shall we take that causa sine qua non to be which cannot be so explained in our language as that every one that heareth it shall be in case to understand what it meaneth Such as speak of it call it causa fatua and referre to it external occasions time place and such like things without which the action cannot proceed as the place wherein we stand the time wherein we do any thing which have no more interest in or relation to one action than another for all must be done by us in some time and in some place And shall we say that faith hath no other interest or influence in justification than the hour of the day when or the place wherein a minister preacheth hath into his preaching Shall we have so meane low an account of the ordinances appointments of God in reference to spiritual ends Seing the Lord hath appointed Faith in order to Justification we must not look upon it as a causa fatua or as a meer circumstance but as having some kindly influence in the effect by vertue of the appointment of God such a connexion therewith that it no sooner existeth but as soon justification followeth Faith then can not be called a meer causa sine qua non Historical faith several other antecedents may be a conditio or causa sine qua non for no man of age can be justified without it yet we may not say that we justified by it as by saving faith the same may be said of Conviction Sense of sin of some measure at least of legal Repentance and of desire of Pardon of Peace which yet may be and oft are without justification And it may also seem strange how this causa sine qua non can be called a potestative condition or how that which is said to be a proper Potestative Condition ex cujus praestatione constituitur jus actuale ad beneficium can be called a meer conditio or causa sine qua non seing it hath such a considerable moral influence in the effect But saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 27 faith cannot justifie both as a Condition as an Instrument of Iustification for either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different neerest causal interests Ans. When we speak of Faiths justifying as an Instrument we consider the physical or quasi physical way of its operation and denote only its kindly acting on Jesus Christ and on his Righteousness which it layeth hold on applyeth apprehendeth putteth on And when we say it justifieth as a condition we consider it as appointed of God unto that end as placed by Him in that state relation unto justification which now it hath And either of these can be called the proxima ratio causalis of Faith according to its different consideration if justification meaning not God's act only but the complex relative change be considered in genere Physico or quasi physico then the neerest causal interest of faith is its instrumentality but if it be considered in genere morali or legali then its neerest causal interest is that it is a condition As when a rich man bestoweth a purse of gold on a beggar requireth that he in order to the possessing of it streatch forth his hand take it considering this act of enriching him in genere physico his hand acteth herein as an Instrument apprehending the purse taking it to himself considering this in genere legali or morali the streatching forth of his hand and apprehending the purse is a condition for so the donor hath determined to give the riches after such a manner methode for his own ends according to his good pleasure Thus we see how faith can in its way produce one the same effect of justification both as an Instrument and as a Condition taking these termes in a large sense according to the matter in hand Mr. Baxter saith Confess p. 89. he denieth that Faith is an Instrument of Iustification because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficient cause of pardoning himself Ans. And he
to be yet I cannot think that he shall approve of this which yet is the maine designe of the book His 8. ground p. 156. That the promise of forgiveness of sins is sometimes made unto Evangelical obedience This he goeth about to prove from 1. Ioh. 1 7. Where the Apostle is shewing the Advantages that such have as have fellowship with God through faith in Jesus Christ evidenced by their walking in the light as is clear from vers 6. and this in particular that as they will be dayly failing so they will have ready accesse to the blood of Christ to get all their sins cleansed away Neither is the Apostle here speaking of the first Pardon granted when persons are translated into a state of justification but he is speaking of such as are already in that State He citeâ—h next to this purpose 1. Pet 1 2. addeth they were not elected to the benefite of being sprinkled with the blood of Christ without obedience Making that a condition of being sprinkled with the blood of Christ which the Apostle mentioneth as a distinct medium to which they were elected in reference to eternal life the supream end as to them And he might as well say they were not elected to the benefiâ—e of obedience without being sprinkled with the blood of Christ and that too agreeth more with truth His 9. ground p. 157. is That to forgive injuries is an act of Evangelical obedience to that precept Mat. 11 25. And yet without this men cannot be pardoned so not justified Mark 11 25. Mat. 6 15. 18 35. Ans. Though men cannot be pardoned without this it will not follow that therefore it is a part of the condition of Justification but only proveth that this must be present as an evidence of their acting Faith on Jesus Christ in truth reality in order to pardon And these passages are explications of the fift petition of the Lord's prayer the sense whereof is well given in our larger Catechisme § 194. in these words which we are the rather emboldened to ask encouraged to expect when we have this testimony in ourselves that we from the heart forgive others their offences His 10. last ground is That Repentance is an act of Evangelical Obedience Act. 17 30. yet pardon of sin which is essential to justification is not to be obtained without it Luk 13 3 5. Ans. Of Repentance we have said enough above Chap. XXV I wonder how he can to this end cite Luk 13 3 5. where no mention is made of Remission of sins but perishing threatned to all that will not repent I shall not here meddle with his mis representation of our doctrine in the following pages nor with the grounds reasons of the preference he giveth unto his way seing by all that he speaks he bewrayeth utter ignorance of the Gospel truth which we owne of its true Tendency to promove Gospel holiness beyond any other way what somever hatched by Papist's Socinians that may be little or nothing beholden to Iesus Christ for Grace here or for Glory hereafter And his Insinuations as if we did not presse Repentance Holiness is little to his credite or to the credite of the cause he maintaineth seing the contrarie is so well known to say no more Nor shall insist on the grounds he layeth down to overturne the whole argueings of the Apostle in this matter seing they are upon the matter the same that others have laid down and have been before spoken to for from a tedious discourse concerning the mistaking apprehensions of the jewes about the Law the works thereof in order to justification to very little purpose he inferreth p. 117. that doubtless Paul's denial of Iustification Salvation to be by the Law is to be understood in the very same sense in which the incredulous jewes against whom he disputed did hold these so be attainable thereby Forgetting with all that what Paul wrote was dictated by the Spirit so that for the use of the Church unto the end of the world But sure if no other works were here understood than this Author will have here understood it could be of little use to the Gospel churches after the subject of the question the Ceremonial Law it self is taken away And had it not been a shorter most effectual way to have confuted the jewes errour here simply to have proven as he doth elsewhere the abolishing of that Law Beside we finde many things spoken of this Law against Justification by obedience to which the Apostle disputeth that cannot agree to the Ceremonial Law as hath been several times touched But let us hear what the true question was We must understand him saith he to deny a freedom from the eternal punishment to be attainable by legal Sacrifices also to deny that the promise of eternal life was made upon Condition of literal Circumcision a literal observation of the Mosaical Law Ans. If this had been all to what purpose I pray did the Apostle laboure so much to prove that not only the jewes but that the Gentiles also were under sin Rom. 1. 2. The Gentiles were not nor yet were to be under the Law of Ceremonies 2 How could the Apostle inferre that by the deeds of the Law there should no flesh be justified from his proving that both jewes Gentiles were guilty of the breach of the Moral Law whereby every mouth was stopped all the world become guilty before God Rom. 3 10-20 3 did only the Law of Ceremonies give the knowledge of sin Himself proveth the contrary pag. 57. 4 did the curse only belong unto the Ceremonial Law or did Christ only become a Curse in reference to the breaches of that Gal. 3 10. He will not so much as yeeld p. 119. that Paul doth on the bye deny Justification by other works And that meerly because it would destroy his fabrick of a Iudaical Socinian justification though he pretend that thereby the Apostles doctrine would be made inconsistent not only with the Faith of the holy men of old but also with his own doctrine But neither did the holy men of old express the Condition of Justification which he confoundeth with the Condition of the Covenant of mercy by loving God keeping his commandements nor doth Paul speak any such thing as we have seen what ever he with Socinians Arminians say He giveth us another character which also we heard from others before of the works by which Paul denied men were justified calling them such works which were apt to occasion boasting Ephes. 2 9. Rom. 4 2. But thus he quite perverreth both the sense of the words scope argueing of the Apostle for the Apostle cleareth that it is by grace we are saved not by works upon this very account that if we were saved or justified upon the account of any of our works man should boast Ephes. 2 9. Not of works why
be true lively is the sole Condition of Pardon 8. As at first so alwayes that holdeth true which Peter saith Act. 10 43. To him i. e. to Jesus give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive Remission of sins As the stung Israelit was alwayes in order to his cure to look to the brazen serpent so is the Beleever that would be cured of the guilt of new transgressions to have his recourse by Faith unto the Mediator crucified lifted up Ioh. 3 14 15. Obj. 1. It is said that Repentance is necessary both as commanded and as a meane appointed for attaining Remission of sins And therefore must be the Condition of Remission Ans. The consequence is not good for this same may be said of Prayer and other Duties which yet cannot be called proper Conditions of Pardon That prayer is a commanded duty none will deny That a praying sinner may be said to be using the meanes to attaine unto Pardon and to be in the way of obtaining of it will also be granted and so in that respect prayer may be accounted a meane and yet it cannot be called the Condition for then every one that prayeth should have pardon though he act not faith And if it be said that it must be prayer in faith Iam. 5 15. I Ans. True but then the Condition is not Prayer but Faith exerting itself and acting in through Prayer And the same we say of Repentance and so keep it in its due place and presse it in the Gospel way methode Obj. 2. It is said That there is a kind of congruity sutablness in this order by subjoining the promise of pardon to it for it is more sutable that a penitent sinner should have Pardon than an impenitent Ans. So this same may be said of Prayer for it is also more sutable that a praying sinner be pardoned than a sinner that nevâ— once asketh pardon And this tendeth more also to the exalting of free grace But the truth is in pardon there is not only a declaration exalting of Grace Mercy but also of divine Justice Rom. 3 25 26. and unto this Faith is singularly fitted because it layyeth hold on the Propitiation and on bloud for the declaration of God's Righteousness for Remission of sins and hereby is the Lord declared to be just when he is the Justifier Pardoner of the beleever So that neither prayer nor Repentance nor Self-searching c. can be properly called the Condition but Faith acting in by these Obj. 3. It is said that Repentance qualifieth the sinner in reference to the promise of pardon or putteth him within the reach of the promise so that he may take hold of the promise of pardon And it disposeth him to accept the offered Salvation freely and to rest upon Christ alone for that end Ans. 1 What disposeth to accept of Salvation c. cannot for that cause be called the Condition of Pardon unless we speak improperly as felt poverty in a beggar though it disposeth him to receive an offered almes thankfully Yet it is not the proper Condition No more self conviction in our case a Condition of Pardon 2 If it qualifieth for the receiving of the offered Salvation then it qualifieth immediatly for Faith but mediatly remotly for Pardon 3 The promise of Pardon is not made to the penitent properly as such but to the Penitent beleever that is to faith acting exerting itself in by Repentance Obj. 4. Esai 1 15 16. put away the evil of your doings cease to do evil c. this is Repentance then vers 18. full pardon is promised though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow c. Ans. Yet with all he bids them wash make cleane which could only be by the blood of the Messiah for that only cleanseth 1. Ioh. 1 7. and this they had neglected in going about their Sacrifices which therefore were abominable in the eyes of the Lord vers 11 12 13. because not accompanied with Faith that purifieth the heart Act. 15 9. Obj. 5. 2. Chron. 7 14. the Lord promiseth to forgive sin if his people would turne from their wicked wayes Ans. But with all it is required there that they seek the face of God that was in through the Messiah typified by the Temple to which their prayers were to be directed as we see Chap. 6 20 24 26 29 31 34 38. Obj. 6. Prov. 28 13. He that confesseth his sin forsaketh it shall finde mercy Ans. True because none will do that a right but the beleever who laith hold on the Merites of Christ. And so this the like places are not exclusively to be taken but principally to be understood of Faith so acting and evidencing itself to be true lively and of the right stamp by its acting so FINIS CHAP. I. Imputation both of Christs Active and Passive Obedience necessary MR. Iohn Goodwine in his Treatise of justification part 2. Ch. 2. laith down several conclusions whereby he might overturne this Truth what he saith must be examined His 1. Conclusion in this He for whose sins a plenary satisfaction hath been made either by himself or another for him hath been accepted by him against whom the transgression was committed is as just righteous as he that never sinned but had done all things that were requisite meet for him to do Ans. If by just righteous be meaned one who only hath not deserved the punishment threatned then his Conclusion is true but if by just righteous be meaned one who not only hath not deserved the punishment but hath also deserved the reward promised then his Conclusion is false for the Satisfaction if it respect only the transgression committed can only put the man for whom it is given accepted in the state of one that is under no obligation to be punished but it cannot put him in the state of one who not only is not to be punished but is also to be rewarded He addeth This is evident because there is as much justice righteousness in repairing the the wrongs injuries done to any as there is in abstaining from doing wrong Ans. True in reference to the wrong done and therefore such an one is rightly justly delivered from the obligation to punishment but is not made so righteous as to challenge the reward till a more compleet satisfaction be made to wit such as may comprehend also perfect conformitie unto the Law in all points to the end he for whom this is done may be looked upon as a fulfiller of the Law therefore to have right to the reward as he would have had if he had in his own person perfectly keeped it He that simply repaireth the wrong done doth not that which deserveth the reward The simile he annexeth confirmeth this and demonstrateth how far out he is
was requisite the perfect observation of the Law Now perfect observation of the Law saith there was no transgression but remission saith supposeth that the Law was not perfectly observed So the imputation of the Law fulfilled either saith the Law was not broken or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof therefore the person unto whom this imputation is made hath a right unto the reward which this imputation doth directly immediatly respect as such But in our case both these go together perfect remission the imputation of the Law fulfilled because freedom from the obligation to punishment right to the reward go also together inseparably For how can he be said saith he to have all his sins fully forgiven who is yet looked upon or intended to be dealt with all as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven may well be looked upon as one that hath transgressed either by omission or by commission or by both because he must be so looked upon for pardon presupposeth sin no man can be pardoned but a sinner and no man can think or dreame of a remission but withall he must suppose that the person pardoned hath sinned But it is true he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven cannot be intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punishment but doth not so destroy sin as to cause that it never was for that is impossible What more And he that is looked upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law must needs be conceived or looked upon as one that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law Ans. This is very true But what then Which is nothing else saith he but to have a perfect Righteousness or which is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him Ans. This is also true taking this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law to be to one who never broke the Law by sin but it is not true in our case who are transgressours all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners Yet he inferreth So that besides that perfect remission of sins which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ there is no need of indeed no place for the imputation of any Righteousness performed by Christ unto the Law Ans. The inconsequence of this is manifest from what is said But he addeth a reason Because saith he in that very act of remission of sins there is included an imputation of a perfect Righteousness Ans. This is but the same thing which was said is manifestly false Remission regairdeth only the punishment or the obligation thereunto dissolveth it but as such giveth no right to the reward which was promised only to obedience to the Law But then he tels us more properly with Scripture-exactness as he saith that that act of God whereby heremitteth pardoneth sin is interpretativly nothing else but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law compare Rom. 4 6 with vers 7. 11. Ans. This is but the same thing needeth no new answere for it is denied that that act of God whereby he pardoneth sin considered in itself as such is interpretativly an imputation of perfect Righteousness But it is true in our case it may be called so interpretativly in this respect that there is such an in dissoluble connexion betwixt the two that the one inferreth the other necessitate consequentis And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4 6 7 11. He addeth Even as the act of the Physician by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness may withfull propriety of speach be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health Ans. The Physician purging away the humors the causes of the distemper is the cause of health by being the causa removens prohibens because ex natura rei health followeth upon the removal of that which caused the distemper but the connexion of pardon of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei but ex libera Dei constitutione connecting the causes of both together His next similitude of the sun dispelling darkness filling the aire with light is as little to the purpose because here is a natural necessary consequence light necessarily expelling darkness which is denied in our case Hence there is no ground for what he addeth when he saith In like manner God doth not heal sin that is forgive sin by one act restore the life of righteousness that is impute righteousness by another act at all differing from it but in by one the same punctual precise act he doth the one the other For we are not here enquiring after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a Philosophical manner God can do many things by one Physical act but we are enquireing concerning the Effects whether they be one precise thing flowing from one moral cause or so diverse as to require diverse moral causes grounds or whether the one doth naturally essentially include the other as being both but one thing His following words would seem to speak to this when he saith forgiveness of sins imputation of Righteousness are but two different names expressions or considerations of one the same thing one the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins sometimes an imputing of Righteousness the forgivness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness to shew signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness or Iustification but the forgivness of his sins And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgivness of sins to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner but that which standeth in forgiveness of sins Ans. This is but gratis dictum nothing at all is proved These two pardon of sins imputation of Righteousness are two distinct parts of one compleet favour and blessing granted of God in order to one compleet blessedness consisting likewise in two parts to wit in freedome from punishment which was deserved in right to the promised inheritance which was lost And because these two both in the cause and in the effect are inseparable conjoined by the Lord therefore the mentioning of the one may doth import signifie both by a Synecdoche And hence no man with reason can inferre that they are both one the same precise thing flowing from one the same precise cause and import only the different names expressioâ—s or considerations of one the same thing Christ's obedience to the Law and his suffering for sin were not one the same thing under various considerations or names but distinct parts of one compleet Surety-Righteousness no more can the effects that
4 When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just he speaketh very indistinctly not only as confounding being made just being justified as if they were formally the same but also as not giving us to understand what he meaneth by these words personally thâ—mselves just Hereby he would seem to say that only by something inherent in our persons we are constituted Righteous are justified and not by any thing imputed to us And if so the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting glorying in ourselves is laid 5 Pardon of sin as such is neither a making a just nor a justifying and the same we say of Right to Christ to Glory 6 Christ's Righteousness according to Mr. Baxter can not be called the meritorious cause of our pardon justification Right to Glory c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to Christ to Glory are promised upon New Conditions so is made the meritorious Cause of the connection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions the obtaining of Pardon that Right so that by vertue of Christ's Merites these New Conditions are made the proper immediat meritorious cause ex pacto of these favours And by this way Man can not but boast glory in himself immediatly and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks for procuring the New termes 7 Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Material Righteousness any other way than as it hath purchased the New Covenant according to Mr. Baxter this being equally for all Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat as well as of Beleevers And how can that be called ours which is not ours nor our own nor are we by it made personally just ourselves as he spoke before 8 According to this doctrine Christ Righteousness meriteth to us another Righteousness which is our own on ourselves by this we are formally justified that is according to what went before to what followeth we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness for of this he is speaking only and yet that which he here mentioneth as the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is said to be pardon of sin a Right to Christ to Glory which formally is no Righteousness at all nor no where so called in Scripture is but a consequent of that which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness and the Condition of Justification He goeth on n. 182. He that is no cause of any good work is no Christian but a damnable wretch worfe than any wicked man I know in the world And he that is a cause of it must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it Nor a Saint denied to be a Saint upon a false pretence of self-denyal Ans. Of such a cause of any good work he knoweth the objection speaketh that should have the glory praise thereof and of good works as the ground formal Cause of justification which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth do deny But we may see here what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works even such as the most damnable wretch and possiblie the devil himself may do that is a work materially good though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture And thus the Justification upon good works which Mr. Baxter here meaneth must be a Justification that all Heathens damnable wretches yea devils themselves are capable of But this is not the justification we speak of of which who ever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8 30. We say nothing that giveth him ground to think that our thoughts are that a Saint should be denyed to be a Saint upon pretence of Self-denyal Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loth to rob God of his glory or take any of that to themselves which is due to him alone in so far as they act as Saints And they should not because Saints glory boast as if their justification before God were by their Sanctity good works not of meer grace through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask Doth Mr. Baxter think that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justification which those damnable wretches devils may partake of by any good work which they do himself told us in the foregoing n. 81. that all Righteousnuss which formally iustifieth is our own that to be made just to be justified are the same or equipollent and to be Justified constitutively is nothing else then to be made such as are personally themselves just Now when devils damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work that good work cannot but formally justifie them and they thereby become constitutively justified I would enquire whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not And againe I would enquire whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin with Right to Christ to glory or not If not how can it be called a justification if it be not a justification how can they be hereby formally justified constitutively justified He tels us next n. 183 As God is seen here in the glass of his works so he is to be loved praised as so appearing This is say I good reasonable What then Therefore saith he he that dishonoureth his work dishonoureth God hindereth his due love and praise This consequence I grant is good but what is it to the point in hand And his most lovely honourable work saith he on earth is his holy image on his Saints as Christ will come to be admired glorified in them at last so God must be seen glorified in them here in some degree Neither say I is any thing of this to the purpose in hand He addeth And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him that in which the worst will serve you And what then He that will praise God saith he further as Creator Redeemer must praise his works of Creation Redemption And is it the way of praising him as our Sanctifier to dispraise his work of Sanctification Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose Must all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness who tell men that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves by which they are to be justified but that it is all in Christ only or that say that God must have all the glory of what good action they do This is hard that either we must be wicked Malignants or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory due unto him But I see no connexion and Mr. Baxter hath not yet demonstrated the same He must then prove the Consequence of this argueing He addeth n. 184. Those poor sinners of my acquantance who lived in the grossest sins against
Conscience as Drunkeness horedome c. have been glad enough of such doctrine forward enough to beleeve that there is nothing in man that in any part can justifie him or that is any part of Righteousness but it is all out of us in Christ therefore they are as justifiable as any But Conscience will not let them beleeve it as they desire Ans. To this cannot answere not knowing nor having acquaintance with those poor sinners Yet this I may say others will say the same with me that Mr. Baxter's way is that which I finde more relishing unto carnal Souls than the self denying way of the Gospel which we use to preach And that the way which Mr. Baxter is not satisfied with is the way that is most pleasant acceptable unto the truely gracious and rightly exercised Souls But surder what of all this Knoweth not Mr. Baxter that some can turn the grace of God into lasciviousness Must therefore the mountains be removed for them He saith Moreover n. 185. It is arrogant folly to divide tho praise of any good act between God man to say God is to have so many parts man so many for the whole is due to God yet some is due to man for man holdeth his honour only in Subordination to God not dividedly in Co-ordination And therefore all is due to God for that which is Mans is God's because we have nothing but what we have received But he that arrogateth any of the honour due to God or Christ â—ffendeth Ans. If it be thus Mr. Baxter is the more to blame in being dissatisfied with such as are but expressing their care that God have all his due and that man do not proudly arrogat to himself any of that honour glory which is due to God alone And if Mr. Baxter knoweth not that there is a strong propension in corrupt nature to spoil God of his glory he knoweth nothing And wo to such as would indulge nature in this Sacrilege Them that honour God He will honour What honour is justly due unto man in subordination unto God none of those I suppose whom Mr. Baxter here opposeth will grudge him of but all their care is to have God's due keeped for himself that is all it is not commendable in any to oppose them in this But next he saith n. 186. If all had been taken from God's honour which had been given to the creature God would have made nothing or made nothing good heaven earth all the world would derogate from his honour and none of his works should be praised And the better any man is the more he would dishonour God the wickeder the less But he made all good and is glorious in the glory honourable in the honour of all to justifie the holiness of his servants is to justifie him Ans. All this is little or nothing to the purpose for such as are carefull that man rob not God of his glory do not deny the honour due to the creature knowing that when honour is given to the creature upon a right ground and in the right manner it redounded unto the honour of the Creator But who knoweth not how ready the Creature is to steal into the throne of God and how ready men are to transcendâ— and transgress all due limites And is it not saifest to keep far from such a dangerous precipice Is it to edification thus to gratifie with our pleadings proud Nature and to blow at this fire of corruption that the Saints have dailyhard work about to suppress exstinguish Must we thus on so small occasions plead so stoutly for man pretend to plead for God too He addeth next n. 187. If these Teachers mean that no man hath any power freely to specifie the acts of his own will by any other help of God besides necessitating predetermining premotion so that every man doth all that he can do no man can do more than he doth They di honoure God by denying him to be the Creator of that fâ—ee power which is essential to man which God himself accounteth it his honour to creat And they feigne God to damne blame all that are damned blamed for as great impossibilities as if they were damned blamed for not making a world or for not being Angels Ans. This is not a fit place to treate of that Question of Predetermination though Mr. Baxter pull it in here by the eares It is enough for us that we see now whither all that Mr. Baxter hath here been saying tendeth even to give unto Man the glory of all the good he doth of his Faith Repentance Love of God obedience perseverance in the first chiefe immediat â—â—ace for by his own Natural Power he did freely specifie the acts of his own will and so beleeved when he might have rejected the Gospel Loved God Christ when he might have hated both Repented when he might have remained impenitent Converted himself when he might have remained in his former state Mr. Baxter maketh no difference of acts here and so his words must be looked on as meaned of supernatural acts as well as of Natural that without any predetermining grace or motion of God This glory shall we never yeeld to be due unto man Let Mr. Baxter load the Doctrine of Predetermining grace with all the reproaches and absurdities he can invent He needs not think now to restrick his opinion of denying Predetermination unto natural acts for as the good spoken of by those he here opposeth is supernatural good as such so his discourse here is expressive enough of this And thus the cause is yeelded unto Pelagians Iesuits Arminians and the crown is put upon the head of man and he is to honour praise himself for what good he doth for all began at his own self-determining power will and the Almighty himself could not have bowed predetermined his will except he had overturned the course of Nature destroyed that free power which is essential to man And thus it is made to be to the honour of God to creat a Creature that is absolute Lord Master of all his own actions so must be the first Cause of his own actions as to their specifick moral nature what is this but to make man an independent Creature as to his actions consequently a God to himself Mr. Baxter hinteth some other help of God besides Predetermination but what that is he telleth us not is it his Concourse From this the same inconveniences will flow that flow from Predetermination And beside Mr. Baxter seemeth to incline more to Durandus's his opinion A dola's which even the Jesuites are ashamed to owne and his friend D. Strang doth directly confute as loving to set man yet higher up than they dar do Doth Mr. Baxter think that it is essential to man to have such a free
must he said that by a work done long afterward men may see that the worker was justified But that should not sutte James's scope seing by this meanes they might think to delay for a long time their good works yet suppose themselves presently justified Ans. All this is but vaine language for it is all one to the scope of Iames whether this come to the actual knowledge of few or of many who they were to whose knowledge it came He is only shewing that such as had but a dead faith that brought forth no works of obedience when called for had no evidence or clear ground to assert their own justification seing Abraham's justification was thus declared by his signal obedience to all that came or ever should come to the knowledge of that act of obedience of his to the end of the world Yea had it been unknown to any yet hereby he had a sure proof to ascertaine his own heart conscience of his justification But say the Arminians Good works cannot be such a proof demonstration because it cannot be known to others whether these good works proceed from faith or not Ans. Nor is any infallible judgment here necessary or requisite nor doth the scope of Iames require any such thing who is only shewing that such as wrought not works of obedience when called for could not conclude themselves justified in a saife estate notwithstanding of all their faire profession Notwithstanding we cannot judge infallibly of principles motives ends of the good works of others yet by what may be seen of these God may be glorified Mat. 5 16. 1. Pet. 2 12. Thus we have seen that neither is that faith whereof Paul speaketh when he saith We are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law whereof Iames speaketh when he saith Ye see then how a man is justified by works not by faith only is not one the same Nor is it the same justification or justification in the same sense consideration that both the Apostles speak of And therefore how ever as to their words they seem to speak contrary to other Yet in their true sense meaning there is nothing but a sweet harmony agreement But now as to works whereof both make mentione the question remaineth whether they be one the same The forenamed Socinian Author saith that both do not speak of the same works and that Paul excludeth from justification only legal works not Evangelical And consequently that Iames must speak of Evangelical works only But sure we are Iames cannot be supposed to speak of Evangelical works in their sense seing they cannot say that Abraham's offering up Isaac or Rahab her receiving sending away the spies were Evangelical works James speaketh of works commanded by the Moral Law which he mentioneth both in general in its particular commands Iam. 2 9 10 11. And all the duties which he presseth them unto the sins which he disswadeth them from relate unto the Moral Law And what these works are whereof Paul speaketh we have seen before Others think that Iames by Works here meaneth a working faith so that his meaning when he saith that by works a man is justified is that by a working faith such as Abraham had a man is justified But though it be a truth that justifying faith is a working lively faith And that we are justified only by such a faith as is lively prompteth to obedience in every duty called for though this truth will follow by consequent from what the Apostle Iames here saith Yet I judge that both Paul Iames understand the same thing by works even duties of obedience performed to the Law of God that by Works here in Iames is not meant a working faith this not being the scope designe of Iames to clear up justification in its Causes or to shew by what meanes it is brought about but only to shew what way it is or may be evidenced proved demonstrated to ourselves or others so as we may not be deceived thereanent And real works of obedience as they evidence a true lively faith so they prove the reality of justification And the Apostles intention being to shew the vanity of that pretence whereby many deceived themselves thinking that their profession of the truth of the Gospel was enough to secure their Salvation to prove them to be in a justified saife state though they indulged themselves a liberty to walk loosly according to the flesh this acception of the word works in a proper sense is most contributive unto that designe no other acception how consonant so ever unto the Analogy of Faith doth so directly clearly contribute assistence thereunto Therefore he opposeth faith works denieth that to faith which he ascribed unto works though by consequence he put hereby a difference betwixt a dead faith a working faith Yet his principale Thesis vers 14. is that by works not by a bare profession of the truth we come to Salvation And the enquirie prosecuted is whether we have that faith that will indeed prove saving this can only be evidenced by works as his whole following discourse evinceth especially when he saith vers 18. shew me thy faith without thy works I will shew my faith by my works And vers 20. when he saith faith without works is dead vers 26. that it is as dead as a body is without breath or Spirit And this he fully confirmeth by the following instances of Abraham Rahab From what is said it is apparent how little ground there is to think that there is any real appearance of contradiction betwixt Paul James how needless it is in order to a reconciliation to say with Papists that Paul speaketh of a first justification Iames of a second or with others that Paul speaketh of justification as begun Iames of justification as continued or with Socinians that Paul denieth justification by the works of the Law James affirmeth justification by the works of the Gospel CHAP. VIII No countenance given to Justification by Works from Jam. 2 14. c. BEcause all who ascribe our justification in one sense or other all are not agreed in one the same sense unto our works seek countenance unto the same from these words of James Chapt. 2 14 forward notwithstanding that what was said concerning this passage in the fore going Chapter might be sufficient to discover the groundlesness of any such pretence where it was showen that the whole face of this place looked towards another airth and had not the least aspect unto any such conclusion Yet for a fuller Vindication of this place from this too ordinarie abuse perversion we shall examine every part thereof see what ground there is for any to alleige the same for confirmation of their particular opinions The Papists generally say that this place speaketh
he knew before hand that these would not performe the new Condition how can he then be supposed to die for them not withstanding Thus we see what difference is among men that hold Universal Redemption about the Proper Immediat End Aime of the purpose of God in sending Christ to die and of Christ in comeing to died and how for the most part it cometh all to little or nothing for it was saith Arminius That God might save sinners what way it pleased Him his Iustice which stood in the way being satisfied or as Corvinus That God might will to save sinners That Christ intended by his death to make such satisfaction to justice as that he might obtainâ— to himself power of saving upon what Condition the Father pleased And thus Christ is said to have obtained Reconciliation Redemption to all not that they should actually be partakers thereof but that God his justice now being satisfied might prescribe a Condition which when they had performed he might would actually make them partakers thereof Some say that all men are put into a new Covenant in which Adam was a common person as well as in the old by vertue whereof none shall be damned that do not sin actually against the Condition fall thereby from that new state whereunto they are borne And this opinion differeth not much from that of Iacobus Andreae at the conference at Mompelgard which afterward Huberus maintained as Kimedoncius sheweth in his refutation of the same which was this in short That Christ suffered died for all none excepted Effectually and obtained for all a Reconciliation without any respect to Faith or Unbeleefe so that all who receive this Reconciliation continue in it shall be saved but as to those who refuse it by unbeleef it is made null and they perish Others say That Christ by his satisfaction removed Original sin in all so that all Infants dying in infancy are undoubtedly saved Others that he died for all sinnes alike but conditionally Some say that after the price was payed it was absolutely undetermined what condition should be prescribed so as God might have re-established the Covenant of works Others that the procuring of a new way was part of the fruit of Christ's death As for this condition some say that man can performe it with the help of such meanes as God affordeth to all and thus establish the Diana of Freewill But others assert the necessity of grace flowing from election hereunto and so destroy Universal Redemption which yet they assert So that some say Christ died for all Conditionally if they beleeve making the Act the cause of its own object for Faith with them is a beleeving that Christ died for them Some say that he died for all Absolutely Yet so as they partake not of the benefire until they performe the Condition which was to be prescribed and thus they affirme that Christ did no more sustaine the persons of the Elect than of the Reprobat but of all alike If we enquire therefore what was the Immediat Result Product of the death of Christ they agree not to tell us whether it was a Power or a Will or a Right to God to save any he pleased However all the Arminians Camero with them agree in this That Christ did not purchase faith for any and that as to all say some or as to the most part say others Christ hath only procured a Possibility of Salvation And what is this Possibility Some call it an Exemption from that necessity of perishing under which they came by the violation of the former Covenant if a satisfaction had not interveened and by this Exemption they say it cometh to passe that Christ if he will justice being now satisfied may bring all to life And hereby also say they all may be saved if they will But what is this else then a meer Possibility What efficacy hath it seing notwithstanding thereof all may perish againe They say it is really Efficacious as to this Possibility which was not before Justice was satisfied But yet notwithstanding of this Efficacious Possibility it might come to passe that not one should have been saved for how can salvation be possible without faith So that if faith be not hereby purchased it would seem that Salvation is not possible And further it doth hereby appear that all which is procured is but some power to God to Christ But what is mans advantage They say That a way to life is opened unto man that so he may now come to God by Faith Repentance But how can he come who hath no power to Beleeve or Repent without grace Or is it in corrupt mans power to Beleeve or Repent What that truth is which we stand for is plainly fully enough set downe in several places of Our Confession of Faith as Chap. 3. § 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory so hath he by the Eternal and most free purpose of his Will fore ordained all the meanes thereunto Wherefore they who are Elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season are Justified Adopted Sanctified Keeped by his power through faith unto salvation Neither are other Redeemed by Christ effectually Called Iustified Adopted Sanctified Saved but the Elect only So Chap. 8. § 1. It pleased God in his eternal purpose to chose ordaine the Lord Iesus his only begotten Son so be the mediator between God man â—Unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time Redeemed Called Iustified Sanctified Glorified And ibid. § 5. The Lord Iesus by his perfect obedience sacrifice of himself which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God hath fully satisfied the Iustice of his Father purchased not only Reconciliation but an Everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto him So ibid. § last To all those for whom Christ hath purchased Redemption he doth certanely and effectually apply communicate the same making intercession for them revealing unto them in by the word the mysteries of salvation effectually perswading them by his Spirit to beleeve obey and governing their hearts by his word Spirit overcoming all their enemies by his Almighty power wisdom in such manner wayes as are most cansonant to his wonderful unsearchable dispensations Our judgment is this in short That Christ according to the good pleasure of his Father laid downe his life a Ransome for the Elect only who were given to him to save from Wrath and Destruction and by that price purchased Salvation all the Meanes necessary thereunto for them only to whom in due time after the method which he thinketh best doth effectually apply the same unto them actually save them Though grounds sufficient considering the
for his Right to Impunity and life it is no Righteousness beside I hope he will not say that that is given before justification of a Righteousness preceeding in order of Nature at least justification we are speaking enquireing after it What he answereth to this Objection in the first place because it only concerneth Papistes their Misapprehensions in the matter I passe But 2. he saith If any of them do as you say no wonder if they you contend If one say we are Innocent or sinless in reality the other we are so by Imputation when we are so no way at all but sinners really so reputed Ans. If by Innocent or sinless he mean such as never sinned never Man Protestant or Papist dreamed of such a thing If by these termes he meane such are now not guilty legally of the charge brought in against them this we acknowledge and must acknowledge or we know not how any shall ever be justified for God will not pronounce sinners as such really and legally to be righteous His judgment being according to truth therefore because we have no righteousness within us whereupon we can be pronounced not guilty we must have a Righteousness imputed to us even the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But Mr. Baxter it seemeth will not understand what this legal non-guiltiness is yet in matters among men it is very clear and manifest If Paul had fully Satisfied according as he undertook Philemon for the wrongs and injuries done him by Onesimus If Onesimus had been convented before a judge for these same crimes and Injuries had produced the Satisfaction made by his Surety Paul accepted by the creditor Philemon would not the judge have had ground in Law equity to pronounce Onesimus not guilty therefore not to be punished according as was libelled against him And yet though Onesimus had been pronounced Innocent that is not-guilty as to Crimes and Injuries alleiged against him in this case in a legal sense it would not follow that he had never committed these wrongs nor had the evincing of that been necessary to his Absolution and justification His Legal Innocency or Righteousness by vertue of the Satisfaction made by his Surety now judicially accounted reputed his being Sufficient These things are plaine to such as will but open their eyes but all the world cannot make them plaine to such as will understand nothing but what is cast into Aristotelian Metaphysical Mould Were it not lost laboure for any to enquire what is the Matter Forme of this legal Righteousness of Onesimus Whereof is it constitute How came Paul's righteousness to be his and so one accident to go from subject to subject whether was Paul's satisfaction the Efficient or Constitutive cause of Onesimus his Innocency or non-guiltiness and the like The 5. Object is How can God accept him as just who is really reputedly a sinner This dishonoureth His Holiness and Justice To this he saith Not so cannot God pardon sin upon a valuable Merite Satisfaction of a Mediator though He judge us not perfect now accept us not as such Yet 1. Now he judgeth us holy 2. And the members of a perfect Saviour 3. And will make us perfect and spotless and then so judge us having washed us from our sins in the bloud of the Lamb. Ans. All this giveth no satisfaction to the objection for the objection speaketh of acceptance in Justification consequently of that acceptation that preceedeth Sanctification 2. It is true God can doth pardon sins but meer pardon of sins is not justification the person must be accepted as righteous and yet by Mr. Baxter's way the man hath no righteousness to ground such a judgment and acceptation and God's judgment being alwayes according to truth the justified man must be righteous that he may be accounted accepted as Righteous in Justification Therefore either Mr. Baxter must grant that he is Righteous through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ or that he is Righteous inherently by his faith or by his fulfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant for there is not a third or that he is prononnced Righteous without a Righteousness The 6. object Thus you make the Reatus culpae not pardoned at all but only the Reatus poenae To this he saith 1. If by Reatus culprae be meaned the Relation of a sinner as he is revera peccator so to be reus is to be revera ipse qui peccavit then we must consider what you meane by Pardon for if you mean the nullifying of such a guilt or Reality it is impossible because necessitate existentiae he that hath once sinned will be still the person that sinned while he is a person the relation of one that sinned will cleave to him It will eternally be a true proposition Peter Paul did sin But if by pardon you mean the pardoning of all the penalty which for that sin is due damni vel sensus so it is pardoned this is indeed the Reatus poenae not only the penalty but the dueness of that penalty or the obligation to it is remitted and nullified Ans. The nullifying of the Reatus culpa physically or metaphysically is indeed Impossible for it will be alwayes true that such such persons did sinne but this Reatus culpae may and must be nullified legally and juridically otherwise never shall man be justified for in justification this Reatus culpae is declared to be taken away for the man is declared non reus accepted as not-guilty or Righteous not physically or Metaphyâ—ically but legally a man must be legally Righteous before he be justified according to equity he cannot be legally Righteous as long as the Reatus culpae doth legally remaine for a man legally guilty is not legally Righteous Now Mr. Baxter must yeeld to this or he shall destroy his own ground and take away all pardon as well as justification for as it will be eternally true that Peter Paul did sinne so were rei culpae so it will be eternally true that punishment was due unto them that is they were rei poenae therefore if because it will be eternally true that Peter Paul sinned therefore the Reatus culpae cannot be annulled so because it will be eternally true that Peter Paul were obnoxious liable to punishment therefore also the Reatus poenae cannot be annulled But the truth lyeth here that though neither the Reatus culpae nor poenae can be annulled physically or metaphysically that is so taken away as if they never had been yet both are taken away legally juridically and a pardoned man is legally and juridically non puniendus thus the Reatus poenae is taken away and a justified man is legally and juridically not-guilty of the offence charged against him thus the Reatus culpae is taken away As it is inconsistent with pardon to say that
11. opened up Pag. 1 CHAP. II. Naturally we are inclined to cry up Self in Iustification 12 CHAP. III. The Doctrine of Iustification should be kept pure with all diligence and what dangerous expressioâ—s should be shunned 15 CHAP. IV. Iustification is so contrived in the Gospel as man may be abased and have no ground of boasting 22 CHAP. V. In Iustification there is a state of Life 25 CHAP. VI. What mysteries are in Iustification 34 CHAP. VII Justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ cleared out of the Old Testament the passages vindicated from the exceptions of JOHN GOODWINE 57 CHAP. VIII Some passages out of the New Test. confirming the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness vindicated from the exceptions of JOHN GOODWINE 66 CHAP. IX Othen passages of the New Test briefly mentioned which plead for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 94 CHAP. X. Some Arguments for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. JOHN GOODWINE 98 CHAP. XI Objections taken out of Scripture by Mr. GOODWINE against the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Iustification Answered 118 CHAP. XII Some other Objections proposed by JOHN GOODWINE examined 147 CHAP. XIII Mr. BAXTER's opinion concerning Imputation examined 182 CHAP. XIV How Christ is our Suretie what Mr. BAXTER saith as to this examined 202 CHAP. XV. Mr. BAXTER's Answers to some of our Arguments for Imputation examined 209 CHAP. XVI Mr. BAXTER's further opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness examined 226 CHAP. XVII Reasons enforcing the practice of the Truth vindicated 247 CHAP. XVIII Some of the Duties of such as live the life of Iustification proposed 254 CHAP. XIX Of the life of Iustification as to its continuance 259 CHAP. XX. The State of Iustification remaineth notwithstanding after-sins punishments 273 CHAP. XXI Iustification is by Faith what this Faith is and how it is wrought 280 CHAP. XXII Our act of Faith is not imputed to us as a Righteousness 296 CHAP. XXIII Some Argum against the Imput of Faith vindicated from the exceptions of I. G. 303 CHAP. XXIV The Imputation of Faith it self is not proved from Rom. IV. 5. 314 CHAP. XXV Faith is not our Gospel-Righteousness 327 CHAP. XXVI Christ did not procure by his death the New Covenant or the terms thereof 335 CHAP. XXVII How Faith is may be called a Condition of the New Cov. of Iustification how not 339 CHAP. XXVIII How Faith is and may be called an Instrument 346 CHAP. XXIX What interest Repentance hath in our Iustification that it is no Condition of the same 357 CHAP. XXX Whether Love purpose of New Obedience or Perseverance be Conditions of Iustification 374 CHAP. XXXI Gospel-Obedience is not the Condition of Iustification 383 CHAP. XXXII Of the Object of Iustifying Faith 391 CHAP. XXXIII The Righteousness of Christ is the special Object of Faith in Iustification 398 CHAP. XXXIV Faith in Iustification respecteth not in a special manner Christ as a King but as a Priest 403 CHAP. XXXV Faith is the only Condition on our part of the continuance of Iustification 414 CHAP. XXXVI Of the Interest of Repentance in the pardon of after-sins 426 The Contents of the Appendix CHAP. I. IMputation both of Christ's Active Passive obedience necessarie 431 CHAP. II. Christ underwent the Curse of the Law 442 CHAP. III. We must not lean to any Righteousness within us whereby to be justifyed 452 CHAP. IV. The Law by the works whereof Paul denyeth that we are justifyed is not the Iewish Law 465 CHAP. V. Works excluded in Iustification are not only works done before Faith nor perfect works required in the Law of Innocency nor outward works only 473 CHAP. VI. By works which Paul excludeth is not meant the merit of Works 481 CHAP. VII Iames 2. 14. cleared vindicated 486 CHAP. VIII No countenance given to Justification by works from Iam. 2. 14 c. 497 CHAP. IX John 〈◊〉 Arguments against the Imputation of Christ's a Active Obedience examined with a View of Wendeâ—â—n's 〈◊〉 against it 506 CHAP. X. The Fathers give Countenance to the Doctrine of Imputation some Papists approve it 518 Arguments against Universal Redemption 526 ERRATA PAg. 1. l. 13. for woule read would p. 2. l. 17. r. Essaies p. 3. l. 3. r. Essentials p. 4. l. 4. r. safeguarded l. 7. r. to be attacqued l. 39. r. Notions p. 7. l. 36. r. held forth l. 41. r. out p. 8. l. 18. r. just p. 9. l. 11. r. comfort p. 12. l. 5. r. twig p. 18. l. 31. r. for in thy sight p. 20. l. peâ—ult r. laying p. 21. l. 6. r. expect p. 24. l. 38. r. oftentimes p. 28. l. 17. for this r. his p. 31. l. 34. for faisty r. feasting p. 33. l. 2. for possion r. possession l. 9. r. standeth p. 37 l. 2. r. transgressor l. 17. r. finned l. ult r. bare p. 38. l. 9. r. notwithstanding p. 42. l. 8. r. length l. 31. r. derision p. 46. l. 6. r. layeth down l. 18. for of r. if l. 32. r. Justice l. 37. r. appeareth l. 38. r people p. 57. l. 10. r. toile l. 11. r. wages p. 58 l. 23. r. the Nature and Native work p. 59. l. 30. r. made over unto p. 60. l. 42. r. than what p. 69. l. 24. r. Christ's p. 70. l. 33 r. than the Righteousness p. 75. l. ulâ— r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 76. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 81. l. 26. r. prosecution p. 82. lin 3. à fine r. Christ. p. 84. l. 20. r. Spirit of the Lord. l. penult r. believers l. 85. l. 9. r. of the Moral p. 90. l. 12. r. and if we be made p. 91. l. 6. r. all the iniquities l. 8. r. head of the goat p. 92. l. 6. r these words p. 94. l. 22. dele of p. 95. l. 1. 8. r. circumcision p. 97. l. â— r. suteablenesse p. 104. l. 36. r. Nor is it p. 134. l. 25. r. as faith it self p. 159. l. 30. r. evacuateth p. 187. l. 24. r. immediate imputation of p. 434. l. 14. r. chargeable p. 476. l. 37. r. words p. 501. l. 3. à fine r. drawn ibid. r. countenance p. 512. l. 8 r. repetition p. 514. l. 24. for hoas r. how p. 521. l. 12. r. Frater meus p. 533. l. 22. r. If not then he was not l. 24. r. If he knew then he knew that they would l. 28 dele of l. 32. r. shall he not p. 537. l. 23. r. not one man l. 35. r. Priests p. 538. l. 22 23. r. but have all their sins charged upon their own score p. 539 l. 35. r. trespasses l. 36. r. doubtlesse p. 541. l. 10. r. fundamentally l. 14. 16. r. actual p. 551. l. 17. r. of all these l. penult for is r. as