to be Ans. Christ could not be made a Sacrific for sin till He had the guilt of sin laid upon Him by Imputation as the Sacrifices of old had typically His being reputed such handled as such by man is of no consideration here And by God He could not be used as a sinner or as sinners are deserve to be unless our sins had been first caused to meet upon Him imputed to Him to the end He might properly be said to Suffer become a Sacrifice for sin We say with him n. 23. that God did not suppose or repute Christ to have committed all or any of the sins which we all committed Nor to have had all the wickedness in His Nature which was in ours nor to have deserved what we did deserve nor did in this proper sense impute our sins to Christ. For indeed this had not been in a prope sense to impute our sins to Him but plainly to confound His Physical person with ours to speak thus I should account to be horrid blasphemy Yet it may be must be said that Christ being made sin for us made to suffer for sin in the room of sinners had their sins laid upon Him so was a sinner not Inherently but legally by Imputation that is had the guilt of our sins in order to punishment imputed to Him He put to suffer for that guilt or because a sinner by Imputation And when the Scripture saith that God made Christ sin for us 2 Cor. 5 21. Laid on Him the iniquity of us all Esai 55 6. It is as emphatick to me more as to say God did impute our sin to Christ which he some-way excepteth against n. 23. pag. 57. He addeth n. 26. pag. 58. Though Christ suffered in our stead and in a large sence to certaine uses and in some respects as the Representer or in the persons of Sinners yet did He not so far represent their persons in His habitual Holiness and actual obedience no not in the obedience of His Suffering as He did in the Suffering it self He obeyed not in the person of a sinner much less of millions of sinners which were to say in the person of sinners he never sinned He suffered to save us from suffering but He obeyed not to save us from obeying but to bring us to obedience yet His perfection of obedience had this end that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification and Salvation Ans. Seing Christ was appointed Mediator Sponsor to take on mans debt and come in his Law-place what reason can be given why He should not as well be said to represent them in the paying of the one part of that debt as in the paying of the other We were under the Law and obliged to performe perfect obedience in order to the obtaining of the reward promised and because of sin we were under the Curse Now when the Surety come to pay our whole debt He did as much and as well represent us in paying of and in performing obedience as in Suffering And why may we not say that He obeyed in the juridical and Law person of a sinner as well as that He suffered Though I should not use such improper and unusual expressions as Mr. Baxter here doth yet I must tell him That Christ's obeying in the person of a sinner saith no more than that He being the person representing sinners His obeying was and is repute in Law-sense their obeying He Suffered it is true to save us from suffering of the Curse of the Law But Mr. Baxter will not say that He suffered to save us from all Suffering He obeyed it is true to bring us to obedience as He died also for that end that we might haue the Sanctifying Spirit bestowed upon us yet notwithstanding He obeyed to save us from obeying viz. after that manner that we were obliged to obey under the old Covenant that is to obey perfectly or never enjoy the crown and to obey for that end that we might enjoy the crown as the legal reward of and due debt for our labour And seing Mr. Baxter granteth in the following words that Christ's perfect obedience had this end that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification why may he not say that to certaine uses and in some respects Christ obeyed to save us from obeying Or why will he not say that He obeyed for us that we who could not obey of our selves might be repute to have obeyed perfectly in Him This is all we desire He saith next n. 27. It was not we our selves who did perfectly obey or were perfectly holy or suffered for sin in the person of Christ or by Him nor did me naturally or morally merite our own Salvation by obeying in Christ nor did we satisfie God's justice for our sins nor purchase pardon or Salvation to ourselves by our suffering in and by Christ. Ans. However Christ doing all this for us as our Sponsor and Surety we are so taken-in in a Law-sense that the same is imputed unto us and we enjoy the fruits thereof pardon and Salvation no less than if we had done and suffered all in our own physical persons As to what he saith n. 29 30. it is nothing to the purpose and therefore I shall not set down his words for we are not here speaking of Relations and Accidents physically or metaphysicall rather considered which cannot pass from one Subject to another nor do we speak of Christ while speaking of the Imputation of His Righteousness physically considered but politically legally as a Sponsor and Surety some way representing us I assent to him that the meaning of this Imputation is not That we ourselves in person truely had the habites which Christ had and did all that Christ did and suffered all that he suffered as by an Instrument or legal Representer of our persons in all this meaning that we in our physical persons should have done all this by Him as our physical Instrument But why He addeth here or legal Representer unless he meane thereby that which elsewhere he hath expressed to be as our delegat or Servant I know not And however it seemeth not to me appositely here annexed if ingenuous and plaine dealing be designed But there is another sense in which he will yeeld to Imputation he thinks there cannot be a third Let us hear what this other sense is That Christ's Satisfaction saith he Righteousness and the Habites Acts Sufferings in which it lay are imputed to us made ours not rigidly in the very thing it self but in the effects and benefites Ans. But if he shall yeeld to no other Imputation than this he shall grant no Imputation for that Imputation as to effects is no Imputation at all unless the meritorious cause be imputed in order to the receiving of these Effects there is nothing imputed for they Effects are never said to be imputed There
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
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
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
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.
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
posterity after him into the same condemnation And how could they be punished for that same guilt if it was not some way theirs by the just righteous Judge Governour of the world The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great hainous sins of their progenitors than for their lesser sinnes if they have no interest in these sinnes nor partake of the guilt thereof But as to Original sin the Scripture giveth the Sin as the ground of the punishment maketh the one to reach all as well as the other telling us Rom. 5 12. that by one Man sin â—ntered in to the world death by sin so death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned See vers 19. 2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person who could not beat that fulness of punishment which God might require for that great sin we cannot think that God should sit down with loss Ans. This is his second pillar But neither is it sufficient for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin but when the posterity is punished for that sin also that sin must be theirs Though for great crimes as Treason the like the Posterity suffeâ—eth when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin nor can be said to be so as we are punished for Original sin because it is ours we sinned in Adam 3. His 3d. maine pillar is the peculir near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person for then they were in it as it were a part or some what of it so that Adam was us all we were all that one Adam as Augustine speaketh the whole generation of mankind is but Adam or Adam's person expounded at large Ans. This is sufficient for us for it will hold forth the Covenant relation wherein Adam stood as representing all his posterity so they were as well in him a part of him in his sin as in his punishment which is all we desire for hence it appeareth that all sinned in that one Adam as well as they were all punished in him Then he tels us that all these three are jointly intimat Râ—â— 5 12. Where first there is the demerito Imported when death is said to enter the scantiness of Adam's person when it is said to have passed upon all men the relation of his posterity to him in that all are said to have sinned in him Ans. But the maine thing which he denieth is there also imported when it is said that all men sinned in him or became guilty of his sin for thereby it is manifest that only they had an interest in his person but that they had such an Interest in relation to his person as so stated as standing in a Covenant-relation to God that they sinned in him or became guilty of his sin therefore suffered with him the demerite thereof Whence it is evident howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207. That the Imputation of Adam's sin or of his sinful Act as sinful or as it was a sin not of the act as such for that himself faith once againe was directly efficiently from God himself therefore was good is the ground or cause of punishment that cometh on his posterity But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case it is of every mans own sin in Adam for is was Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him It is not said that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam Ans. If he wil stand to this we need not contend with him about the word Impute this expression of Scripture comprehending plainely holding forth all that we would say And if he will grant as much in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as is here said of Adam who was the type of him that was to come he must I judge retract all that he hath said against the same What followeth in that Chapter being but founded upon what is already mentioned examined needeth not here againe be repeated or expressed considered Thus we have taken notice of all which this voluminous Adversary hath said upon this matter both against the Truth for his own Errour no doubt he hath scraped together all that he could finde giving any seeming contribution unto the Notion which he hugged hath laboured after his usual manner to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence with an affected pedantrie of language supplying with bombast expressions the want of reality of truth solidity of reasoning What remaineth in that book concerning the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined when we come to the second part of our Text to speak of the matter of justification And as for other things we may take notice of them elsewhere CHAP. XIII M. Baxter's opinion Concerning Imputation examined THere being so frequent mention made in Scripture of Imputation of Righteousness or of Righteousness Imputed of Christ's being our Righteousness or of our being Righteousness or Righteous in Him the like many that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ maintained by the orthodox must yet yeeld to it in some sense or other at least in such a sense as may in their apprehensions not cross their other Hypotheses Dogmes Yea sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense at least in words which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary Schlightingius in defence of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant That Christ's Righteousness may be called accounted ours in so far as it redoundeth to our good righteousness is the cause of our justification And Bellarmin will also say de just lib. 2. cap. 10. That Christ is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the father for us so giveth communicateth that Satisfaction to us when He justifieth us that it may be said to be our Satisfaction Righteousness Mr. Baxter though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ yet will not professe himself an Enemie to all Imputation but on the contrary saith he owneth it in a right sense And it is true men have their own liberty in expressing their sense meaning of Truths where there seemeth to be some considerable difference as to words expressions yet there may be little or none upon the matter And it is not good I confess to make real differences of these that are but verbal nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions as to exaggerat the expressions of others whose meaning may be good because not complying with our own in all points Let us
that there is a neer and closs Union betwixt Christ and Beleevers so as they to speak so become one person in Law for a Sponsor as such standeth engaged with and for the debtor as if they were both but one for the Surety maketh himself the debtor the Creditor may pursue either of them for payment and when payment is made by the one both are free of the obligation so that if the Surety pay the debt the creditor cannot reach the Principal debtor These things are clear and universally known and received And hereby we see how Christ being a Surety and Beleevers become one person in Law-sense so that as He did voluntarily engage for them and put Himself in their Law place so His payment and Satisfaction is accounted theirs and justice cannot reach them for that which He as their Surety hath paid But Mr. Baxter in his book ag Doct. Tully pag. 108. in answere to the first objection which he there moveth tels us That when Christ is thus called the fidejussor of a better Covenant it seemeth plaine that it is God's Covenant as such and so God's sponsor that is meant And for this he citeth Grotius D. Hammond in their Annot. Ans. This is the very same answere that Socinians give with whom both Grotius Hammand do too well agree and it is not much for Mr. Baxter's honour nor for the credite of his cause that he will forsake all the Orthodox and embrace rather the Socinians such as joine with them than abandon what he thinketh contributive to his Hypothesis Whether Christ was at all a Surety upon God's part or not needeth not here be discussed some Orthodox being of the judgment that He was as we see in Mr. Gillespie's late Piece Chap. 21. others thinking that He was not as may be seen in D. Owen's book of the Doctrine of justification by faith It is Sufficient against Mr. Baxter the Socinians to prove that He was a Surety and Sponsor for man to God this is aboundantly made good by what both these forementioned Authors have said in the books mentioned that more needeth not be added But what doth Mr. Baxter mean by God's Covenant He can meane nothing here but God's part of the Covenant so make Christ only a Surety for that part But what ground is there for this in the Text or context The Apostle is proving that Christ's Priesthood which respecteth not God towards man but man towards God for every Priest is ordained for men in things to God that he may offer both gifts and Sacrifices for sin Hob. 5 1. is more excellent than the levitica He being made a Priest by oath a Surety of a better Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore his suretiship His Priesthood must both respectmen the things of men to God or the one should not be a fit Medium to prove the other nor should there be any Coherence in the words Vnless with the Socinians we should pervert the Nature of Christ's Priestly office make it to be for God in things pertaining to Men contrary to Heb. 5 1. and all the use of Priests from the beginning as they do when they make Christ's Priesthood to consist in His making effectual to us the promises of God or in his effectual Communicating to us the good things promised to us of God from which Mr. Lawson doth not much differ when he saith as Mr. Baxter citeth his words That a Priest doth undertake to procure from God both the confirmation and performence of the Promises to the people to that end mediats between both He saith next That Calvin seemeth to Intimate that which he thinketh is the truth viz. that Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God's Covenant from the Sacerdotal appropinquation mentioned vers 19. But no such thing appeareth in Calvin's Comment And that appropinquation mentioned vers 19. is the people their privilege now under the New Testam He tels us further that Marlorat and others by Sponsor mean a Mediator And it is true that the Sponsor here is a Mediator But that the word Sponsor here shall denote nothing else than what the word Mediator signifieth I shall not readily beleeve without clearer grounds than any I see yet adduced for I cannot think that the Apostle would make use of a word which no where else he useth which is no where to be found in the N. Test. but here in a sense that it is never found to have neither in Scripture nor in the common use of men And how-ever Yet it must be granted that He is such a Mediator as is a Priest so must offer Sacrifices to God for men therefore must as well be a Mediator and Sponser on mans part as on God's He saith that Pareus on the place calleth Christ a Sponsor of the Covenant quia novum foedus sanguine morte sua obsignavit But for answer he may read the same author on Chap. 8 1. saying est Sponsor foeder is spondens Deo populi nomine fidem obedientiam non verbis modo sed victimis And thus he distinguisheth a Sponsor from a Mediator Mr. Baxter granteth pag. 109. that a Mediator is not of one but doth some what on the behalf of both parties but addeth That as Mediator He is Hath Doth Suffereth Meriteth Satisfieth so as the Representer or Person of such a Beleever as that every such person is supposed in Law to have Been Done Suffered Merited thus in and by the Mediator is neither signified by this or any other Text. Ans. Though this cannot be said of a Mediator who is only a Mediator strickly so taken no more yet it may be said of him who not only is a Mediator but also a Sponsor and Surety as we have several times explained it He addeth 2. They that distinguish of a Natural Political Person do but darken the case by an ill expressed distinction which indeed is not of two sorts of persons but between Reality Acceptation taking person properly for a Natural person It is one thing to be such a person and another thingh to have the Act Passion Merite c. accepted for that other person And this latter signifieth either 1. That it was done by the other person raediatly as being a chiefe cause acting by his Instrument 2. Or that it was done for that other Person by another the first is our denied sence the second our affirmed sence Ans. And I think such is the discordance of Mens apprehensions that his explication darkeneth what is clear enough by the distinction given His Reality Acceptation is in our case as darkning a distinction as the others if not more and is against the Common sense of the Law the plaine Common sense and understanding of men when speaking of Law-matters Who doth not understand how the Suretys payment is really in the sense of the Law the payment
Law of Innocency which we dishonoured broke by sin is perfectly fulfilled honoured by Him as a Mediator to repaire the injurie done by our breaking it Ans. The Law which the Devils dishonoured broke by sin was perfectly honoured fulfilled by the Angels who stood is therefore their Righteousness to be called the devils But he will say They obeyed not as Mediator True But then the ground of Christ Righteousness becomning ours must be some other thing than His honouring that Law by fulfilling it which we dishonoured by breaking But he saith Christ repaired the injurie done by our breaking it True yet 〈◊〉 there be no more that will not make His Righteousness ours because as is obvious ere this be we must have an Interest therein this obedience must be performed by Him a our Mediator Surety undertaking Satisfying the demands of the Law for us in our stead 2. In that saith he He suffered to satisfie justice for our sin Ans. Neither is suffering as such Righteousness Nor could He satisfie justice for our sin in by suffering if He had not done it in our stead as one Person with us in Law If Titius steal from Sempronius a 1000. Pound Maevius givius Sempronius a 1000. Pound upon some distinct account Sempronius receiveth no satisfaction for what Titius stole from him but if he come give it for Titius he be satisfied there-with then there is a Law Union oneness betwixt Titius Maevius whereby the Satisfaction given by Maevius becometh the satisfaction of Titius 3. He saith in that hereby He hath merited of God the Father all that Righteousness which we are truely the Subjects of whether it be Relative or qualitative or Active that is our right to Christ in union to the Spirit to Impunity to glory 2. the grace of the Spirit by which we are made holy fulfill the conditions of the Law of grace we are the Subjects of these he is the Meriter the Meritorius Cause of out life is well called our Righteousness by many the material Cause as our own perfect obedience would have been because it is the matter of that merite Ans. That Righteousness which he saith here Christ hath merited is not that Righteousness unto justification of life as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5 18. And which we have by the Obedience of Christ made ours by Imputation vers 19. whereof we are here speaking in respect of which Christ is said to be our Righteousness 2. Our right to Christ is not our Righteousness in order to justification nor is our Right to Impunity Glory that Righteousness but a consequent thereof 3. In respect of the Graces of the Spirit which follow justification do not preceed it Christ is called our Sanctification Mr. Baxter knoweth there is a difference betwixt Righteousness Holiness 4. The Meritorius Cause of our life is well called our Righteousness when it is Imputed to us put upon our score as the Ground of our justification Absolution upon this account only is it by many called the Material Cause 4. And also saith he Christ's jntercession with the Father still procureth all this as the fruit of His Merites Ans. Of Christ's procuring our holiness we make no Doubt but that upon this account He is called our Righteousness is denied for this is not His Obedience Righteousness whereby we become Righteous unto justification of life 5. And we are related saith he as His members though not parts of His person as such to Him that thus merited for us Ans. if we be related to Him as members in order to our partaking of His Righteousness Meritâ—s we must be parts of His legal Persons though not of His Physical Personâ— for by Members here I suppose he meaneth Members of His Mystical body or members of His Ransomed Redeemed body And head Members here make one Political body become one Political Person or one in Law-sense 6. And saith he we have the Spirit from Him as our Head Ans This is but what what was said before in the 3. place And this Spirit is given for holiness but Christ is our Righteousness as well as our Sanctification it is of His being Righteousness that we are speaking 7. And he is our Advocat saith he will justifie us as our judge Ans. His being our Advocat is the same with His Intercession spoken of in the 4. place 2. The Father will judge us justifie us by Him therefore God the Father shall be our Righteousness as well as Christ consequently shall have merited all for us by His blood Sufferings that in a more principal manner according to this Reason 8. And all this saith he is God's Righteousness designed for us thus far given us by Him Ans. But all this is not that Righteousness which God hath designed for us in through Christ in order to our justification nor that Righteousness by which we become formally Righteous in Law-sense thereupon are justified pronounced Righteous in the sight of God for this is Christ's Surety-Righteousness imputed to us none else can be it Lastly saith he And the Perfect justice holiness of God is thus glorified in us through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove that we justly owne all asserted by these Texts Ans. It remaineth to be cleared how the Perfect justice holiness of God can be said to be glorified in us through Christ if Christ's Righteousness Satisfaction be not imputed to us accounted ours Christ we be not looked upon as one Person in Law for all that is wrought in us is far from being answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God because of its Imperfection And because Mr. Baxter doth not grant the Imputing of Christ's Surety-righteousness which is only answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God unto us in all that he hath here said he cannot be said to owne all that is asserted by these Texts The 3. object is If Christ's Righteousness be ours then we are righteous by it as ours so God reputeth it but as it is But it is ours 1. by our Union with him 2. by his gift so consequently by God's Imputation To this he answereth 1. That he hath told before in what sense it is ours in what sense not Shortly here he giveth us his mind againe saying It is truely Imputed to us or reputed reckoned as ours but not in their sense that claim a strick Propriety in the same Numerical Habites Acts Sufferings Merites Satisfaction which was in Christ or done by Him as if they did become subjects of the same Accidents or as if they did by an Instrumental second cause But it is ours as being done by a Mediator in stead of what we should have done as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness
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
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
Righteousness by upon the account of which we might be justified Saith not the Apostle Rom. 4 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt inferring debt so merite from all works that we do whereby to patch up a Righteousness in order to Iustification He doth not distinguish betwixt works that are by way of merite other works but meaneth even such works as were performed by Abraham who was far from imagineing any merite is his works 3. And sure if any work be accounted meritorius in this case that must be so accounted which is made the whole of our Righteousness upon which we are justified is said to be the only Righteousness that is imputed to us for that end that we may be Justified Is not that beleeving made our Righteousness thereby declared to be no less meritorious than Adam's perfect Obedience would have been Argum. 3. That which maketh justification not to be of grace cannot stand with the truth of the Gospel But the imputation of Faith for Righteousness maketh Justification not to be of Grace He excepteth The Scripture still maketh a perfect consistency of free grace with the condition of saith Eph. 2 8. Rom. 3 24 25. Nay the work of beleeving is purposely required that the freeness of his grace might have place Rom. 4 16. How can a gift be conceived to be more freely given than when nothing more is required than that it be received now beleeving is nothing else but a receiving of that righteousness or justification which God giveth in with his Son Iesus Christ Iob. 1 12. Ans. Here are good words but nothing to loose the argument for Faith receiving a Righteousness or the gift of Righteousness or the Atonement or Christ his Righteousness is but the instrument as it were of the soul laying hold on in law presenting to speak so the fidejussorie-righteousness of the Surety Christ as the Righteousness upon the account of which for which alone he is to be justified But beleeving considered in it self as our work made to be our Righteousness all our Righteousness said to be imputed for our Righteousness is not considered as a receiving of a gift of Righteousness which is distinct from Justification howbeit he confound them but really is made a price in our hand wherewith to purchase the gift of Justification the reckoning of this work to us which is our work as our Righteousness in order to justification maketh Justification not of grace but of debt as the Apostle argueth Rom. 4 4. maketh our Justification to be of works if it be of works it is no more of grace as the Apostle asserteth Rom. 11 6. The consideration of Faith as the act of the soul receiving laying hold upon a Righteousness or on Christ his Righteousness establisheth the Imputation of Christs Righteousness but the Imputation of Faith properly taken doth quite extrude it these two are made incompatible by our adversaries the one is asserted that the other may be denied for which there were no necessity if Faith were considered in the Scripture sense as it ought to be that is an Instrument laying hold on bringing in a Righteousness from without even the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. So that this exception if it be ingenuous must overthrow the Position maintained Arg. 4. That which ministereth occasion to the flesh of boasting in it self is not consonant to the tenor of the Gospel But the imputation of Faith for Righteousness doth minister occasion to the flesh of boasting Therefore c. He excepteth Suppose the act of beleeving which is so imputed for righteousness be a mans own work yet it is so by the meer gift of God Ephes. 2 8. Phil. 1 29. 1 Cor. 2 12. 3 6. and this cuttech off all groud of boasting 1. Cor. 4 7. Ans. 1 Though there be no true ground of boasting of that which is freely given yet the flesh can take occasion therefrom to boast as the Pharisee did Luk. 18. when yet he acknowledged all to be gives for he thanked God for what he was not for what he did so acknowledged all to be given and all to be given freely 2 The Apostle saith expresly that boasting is not excluded by the Law of works Rom. 3 27. and yet all works are given are not absolutely of from our selves 3 Saith not the Apostle expresly Rom. 4 2. If Abraham were justified by works he hath to glory And yet I hope Abraham did acknowledge that all these works of his were of grace of God's free gift and not absolutly every way his own 4 The works required in the old Covenant of works were not absolutely Adam's own but were in some sense also given of God yet by that way of Justification there had been ground of boasting 5 Though now there should be no ground of boasting before God as neither would there have been ground of boasting before him by the way of works for the Apostle addeth Rom. 4 2. but not before God yet there is ground laid for boasting before men when our Beleeving is made our Righteousness upon the account of which we are justified pronunced righteous in order to Absolution from what was brought in against us 6 Therefore is the way of Justification now so contrived that man should have ground or coloure of ground of boasting even before men for all that Righteousness which is required unto Justification as that Righteousness upon the account of which they are to be justified and by which only they are to be declared pronunced Righteous is not in them but in another and imputed unto them it is the Righteousness of Christ made over unto them of God's free grace received by Faith which receiving hand is also given so that the Righteousness upon which all are justified is one the same is a Righteousness without them therefore the flesh hath no seeming occasion of boasting in this matter He excepteth 2. Suppose the act of beleeving were from a mans self yet there were no cause of boasting because that weight of glory is not given to faith for any worth in it but by the most free gracious good pleasure of God If a King for taking a Pin of a Mans sleeve should raise his house make him honourable in the State were it not a ridiculous thing for such a man to brag of the Pin of his sleeve c. Ans. 1 Can we think that those against whom the Apostle disputed in this matter did think that there was worth excellency in all their works to merite the exceeding great eternal weight of glory did Abraham think so And yet though we cannot say that he thought so Paul not withstanding denieth that he was justified by his works 2 If the act of Beleeving were from a Mans self made all that Righteousness which he
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
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
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
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
this that there is nothing in Scripture giving the least countenance hereunto even as to words or expressions 7. If Repentance have such an interest in Justification as Faith hath then this must either be true of Repentance as begun or as perfected I meane as to pâ—rts But of neither it can be true not of begun Repentance for questionless there are some beginnings of Repentance before Faith taking Repentance largly as it is here taken as the womans change of her minde from other Suitors is before her closeing a Marriage Covenant with this man then it would follow that a man were Justified before Faith which I suppose will not be said Not of compleeted Repentance for that followeth faith for thus it followeth godly sorrow 2. Cor. 7 10. and is expressed by that Carefulness Clearing of ourselves Indignation Fear Vehement desire Zeal Revenge mentioned 2. Cor. 7 11. all which must follow Faith And repenting Ephraim Ier. 31 19. said after I was turned I repented after I was instructed I smote upon my thigh I was ashamed yea even confounded c. This being instructed being turned includeth Faith the rest that followed upon it are expressions of Repentance and hence it would follow if only compleeted Repentance be that Repentance that hath the Interest in justification that Faith hath a man cannot be said to be justified upon his beleeving no not untill Repentance be brought to this Perfection And then Faith cannot be the consenting act whereupon the bargane is closed 8. Repentance can bring nothing in that can stay or prove a support unto an awakened soul pursued with the sense of wrath for the breach of the Law nor can it present any thing unto God as a ground whereupon to be delivered from guilt wrath as Faith can do doth by laying hold on Christ his Righteousness an only sufficient ground whereupon the poor soul can have hope and with confidence can expect Absolution Therefore it cannot have the same interest in justification The antecedent is clear undeniable the Consequence is also manifest because this interest in the matter of justification must be estimate according to the ground of Hope that is yeelded thereby unto the poor vexed tossed soul the ground of Confidence that is had thereby of Acceptance of God 9. To say that Repentance hath the same interest in justification that Faith hath will prove I judge dangerous doctrine to many poor wakened sinners prove a meane to keep them off the Rock of ages and at least a meane to hinder or retard their motion Christ-ward in order to Peace Reconciliation with God for experience teacheth such as deale with wakened Consciences that the most of their work oft times is to keep them from resting on someting within themselves in order to Peace and particularly from relying resting upon some sort of Griefe Sorrow or Repentance which they conceive to be in themselves to bâ—ing them unto a cleanly resting upon Christ his Righteousness forsaking all other things And when now they hear that Repentance hath the same interest in justification that Faith hath how will they be fortified in their Resolutions so that all the labour paines of Ministers or other Christians may prove much fruitless unless the Lord come in a wonderful manner many others may perish in their presumptuous thoughts founded on their inward Sorrow Repentance as they supposed because they would never go out of themselves to leane to Christ his Righteousness It is true These of the contrary minde presse not Repentance alone but Faith Repentance together Yet by their way I finde not the right Gospel-exercise of Faith-pressed that is faith bringing in an imputed Righteousness or laying hold on Christ for Righteousness refuging the Soul in Him resting upon that as the only absolutly surest ground of Confident appearing before God and of expecting Pardon Peace but only such or such an act of faith pressed as being now under the New Covenant in the same place that Perfect Obedience had in the Old whereby as the Old Covenant is but renewed so the wakened or alarmed sinner is but taught to look after lean to something within himself as his immediat Righteousness upon which he must be justified 10. If the Surety-Righteousness of Christ imputed by God received by Faith be only that Righteousness upon the account of which the poor sinner is to be accepted of God as Righteous to be absolved from the Curse of the Law As we have above proved it to be then Repentance cannot have the same interest in justification that Faith hath because it neither doth nor can so lay hold upon this Cautionary-Righteousness as Faith doth Or we might frame the argument thus If Repentance have the same interest in justification that Faith hath Christ's Cautionary-Righteousness shall not be the only Righteousness with which the soul that is to be justified must be clothed because Repentance cannot put on Christ his Righteousness as faith doth But this last cannot be said for reasons given already 11. If Repentance hath the same interest in justification that faith hath then even by Gospel justification there should be ground left to man to boast to glory before men the reward should not be of grace but of debt contrary to Rom. 3. 4. The Consequence is clear because Repentance acteth not on a Righteousness without us and can be considered no other way then as an act of Obedience in man and so as a work and Faith by this way goeth under the same Consideration is not considered as bringing-in the Surety-Righteousness of Christ and laying hold on it alone as it is by our way for both are looked upon as dispositive causes and as parts therefore of the material cause and as proper potestative conditions just as perfect obedience was under the Old Covenant And whatever difference be acknowledged to be betwixt them as to their Essence Aptitude whereby Faith is said to be an acceptance of the gift formally Repentance not so in its averting act as Mr. Baxter is speaking Cath. Theol. ubi supra Sect. XII n. 201. whatever it may be as to other acts yet they are both made formal Potestative conditions as is said so solely considered as works done by us and all such as was evidenced above make the reward of debt give ground of boasting because being our formal works they are made the immediat formal legal ground of our Justification being made our immediat formal perfect Gospel-Righteousness as was seen above 12. Adde to these That if Repentance have the same Interest in Justification that Faith hath God cannot be beleeved on as the justifier of the ungodly contrare to Rom. 4 5. for Faith Repentance are hereby made the mans personal Righteousness and Mr. Baxter tels us Confess p. 46. n. 38. that there is no such thing
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
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
sinners before He can be looked upon as a Righteous person or be dealt with as a Righteous person He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him and bestowed upon him for how can God whose judgement is according to truth look upon a person as Righteous and conferre privileges upon him due only to such as are Righteous who is not Righteous indeed Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him reckon a Righteousness upon his Score to the end He may be just and Righteous when He is the justifier of him that beleeveth Lastly He said Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive that by Righteousness in this Scripture should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith Righteousness is imputed for the man here spoken of hath not a Righteousness of his own as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters doth here take for granted And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins And whose Righteousness else can this be if it be not Christ's Is there any third competitour here imaginable must it not be the Righteousness of Him whom faith goeth out unto laith hold on in order to justification Must it not be His Righteousness who was the Mediator who laid down the price of Redemption was a propitiation as He told us in the preceeding Chapter Some men in alleiging a difference betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners and the Righteousness of Christ as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us except the Surety-righteousness of Christ as they expresly in this joine with Socinians See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565. with Papists Arminians so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel yea greater strangers than those were against whom the Apostle wrote who took it for granted that if any Righteousness from without or that was not by any thing which we do were imputed it behoved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator And this we may conceive is the reason why the Apostle doth not say in so many express words that it was the Righteousness of Christ for who could have thought of another Fourthly Rom. 5 19. a place with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose for the Apostle is not onely here confirming but also illustrating this whole matter from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity after many various and emphatick expressions used there-anent from vers 12. and forward he saith here vers 19 for as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Socinus de Servat lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us That he supposeth there is nothing written in the Scriptures that hath given us a greater occasion of erring than that comparison betwixt Adam Christ which Paul made did prosecute at length here And he would cleare to us the comparison thus That as by Adam's Sin disobedience it came to passe that all men were condemned and died so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to passe that they wero absolvod and did live for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience by vertue of the decree of God did penetrate the heavens there to reigne for ever and there he begote eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse needs not be declared seing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's designe to be to declare how what way Christ obtained power and authority to save Yet He goeth on to tell us That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death whence it came to passe that all mankind that are procreat of him after that guilt is obnoxious to death so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life whence it cometh te passe that who ever are procreat of him partake of this life But He never once taketh notice that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death their sinning in him vers 12. even such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression vers 14. yea in every verse this cause is noted or pointed at it being Notour of it self that ifall mankind did sin in Adan Adam's sin must be imputed unto them so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His inreference to their justification that with a much more Let us now see what Iohn Goodwine excepteth pag. 142. c. It is not here said He said that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience men are made formally Sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation or else sinners by propagation not Imputation Ans. This is the same upon the matter with Bellarmin's answer de justif lib. 2. cap. 9. here we have a distinction proposed without any explication to wit betwixt simply sinners and formally sinners And what can he meane by formally sinners possibly he meaneth that which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners And if so though Adam's posterity so soon as they come to have a being have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation yet that is not it which is properly said to be Imputed for that which is imputed is the guilt of Adam's sin whereby they become sinners that is guilty legally and so obnoxious to punishment death condemnation this is enough for us for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath so Beleevers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous 2 Whileas he will not grant that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation he joineth with the Socinians who turne these words vers 12. 〈◊〉 not in whom but because or whereas which the Ethiopick version doth better sense saying Because that sin is imputed unto all men even unto them who know not what is that sin And the Arabick turne thus seing all have now sinned and the Syriack word is Behi or Bhi which may as well be interpreted in whom as because And in several other places this praeposition so construed as here in the Greek hath this same import as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5 25. 11 22. Rom. 6 21. Phil. 4 10. 1. Thes. 3 7. But enough of this here seing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox writting against the Socinians and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers Againe saith He Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one Act unto or with another but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation or the Remedie to and with the
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
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