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
fault guilt charged on him by the law So that here is a long series of efficient causes bringing down from Adam's person guilt a distinct numerical person guilt of everyone of this later posterity Ans. 1. The fundamentum of that relation of guilt is more properly proximely the foederal relation of the person to Adam than the Natural relation and the fundamentum of this foederal relation is not Generation but the free Ordination and Constitution of God 2 What he meaneth by these words and Adam's generation being the communication of a guilty nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal fault and guilt charged on him by the Law I do not know If his meaning be that the Communication of a guilty Nature by the peccatum originale originatum is the fundamentum of the following personal fault and guilt by reason of the peccatum originale originans that is if he say that the corrupted Nature is the ground of the Imputation of Adam's transgression it is not consonant to truth nor to what himself said above pag. 34. against Placeus But if he meane that Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature is the fundamentum that next followeth his personal guilt charged on him by Law I must say I do not understand what he would be at though the words seem to express some such thing But the truth that I shall lay down is this That all Adam's posterity being federally in him sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression by vertue whereof when they come physically by natural Generation to partake of his Nature they are first in order of Nature guilty of Adam's transgression and then have a corrupt Nature communicated as a punishment and consequent of the other this Corrupt Nature being sin hath its own guilt attending it also 3 Though this long series of Efficient causes be requisite to the production of a distinct numerical person from Adam's person in a physical and natural sense yet every one of these physically distinct numerical persons do immediatly derive from Adam their legal and foederal personalities that is these same persons considered foederally are equally and alike neer to Adam their federal Head and Representative And therefore the guilt of Adam's sin cometh from him immedratly to each one of them foederally considered and is consequently the same numerical guilt and all this is founded upon their Federal Union with and Interest in Adam He saith 2. And it is not the same sort of guilt or so plenary which is in us for Adam's act as was on him but a guilt Analogical or of another sort that is he wes guilty of being the wilfull sinning person so are not we but only of being persons whose being is derived by Generation from the wilful sinning persons besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity that is the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to desert us and to punish us for that our pravity together This is our guilt of original sin Ans. 1 Hereby that original sin whereof we are speaking here viz Adam's breach of Covenant seemeth quite to be taken away for not only is it said that original sin as in us is another sort of thing than what it was in Adam and so not only not the same numerically as he formerly said but not the same specifically but moreover it is said to be only an Analogical guilt yea in end it is made just nothing for it is said that we are guilty of being persons whose being is derived from the wilfull sinning persons and this is no guilt at all no mans simple being let it be by generation from the most prodigiously guilty and wicked persons that can be can be imputed to him for guilt for his receiving a being is contrary to no Law And beside when he addeth by way of Explication that the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to deserte us he must either make the simple Relation to be the guilt or the ground of guilt and its Imputation The Simple Relation without some guilt following it and founded upon it cannot make it just with God to desert us c. For sin only can do this that Relation is not sin If he say That guilt is Superadded upon this account it is just with God thus to punish I would ask what is this guilt It is not Adam's sin but some analogical thing which Scripture knoweth nothing of and Reason can give us no account whence it came He cannot say that it came from Adam's sin for if we be federally united to Interessed in Adam as we are as he confessed we were and if upon that account we be reputed guilty the same Individual guilt which was on Adam must be upon us and if our guilt be of another sort he must give us another Adam from whom that other analogical sort floweth The Scripture saith that we all sinned in Adam Rom. 5 12. which were not truth if his individual sin were not ours or if ours were of another sort and only analogical But this is the fruit of Mr. Baxter's casting all these things in Aristotle's mould But moreouer 2 It hath a foule aspect towards Pelagianisme to make our guilt another than Adam's because that Adam was the wilful sinning person and so are not we for this is to confirme the Pelagians who say that that sin was only Adam's because he was the only wilfully sinning person we had no will therein 3. He saith And this guilt cometh to us by Natural propagation and resultancie from our very Nature so propagated Ans. It is true we come to be actually charged with this guilt to have it imputed to us when we partake of our beings by Natural Generation or propagation and that because of our federal Union with Interest in Adam and exclusive of this it cannot be said to come to us by resultancy from our very Nature so propagated for the guilt of all Adam's after-Transgressions should as well be said to come to us after this manner as the guilt of that one Transgression Disobedience of which only the Scripture maketh mention Rom. 5. He cometh next to consider our contrary Interest in Christ tels us 1. Our persons are not the same as Christ's person nor Christ's as ours nor ever so judged or accounted of God Ans. Physically this is true but it is not true legally for when he came in the Law-place of the Elect become Surety for-them they and he became one person in Law He saith 2. Our persons were not Naturally seminally virtually in Christ's person any further than He is Creator Cause of all things as they were in Adam's Ans. Adam was a natural Head our Lord is a Spiritual Supernatural Head as to
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
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
to be in another manner in Him than any others whatever 9. He addeth so far imputeth Christ's Righteousness as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious cause of our justification But it was reputed and estimate so to be before this Imputation for it was accepted as such therefore Imputation must denote something more than this Reputation even a reckoning of it as it were now upon their Scoce and accounting it theirs or them to have a full special and actual Interest therein in order to their justification and absolution from the charge of guilt and death brought in against them whereby they are accounted and reckoned to be Righteous because of that Imputation therefor pronounced such in justification so that now it is the objectum formalâ— or the ratio formales objectiva of our justification 10. When he addeth that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace if those words mean that in this also Christ's Righteousness is said to be imputed then it seemeth it is equally imputed unto all Adam's posteâ—ity for with him all are comprehended within this Covenant But this were as much as to say it is imputed to none in particular Moreover it may be thought that this is explicative of what went immediatly before so Christ's righteousness shall be repute the true Meritorius Cause of our justification in that it was the Meritorious cause of the Covenant of Grace now hereby the immediat ground of justification will be the Gospel-righteousness he speaketh of that is our performance of the conditions of the New Covenant of Grace Christ's Merites Satisfaction Righteousness shall be only a remote ground But we shall show hereafter how groundless it to say That Christ procured the New Covenant by His Merites Satisfaction 11. He saith in which i.e. Covenant of Grace He freely giveth Christ pardon Life to all that accept the gift as it is That all these are hold-forth in the Covenant that such as receive Christ receive pardon and Life is true But what is that to accept the gift as it is what is meaned by this gift 12. He addeth so that the accepters are by this Covenant Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had obeyed Satisfied themselves But this is not by vertue of any immediat of that Righteousness unto them whereby they are looked upon as Righteous in the sight of God but by vertue of faith whereby the gift is accepted that is offered in the Covenant which faith is indeed immediatly imputed to them according to him reputed their Gospel-righteousness they thereupon are reputed Righteous so justified as such for the Righteousness of Christ is only imputed in that it is reputed the meritorious cause of the New Covenant 13. Though Christ hath not merited that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves c. Yet he will say that Christ hath merited that faith shall be the Condition of the New Covenant consequently that we may stand before God even as the great Law giver so before His Law also in that Gospel-righteousness as he calleth it of our own which will justifie us 14. In end when he saith the Covenant of grace doth pardon give right to Life for Christ's Merites I suppose because of what is already observed it is only upon the account that Christ's Meâ—ites have purchased this Covenant not because they become our Immediat Righteousness whereupon we are justified have pardon he should rather say conforme to what went before that this Covenant doth Pardon give Right to Life for faith our Gospel-righteousness the condition thereof These are my Exceptions against this supposed healing middle way the grounds why I cannot acquiesce therein as the right way He tels us againe pag. 45. Note 3. That it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the same sence as our sins are said to be imputed to Him And to this I also heartily acquiesce hence inferie That as Christ was made sin by that Imputation so we are made righteous by vertue of this Imputation as our sins were laid on Him as the sins of the people were laid on the scape goat the type so His Righteousness is put on us as He came in our Law-place so we come in His As our sins imputed to Him were the immediat procuring cause of His stripes punishment or suffering so His Righteousness imputed to us is the Immediat procuring cause of our justification c. As Christ was repute legally or juridically though not inherently a sinner because of this Imputation of our sins to Him therefore dealt with punished chastened as if He had been a real sinner because He stood in our Law-place to His Righteousness being imputed to us we are repute legally juridically though not inherently Righteous thereupon are dealt with justified accepted c. as if we had been really Righreous because now standing in His Law-place So that if Mr. Baxter will stand to this that ordinarily protestants agree unto I am fully Satisfied had he done so from the beginning many of his discourses would have been forborne And whether he or others who owne what protestants agree unto be to be reckoned among the self conceited wranglers as he speaketh in the following page indifferent men may judge I conceive if he would yet stand to this he should alter that which he gave us in the fore-mentioned words as the only healing middle way For that middle way as he calleth it giveth us a far other sheme than can be drawn out of this wherein protestants are commonly agreed as is obvious He tels us Chap. 2. where he cometh to state the question pag. 51. that we must distinguish of Imputation giveth us six senses thereof five whereof are such as I know not if even Antinomians did owne them They are these 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christ't Acts the Subjects of His Habites passion in a physical sense I know not who in their wits would affirme this to me it is not a fit way to end or clear controversies to raise so much dust needlesly imagine senses out of our owne heads as if they were owned maintained by some what is the 2 Or to repute the same formal relation of Righteousness which was in Christ's Person to be in ours as the Subject But this is only a consequent of the foregoing 3. saith he or to repute us to have been the very Subjects of Christ's Habites passion the Agents of His Acts in a Political or Moral sence not a physical as a man payeth a debt by a Servant or attornay ordelegate If this be the only meaning of his Political Moral sense I suppose no man will owne it either for no man will say That Christ was our Servant Attornay
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
decretis Publicis Politicis Ecclesiasticis fuit sancita roborata Sic ergò habent Articuli quos in Anglicum Sermonem versos exhibemus X. Of Free-will This is the condition of man after Adams fall that by his own Power and good works he cannot convert and prepare himself to Faith and calling upon God Wherefore without the grace of God which is by Christ preventing us that we may will and to operating while we will for doeing works of Pietie which are acceptable and well pleasing to God we can doe nothing XI Of Mans Justification Wee are only reputed Righteous before God for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith not for our works and merits For which cause the Doctrine of our being Iustified by Faith alone is most wholsome and full of consolation as it is explained in the Homilie about mans Iustification at more length XII Of Good Works Good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow the Iustified although they cannot expiat our sins or endure the severity of Divine Iustice Yet they are pleasing and accepted by God in Christ and necessarily flow from a true and lively Faith So that plainly by them a vive faith can be known as a tree can be judged by it's fruit XIII Of works before Justification Works which are done before the Grace of Christ and the influence of his Spirit since they do not proceed from the Faith of Iesus Christ are not at all acceptable to God neither doe they merit the grace which many call congruous Yea because they are not done according to Gods will and command we doubt not but they have the nature of sin XVII Of Predestination and Election Predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God whereby He before the setling of the foundations of the world by his Counsel hid indeed as to us Immutably decreed those whom he had chosen in Christ out of mankind should be delivered from the curse and destruction and as vessels made to honour brought to eternal Salvation by Christ. Hence those who are gifted with this notable favour of God are called in due time according to his purpose His own Spirit working they obey by Graces call are Iustified freely are Adopted to be the sons of God and made consorme to the Image of his only begotten Son Iesus Christ they walk holily in good works and in end by the mercy of God they come to eternal happiness As the pious consideration of our Predestination and Election in Christ is sweet pleasant and full of ineffable consolation to the truely Godly and to those who find in themselves the efficacie of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the deeds of the flesh and members which yet are upon the earth and by force drawing the mind to things above both because it does much establish and confirme our Faith of obtaining eternal Salvation as also because it vehemently kindles our love toward our good So it is a very destructive precipice to curious and carnal men and who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ to have alwayes the sentence of Gods Predestination proposed to their view whereby the Devil either presses them to despair or into equally pernicious security of a most impure life Thereafter the Divine Promises most be so imbraced as they are generally proposed to us in the holy Scriptures and the will of God which we have expresly revealed in Gods word is to be followed by us in our actions Atque hi quidem sunt Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Gratia Iustificatione Articuli convenientes utique cum aliarum Ecclesiarum praesertim Ecclesiae Scoticanae doctrina â—ti ex hujus Confessione Art III. VIII XII XIII manifestum est THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION Through faith cleared from Gal. 3 11. For the Iust shall live by faith CHAPT I. The Introduction the text the ground of this following discourse opened-up THe Doctrine of Iustification cannot but be acknowledged by all whose thoughts are taken up about an interest in everlasting felicity to be of great concernment debates or Controversies about the same cannot be esteemed vaine fruitless Digladiations Disputes about a thing of naught seing in this lyeth the Ground of all our Hop peace Eternal Salvation a Mistake or Errour as to the Theorie in this matter followed with an answerable corresponding practice I meane as to what toucheth the heart Substance of this Divine Mystery may yea must of necessity prove not only dangerous to Souls but even inevitably destructive Wherefore it cannot be justly accounted blame worthy that Churches particular persons who woule be faithful so accounted unto the grand-interests of Souls contend with alle earnestness for the faith once delivered to the Saints in this particular this being the true Basis of all Religion of Christianity without which there can be no access to nor Communion with God No peace with God nor true peace in owr own Consciences no life of Comfort here nor true hope of Salvation for ever here after No change of State nor saving change of liâ—e conversation in a word no life of Grace here nor of Glory hereafter And what then must follow upon the corrupting of this Truth upon Erroneous Apprehensions practices herein is aboundantly obvious to all such as have not sinned away all sense consideration in these matters Wherefore it is no wonder that Satan hath in all ages laboured by one Instrument or other upon one occasion or other and under one pretext or other to corrupt the pure streames of this wholesome Fountaine of Truth in one Measure or other in one particular or other that by such Mediums Arguments as he knew would be most taking seem most plausible at these Several times upon these Several occasions What way how far the corruption of this Truth was advanced in the Antichristian Church is yet known what ground their errour in this gave un to such as began to be enlightened in the knowledge of the Truth to separate from them to appear against them is manifest and what Effaies the Devil made about the beginning of Reformation or shortly after to darken this Truth by Questions Disputes even among such as hold the Truth fast as to the maine and what since by Several New Opinions or new Modes and Methods as they were called and given out to be vented and improven by Several Artifices to seeming different Ends he hath effectuated to the hardening of some in their Misapprehensions to the Corrupting of the Hearts Mindes of others and also the Staggering and Shaking of not a few may be called to minde with grief and sorrow Not to mention the bold attempt made by Socinians to overturne the whole Grounds of Christian Religion and to take away at once all the pillars of Gospel-justification The devil began early in the breaking up of the clear day of Christianity to darken this
receive the Adoption of Sones and the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3 13 14. 4 4 5. As it is one thing to finish the Transgression to make an end of sin to make Reconciliation for iniquity another thing to bring-in Everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9 24. Yea the redemption from the Law and from its curse is mentioned as preceeding the other as the finishing of transgression is also mentioned before the bringing-in of Righteousness in the passages cited And thus as these Effects are distinguished though inseparable so is the Cause By the Imputation of Christs Satisfaction we have pardon of sin being redeemed from the curse of the Law by His being made a curse for us by the Imputation of His Rigteousness and obedience we are looked upon as Righteous so have a right to the promise and Inheritance Though we need not thus distinctly consider both save only to demonstrat the necessity of the Imputation of both for Christ by His death did also purchase the Inheritance for us and by His obedience made Satisfaction for sin it being a piece of His Humiliation So that both in the deep wisdom of God make up one cause of that one Effect which comprehendeth all Blessedness that is both pardon of sinnes and Right to the Inheritance c. By the Imputation of both or of this compleat Surety-righteousness of Christ including both beleevers are pardoned and adjudged unto life Hence our pardon and justification are often ascribed unto Christs death not as distinctly considered or as excluding His Righteousness obedience but among other reasons because that was the compleating Act of His obedience and to which all the rest preceeding had a respect as to that which should compleat the whole Meritorious part of His Mediation And hereby His obedience can no more be excluded than His foregoing soul-sufferings Nay His death did presuppose and include His obedience for it was the death of one who had perfectly obeyed the Law which death obedience being His Mediatory work in the state of His Humiliation was a compleat Righteousness for the blessedness advantage of all those for whom He appeared whose debt He undertook to pay 5. That the obedience of Christ must also be imputed to sinners is manifest from this That otherwise they should have no Righteousness at all imputed to them that properly can be called a Righteousness for if nothing but that which is commonly called Christs passive obedience or His Sufferings be imputed there can no Righteousness be said to be imputed for dying and suffering the penalty as such are no righteousness being no obedience to the commands of the Law in conformity to which consisteth proper Righteousness as when one dieth for his crime of Murther he cannot be said to be thereby a righteous man or to have obeyed the Law forbidding Murther nor can we be said properly to have obeyed the Law when Christ in our room did suffer the penalty of death due to us for the breach of it They who are in hell suffering the vengeance of eternal fire cannot be said to be obeying the Law It is true Christ in dying did obey a command Imposed upon Him by the Father but that was no command of the Moral Law prescribed unto man thereafter in dying Suffering He gave no obedience to that Law under the obligation to which we were standing no more than He can be said to have Suffered the penalty while He was obeying the Law these two being so manifestly different So that it is clear that if Christs obedience be not imputed to us no proper Righteousness is or can be said to be imputed to us Yea 6 If Christs obedience be not imputed to us that Law which saith do this and live is not fulfilled but rather abrogated quite abolished and it must be said that not withstanding of that constitution of Gods we live though we neither do this nor is our Cautioners doing of it imputed to us And so we have a right to the Reward get it at lenght without the Righteousness required in order thereunto Let us therefore admire the harmonious perfection of this Effect Work of infinite wisdom I know several things are objected against this Truth as there are many other grounds Reasons adduced for the same but these I shall speak to at more length afterward 7. This is also a mysterie here to be noticed That a Righteousness that is not ours inherently but Christs should be made ours made over to us reckoned upon our score or we become clothed therewith there upon justified as Righteous as really effectually as if we had wrought it our selves and it had been properly inherent in us Socinians Papists Arminians others who will not subject their reason unto this mystery and give credite to Revelation will acknowledge no such imputation of Righteousness but at most do grant but an improper imputation that is an imputation as to Effects so that with them Christ neither Suffered nor obeyed in our stead room but only for our good advantage that too conditionally only in case we beleeve and performe the Gospel-condition But this imputation as to Effects only is no imputation at all there being no thing thereby Imputed not the Righteousness of Christ it self for this they expresly deny nor yet the Effects themselves for we no where read of Imputed Justification Adoption Pardon c. which are the Effects Yea it is not enough to them to deny this Imputed Righteousness but in contempt scorne they call that which we name an Imputed Righteousness a putative Righteousness as if it were a meer imaginary thing But whatever such in decision think or say the Gospel holdeth forth to us a Righteousness imputed or the Righteousness of Christ graciously bestowed upon made over to belevers or freely given unto them so that they are dealt with by God as Righteous Juridically legally or as possessours of such a compleat perfect Righteousness that as really to all Effects as if it had been their own inherently performed by them so had been theirs without any such Imputation And because this as the cause is imputed to them made theirs therefore all the Effects thereof shall really certainely be bestowed upon them in God's appointed time methode This is the Truth which the Gospel holdeth forth to the solide peace joy comfort of Beleevers the full clearing vindicating of which would require a just Treatise I shall therefore here propose but a few clear manifest Grounds of this refreshful comfortable truth leaving the further prosecution vindication of them of other arguments that are used in this matter with the examination of what is objected on the contrary till afterward First therefore we say as Christ who knew no sin was made sin that is had the sinnes of His people laid upon Him imputed to Him so
that denote Beleevers Union with Him as the ground of their Interest in His Righteousness should not be asserted to Import this Imputation yet this words that we might be made the Righteousness of God will be a rock whereupon Imputation may stand for they hold this forth unto us That as God made Christ sin by Imputation so He maketh us righteous yea the Righteousness of God by Imputation Except 5. The clear meaning is this that God for that end made Christ sin that is an offering or Sacrifice for sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him that is that we might be justified or made a Society or Remnant of Righteous ones after that peculiar manner of justification which God hath established through that Sacrifice of His Son Ans. When Christ was made an offering for sin the guilt of sin was laid upon Him even the guilt of our sin And if we be justified or made a Society of justified ones we must be made a Society of righteous ones and if we be made a Society of Righteous ones we must first have a Righteousness seing we have not a Righteousness of our own we must have a Righteousness made over to us and seing we have this Righteousness made over to us as being in Christ it must be the Righteousness of God So that though this Interpretation be very far fetched and hath no countenance from the words and destroyeth the cohesion of these words with the former as also the reason that is contained in them adduced for confirmation of what was said vers 19. yet it cannot destroy the doctrine of Imputation but must contribute to its support though a little more remotely He laboureth to give strength to this his Interpretation by alleiging 1. That it is a frequent Scripture expression to call the sin-offering or the Sacrifice for sin by the name of sin simply as Exod. 29 14. and 30 10. Levit. 5 6 16 18 19 7 1 2 7 9 7. Ezek. 44 27. 45 19. 23. Hos. 4 8. Ans. Though it be true that the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do sometimes signify sin sometimes an offering for sin yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth alwayes signify sin in the New Test. and the 70 do not use this Greek word in the places cited except Exod. 29 14. there in the version that is in the Biblia Polyglot Lond. It is in the Genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sin the chald-paraph calleth it an Expiation Targ. Ionath Hierof say it is a sin so doth the persik version the Samaritan Version turneth it that is for sin the Arabik an Expiation But further though it were granted to be so taken here yet our cause would hereby suffer no prejudice but be rather confirmed as was lately shown And when the same word used to express a Sacrifice for sin which signifieth sin it self we may hence be confirmed in this that that Sacrifice for sin hath guilt laid upon it before it can be Sacrifice for sin it must be sin in respect of this before it be a due Sacrifice or oblation for sin And therefore Christ must have been sin in law by Imputation or have the guilt of sin laid upon Him before He could be a fit Sacrifice for sin He alleigeth 2. To express a Number of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of Righteousness is very agreable to the Scripture dialect in other places as poverty for poor captivity for captives Ans. 1 Yet no one instance can be given where the word Righteousness hath this Import 2 But how ever as was said these justified or righteous persons must be righteous else they cannot make up such a company as captivity can never signify a company of men that are not captives nor poverty a company of persons that are not poor So that this company of righteous ones must needs be righteous and that in order to justification seing they have no Righteousness of their own for in themselves they are ungodly they must have a Righteousness by Imputation 3 Why should they be called the Righteousness of God according to this Interpretation And how is the opposition here observed betwixt Christs being made sin their being made the Righteousness of God in Him But this man by this Interpretation transgresseth all lines of Correspondence He alleigeth 3. That addition of God imports that that righteousness or justification which beleevers obtaine by the Sacrifice of Christ is not only Righteousness of Gods free donation but of His special procurement and contrivement for them Ans. 1 Righteousness and justification are not one the same how oft so ever he name them as Synonymous 2 We grant that the Righteousness the Iustification which Beleevers obtaine are both Gods free gift His contrivement But notwithstanding hereof yea so much the rather is there a Righteousness imputed to them the Righteousness of Christ who is God and a Righteousness which will be accepted of God whose judgment is according to truth as a sufficient ground whereupon to pronounce such as in themselves are ungodly to be Righteous so to justifie them He alleigeth 4. That by the grammatical construction dependance of the latter clause our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ upon the former it is evident that in the latter such an Effect must of necessity be signified which may answere that cause to wit the death of Christ for us this is deliverance from the guilt punishment of sin not the Imputation of His active obedience Ans. As Christs death could not be separated from His Obedience which is thereby presupposed His death being the Sacrifice of one who is made under the law and was obedient thereunto unto death that in the room stead of His own So the Imputation of Righteousness to us should not be separated from the Imputation of His Sufferings both being necessarily required unto sinners who had sinned yet remained under the obligation of the law in order to their acceptance with God and Justification He alleigeth 5. The Scriptures when they speak of the Sufferings of Christ as a cause inrespect of justification never ascribe any other effect unto them but only either the Remission of sins deliverance from wrath Redemption or the like Ans. As the Scriptures making so frequent mention of the Sufferings of Christ do not exclude His Obedience so neither do they exclude the Imputation of His Obedience in order to our justification and receiving a Right to glory yea they make our being constitute Righteous an Effect of His Obedience Righteousness or Righteous-making is accompanied with Justification So that though the Scriptures speak sometimes more expresly of the Sufferings sometimes more expresly of the obedience of Christ according to the exigence of the cause handled yet both are inseparable
death keep the law therefore reason requireth that what is first purchased should be first received applied Ans. I see no necessity of distinguishing after this manner the Effects of Christ's active passive obedience but judge it best to keep as conjoined what divine wisdom hath firmerly inseparably joined together But though we should thus needlesly distinguish these effects yet there is no necessity of saying That Christ's obedience because first existing should be first imputed unto justification and then His death to Remission for neither do we assigne justification to His active obedience only nor is the same order to be observed in the application of the Effects that was observed in Christ's performance of what was laid upon Him and required of Him as our Sponsor for the Nature of the thing required that Christ should first have obeyed before He died on the other hand the condition of sinners requireth that they be first justified and pardoned before they have a right to all the Effects of Christ's active obedience imputed 2. He saith If a man hath once sinned it is not any legal righteousness what so ever imputed that can justifie him Ans. This is granted But in order to justification we say That Christ's whole Surety-righteousness is imputed this comprehendeth both His active His passive obedience so usually distinguished 3. He saith If a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any further righteousness for his justification because forgiveness of sins reacheth home amounteth unto a full justification with God Ans. If justification were nothing else but forgiveness of sins there would be some colour for this but in justification there is also an accepting of the man as righteous to this a meer pardon of sins will not serve for a Righteousness is hereunto requisite pardon of sins and Righteousness are not one thing It is false then to say as he addeth That this is all the justification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgiveness of sins or acquiting from condemnation For both according to Scripture and the native import and universal usage of the word justification denoteth a constituting legally and declaring solemnely a person to be righteous or free of the accusation given in against him or a pronouncing of an accused man to be righteous therefore supposeth when the sentence is just that the person is a righteous person in our case the sentence of God being according to truth the person justified having no righteousness of his own must be clothed with the Surety-righteousness of Christ as Surety Head Husband imputed to him received by faith He addeth That righteousness which we have by Christ and where with we are said to be justified is only a negative righteousness not a positive It is nothing else but a non-Imputation of sin which I therefore call a Righteousness by Imputation as having the privileges but not the nature substance of a perfect legal righteousness Ans. A Righteousness not positive but meerly negative is no righteousness at all for a true Righteousness is a positive conformity unto the law the Rule of Righteousness and as the Righteousness is but negative and Interpretatively such so must the justification be that is founded thereupon He thinketh to prove this from Rom. 4 6 7 8. addeth a Righteousness without works must needs be a negative or privative Righteousness The Imputation of righteousness vers 6. is interpreted vers 7 8. to be a not imputing of sin Ans. The place cited as we declared above giveth no countenance unto this sense of the word justification but evinceth rather the contrary A righteousness without our works which is the Apostles meaning may be is no negative nor privative Righteousness but a positive full and compleat Righteousness being the Surety-righteousnes of Christ the Sponsor and the Text saith not That this Righteousness is nothing else than a non-Imputation of sin but inferreth rather the Imputation of Righteousness as the cause from the Non-Imputation of sin as the Effect and all this to prove that justification is not by the works of the law He tels us that we have the like description of this Righteousnes 2 Cor. 5. that which vers 19. he calls in God the not imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us vers 21. a being made the righteousness of God in Him Ans. This is a plaine perversion of the scope of the meaning of the words for vers 21. the Apostle is giving the ground reason of what was said vers 19. showing how this Reconciliation Non-Imputation of sin is founded what is the special ground thereof as appeareth by the particle for vers 21. for He hath made Him sin c. He saith This is most plaine Act. 13 38 39. where forgiveness of sins is immediatly thereafter called justification Ans. All that can be hence inferred is that in justification sins are pardoned or that such as have forgiveness of sins are justified or that these do inseparably go together But no appearance of proof here that they are both one thing or that in justification there is no more but pardon of sins He prosecuteth this purpose yet further saying This is the most usual proper signification of the word justifie not to signify the giving or bestowing of a compleat positive righteousness but only an acquiting or discharging setting a man free from guilt penalty due unto such things as were laid to his charge Ans. 1 Nor do we say that justification signifieth such a giving bestowing of a compleat positive Righteousness but that it signifieth a declaring pronouncing of a person to be righteous therefore presupposeth this giving or be stowing of a compleat Righteousness for the man whom God declareth pronounceth to be Righteous must be Righteous seing he hath no Righteousness of his own he must have his Suretie's Righteousness imputed to him 2 And so in this sense justification is an acquitting or setting a man free from the guilt penalty due to such things as were laid to his charge for he is pronounced Righteous But it is not a simple discharge of the person from the guilt and penalty upon a pardon Remission for a pardoned man is not a justified man but rather is supposed to be guilty is pardoned because guilty He proceedeth In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning Prov. 17 15. Where by justifying the wicked nothing is meart but the making of them just in the rights privileges of just men which are freedom from censure punishment c. So that by justifying the wicked nothing else is meant but the not condemning of him Rom. 8 33 34 5 19. Therefore by justifying nothing else is meant but acquitting from condemnation so to be justified live are equipollent Gal. 3 11 21. Esai 53 11. Ans. 1 That justifying is opposed to condemning is granted but this
the most remarkable piece thereof expressive of His love and condescension and terminating point of Surety-obedience for He said it was finished when He offered up Himself gave up the Ghost He addeth So where it is said againe Chap. 5. vers 16. that the gift viz. of Righteousness by Christ is of many offences unto justification If the gift of many offences i.e. the forgiveness of Mans Sinnes will not amount to a justification without the Imputation of a legal Righteousness we must give a check to Paul's pen. Ans. This is but vanity we need give no check unto the Apostle's pen for though He said not in this verse expresly that there was a gift of Righteousness also imputed yet he said it expresly vers 17. 18. 1. And shall we think that in such a continued discourse as this is wherein the Apostle is explaining the whole mystery by its parts he should mention all things in one verse He proceeds to prove that Remission of sins is the whole of justification pag. 131. Because the end saith he for which this Imputed Righteovsness of Christ is thus brought in to the business of justification viz. to be the Right to the Inheritance is supplied in a way more evangelical of more sweetness dearness to the Children of God to wit by the grace of Adoption Ans. To this we have said enough above will have occasion to speak againe to it in the next objection He addeth further 4. That if we thus separat and divide the benefite of Christ's Active and passive Obedience in Iustification we take a course to lose destroy both Ans. Not to transcribe his tedious discourse on this accout I only say That it is wholly founded upon a mistake as if our showing the necessity of the Imputation of both were a separating or dividing of the benefite of both whileas the whole Effect floweth from the whole cause both Christ's Active His passive obedience making up one compleat Surety-righteousness and so producing one whole blessedness to beleevers consisting in Remission of Sins in a Right to Glory we say with him that neither of them separated or abstracted from the other can profite us and therefore we assert the Imputation of both as one compleat Surety-righteousness answereing our necessity in all points His own words pag. 132. 133. make clearly for us I would not have saith he the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of the common joint effect justification arising from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellency of that wisdom which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was did-and suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediat Effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally Lastly He tels us If the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be added as another part of justification then must the formal cause of one the same Effect be double yea one the same formal part of the thing shall be compounded of two things of a diverse and opposite consideration Ans. We make the Impâ—tation of Christ's Righteousness not a part of justification But the cause of it and yet the formal cause of one and the same Effect is not made double for as the Cause is one compleat Cause viz. the Surety-righteousness of Christ so the Effect is one compleat Effect though both Cause and Effect may be considered as consisting of several Integral parts There is no ground here to say That one and the same formal part of a thing is compounded of diverse or opposite things Obj. 4. Chap. 12. Pag. 136. c. That which dissolveth and taketh away the necessity use of that sweet evangelical grace of Adoption cannot hold a streight course with the thruth of the Gospel But this is done by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Ergo. The Minor which is only here to be denied he laboureth to prove because we say The Righteousness of Christ must be imputed in order to our obtaining Right and Title to Life that by Remission of Sins a man is only delivered from death but receiveth no Right to the Kingdom of heaven But what can he hence inferre for confirmation of the Minor Now saith he this being the direct proper end use office purpose intent of Adoption to invest a beleever with a capacity with heaven it followes that whosoever shall attempt to set any thing else upon this throne seeks to dissolve Adoption Ans. The Consequence is null The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will no more take away Adoption than justification for it is the ground and Cause of both He might as well say That because in and by justification we have Remission of Sins to assert the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings for this end is to dissolve justification But the truth is clear as was explained above Myst. 14. He thinks both cannot stand together because either of them is a compleat entire Title within itself perfect Righteousness is a perfect title alone so is Adoption or Sonship Ans. 1. This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings as against justification for either of these is a compleat Title according to our Adversary to Immunity from death perfect Satisfaction is a perfect title alone to this Immunity as well as perfect Righteousness is a perfect title to the Inheritance Justification or Remission of Sins which are one with him is also a perfect Right to this as well as Adoption is a perfect Right to that 2 But as Justification is founded upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ so is Adoption As Christ's death and Satisfaction is not formall pardon or Right to Impunity but is when Imputed the ground and cause of justification wherein the Beleever is solemnely brought into a state of freedome from death So Christ's Obedience and Fulfilling of the Law is not a formal Right unto the inheritance but when Imputed and received by faith the ground and cause of Adoption whereby the Beleever is as it were solemnely infeoffed of the Inheritance Here then is nothing in vaine but all things so ordered as may most commend the riches of the wisdom Grace of God may most ensure life and all to the â—eleever So that his following discourse is meer froath and vanity for as God may appoint moe meanes for the same end as He pleaseth as His promises oath Sacraments to confirme the faith of beleevers so there can be no reason given why it may not be so here yet to speak properly Adoption is no mean or Cause of the Right and Title to Glory being the solemne Collation of that Right to the beleever or the solemne stating of
Gospel-way of justification as being a way to bring us back againe to the old Covenant of works with a meer pretext of some ease as to the Conditions or Termes Yet he would prove that the two Covenants are made one by us thus where the parties Covenanting are the same the things covenanted for are the same and the Conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every way the same But if the Righteousness of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or Condition of the New Covenant all the three persons things Conditions are the same Ans. 1 It may be questioned if either the persons Covenanting or the things Covenanted for in both Covenants be the same every way but to speak of this is not our present purpose 2 The Covenants do not agree as to their Conditions for the condition required in the Covenant of works was a proper antecedent condition which is a cause of the thing promised but the Condition of the New Covenant is only a consequent condition denoting nothing else than a connexion or order betwixt the thing promised the condition required 3 The Righteousness of the Law imputed to us is no condition required of us in the New Covenant but it is required of us that by faith we close with Christ thereby come to have an Interest in Christ in all His Righteousness to all ends and purposes which our case and necessity calleth for 4 This Righteousness of the Law was called for from us in our own persons in the old Covenant but in the New Covenant the righteousness is Imputed to us when we beleeve in Him And this as is said is enough to distinguish these Covenants But he thinks The Righteousness of the Law imputed from another wrought by ourselves do not much differ the substance being the same Ans. Yet this difference may make a substantial difference in the two Covenants for when the Covenant of Works did not admit of the performance of the Conditions by a Surety as himself proved by foure Arguments pag. 155. And the Covenant of Grace holdeth forth justification only through the Righteousness of another imputed to us received by faith Though the Righteousness mentioned in both consist in conformity to the same Law yet the Covenants cannot but substantially differ as is obvious to every one Beside that the righteousness imputed consisteth in more than in Obedience to the Law for it comprehendeth his whole Surety-righteousness that took in His Sufferings also The following objection which he preoccupieth is purely his owne so I leave it Obj. 10. Chap. 17. pag. 158. c. That for which Righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve cannot be imputed to them for righteousness But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve Ergo. The Assumption he thinks none will deny but such as deny the righteousness to be the Meritorious Cause of that Righteousness or justification which is conferred upon men The Major he thus proveth If it be Impossible that the thing merited should be the same thing with that which is the Meritorious Cause thereof then it is not only not true but impossible that the Righteousness of Christ should be the Righteousness of a beleever But the former is true Ergo c. Aus This is nothing but a pure fallacy founded upon a palpable mistake viz of confounding righteousness justification as if they were one the same To discover this let us put Iustification for Righteousness in the first Argument thus That for which beleevers are justified cannot be imputed to them for righteousness But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which beleevers are justified Therefore c. Who seeth not now how false the Major propositions is how impertinent ridiculous the probation thereof is justification which is the Effect or the thing merited is not the same thing with the Righteousness of Christ the Meritorious cause thereof Obj. 11. pag. 160. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a beleever for righteousness in his justification then the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed But that cannot be imputed Ergo c. He proveth the Minor which is denied thus Because the Meritorious cause being a kind of Efficient can not be either the matter or the forme of that whereof it is Efficient It is an Inviolable Law amongs the foure kindes of causes Material Formal Final Efficient that the two former do only ingredi composition or effectum are partes rei constitutae that the two latter are alwayes extrinsecal stand without Ans. All which is but vaine argueing grounded upon this palpable mistake that justification is a physical Effect like the whiteing of a wall which is the example whereby he illustrats the matter therefore he thinketh that these termes are used in this matter in as proper a sense as when they are applied to physical causes Effects whileas the matter is quite otherwise many of these termes are here used but in a metaphorical sense But to the matter whether Imputed Righteousness be called the Material cause with some or the formal cause with others of justification is no great matter seing every one hath liberty to explaine in what sense he useth these termes in this matter I should rather choose to use the terme if such like termes must be used of the formal objective cause or Reason This is enough to us That it is that whereby they become juridically righteous that upon the consideration whereof now imputed to them they are pronounced Righteous justified so is the meritorious cause of their justification that Righteousness which covereth them upon the account of which they are declared pronounced Righteous as the payment of the Surety is as the meritorious cause in Law of the absolution of the debtor the ground upon which he is absolved being accounted his payment because the debtor Surety are one person in Law As in a juridical sentence of Absolution of an accused debtor there is no proper formal or material cause so neither in the matter of justification which is God's juridical Act Sentence Yet I cannot acquiesce to what he addeth saying That only remission of sins or absolution from punishment is as the forme applied unto or put upon the matter the matter or subject it self where unto this forme is applied Not only because according to his own argueing one thing cannot be both matter forme of the same thing but because Remission of sins in hereby made the whole of justification whereas to speak properly it is but an Effect or consequent or at most a part thereof the person justified is properly absolved from the accusation declared to be Righteous so is legally constituted or put into a state of Righteousness or of Righteous persons whereupon followeth freedom from guilt or punishment a
or Delegate The 4. is but a consequent of this and consequently saith he to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said habites acts passions one to Christ as the Natural Subject Agent another to us as the Moral Political or reputed Subject agent so His formal Righteousnese not to be imputed to us in it self as ours but another to result from the same matter This is too Philosophical for me to owne or follow The 5 is or else that we are reputed both the agents Subjects of the matter of His Righteousness morally also of the formal Righteousness of Christ himself All these are but the effuvia of a braine floteing swimeing in ill digested Philosophical Notions School dregs contribute nothing to the clearing of Gospel-Truth which hath little or rather no affinity with aery Philosophical Notions but tende manifestly to the darkening of the same But now when all these Philosophical Notions Relations are at an end we can proceed no further where is that Imputation which is legal plaine to every ordinary Man viz whereby the Satisfaction made to a judge Governour for a crime committed by the delinquen'ts friend or that payment Satisfaction made to the creditor for the debtor by a friend Interposing is in Law-sense accounted the delinquent's debtor's he as really effectually delivevered out of prison therefore as if he had made Satisfaction in his own proper person or had paid the summe out if his own Substance If any Philosopher after Mr. Baxter's manner here should with such Philosophical Whimseyes I call them so for they are no other in this case laboure to disprove any such Imputation say it must be in one of those five senses c. would not any countrey man smille at this But now let us see Mr. Baxter's sixt sense wherein he granteth the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Or else saith he by Imputation is meant here that Christ being truely reputed to have taken on the Nature of sinful Man become an Head for all true Beleevers in that undertaken Nature office in the person of a Mediator to have fulfilled all the Law imposed upon him by perfect Holiness obedience offering himself on the cross a sacrifice for our sins voluntarily suffering in our stead as if He had been a sinner guilty of all our sins as soon as we beleeve we are pardoned Iustified Adopted for the sake Merites of this Holiness obedience Penal Satisfaction of Christ with as full demonstration of divine Iustice at least more full Demonstration of His wisdom Mercy than if we had suffered our selves what our sinnes deserved that is been damned or had never sinned And so Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted or reputed Righteous not in relation to the Precept that is innocent or sinless but in relation to the Retribution that is such as have right to impunity Life because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness Obedience Satisfaction meritedour pardon Adoption and the Spirit or merited the New Covenant by which as an Instrument Pardon justification Adoption are given to Beleevers and the Spirit to be given to Sanctifie them and when we beleeve we are justly reputed such as have right to all these purchased gifts As to this I shall only note a few things 1. Christ's fulfilling of the Law imposed on Him doth not hinder but that He paid our debt so came in our Law-place substitute Himself in our room to do what we should have done to suffer what we should have suffered according to the Law in all the essentials Substantials of that punishment for had He not done this He could not be said to have suffered in our stead for he only suffereth in the room stead of another who suffereth what that other should have suffered If one be condemned to suffer death another that suffereth only Imprisonment for his delivery cannot be said to suffer in this stead but onely for his cause good as the Socinians say Christ suffered for us 2. Christ not only suffered in our stead as if he had been a sinner guilty but as sinner legally juridically guilty having sins imputed to Him though He was most free of all sin inherently and knew it not the reason is manifest for otherwayes Divine justice should not have shined forth in His sufferings it being no Demonstration of justice to punish one who neither inherently nor Imputatively legally is or can be accounted reputed a sinner 3. Wee cannot with right be reputed Righteous except we be either inherently righteous or righteous by Imputation so legally juridically in Law-sense righteous by vertue of the Imputation of the Surety-righteousness of Christ our Sponsor 4. Righteousness must properly respect the Commands Prohibitions of the Law but secondarily the Retribution if not most Improperly as unrighteousness is in reference to the Law as commanding or forbidding very improperly attributed to any in reference to the punishment threatned And therefore if we be accounted Righteousness it must be in relation to the precept at least in the first place Nor can we be accounted Righteous in reference to the Retribution that is have a Right to Impunity life in the sight of God who judgeth reputeth according to equity right unless we be first accounted Righteous in reference to the precept for this is the only just legal foundation of the other 5. Upon this it doth not follow that we are Innocent or sinless inherently far less that we never transgressed but on the contrary it clearly saith that we were sinners but now are legally or juridically innocent sinless by the Imputation of the side jussorie Righteousness of Christ therefore are not obnoxious to the penalty or to punishment but have right to Impunity life 6. When he speaketh of what Christ merited he expresseth himself dubiously not being positively clear whether Christ merited our pardon c. or the New Covenant the disjunctive particle Or saith He did not merite both in his judgment but before we heard him plainly affirming that Christ merited the New Covenant consequently He did not purchase pardon Adoption the Spirit to any immediatly but only mediatly in purchasing the Covenant which promiseth these to such as performe the Conditions thereof 7. By this way Beleevers are repute such as have right to all these purchased gifts not immediatly by vertue of Christ's Merites righteousness imputed to them bestowed upon them but by vertue of their being inherently Righteous with that Gospel-righteousness faith which is the potestative Condition of the Covenant is now imputed to them accounted their Righteousness according to his judgment Speaking afterward pag. 55. of Christ as an Head Root he tels us that He was no Natural Root or Head which is undeniable Yet He
is therefore a Third sense wherein neither Christ's Righteousness that is His Habites Acts Sufferings are said to be physically translated and put in us or upon us nor are they said to be Imputed to us meerly in their Effects as Socinians say but wherein Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience Suffering is in a Law-sense made over to beleevers put upon their score now accounted theirs they because thereof accounted Righteous legally and juridically and have therefore the Effects bestowed on them This being so obvious I wonder that Mr. Baxter cannot see it When a debtor is lying in prison for debt and a friend cometh Satisfieth the creditor for him by paying the summe in his place stead the Law doth not impute that payment to the debtor meerly in the effects but imputeth the payment it self not in its Physical acceptation as if it judged that he was the man that in his own Physical person told the money with his own hands brought it out of his own purse as the other did but in its legal force vertue efficary unto him accounted him in this Legal sense to be no more a debter unto the creditor therefore one that hath right to his liberty must therefore be set free from prison So in our case the Righteousness of Christ in a legal sense as to its efficary vertue is made over to the Beleever he thereupon is accounted Righteous and no more a debtor and therefore free of the Penalty Further Although he say that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the Effects Yet he knoweth that that is in his judgment but very remotely and that really these effects are more proximely the effects of Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness and that the Immediat effect and product of Christ's Righteousness is the New Covenant and this New Covenant being made with all Mankind as he thinketh Christ's Righteousnes is in this immediat Effect imputed to all flesh Reprobat as well as Elect. And this is in part cleared from the words Immediatly following when he saith In as much as we are as really pardoned justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious Cause by the Instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we ourselves had done suffered all that Christ did For this Instrumentality of the Covenant includeth the performance of the Condition thereof i. e. faith this Faith is properly imputed for Righteousness as he saith And therefore as the Covenant is the Effect of the merites of Christ so pardon and Salvation must be the Effects of Faith and the Effects of Christ's Righteousness only in that he did procure the Covenant which conveyeth these to us upon Condition of our performing of this faith which is therefore called by him our Gospel-Righteousness He giveth us next foure wayes n. 31. pag. 60. wherein the Lord is said to be our Righteousness an Expression that doth emphatically more than sufficiently express the meaning of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 1. In that saith he He is the meritorious cause of the pardon of all our sins our full justification Adoption Right to glory by His Satisfaction and Merites only our justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law works is purchased Ans. He cannot be said by him to be the Meritorious Cause of pardon c. But in as far as He is the Meritorious cause of the Covenant in which these benefites are promised upon Condition of faith our Gospel-righteousness which properly and only is our Imputed Righteousness according to him and so Christ is our Righteousness in meriting that faith shall be repute our Gospel-righteousness in order to our obtaining of Pardon and Right to glory But moreover where is our Righteousness For Pardon is no Righteousness neither is justification Adoption or Right to Glory properly a Righteousness But do presuppose a Righteousness after which we are enquiring and cannot finde that Christ is made to be that to us and consequently either faith must be it or there is none The other senses are 2. In that He is the legislator Testator donor of our Pardon justification by this new Covenant 3. In that He is the Head of Influx King Intercessour by whom the Spirit is given to Sanctifie us to God cause us sincerely performe the Conditions of the Iustifying Covenant 4. In that He iâ— the righteous judge justifier of Beleevers by sentence of judgment Ans. All these three will make the Father to be our Righteousness as well as the Son for He is legislator He draweth to the Son sendeth the Spirit to Sanctifie us He judgeth by the Son justifieth 2. But none of these nor all of these give us the true Import of that glorious Name according to the true scope of the place Ier. 23 6. of which we have spoken above In like manner n. 32. he giveth us four senses of these words we are made the Righteousness of God in Him The 1. is In that as he was used like a sinner for us But not esteemed one by God so we are used like innocent persons so far as to be saved by Him Ans. As He was used by God like a sinner so was He legally accounted a sinner otherwise God would not have used Him as a sinner Therefore if we be used like innocent persons we must be in God's esteem legally juridically innocent through Christ's Righteousness imputed so must be saved by Him The 2. is In that through His Merites upon our union with Him when we beleeve consent to Hiâ— Covenant we are pardoned justified so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but glorified Ans As I said neither pardon nor justification maketh us Righteous but suppose us to be Righteous and therefore in justification we are declared pronounced Righteous thereupon pardoned Moreover all our Righteousness that we have in order to justification pardon is according to Mr. Baxter our Faith which is is reputed to be our Gospel Righteousness is said to be properly Imputed to us thus Christ suffered in our stead that our faith might be accounted our Righteousness Though pardon will take away condemnation yet as we have cleared above more must be had in order to Glorification His 3. 4. are In that the divine Nature Inherent Righteousness are for His merites In that God's justice holiness truth wisdom mercy are all wonderfully Demonstrated in this way of Pardoning justifying of sinners by Christ. Ans. This last hath no ground as the sense of the words And as for the. 3. Before he make it the sense of the place 2 Cor. 5 21. he must say That Christ was a sinner inherently which were blasphemy for otherwayes that beautiful correspondence that is betwixt the First the Last part of the verse must be laid a side
me it is such that by Mr. Baxter's way the whole frame of the Gospel is changed such as hold it do in my judgment not only confound but alter the causes of justification If that which Christ did by His Merites was to procure the New Covenant what was there in Adam that can be said to answere this or hold correspondence with it With us the Parallel runneth smoothly and clearly thus As by vertue of first Covenant whereof Adam was the head engaging for all his Natural Posterity so soon as they partake of Nature thereby become actual members of that Political Body partake of Adam's guilt or breach of the Covenant which is imputed to them there upon share of the consequences thereof as immediatly resulting therefrom to wit the corruption of the whole Nature Privative positive wrath the curse c. This himself asserteth pag. 34. So by vertue of the Second Covenant whereof Christ the Second Adam is Head engaging for all His Spiritual posterity they so soon as they come to partake of His spiritual Nature so become members of His mystical body which is by a Phisical supernatural operation conveyed morally and Covenant wayes according to the Good pleasure of His will according to His wisdom who doth all things well wisely are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness which is imputed unto them thereupon do share of the Consequences which do immediatly result therefâ—om viz. of justification pardon Adoption Right to Glory He addeth n. 44. Though the person of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very person of each sinner nor so many persons as there are sinners or beleevers yet it doth belong to the person of the Mediator so far limitedly to bear the person of a sinner and to stand in the place of the persons of all sinners as to bear the punishment they deserved to suffer for their sins Ans. We do not imagine that the Physical peâ—son of the Mediator is either really or reputatively the Physical person of each sinner It is enough for us to say that the Mediator is an Head Surety publick person and so that He Beleevers are one legally and juridically And we judge also that it belongeth to the person of the Mediator being Surety to Satifie for the whole debt of these for whom He is Surety therefore must not only so far stand in the place of sinners as to Suffer for their sins bear the punishment they deserved But also give that perfect obedience which they were obliged unto and were not able to performe or pay He granteth n. 45. pag. 67. that Morally it may be said that Christ's Righteousness was given to us in that the thing purchased by it was given to us as the money given for the ransome of the Captive may besaid morally to be given to the captive though Physically it begiven to the Conquerour But neither this similitude not yet the other of a mans being said to give anotheâ— so much money when he giveth him the land bought therewith do not come home to the point in hand for there is a neer closs union betwixt Christ Beleevers which union is not supposed in these cases Next Christ was in our Law-place and undertook to do what He did as our Surety neither is this supposed in the cases proposed againe the benefite here following viz. Justification c. doth presuppose us to be Righteous consequently we must have a Righteousness imputed because we have none of our owne for we may not admit Faith to that high dignity We have mentioned more apposite fit Similitudes above I cannot assent to what he saith n. 47. pag. 68. That Christ is less improperly said to have represented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam in a general sense for the purchasing of the universal gift of pardon life called the New Covenant than to have represented in his perfect holiness and sufferings every beleever considered as from his first being to his death For of His representing all mankind newly fallen in Adam I read not in the Scriptures nor yet of His purchasing the New Covenant Whether these be not additions to the word of God let Mr. Baxter who oft chargeth others herewith consider Nor do I know what Scripture warranteth him to say pag. 69. That Christ the second Adam is in a sort the root of Man as Man as He is the Redeemer of Nature it self from destruction Nor what truth can be in it unless he think to play upon the word in a sort He seemeth to come neerer us when he saith n. 48. p. 70. The summe of all lyeth in applying the distinction of giving Christ's Righteousness as such in it self as a Cause of our Righteousness or in the causality of it as our sin is not reputed Christ's sin in it self and in the culpability of it for then it must needs make Christ odious to God but in its causality of punishment So Christ's material or formal Righteousness is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in it self as such but the causality of it as it produceth such such effects Ans. How Christ's Righteousness should be the cause of our Righteousness if we speak properly I know not for we are here speaking of Righteousness in order to justification in this case I know no other Righteousness but Christ's Surety-righteousness imputed to us and bestowed upon us it is improper to say that Christ's Righteousness is the cause of it self as given to us But it may be he meaneth that it is the cause of our Faith this I grant to be true but I deny that this faith is our Righteousnese whereupon we are justified or the ratio formalis objectiva of our justifications When we mention the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness we mean the Righteousness of Christ it self not Physically but legally juridically that is its worth or legal causality not as it produceth but in order that it may produce such Effects Our sin is reputed Christ's legally in its demerite of punishment or in its reatus culpae that He might be legally thereby reus culpae and yet He was not odious to God because it was not His Inherently but only legally by Imputation Mr. Baxter in his following Chap. 3. fearing that by all that he had said he had not made the state of the controversie plaine enough to the unexercised Reader goeth over it againe in a shorter way that he may make it as plaine as possibly he can And yet I judge such is my dulness that he never made the matter more obscure at least to the Unexercised Reader nor possibly could than he hath done here for if any man how understanding so ever shall understand his Expressions let be the matter by them that is not very well versed both in Aristotles Logicks or Metaphysicks and the termes thereof and in justinian's Lawes
for his Right to Impunity and life it is no Righteousness beside I hope he will not say that that is given before justification of a Righteousness preceeding in order of Nature at least justification we are speaking enquireing after it What he answereth to this Objection in the first place because it only concerneth Papistes their Misapprehensions in the matter I passe But 2. he saith If any of them do as you say no wonder if they you contend If one say we are Innocent or sinless in reality the other we are so by Imputation when we are so no way at all but sinners really so reputed Ans. If by Innocent or sinless he mean such as never sinned never Man Protestant or Papist dreamed of such a thing If by these termes he meane such are now not guilty legally of the charge brought in against them this we acknowledge and must acknowledge or we know not how any shall ever be justified for God will not pronounce sinners as such really and legally to be righteous His judgment being according to truth therefore because we have no righteousness within us whereupon we can be pronounced not guilty we must have a Righteousness imputed to us even the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But Mr. Baxter it seemeth will not understand what this legal non-guiltiness is yet in matters among men it is very clear and manifest If Paul had fully Satisfied according as he undertook Philemon for the wrongs and injuries done him by Onesimus If Onesimus had been convented before a judge for these same crimes and Injuries had produced the Satisfaction made by his Surety Paul accepted by the creditor Philemon would not the judge have had ground in Law equity to pronounce Onesimus not guilty therefore not to be punished according as was libelled against him And yet though Onesimus had been pronounced Innocent that is not-guilty as to Crimes and Injuries alleiged against him in this case in a legal sense it would not follow that he had never committed these wrongs nor had the evincing of that been necessary to his Absolution and justification His Legal Innocency or Righteousness by vertue of the Satisfaction made by his Surety now judicially accounted reputed his being Sufficient These things are plaine to such as will but open their eyes but all the world cannot make them plaine to such as will understand nothing but what is cast into Aristotelian Metaphysical Mould Were it not lost laboure for any to enquire what is the Matter Forme of this legal Righteousness of Onesimus Whereof is it constitute How came Paul's righteousness to be his and so one accident to go from subject to subject whether was Paul's satisfaction the Efficient or Constitutive cause of Onesimus his Innocency or non-guiltiness and the like The 5. Object is How can God accept him as just who is really reputedly a sinner This dishonoureth His Holiness and Justice To this he saith Not so cannot God pardon sin upon a valuable Merite Satisfaction of a Mediator though He judge us not perfect now accept us not as such Yet 1. Now he judgeth us holy 2. And the members of a perfect Saviour 3. And will make us perfect and spotless and then so judge us having washed us from our sins in the bloud of the Lamb. Ans. All this giveth no satisfaction to the objection for the objection speaketh of acceptance in Justification consequently of that acceptation that preceedeth Sanctification 2. It is true God can doth pardon sins but meer pardon of sins is not justification the person must be accepted as righteous and yet by Mr. Baxter's way the man hath no righteousness to ground such a judgment and acceptation and God's judgment being alwayes according to truth the justified man must be righteous that he may be accounted accepted as Righteous in Justification Therefore either Mr. Baxter must grant that he is Righteous through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ or that he is Righteous inherently by his faith or by his fulfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant for there is not a third or that he is prononnced Righteous without a Righteousness The 6. object Thus you make the Reatus culpae not pardoned at all but only the Reatus poenae To this he saith 1. If by Reatus culprae be meaned the Relation of a sinner as he is revera peccator so to be reus is to be revera ipse qui peccavit then we must consider what you meane by Pardon for if you mean the nullifying of such a guilt or Reality it is impossible because necessitate existentiae he that hath once sinned will be still the person that sinned while he is a person the relation of one that sinned will cleave to him It will eternally be a true proposition Peter Paul did sin But if by pardon you mean the pardoning of all the penalty which for that sin is due damni vel sensus so it is pardoned this is indeed the Reatus poenae not only the penalty but the dueness of that penalty or the obligation to it is remitted and nullified Ans. The nullifying of the Reatus culpa physically or metaphysically is indeed Impossible for it will be alwayes true that such such persons did sinne but this Reatus culpae may and must be nullified legally and juridically otherwise never shall man be justified for in justification this Reatus culpae is declared to be taken away for the man is declared non reus accepted as not-guilty or Righteous not physically or Metaphyâ—ically but legally a man must be legally Righteous before he be justified according to equity he cannot be legally Righteous as long as the Reatus culpae doth legally remaine for a man legally guilty is not legally Righteous Now Mr. Baxter must yeeld to this or he shall destroy his own ground and take away all pardon as well as justification for as it will be eternally true that Peter Paul did sinne so were rei culpae so it will be eternally true that punishment was due unto them that is they were rei poenae therefore if because it will be eternally true that Peter Paul sinned therefore the Reatus culpae cannot be annulled so because it will be eternally true that Peter Paul were obnoxious liable to punishment therefore also the Reatus poenae cannot be annulled But the truth lyeth here that though neither the Reatus culpae nor poenae can be annulled physically or metaphysically that is so taken away as if they never had been yet both are taken away legally juridically and a pardoned man is legally and juridically non puniendus thus the Reatus poenae is taken away and a justified man is legally and juridically not-guilty of the offence charged against him thus the Reatus culpae is taken away As it is inconsistent with pardon to say that
the person pardoned doth legally remaine obnoxious to punishment though it will be eternally true that he is the man that did contract that dueness onbnoxiousness so it is inconsistent with justification to say that the person justified is legally chargable with the offence though it will be eternally true that he is the man that did contract that guilt sin He saith 2. Therefore if by Reatus culpae you meane an obligation to punishment for that fault this being in deed the reatus poenae is done away So that we are I think all agreed de re de nomine you may say that the Reatus culpae is done away or remitted or not in several senses in se it is not nullified nor can be but as dueness of punishment followeth that is pardoned Ans. The Reatus culpae is the ground of the obligation to punishment not the same with Reatus poenae it is a being chargable with such a crime offence and this as we said much be as well done away in a legal sense as the obligation to punishment Nay in our case the obligation to punishment cannot be taken away untill first this chargableness with the sin be removed The Lord will not declare that man non-obliged to punishment who remaineth legally and Juridically reus culpae chargable with the crime And so long as we differ herein we are not agreed de re nor de nomine The Reatus culpae in se is as well nullified in a legal sense as the Reatus poenae and neither the one nor the other can be otherwayes nullified But I see Mr. Baxter is so for pardon as to destroy all Justification or he thinketh that Pardon and Justification are all one thing and by both nothing is taken away but the obligation to punishment and thus the pardoned and justified person is still chargable with the sin the obligation to punishment is taken away where the charge of guilt remaineth and thus God is supposed to justifie a person that is not justifiable except by an iniquous sentence Yea hereby we have the Socinian pardon owned but not the orthodox pardon for the Socinian-Pardon can well consist with this chargableness of guilt because they acknowledge no Satisfaction to remove the Reatus culpae but the orthodox pardon doth presuppose the removal in a legal sense of the guilt or chargableness of sin and is a Native consequent thereof for because of Satisfaction made by the Surety Christ and the same now imputed to the sinner and made his guilt is taken away he is no more chargable with that guilt but looked upon as Righteous and therefore all obligation to punishment is actually removed he is no more obnoxious thereto in Law being rectus in curia Object 7. You have said that though we are not personally but seminally in Adam when he sinned yet when we are persons we are persons guilty of his actual sin And so we must be persons that are partakers of Christ's actual Righteousness and not only of its effects as soon as we are beleevers for Christ being the second Adam publick person we have our part in His Righteousness as truely and as much as in Adam's sin His answere to this is long He saith 1. Our Covenant Union Interest supposeth our Natural Union Interest it is an adding to God's word Covenant to say that He Covenanted that Adam should personat each one of his posterity in God's Imputation or account any further than they were naturally in him so that his innocency or sin should be reputed theirs as far as if they had been personally the Subjects Agents Ans. If the Covenant Union Interest supposeth the Natural Union Interest then there is a Covenant Union and Interest here to be considered and therefore it can be no adding to God's word or Covenant to say That Adam did personat each one of his posterity foederally as well as Naturally Yea to deny this were a corrupting of truth a denying of all Covenant-Union Interest Whence it is manifest that in a Federal or legal sense we must needs say that Adam's Innocency or sin is reputed ours as far as if we had been personally not physically but legally the Subjects Agents If Mr. Baxter shall prove that the Foederal Union Interest which he saith is superadded to the Natural will admit of no other Consideration of the posterity Interessed than what is physical Natural followeth upon the Natural Union he shall then lay a ground for what he would say here but till then he shall but beat the aire when he hath done that he shall destroy what he hath granted viz. all Foederal Union Interest for a Foederal Union Interest will ground a foederal legal Consideration of the persons interessed as well as a Natural Union and Interest will ground a Natural and physical Consideration of the same persons And Mr. Baxter's not adverting to this confoundeth all for hence it is that he will have all things here considered only physically and according to Aristotle's notions with which we have nothing to do while speaking of a Foederal Union and Interest and of what followeth thereupon This being premitted we may quickly dispatch the rest The person of Peter saith he never was in reality or God's reputation the person of Adam nor Adam's person the person of Peter but Peter being virtually seminally in Adam when he sinned his person is derived from Adam's person so Peter's guilt is not numerically the some with Adam's but the accident of another Subject therefore another accident derived with the person from Adam from neerer parents Ans. All this is only true in a physical Natural sense but notwithstanding if we consider Adam and his posterity in a legal foederal sense as we must if there be as is granted a foederal Union Interest then all runneth in another channel The person of Peter is foederally and legally in the person of Adam yea God reputeth them both to be one Federal person and the person of Peter was thus actually in the person of Adam and not virtually and seminally for these notions have no place here And hence Peter's original guilt is numerically the same with Adam's and in this sense Peter had as neer a Relation to Adam as Abel had for here Adam is considered as the Head Center and all his posteriâ—y as equal members of this Political Foederal Body and as Lines coming equally from the same Centre He addeth The fundamentum of that Relation of guilt is the Natural Relation of the peâ—son to Adam so it is relatio in relatione fundata The fundamentum of that Natural relation is Generation yea a series of Generations from Adam to that person And Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature with personality to his Sones Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal
but a part of justification because a man may be for-given yet not reputed never to have broken the Law To put away guilt and to make one Righteons are two things This is most clear yet Mr. Baxter saith n. 128. Still confusim Which is wonderfull where I pray must the confusion lye Is it in this that we say Remission of sin is at most but part of justification Doth not himself say as much hereafter n. 208. when he saith that our first constitutive justification is in its own Nature a right to Impunity to life or glory Now this Right to Impunity is the same with Remission but a Right to life or glory is something more Is it in this that we say a man may be forgiven and yet not reputed one who never broke the Law That I am sure can be no confusion and contradiction for it is a contradiction to say that a man is pardoned and yet reputed one that never broke the Law for pardon is of a breach of the Law What saith he to make out this alleiged Confusion Guilt saith he is either of the fault as such or of the punishment of the fault only as the cause of punishment If all guilt both culpae poenae were done away that person were reputed positively righteous that is never to have omitted a duty or committed a sin Ans. But do we say That pardon taketh away the Reatus culpae in it self His own following words may partly be our answer But indeed saith he when only the Reatus poenae culpae quoad poenam is done away the Reatus culpae in se remaineth And this Christ himself never taketh away no not in heaven where for ever we shall be judged once to have sinned not to be such as never sinned Where is now the Confusion Mr. Baxter spoke of But yet I suppose he is in a mistake when he saith that the Reatus culpae cannot be taken away for it must be taken away legally or there shall be no justification though it can never be taken away Metaphysically the same may be said of the Reatus culpae it self seing it will alwayes be true that they did once deserve punishment are not such as never deserved punishment He addeth n. 129. that which to him is the Core of our errour That we â—hink we must be justified in Christ by the Law of Innocency which justified Christ Himself that we are quite or washed simply from all guilt of fault as well as Obligation to Punishment But neither of these do we say as hath been frequently shown We are justified by the Law of Grace by faith yet we say with Paul that the Law is not made void by faith but established the Law of Innocency must be fulfilled but it is not fulfilled by us but by Christ His Righteousness is Imputed to us and received by faith and we thereupon are justified receive Remission and Right to Glory We do not say That Adam's Law meant do this by thyself or by Christ thou shalt live yet we say that that Constitution of God do this and live must as well be established as this Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Law and that as by vertue of this Christ our Surety was to die the cursed death so by vertue of that He was to fulfill all Righteousness He 〈…〉 next n. 130. that the truth which we grope after and must reconcile us all is as followeth As if all the Reformed divines almost had been hither to but groping after the truth like blinde men groping for the wall and he and possibly two or three moe had their eyes opened to see the truth His discourse here is too long to be rehearsed that it may be examined a few observes upon it may suffice 1 He saith Christ in His sufferings did stand in the room of sinners as their Sponsor Ans. Then His Satisfaction to justice must in due time be reckoned on the score of such in whose room He suffered Why will he not say this also of Christ's Obedience seing both were performed by Him in His estate of Humiliation as the Surety of the Covenant Was He not made under the Law as well as under the Curse And was He not made of a woman given and born to us But neither can we say That Christ stood in the room of all sinners as he supposeth 2 We saith That Christ acquired a Right first to Himself of giving out the purchased benefites to sinners by a new Law viz. by what He suffered did Ans. This is denied as not yet being confirmed and it destroyeth His being a Sponsor and Surety and saith He was not born to us nor died for us but to and for Himself And yet I deny not that Christ hath gote all power and is the General dispensator of the blessings of the Covenant purchased 3 He saith Had Christ antecedently done all that He did in our person we in Him in Law sense the thing its self with its inseparable consequents effects had been all ours ipso facto Ans. There is no necessity for this seing Christ was not thereunto appointed by us or conjunctly obliged with us in the first Covenant but after we were broken did of His own accord put His Name in our Obligation and came in our Law-place so was made sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him 4 He speaketh of these benefites being given us upon termes Conditions But we shew before and here-after will have occasion to do it more fully of what Nature these termes and Conditions were and that they are not such as He meaneth 5 He saith What is given by the New Covenant we have title to upon this account because it was purchased by the perfect merite sacrifice of Christ so given us by Him and by the Father Ans. According to Him the Right that is had thus is but remote common to all even to such as perish therefore can hardly be called a Right but the only Right is had is by our performance of the termes and Conditions for he saith n. 137. that Glory is given as a Reward for our beleeving and performing the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace 6 He saith we deserved punishment Christ was punished in our stead that we might be forgiven we had forfeited life by sin Christ merited life for us by His perfection Ans. And why will he not say that Christ did this last as well as the first in our stead seing hereby the freedom of the Gift can no more be weakened than pardon by the other What followeth hath been spoken to already He granteth n. 132. That not to punish to reward are different yet he saith not to have the Gift is to be punished so non-donari here is puniri materially that it is the same
pledge or hostage suffer for those he standeth for may not he be said to suffer in their Law-person If a Surety be put in prison for the debtor may he not be said to suffer in the debtor's Law-place in his person in Law-sense He addeth And we mean that He took upon Him the person of a sinner in as much as He consented to suffer for sin Ans. This is good we accept of it cheerfully in tantum for it explaineth to us in part the meaning of these words He made Him sin for us And so he addeth personating here is not meant becoâ—ing any other mans person in Law-seuse so as that other legally suffered what he did but it is only his own persons becoming a sufferer in the stead of sinners for their sins As the Apostle saith He was made sin for us that is so far by Imputation as that he undertook to suffer what sinners suffer for their sins Ans. But when Christ came in the Law-place of sinners did substitute Himself in their room suffered what they were obliged to suffer sure He took on their person in a Lawsense they for whom He suffered can be said in His in His Fathers designe so far legally to have suffered what He suffered as never to be made to suffer the same themselves But he seeth that this is but a wordy Controversie therefore to free the matter of ambiguity of words he pag. 77. addeth several things as 1. That as we hold that Adam was the Natural Root or parent of Mankind so also that Christ was the foederal root of all the saved in several respects though not all a second Adam Ans. We hold that Adam was not only the Natural Root but he was also the federal Root of all mankinde for the Covenant was made with him and with all his posterity in him and hence it was that all sinned in him fell with him in his first transgression Rom. 5 12. 1. Cor. 15 20 21. He addeth 2. Adam was but one single Natural person nor did God by errâ—ur or arbitrary reputation esteem or account Him to be any other than he was None of our persons were distinct persons in Adam nor those persons that now they are Therefore we were not so personally in him at his fall But all our persons are in time mediatly by our progenitors derived lineally from him not as having been persons existent in him but being persons caused remotely by him Ans. Adam it is true was but one single Natural person in a physical sense yet in a Law-sense as he was constitute the federal Head Root we were all that one Adam or he was us all representing all so did God esteem or account him not by errour but by a Right Reputation founded on His own Constitution 2 None of our physical persons were distinct persons in him yet our legal persons were in him when he represented us all as a federal Head 3 We know that our physical persons were only seminally or virtually in him we grant also that to be only virtually in Adam is terminus diminuens as to personal inexistence but I know not how we could be personally in-existent in him even when existent in a physical sense But all this taketh not away that federal inexistence whereby in a Law-sense we were in him as our federal Head Root But it seemeth Mr. Baxter doth not acknowledge this because he maketh our Natural relation to Adam to be the only reason of out partaking of his sin We do not deny our Natural Interest in Adam but we superadde to it this federal Interest He saith It is our Natural relation to Adam supposed in God's Law which is the reason of our participation in his sin not any will or judgment of God without or beyond our Natural Interest for else it should be God most properly who by His arbitrary Imputation should either make us sinners or repute us such when we are none Ans. I have granted that we have a Natural relation to Adam but I adde that that is not the sole ground or reason of our participation in his sin but the federal relation with the Natural relation And hence it doth no way follow that God doth properly make us sinners or repute us such when we are not by His arbitrary Imputation for this Imputation being founded upon this double preconstituted relation cannot be called meerly arbitrary nay nor could it be so called though it were said to be solely founded upon this federal relation more than when it is said to be grounded upon the Natural relation Though in another sense it might be so called as well when said to be founded on the Natural as when said to be founded on the federal Relation God being the free Author Constitutor of both 3. He addeth So Christ is though not the Natural yet the federal Adam Root of Beleevers When he satisfied merited we were not in Him either as in Adam seminally as in a Natural Generator nor as existent persons nor did God falsly so repute us to be But He was then the Cause materially or had that virtus effectiva which would justifie Sanctifie Glorifie us in due time Ans. Christ it is true is no Natural but a federal Root so keepeth Correspondence with the first Adam a federal Root 2 It is true also we were not in Christ when He satisfied as in Adam seminally as in a Natural Generator but yet the Elect were in Him in a more noble supernatural manner as given of God to Him as undertaken for by Him when He did substitute Himself in their Law-place became their Surety 3 If Christ had only been the material cause as having that virtus effectiva how could He be called their federal Head or how could they be said to be chosen in Him before the foundation of the world It was the nature of sinners saith he though not a sinful Nature which He assumed But that Nature which He undertook was existent in His Individual person no other individual person was existent in His existent personal Nature What then So that he addeth when we say it was the common Nature of Man we mean only specificè that Nature which is of the same species with all other mens but not that which existed individually in any but himself Ans. Notwithstanding of all this Christ was a federal Head a Publick Person undertaking for and therein representing all those that were given to Him to save and this his following words confirme when he saith But it was individual persons in whose stead or place Christ suffered whom He undertook to justifie sanctify save gather into an holy Society to that end to that end He undertook performed His office merited all this by His perfect Righteousness so that hereby He made Himself a federal Head Root of an holy
his sin to us 3 Thus we see by asserting the cause viz. our relation to Christ he taketh away the effect viz. the Imputation of His Righteousness as being no distinct thing as if one should say we are related to Adam a sinful Head who broke the Law for us this is called Adam's sin imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours But yet Christ's fulfilling all Righteousness for us if that for us were understood in the Scripture sense and not according to the Socinian or Arminian gloss would abundantly ground the Imputation we plead for and that as a fruit of our Relation to Christ. Passing what he saith 8 as not worth the noticeing We come to see what he saith 9. lastly Proposing this objection to himself if Christ's person be given us then His personal Righteousness is given us with it He replieth thus Yes as His person is He is not given us as proprietors Lords to become our own at our dispose nor is his person made one Person with each or any of us His person is not turned into ours nor ours into his Ans. This is all to no purpose for no man in his wits either said so or dreamed so at any time As the husband saith he is not the person of the wife nor the King of each Subject but as one that hath a Great wise learned Bountiful Holy King or Husband hath also his Greatness c. as they have him that is as his perfections for their good as far as his relation bindes him but not as if his enduements were removed from him to them or falsely reputed to be in them or his person to be their persons so here as we have a Christ so we have a perfect Righteous Christ given us to be our federal head when we beleeve and the Righteousness which is not in us but in Him is ours so far as to be for our good as far as His office Covenant do oblige Him Ans. This savoureth of making Christ's dying for us to be nothing else than His dying for our good as Socinians say and if it import more as it doth in truth he cannot but see that his simile here hath nothing of a similitude in it for the objection speaketh of Christ's person given to us not as a great wise c. King is given to his Subjects but as the Surety is given to the debtor i.e. as one whose payment of the debt must be reckoned on the score of the debtor in order to his liberation out of prison He addeth So that a Righteous Christ and therefore the Righteousness of Christ are ours relatively themselves quoad jus beneficii so as that we have right to these benefites by them which we shall possess and for the merites of His Righteousness we are conditionally justified and saved before we beleeve and actually after Ans. All this jus beneficii is but remote for in the foregoing pag. he told us as we heard that this right doth not flow immediatly from what Christ did and suffered but from his Covenant of Grace and I think he should have said rather from their performance of the condition for the Covenant conveyeth no title but conditionally he knoweth and therefore can give no title or Right untill the condition be performed upon the performance of which the conditional Title becometh actual And further there is no more here said than what a Socinian will say and particularly Sclightingius pro Socino cont Meisnerum pag. 250. whose words we cited above towards the beginning of our XIII Chapter CHAP. XVII Reasons enforcing the practice of the Truth hithertill Vindicated WE have now at some length as the Lord was pleased to help essayed to vindicat this noble fundamental Truth of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in order to the obtaining of this life of justification and ere we proceed I judge it will not be amiss to press the practice of this Truth the hearty practical embracing thereof by several Arguments Considerations for it will not be enough for us to know the Theory and to be orthodox in our judgments as to these Necessary soul-concerning truthes but we must also practise them that it may appear we do beleev them in very deed and that we beleeve them with the heart this will be the best way to be kept orthodox and stedfast in the truth I shall therefore propose a few Considerations moving to the practice of this so necessary concerning a Truth As 1. This way of justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ the Mediator Surety is a way thath hath the testimony of both Law Prophets confirming it is now more clearly revealed manifest under the Gospel dispensation than it was formerly Rom. 3 21 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law the Prophets even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Christ unto all upon all them that beleeve And the same Apostle tels us Rom. 1 16 17. That he was not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the Power of God unto Salvation to every one that beleeveth c. And what is the ground reason of this for therein saith he is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by â—aith This then must be a very sure saife way being thus attested witnessed by all that are worthy of credite in this matter a way that is one the same as to its substance both before the Law under the Law now under the Gospel though it be now more clearly unfolded explained since the coming exaltation of the blessed Mediator than it was before His coming when it was darkly revealed shadowed under the Mosaical Ceremonies Observances None need to feare a Miscarrying or a disappointment in following of this way which even the Law it self or the Mosaical observances did point forth in the daily yeerly Sacrifices pointing forth the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world on which the offerers were to lay their hands before they were to be offered up in token of their devolving laying their sin guilt upon the same as the the type of that one only acceptable Sacrifice that was to come in the fuluess of time was to satisfie justice for their sinnes to shew forth declare their faith relying thereon expecting acceptance there through as we see Levit. 1 4 3 2. 16 21. And a way which also the Prophets or the Spirit of Christ which was in them did testifie and bear witness to when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1 10. c. So Peter in his Sermon to Cornelius told him Act. 10 43. that to Him i.e. to Christ gave all Prophets witness that through His Name
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
at all or Justification must be some other thing than a pronunceing or declaring of a man Righteous 2 Why have we heard so much above said for Faiths being Righteousness why have there been so many passages of Scripture adduced to confirme this particuiarly such as mention the Righteousness of faith or the Righteousness of God by faith But it may be this salvo is added a Righteousness properly so called Yet then it will follow that it must be at least a Righteousness improperly so called and that must be an improper speach faith is imputed for righteousness and if that be an improper speech why is there so much noise made about the impropriety of the speech when we take Faith for the object of faith in that sentence faith imputed unto righteousness All that great clamoure must now recurre upon the excepter and his followers 3 If this which he hath given be the meaning of these words faith imputed unto righteousness let any judge whether our sense of them or this be most genuine freest of trops figures which of the two is apparently farthest fetched 4 Faith then it seemeth is tendered unto God faith being but a Righteousness improperly so called we tender unto God in our Justification a Righteousness only that is improper thereupon are declared Righteous whether properly or improperly I know not 5 If upon the tender of Faith God look upon us as Righteous then we mâ—st be righteous for we must be what he seeth acknowledgeth us to be And then I ask whether doth he look upon us as properly Righteous or as improperly Righteous 6 If God look upon us as having fulfilled the condition of the Covenant as Righteous upon that account then he must look upon us as properly righteous faith must be a proper righteousness or he must say that Christ hath purchased that an improper Righteousness shall be the Condition of the Covenant for we heard he said that Christ had purchased that Faith should be the condition But the performance of the Condition of God's Covenant must be hold for a proper Righteousness as perfect obedience was under the first Covenant And we heard lately that Faith was truely properly called a Righteousness that it might be so called with truth in sufficient propriety of speech in his answere to the first argument 7 If we be righteous by faith be looked upon as such by God having performed the condition of the Covenant it is not imaginable how we shall not be if not meritoriously yet at least formally Righteous seing as Adam by Perfect Obedience would have performed the Condition of that Covenant under which he was and thereby had been both Meritoriously formally Righteous so must it be now in respect of faith which is made to have the same place force efficacy in the new Covenant and that through the procurment of Christ that Perfect Obedience had in the old Covenant 8 He saith we are made meritoriously righteous by Christ's sufferings But what is the meaning of this Is this the meaning thereof that Christ's sufferings hath merited a Righteousness to us Then hereby nothing is spoken to the point for we are not now speaking of Christ's Righteousness but of ours And againe I would enquire what Righteousness hath it merited unto us Whether a meritorious Righseousness or a formal Righteousness as he distinguishad or both Or is the meaning this That through Christ's merites sufferings we have a Righteousness which is meritorious If so I enquire what is that Righteousness Whether is it Christ's Righteousness imputed to us made ours or is it our Faith that becometh meritorious If this last be said that is granted which was denied Faith must be accounted our meritorious Righteousness If the former be said imputation of Christ's Righteousness will be granted more than we dar say 9 He saith we are made formally righteous with the pardon of sins But this is never proved and it hath been often asserted And how will he make this a Formal Righteousness Righteousness properly so called Is this any conformity to a Law in whole or in part Did not himself insinuat in his answere to the first Argum. that nothing can with truth and in sufficient propriety of speech be called a Righteousness but what is a conformity to the Law of God And sure I am Pardon of sins is not any such conformitie 10 The summe of this answere is this Faith is not imputed as a Righteousness but it is said to be imputed unto Righteousness because it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant whereby we come to be made Righteous meritoriously by Christ's death Righteous formally with the pardon of sins And what a wiredrawn untelligible self-contradictory sense this is let every one judge He denieth the consequence 2. Because suppose that this inference lay in the bowels of what we hold that faith were a proper righteousness yet neither would this argue that therefore God should receive a righteousness from us in our justification for we rather receive our faith from God for our justification shen God from us in our justification though I grant that in a sense a far off with much adoe it may haply be made a truth that God receives our faith from us in our justification Ans. But sure though Adam's obedience was originally from God efficiently he being the First Cause yet had Adam been justified according to that Old Covenant he had been justified by his own works not by the Righteousness of another bestowed on him by God so he had been said to have presented his own Righteousness unto God in order to his justification and God might have been said to have received it from him in his justification or rather in order thereunto Now just so is it here as to Faith for faith is our work we come with it to God he taketh it from us thereupon justifieth us according to our Adversaries opinion not in a sense a far off or made with much ado as he supposeth but in a sense most plaine obvious He saith lastly That that imputation of faith for righteousness which he protecteth supposeth a righteousness given unto received by men because it could not be truely said that God doth impute faith for righteousness unto any man except he should make him righteous upon his beleeving Now as it is impossible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousness in one kinde or other so is it impossible also that that righteousness wherewith a man is made righteous in justification should be derived upon him from any other but from God alone for this righteousness can be none other but forgiveness of sins Ans. 1 How can the Imputation of Faith suppose a Righteousness given unless the Righteousness be given before Faith be imputed seing what is supposed is alwayes first in order
will save justifie us but his Righteousness laid hold on brought home applied by Faith that so all might see be convinced of the necessity of faith whereby the soul goeth out to Christ layeth to his Righteousness and might not satisfie themselves with a Notion of Christ his Righteousness never applied by Faith but be enduced to lay hold on him by Faith to the end they might have an interest in Christ's Righteousness the same being upon their faith bestowed upon them and reckoned upon their score The expression is most emphatick to hold forth the necessity now of faith according to the Lord 's Soveraigne appointment as if thereby Christ's Righteousness their faith were become one thing as being wholly inseparable in this affaire so that it cometh to one whether by faith we understand the Grace as acting upon connoting the Object or the Object as acted upon by the Grace of Faith as in that expression the Righteousness of faith Rom. 4 13. Faith may either be interpreted to be Christ as said hold on by faith so the meaning will be through the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on by Faith faith may be the same way explained in the following vers 14. 16. for if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void i. e. if the grand heritage come by the Law by obedience to it the Gospel holding forth Christ to be laid hold on by faith is made void as to this end and againe vers 16. therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace i. e. it is of by Christ laid hold upon by Faith that it might be by grace Or faith in all these may be interpreted to be faith as acting upon the object Christ his Righteousness the consequence force of the words will be found to be the same whether of these wayes we explaine the matter As when speaking of the Israelits stung in the wilderness it were all one to say they were healed by the brazen serpent to wit looked to or they were healed by their look to wit upon the brazen serpent for still it will be understood that all the vertue came from the brazen serpent or him rather that was typified thereby yet so as it was to be looked upon that their looking was but an Instrumental mean thereunto and when a mean thereunto must include the object looked unto We hear it sometimes said of persons miraculously cured that their Faith made them whole while as the vertue came from the object acted upon by faith as Peter fully explaineth the matter saying Act. 3 16. And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong Thus we see how this matter may be saifly must be understood when the vertue and efficacy of the Principal cause is attributed to the Instrumental cause And yet lest any should stumble at the expression pervert it as many do to day the Apostle abundantly Caveats against this by telling us so plainely so fully so frequently of the Righteousness of God which is had by faith through faith as we have seen never speaketh of a Righteousness had because of faith or for Faith nor saith he that faith is our Righteousness while treating of Justification CHAP. XXV Faith is not our Gospel-Righteousness OUr Adversaries to strengthen their Assertion of the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense to the exclusion of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ have other two Positions which they own maintaine One is that our Faith or our act of beleeving is the whole of our Gospel-Righteousness And the other is That Christ hath procured that it should be so by procuring the New Covenant whereof this faith is made the Condition To this last we shall speak something in the next Chapter of the other here How much Mr. Baxter doth contend for our Faith 's being called accounted our Gospel-Righteousness is known The forenamed Author of the discourse of the two Covenants is very plaine pag. 48 c. where he is explaining what God's counting Abraham's faith to him for Righteousness is There he tels us that he takes it to signifie thus much to wit That God in a may of special grace or by vertue of a new Law of grace favour which was established by God in Christ Gal. 3 17. that is in reference to what Christ was to do suffer in time then to come did reckon his practical faith to him for Righteousness that is that which in the eye of that new Law should passe in his estimation for righteousness subordinat to Christ's Righteousness which procured this grant or Law And thereafter pag. 40. he tels us That it is an act of God's special favour by vertue of his new Law of grace that such a faith as he hath described that is a faith taking in all Gospel Obedience as we saw above comes to be reckoned or imputed to a man for Righteousness through God's imputing it for righteousness to stand a man in the same if not in a better stead as to his eternal concerns as a perfect fulfilling of the original Law from first to last would have done Christ's Righteousness being presupposed the only Meritorious Cause of this grant or Covenant Thereafter pag. 50. he tels us there are two things which constitute make up the Righteousness of the Law of Grace first that which consisteth in the forgiveness of sins 2. the righteousness of sincere obedience And in inference to both he saith faith is imputed for righteousness be vertue of the Law of Grace for saith he faith as practical is imputed to a man for righteousness as it is that all that which is required of him himself by the Law of Grace to entitle him to the righteousness which consisteth in remission of sins And then as to the second he saith pag. 52. That faith is imputed for righteousness which is practical or productive of sincere obedience without which properâ—y it is not a fulfilling of the Law of Grace as a condition of the promised benefites consequently cannot justifie a man in the eye of that Law for as he addeth there must be repentance forgiving men their injuries faith must be such as worketh by love then he tels us that Abraham was justified by his works Jam. 2. All which abomination of doctrine perversion of the right wayes of the Lord we are not here to examine It is enough in reference to the clearing of what is now before us under consideration that we see here a plaine dâ—lmeation explication made of that Gospel which Mr. Baxter said this Treatise would lead us into the knowledge of which is the very same upon the matter with that Gospel which Socinians Arminians hold forth joyning herein with Papists as we saw in part above Chap. XVIII towards the beginning we shall at
denote one the same thing the last being explicative of the former Ezek. 18 30. Repent turn yourselves And this is imported by many Synonimous expressions in the Old Testament as Seeking the Lord Deut. 4 29. Turning to the Lord vers 30. Returning to the Lord. Hos 5 4. Seeking the face of God 2. Chron. 7 14. the like See also Revel 3 19. 4. It is sometimes expresly distinguished from Godly sorrow mentionned as a Consequent or fruite effect of it 2. Cor. 7 9 yee sorrowed to Repentance 10. for Godly sorrow worketh Repentance 5. Sometime it is expresse distinguished from Faith as Act. 20 21 Repentance toward God faith toward our Lord Iesus Christ. Heb. 6 1. not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works of faith towards God So Ier. 31 19. after I was turned that is wrought up to faith I repented 6. Sometime it signifieth nothing else upon the matter but a receiving of the Gospel a beleeving in Christ not only Mark. 1 15. repens ye beleeve the Gospel where the later is explicative of the former but also in many other places where Bapist's ministrie is spoken of the summe whereof is said to have been Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand Mat. 3 2. and his baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance Mark. 1 4 or unto Repentance Mat. 3 11. See also Luk. 3 3. Act. 13 24. Now that this preaching of Repentance Baptisme of or unto Repentance which is said to have been Iohn's ministrie work was the preaching of Faith in the Messiah Paul telleth us expreslie Act. 19 4. Then said Paul Iohn verily baptized with the baptisme of Repentance saying unto the people that they should beleeve on him which should come after him that is on Christ Iesus So that by this Commentary of Paul's we understand both what was the scope of his Baptisme of Repentance also what was the meaning of his calling on his hearers to Repent to wit to embrace Christ who came after him to beleeve in him And by this Commentary we may understand the purpart of Christ's preaching Mat. 4 17. from that time Iesus began to preach to say Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand And this is called Mark 1 14. the Gospel of the Kingdom of God As also of the preaching of the Apostles Seventy disciples when they were sent to say the Kingdom of God was come or is nigh unto you Luk. 10 9. Mat. 10 7. which is called the Gospel Luk. 9 6. and Repentance Mark. 6 12. they went out preached that men should Repent By this also we may understand the meaning of these the like passages Mat. 9 13 I am not come to call the Righteous but sinners to Repentance So Mark 2 17. Luk. 5 32. as likewise of that passage Luk. 15 7 10 joy in heaven over one person that repenteth for this is Christ's saving of the man that was lost Mat. 18 11. Luk. 15 4. 19. 10. See also Mat. 11 20. Act. 2 38. 11 18. 26 18. 20. compared together 7. Sometime it denoteth a recovery from some measure of defection into which persons are backsliden as Revel 2 5. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen Repent do shy first works So Ch. 3 3. Remember therefore how thou hast received heard hold fast Repent 8. Sometime it is distinguished from works of Obedience that follow upon it flow from it as Mat. 3 8. bring forth fruits meet for Repentance that is fruits suiting or answerable unto a Christian state or a state of beleeving in Christ which before we saw was denoted by Iohn's Baptisme So Luk. 3 8. Act. 26 10. 9. Sometime it includeth all that is required in order to Salvation upon mans part as 2 Pet. 3 9 not willing that any should pertâ—h but that all should come to Repentance So that Repentance includeth all that is requisite to escape perishing So Luk. 13 3 5 except ye Repent ye shall all likewise perish So also Act. 5 31. to give Repentance to Israel Remission of sins where as Remission of sins may comprehend all the spiritual favours and privileges which Christ bestoweth so Repentance may include all the graâ—es blessings which he bestoweth in order to the actual participating of these privileges Thus we may understand it Act. 17 30. but now commandeth all men every where to Repent that is by the preached Gospel wherever it cometh commandeth all men to relinquish their courses of vanity to embrace the Gospel of Salvation to walk accordingly So Luk. 24 47. And that Repentance Remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations which is the short summe of the Apostles Commission to wit to exhort to all Christian duties imported by Repentance hold forth all Gospel privileges as an encouragment thereunto included in Remission of sins Having premitted these things in order to the clearing of the question we would know further 1. That the Question is not whether the doctrine of Papists about Repentance in order to Justification be to be owned in whole or in part for none now appeareth in the direct owning of their Assertions who commonly are utterly ignorant of true Justification as different from Sanctification as may sufficiently appeare by the very naming of their positions for 1 They look upon Repentance as having force efficacy to expell sin as light hath to expell darkness taking Remission to be a destroying of the very being of sin expelling of Corruption by contrary gracious Qualities inherent Holiness of which they make Repentance a part 2 They make Repentance concurre as a material cause dssposing the soul for receiving a gracious Quality for the expelling of sin 3 They make Repentance to obtain pardon by way of merite and 4 by way of Satisfaction Not to mention 5 their Sacrament of Pennance All which the Reader will finde not only rejected but also shortly solidly confused by worthy judicious Mr. Durham in his Comment on the Revel in that digression on Repentance pag. 251. 2. Nor is the Question whether the Lord call for Repentance as a duty at the hands of such as either are to be Justified or are already Justified for both these we willingly grant as being divine truthes richly confirmed in the Scriptures what ever Antinomians say to the contrary 3. Nor is the Question whether Repentance be a Condition of the Covenant or not For if by a Condition of the Covenant we understand every thing that is a duty required of the Covenanters it is readily granted as was said that Repentance is a duty required of such as are really in Covenant with God but if by a Condition of the Covenant be meaned a duty required in order to the closing of the Covenant or entering into Covenant upon the performing of which the Covenant is immediatly
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
is his strong opinion that he is confident of it that no justified person shall ever lose his justification that God hath promised to cause them persevere This State then is not to be compared with other States which are losable changeable among men nor can we with such freedome speak of Conditions of not loseing that which is fully secured from all loseing as we may speak of the Conditions of keeping Not-loseing that which may be oft is lost We can not then speak of the State of Justification as we do of Marriage betwixt man woman here there may be are indeed Conditions required of each part in order to the keeping up of the Relation they may be called Conditions of not loseing that Relation or Privilege But as to justification which is not so loseable to speak of Conditions of not loseing it may occasion Apprehensions in the mindes of men of its being losable It were saifer then in my apprehension to enquire how or what way is this State Relation continued or what is required on our part in order thereunto then to enquire what are the Conditions of Not-loseing this State 3. Seing Mr. Baxter granteth Confess p. 109. that no new sin destroyeth their State of Justification nor maketh them cease to be God's reconciled Children seing they are still united unto Christ and have his Spirit and have Faith Repentance at least as to the habit pag. 129. That the habite of Faith Repentance which is ever in them qualifieth them for present Remission of ordinary sins of infirmity at least And it is undeniable that the Lord's Spirit preserveth them from such sins as are inconsistent with a State of Justification or that make an intercision in that State consequently in their Adoption Union with Christ seing I say all this is granted to what purpose is such a question as this here moved and stated anent the Conditions of Not-loseing this state 4. The terme Condition here is taken in the same sense that it was understood in when the question was about the Condition of our first entry into the State of Justification and so they must take it here for a proper legal antecedent Potestative condition for if by condition here were meaned no more than a mere Consequent Evangelick Condition the question only would be What is the Lord's Way Methode Manner how by which he preserveth his own in that State of Justification But according to their acceptation of the word condition the question really cometh to this What that is which beleevers betake themselves unto which they can may should plead with God upon for the continuance of their state that is of their Reconciliation unto Acceptance with God of the Pardon of their sins Right to glory 5. The question is not what is the Condition or what is required on our part for keeping the sense evidence of our justification in our own Consciences many things may be useful herein that yet cannot be called Conditions of the Continuance or Not-loseing of Iustification But the Iustification here spoken of is that which is before God whereby the Beleever is indeed brought into a State of Peace Reconciliation with God hath obtained a Right unto the Inheritance of Life 6. When we speak here of the continuance or Not-loseing of Iustification the Iustification spoken of must be that State or Relation where into the Beleever is already brought for that only can be said to be continued while we are living and that only can be said properly to be losed or Not-losed which a man hath These seeme then to be two distinct questions What is the Condition of our final Absolution in Iudgment what is the Condition of the continuance of our justification here which Mr. Baxter seemeth to confound Confess p. 83. as the Papists do confound their second justification with the last judgment when they are pleading for works being required as the causes thereof 7. Though as we have seen before Iustification importeth more than Remission of sins Yet in this question of the Condition of the Continuance of Justification the matter seemeth to be brought to this issue whether works of Obedience be the Condition of future Remission of sins in the justified And though these may be conceived of as distinct questions yet the clearing of the way of the Remission of future sins may serve much to cleare the present Question for if it befound that the same course is taken for Remission of future sins that was taken at first it will be manifest that justification is continued upon the same termes or in the same manner that it was at first obtained if properly we can speak at all of the Conditions of its Continuance Having premitted these things the Question is Whether faith alone or works alone or faith with works are the condition required on our part for the Continuance or not-loseing of the state of justification And I judge as faith alone was required at first in order to justification so that alone is to be called the Condition of the continuance of justification or that the Condition both of our first installing in that state of justification of the Continuance of the Privilege or of Beleevers continueing in that state is the same grace of Faith Yet these two things would be noted 1. That though the first act of Faith in Christ doth suffice to the entering of a soul into the state of justification Yet we do not meane that that one first solitarie numerical act sufficeth for all time coming albeit it sufficeth for making up of the Relation according to the appointment of God for the same Faith is to continue in its habite Yea in its actings So that we state not the Question so strickly as Mr. Baxter seemeth to do Confess p. 47. when from the Continuance of the habite of Faith from the renewing acts of that Faith required after the first act of Faith he inferreth that much more goeth to the continueing of our justification than doth at first justifie us But our question is about the addition of sincere Obedience which he there mentioneth 2. When we suppose the Continuance of Faith not only as to its habite but as to its renewed actings we do not suppose that the actings Effects or Concomitans of Faith afterward are every way the same with what they were at first so that we may also yeeld to this difference grant that some thing more may be requisite afterward Particularly in order to the Remission of some hainous sin in the acting of Faith or in the Effects or Concomitants thereof at least as to measure or outward significations to wit in Godly sorrow Humiliation Forgiving of others Restitution or the like yet it will still remaine true that justification is continued by Faith not by Works For the proof of what we conceive to be
he mindeth to Pardon he giveth also a Spirit of Repentance as both Scripture Experience proveth 3. Yet notwithstanding of this it is true that an outward Repentance where there is no inward real sanctified change wrought may hold off for a time or prorogue the inflicting of temporal strokes as we see in Aabh Nineveth others 4. It will be granted also by all the orthodox that Repentance is no proper meritorious cause of pardon not doth it make any Satisfaction to God or appease his wrath anger 4. I shall also grant that where there is true unfeigned Repentance after some sin committed there that person may saifly inferre that his sin is pardoned Repentance is a good signe of Remission because it is a good evidence that the man hath run to the fountaine to the blood of Jesus and there hath washen himself made himself cleane See Esai 1 16 17 18. 5. The Exercise of Repentance is very usefull to make sin become bitter mercy welcome to make the soul more careful watchful in time to come But the Question is whether Repentance be a proper Condition of Pardon of sins committed after Justification or not And when we speak of Repentance here we consider it by itself not as being the sensible signification expression of Faith for the Question is not whether Faith acting in through Repentance or working the soul up unto unfaigned Repentance be the Condition of Remission for that is not Repentance but Faith accompanied with acting the soul to Repentance but the Question is of Repentance considered in itself as a distinct grace from Faith And speaking of Repentance as such considered in itself I say that it is not the Condition of Remission of after sins but faith only acting in a Gospel manner on Jesus Christ his Bloud Merites And the reasons are 1. Because it is Faith not Repentance that carrieth the sinner away to the Bloud of Jesus Christ to his Merites through whom by which alone Remission is had Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. Zach. 13. 1. Heb. 9 14 22. Revel 1 5. Repentance as such layeth not hold on Christ grippeth not his Merites maketh no application of these but is wholly exercised about another object about sin 2. This would give man too great ground of boasting in himself if upon his Mourning Sorrow Repentance Pardon were to be had and would give occasion to think that there were some merite worth in that work some thing satisfying or appeasing to God for the man hereby is keeped within himself upon the account of something within himself or done by himself is he pardoned as he might suppose 3. This should be derogatorie to the Bloud Merites of Christ by which alone we have pardon first last and the Gospel is so contrived as that Christ must have all the Glory and all the methodes meanes order of the Gospel and new Covenant are in like manner framed so that man may be abased free grace exalted Christ acknowledged the only Redeemer But if our Repentance were made such a Condition there should be no application made of Christ of his bloud by the sinner No acting on him on his merites in order to the obtaining of Pardon and so no occasion of exalting free grace and Love in Christ no occasion of wondering at the wise contrivance of the Covenant of Grace in all points If it be said There is no derogating from Christ his Merites here because it is by vertue of his Merites that Repentance is made such a Condition I Ans. This is not cleared from the Scripture nor is it sutable to the frame of the Gospel-Covenant for the whole of it is so contrived as that Christ is immediatly to be made use of But this way keepeth the soul off all immediat going to applying of and resting upon Christ in order to Remission of new sinnes setteth them only upon the exercise of Sorrow Repentance within themselves 4. The Apostle Iohn pointeth out the way to beleevers of obtaining Remission-of sins 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. And if any man sin we have an Advocat with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the Propitiation for our sins Now Repentance doth not make use of Christ as an Advocat as a Propitiation but Faith doth And it is the proper work of Faith in order to Remission to make use of Christ in his Priestly office to carry the soul away to his Propitiation Intercession 5. The dayly experience of the Saints evidence this when upon conviction of sin they betake themselves to the free Mercy of God in Christ to the Bloud of sprinkling crying out for Pardon for the Lord's sake and seeking to be washen in his blood It is not their Repentance or Sorrow that they flee to as the ground of their hope of Pardon but the merites of Christ held forth in the new Covenant is that fountaine wherein they must wash be cleane See Psal. 25 11. 51 7. 6. This was sufficiently held forth under the Law when for their Errours Failings dayly Transgressions the people were to bring their Sacrifices to the Priest which were to be offered up as types of Christ they were to lay their hands upon the head of the Sacrifice in signe of their resting upon the Sacrifice typified of rolling their sins upon that only Sacrifice of expecting Acceptance Pardon through it alone See Levit 4 20 26 31 35. 5 10 13 16 18. 6 7 19 22. 7. If Repentance be the Condition then this must either be said of that part of Repentance which preceedeth the acting of faith or of that which followeth This last cannot be said for then it would follow that upon the acting of faith that preceedeth there were no Remission so faith laying hold on Christ his Merites should be utterly excluded from having any Interest in the pardon of sins Nor can the first be said for then there should be Remission before without all application made of Christ by Faith Yea the very imperfect beginnings of Repentance should be judged sufficient for Remission which cannot be said If it be said that this is meaned of compleat Repentance I Ans. Compleet Repentance cannot be without Faith it is against what is said to make Repentance considered alone by itself or as abstracted from Faith the only Condition seing this would be a manifest exclusion of Faith altogether If it be said that Repentance Faith may be considered together as joyned together called the Condition of Pardon I Ans. Seing it is manifest that both do not neither can act one the same way on Christ they cannot be considered as equally sharing in the place interest of a condition And therefore I judge it saifest to say That faith acting in by Repentance or so discovering itself to
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
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
not expresly say so and yet this he will not say seing he granteth that his obedience was an essential requisite absolutly necessary to the constitution of him our Priest and his Sacrifice propitiatory But we read of his being made under the Law to redeem these that were under the Law Gal. 4 4 5. and of his Righteousness obedience as necessary to our Righteousness justification and as having a no less direct influence into the same than Adam's offence disobedience had unto our death damnation Rom. 5 17 18 19. CHAP. II. Christ underwent the Curse of the Law MR. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God where upon to dispense with his Law to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned Ans. 1 This is directly contrary to what the Apostle saith Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree It was the Curse of the Law that we were under were to be delivered from and this Christ hath delivered us from by coming in our stead bearing it for us yea bearing it so that he is said to have been made it being made a Curse for us which is a most emphatick expression to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty threatned in the Law which cursed every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them vers 10. Deut. 27 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law he sure did suffer the very sentence or punishment threatned in the Law for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing 2 If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place room or stead No man is said to suffer in the place stead of another who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment that the other is obnoxious to and is obliged to suffer 3 Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5 21. to bear our iniquities Esai 53 6. 1. Pet. 2 24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment that was due to us because of sin 4 This is to give away the cause in a great measure unto the Socinians who will not yeeld that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice or payment of our criminal debt or a suffering the punishment of sin due to us for if Christ did not suffer the curse sentence of the Law he did not suffer the punishment which the Law threatned and justice required he did not suffer any punishment at all if he suffered not our punishment or that which was due to us he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross 5 If Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God whereupon to dispense with his Law then it is apparent that the consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law whereas the contrary is rather true to wit that the Lord's dispensing with the Law was anteriour to his sending of Christ because the Law properly knowing no mediator and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another must first in order of nature be considered as dispensed with before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved 6 If it was only a ground to God whereupon to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty then it seemeth Christ's death was no full payment or Satisfaction for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment even a full delivery there-from Let us heare his reason Because saith he the threatning Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous but against transgressours only Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Lawâ—but in sparing forbearing the transgressours who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenseth with the Law and doth not execute it Ans. All this being granted yet it will not follow that the sentence Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law as to the persons Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law as to the punishment threatned Though the Law did not require that the innocent should suffer Yet the Supream Lord Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far as to substitute an innocent person in the room place of sinners the Law required that that innocent person taking on that penalty and thereby making himself nocent as to the penalty should suffer the same that was threatned consequently bear the Curse threatned in the Law As saith he further for explication when Zaleucus the Locrian Law-giver caused one of his own eyes to be put out that one of his son's eyes might be spared who according both to the letter intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispensed with Ans. This speaks not home to our case wherein we pay not the half nor no part of the penalty But Christ payeth the whole as substitute in our room If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son suffered both his own eyes to be put out though the Law had been dispensed with as to the persons yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed the same punishment which the Law required had been exacted And so it is in our case as is manifest Yet he granteth that in some sense Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law saith he as now hanging over the head of the world ready to be executed upon all men for sin that occasioned his sufferings Ans. If this were all all the beasts senseless creatures may be as well said to have suffered the penalty Curse of the Law consequently to have suffered for man to have born mans sin in order to his Redemption as Christ for the sin penalty of sin whereunto man was liable did occasion their suffering or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8 20 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subverted the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians for if this be so Christ had not our sins laid upon him he did not beare our sins
4 When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just he speaketh very indistinctly not only as confounding being made just being justified as if they were formally the same but also as not giving us to understand what he meaneth by these words personally thâ—mselves just Hereby he would seem to say that only by something inherent in our persons we are constituted Righteous are justified and not by any thing imputed to us And if so the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting glorying in ourselves is laid 5 Pardon of sin as such is neither a making a just nor a justifying and the same we say of Right to Christ to Glory 6 Christ's Righteousness according to Mr. Baxter can not be called the meritorious cause of our pardon justification Right to Glory c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to Christ to Glory are promised upon New Conditions so is made the meritorious Cause of the connection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions the obtaining of Pardon that Right so that by vertue of Christ's Merites these New Conditions are made the proper immediat meritorious cause ex pacto of these favours And by this way Man can not but boast glory in himself immediatly and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks for procuring the New termes 7 Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Material Righteousness any other way than as it hath purchased the New Covenant according to Mr. Baxter this being equally for all Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat as well as of Beleevers And how can that be called ours which is not ours nor our own nor are we by it made personally just ourselves as he spoke before 8 According to this doctrine Christ Righteousness meriteth to us another Righteousness which is our own on ourselves by this we are formally justified that is according to what went before to what followeth we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness for of this he is speaking only and yet that which he here mentioneth as the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is said to be pardon of sin a Right to Christ to Glory which formally is no Righteousness at all nor no where so called in Scripture is but a consequent of that which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness and the Condition of Justification He goeth on n. 182. He that is no cause of any good work is no Christian but a damnable wretch worfe than any wicked man I know in the world And he that is a cause of it must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it Nor a Saint denied to be a Saint upon a false pretence of self-denyal Ans. Of such a cause of any good work he knoweth the objection speaketh that should have the glory praise thereof and of good works as the ground formal Cause of justification which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth do deny But we may see here what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works even such as the most damnable wretch and possiblie the devil himself may do that is a work materially good though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture And thus the Justification upon good works which Mr. Baxter here meaneth must be a Justification that all Heathens damnable wretches yea devils themselves are capable of But this is not the justification we speak of of which who ever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8 30. We say nothing that giveth him ground to think that our thoughts are that a Saint should be denyed to be a Saint upon pretence of Self-denyal Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loth to rob God of his glory or take any of that to themselves which is due to him alone in so far as they act as Saints And they should not because Saints glory boast as if their justification before God were by their Sanctity good works not of meer grace through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask Doth Mr. Baxter think that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justification which those damnable wretches devils may partake of by any good work which they do himself told us in the foregoing n. 81. that all Righteousnuss which formally iustifieth is our own that to be made just to be justified are the same or equipollent and to be Justified constitutively is nothing else then to be made such as are personally themselves just Now when devils damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work that good work cannot but formally justifie them and they thereby become constitutively justified I would enquire whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not And againe I would enquire whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin with Right to Christ to glory or not If not how can it be called a justification if it be not a justification how can they be hereby formally justified constitutively justified He tels us next n. 183 As God is seen here in the glass of his works so he is to be loved praised as so appearing This is say I good reasonable What then Therefore saith he he that dishonoureth his work dishonoureth God hindereth his due love and praise This consequence I grant is good but what is it to the point in hand And his most lovely honourable work saith he on earth is his holy image on his Saints as Christ will come to be admired glorified in them at last so God must be seen glorified in them here in some degree Neither say I is any thing of this to the purpose in hand He addeth And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him that in which the worst will serve you And what then He that will praise God saith he further as Creator Redeemer must praise his works of Creation Redemption And is it the way of praising him as our Sanctifier to dispraise his work of Sanctification Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose Must all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness who tell men that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves by which they are to be justified but that it is all in Christ only or that say that God must have all the glory of what good action they do This is hard that either we must be wicked Malignants or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory due unto him But I see no connexion and Mr. Baxter hath not yet demonstrated the same He must then prove the Consequence of this argueing He addeth n. 184. Those poor sinners of my acquantance who lived in the grossest sins against
those who are under the Law that every mouth may be stopped all the world become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. 8. The Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ is as much without the Law or the works of the Law done by Regenerat persons as without the Works of the Law done before Regeneration And justification by these works after Regeneration is as much inconsistent with justification by faith without the works of the Law as justification by the works of the Law done before regeneration as is manifest from the true sense of justification by faith 9. Paul excludeth all works of the Law from justification that giveth any ground of boasting and of glorying as we see Rom. 3 27. 4 2. But if justification were by works of the Law done after Faith Regeneration all boasting glorying should not be excluded Ephes. 2 9. Not of works lest any many should boast And what these works were the next Argument will shew 10. Even works are excluded unto which we are created which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them Ephes. 2 8 9 10. for by grace are ye saved through Faith that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Not of works lest any man should boast for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them Now these works are works done after regeneration as is manifest 11. All works are excluded in this matter which make justification not be of mercy or of grace Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 2 8. Tit. 3 5 7. But this do works after Regeneration as well as before as Paul cleareth Ephes. 2 8 9 10. works grace cannot consist in being the ground of justification no more than in being the ground of Election Rom. 11 6. 12. Works done after regeneration belong to that Righteousness which is of the Law which Paul describeth Rom. 10 5. from Levit. 18 5. to be that the man which doth those things shall live in them But the Righteousness of the Law the Righteousness of Faith are opposite inconsistent as the Apostle cleareth there Rom. 10. 13. Works done after regeneration if made the ground of justification will made the reward of debt not of grace Rom. 4 4. as well as works done before regeneration for the Scripture holdeth forth no ground of difference in this matter 14. If works done by Faith and after Regeneration be admitted as the ground of justification God should not be said to justifie the ungodly for a Regenerat beleever working works of Righteousness is no where in Scripture called an ungodly man But the Scripture speaketh this expresly Rom. 4 5. 15. Paul tels us Rom. 4 16. that the promise was of Faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of ut all Now this seed which is of the Faith of Abraham are beleevers or Regenerat persons And yet as to these the Law is excluded the works thereof because if they which are of the Law be heirs Faith is made void the promise made of none effect vers 14. 16. If Justification were by the works of the Law done after Regeneration we could not upon first beleeving be justified have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ nor could we rejoice in hope of the glory of God glory in tribulation c. And yet this the Apostle expresly affirmeth Rom. 5 1 2 3. c. If justification did depend upon our after works we could not as yet have peace reconciliation or assurance or joy c. because of the uncertainty of our obedience 17. If Paul had not excluded works done after Faith Regeneration from being the Cause ground of our justification what seeming ground or occasion had there been for that objection Rom. 6 1. What shall we say then Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound What ground could any have to say We are justified by our works done after Regeneration therefore we may continue in sin that grace may abound Any might see at first how ridiculous this was 18. And if we are justified by works done after Regeneration is it not strange that in all Paul's answers unto this objection he never once sayeth nor hinteth that by these works we shall be justified no other way and yet this had been the shortest clearest solution of the objection if it been according to the doctrine of justification delivered by Paul 19. The false Apostles who were corrupting the doctrine of the Gospel of Justification did not urge works done before Faith in the Gospel as the ground of justification for they were corrupting such as had already embraced the Gospel beleeved in Christ as is clear out of the Epistle to the Galatians Therefore when Paul is confuting their errour opposing himself unto them he must deny that we are justified by works done after Faith in Christ. 20. Justification by works done after regeneration is as opposite to faith to living the life of justification by faith as justification by works done before Regeneration for the Law is never of faith so reasoneth Paul Gal. 3. 11 12. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident For the just shall live by Faith And the Law is not of Faith 21. All the works of the Law are excluded But works wrought after beleeving after Regeneration are works of the Law being required thereby Psal. 119 35. Rom. 7 22. Therefore even these works are excluded 22. When the Apostle excludeth works from being causes of justification he must meane good works for no man was ever so mad as to imagine that he could be justified by bad works But no works can be called good works but such as flow from faith from the Spirit of grace granted in Regeneration Therefore while good works are excluded these done after Regeneration are excluded What is said by Bellarmine in confirmation of his sense of these works of the Law which are excluded from justification is abundantly answered by all that write against him therefore we need not take any notice thereof There is another Evasion found out by our Adversaries in this matter another glosse put upon these works By the works of the Law there shall no flesh be justified For some say that hereby the Apostle only excludeth those works that are perfect which were required by the Law in Innocency This Evasion granteth that the Law here spoken of is not the Ceremonial Law for that was not required in Innocency but the Moral Law The end why they invent this Evasion is not to exclude works in the matter of justification but to establish their own fancie
were by the works of the Law is opposite to a seeking of it by Faith And againe Rom. 10 3. they went about to establish their own Righteousness and did not submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God which two are opposite inconsistent And this their own Righteousness was but an imperfect Righteousness which they were labouring to cause stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. We cannot imagine that when the Apostle did exclude his own Righteousness and desired not to be found therein he only excluded that which was not desired not to be found in that which he had not and which he knew he had not to wit a perfect sinless obedience Rom. 7 24. 1. Tim. 1 13 15. He confessed he had been a blasphemer and the chiefe of sinners and so was far from imagineing that his obedience was perfect sinless This then could not be the Righteousness whereof he speaketh Phil. 3 9. but his imperfect Righteousness being that only which he could call his owne is that only which he desired not to be found in in the day of his appearing before his judge in order to his justification 15. If Paul had disputed only against perfect obedience had yeelded justification by imperfect obedience What ground was there for that objection Rom. 6 1. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound seing justification by imperfect obedience doth of it self engadge to all endeavoure after obedience against the allowance of sin 16. And the Apostles answere to this objection may fournish us with another Argument against this for if Paul had allowed of or pleaded for justification by our imperfect works he had used this aâ— least as one argument to perswade unto an absteaning from sin by saying there is no justification but by endeavouring after obedience But we hear of no such think in all the Apostles Arguments whereby he presseth unto holiness obedience whether there or elsewhere 17. We are not justified by works done after Faith Regeneration as was proved before Therefore we are not justified by imperfect works for works after faith are imperfect againe they cannot but be so as presupposing sin guilt going before There is yet another Evasion wherewith some satisfie themselves for they say that when Paul saith we are not justified by the works of the Law by these works he meaneth only outward works of the Law performed without an inward Principle of Grace of faith or fear or Love of God But we need not insist in the discovery of the vanity of this Evasion having before at large proved that the works whereof Paul speaketh are not works done before Faith Regeneration For all these works that are done before Faith Regeneration are done without any inward Principle of Grace are only outward works such as Heathens may performe a few reasons will serve heâ—e as 1. When Paul denieth justification to be by the Law or by the works thereof he must mean such works as are enjoined commanded by the Law But the Law commandeth other works than those outward works for it condemneth all works that flow not from a principle of grace because the Law is holy spiritual the first chiefe command thereof is that we Love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soul with all our strength c. Rom. 7 12 14. Mat. 22 37. Mark 12 30. Luk. 10 27. Deut 13 3. 30 6. If then Paul exclude only such works as flow not from a principle of grace he shall not exclude the works of the Law but works prohibited by the Law his meaning should be we are not justified by works which the Law commandeth not but we are justified by works which the Law commandeth which is contradictory to the whole scope designe of the Apostle 2. The Apostle doth manifestly exclude the works of Abraham Rom. 4 1 2. But the works of Abraham were other than such servile works or such outward works performed from no principle of grace or Love to God Therefore such cannot be here understood 3. Outward works done without any principle of grace could with no face or shew of a pretence lay a ground or be any occasion of boasting or of glorying because they were no other but manifest sins being prohibited condemned by the Law not commanded or approven But the Apostle excludeth such works as could do this Therefore he excludeth good works which were done in conformitie to the Law not such outward lifeless works only as were meer servile works no better 4. Such lifeless servile outward works could give no shew of a ground of making the reward of debt But Paul excludeth such works as would make the reward of debt Rom. 4 4. 5. If Paul had meaned here only such outward servile works which are not conforme to the Law what occasion had there been for Paul's proposeing of that objection Rom. 3 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith for to lay aside these works which are not conforme to the Law giveth no probable ground of supposal that thereby the Law is made void 6. Israel could not have been said to have followed after the Law of Righteousness by doing of works meerly ourward lifeless And yet this is said of them it is also said that by all their following of the Law of Righteousness they could not be justified Rom. 9 31 32. 7. Meer performance of outward servile works cannot be called a Righteousness But the jewes went about to establish their own Righteousness therefore missed justification Rom. 10 4. 8. There was never any life had by these outward servile works alone But by the works which Paul excludeth there was life to be had if they had been perfect The man which doth those things shall live by them Rom. 2 13. 10 5. Levit. 18 5. Gal. 3 12. 9. These outward servile works are not good works but even good works are here excluded Ephes. 2 9 10. 10. Paul did not meane such works only when he excluded his own Righteousness Phil. 3 9. Nor can such works be called works of Righteousness which yet are expresly excluded in this matter Tit. 3 5. CHAP. VI. By works which Paul excludeth is not meant the Merite of Works THere is one other Evasion thought upon to shift by all the Apostles argueings yet to maintaine the Interest of Works as the Cause ground of justification before God to wit That Paul only disputs against a groundless conceite of merite in works not against the works themselves but against a Pharisaical sense of merite worth in their works whereby they conceived conceited that thereby they could satisfie for their sins buy purchase to themselves Justification Salvation But against this Evasion we have these things to say 1. By merite here must either be understood that which is called meritum ex condigno that is that merite
and to all his Spiritual benefites And though these Sacraments do in a more special manner represent Christ as suffering or as dying Yet it is no good consequence hence to inferre that his dying alone shedding his blood is our Righteousness for his death is principally specially there held forth as being the last compleeting act of his Mediatory obedience in his state of humiliation unto which all his former acts of obedience had a special respect in which they did all ultimatly terminate And by what reason will it be proved that nothing done or suffered by Christ can be any part or portion of our Righteousness in him but what is distinctly expressly represented pointed forth by these seales What shall then become of his soul sufferings in the Garden on the Crosse these were not his bloud nor his broken body therefore according to him make no part of our Righteousness in Christ. But we dar not say this His Third ground is from Heb. 10 5 6 7. c. cited out of Psal. 40. And thus he argueth The obedience of Christ in the matter of our Righteousness is of no larger extent than is the will of God which he did obey by which we are sanctified But this is restrained only to the offering of Christ. Ans. The minor is here denied there being no such restraint made as is alleiged for he came to do all the will of God therefore was baptised that he might fulfill all Righteousness It was not seâ—ving to the Apostles scope to mentione any other act of obedience than his offering up of himself but his mentioning no other there will not exclude all mentioned elsewhere Sure the Adversarie will not exclude the promptitude readiness of mind that Christ had unto the offering up of himself long before the appointed time as being no part of that obedience that he performed It cannot then be said that by his once offering up of himself at the last alone we are sanctified by nothing going before in conjunction with this But he tels us that our Iustification Reconciliation c. are ever attributed unto the bloud death Crosse of Christ. Ans. Never exclusively as to his preceeding obedience Yea we are to be saved by his life Rom. 5 10. justification is upon Christ's Righteousness vers 18. And all this will as well conclude for the exclusion of his foregoing obedience from being requisite in Christ as he said above to the end he may be Righteousness to us as for excluding of it from being any part of our Righteousness as also the next thing he saith concerning Paul's respecting in his preaching only the crosse of Christ for the Apostle is not there speaking meerly of the matter of our Righteousness but of the Gospel way of Salvation through a crucified Mediator which the wisdom of this world despised And to this sure our Author will willingly acknowledge that more belongeth than his death abstractivly considered His fourth ground is from Heb. 10 18. whence it followeth saith he that iâ— nothing which is in Christ himself before his death consisteth the remission of our sins so consequently our righteousness Ans. We willingly grant that in nothing that Christ did before his death considered abstractly from his death and separatly by it self did remission of sins consist or to speak more properly was satisfaction made in order to remission Yet hence it will not follow that all his preceeding obedience was no part of his Righteousness or of that whereof we are made partakers in him more than it will follow that it was not requisite in him to the end he might become Righteousness to us If any said as he seemeth to alleige that all our iniquities both original actual were pardoned in his preceeding actual obedience which I shall be loath to say nor know I who speaketh so then his argueing were good that then Christ should be made to dye without a cause If any say as he insinuateth also pag. 104. that Christ was offered only to remove the punishment of our sin and not the sin or guilt thereof I shall not approve of it Yet I cannot assent to what he saith Ibid. That the very offering of Christ for sin secludes all things preceeding whatsoever from all vertue or efficacy of removing iniquity for then it should seclude his soul sufferings which sure were no small part of the Satisfaction made by him for sin Neither will it hence follow that all his foregoing acts of obedience made no integral part of that Surety-Righteousness which he undertook to performe He citeth for his first ground 1. Ioh. 1 7. To which we say That it is true the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin because it was the bloud of him who had fulfilled all Righteousness in his death had compleeted that Satisfaction he undertook to do He tels us againe pag. 105. from Rom. 4. That unto eternal blessedness it is sufficient to have remission of sins But he remembereth not that all such as have remission of sins there have Righteousness also imputed without works we deny that Righteousness consisteth in remission of sins alone But in all this he is disputing only against such who say that remission of sins is had by the imputation of Christ's actual obedience by his death freedome from punishment is obtained with such I have nothing to do To what he here addeth of the difference betwixt an innocent man a just man enough hath been said already elsewhere His sixt last ground pag. 108. is builded upon the Law of the Priesthood which saith he was ordained of God for this end to make expiation of our sins to bring us unto God which two were shadowed in two actions in the day of Expiation viz. in offering sacrifice c. in carrylng the names of the tribes ingraven in the stones on his shoulder brest plate And this is so far from making against us that it consirmeth rather our opinion for that carrying of the names of the Tribes on the Ephod which was upon the other holy garments together with that plate of pure gold that was upon the mitre on the forefront having engraven upon it HOLINESS TO THE LORD Exod. 28. was sufficient to typifie hold forth Christ's holy obedience Righteousnest could not typifie his death sacrifice And without a Righteousness there is no coming or approaching unto God this Righteousness is some other thing than meer remission of sins His argueing from the Priests first entry on their office at 30. Yeers of age Christ's doing the like Luk. 3 21. to inferre that no action performed by Christ before that time can be accounted the action of expiation of sin or of reconciliation of us to God is most vaine for 1 we make no limitation or restriction of his expiatory work to what he did before he was 30 yeers of age 2
which our case called for was to be made over to us in order to our receiving the grand benefites of pardon life Now it was necessary for us to have a Righteousness consisting in perfect obedience to the Law because of that Constitution Do this live Suffering as such is no obedience to the Law He addeth Their opinion is hard who deny that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us unto Righteousness that it is the cause of the reward or of life eternal How could Christ's blood purge us from all sin if it were not the Cause of our Righteousness how should he give his flesh for the life of the world if life were not restored to us thereby hoâ— should we be healed by his stripes if we were not sanctified by him how should Christ's death be our life if we gote not life thereby betwixt freedone from the Curse of the Law right to the everlasting inheritaâ—ce there is no middle state Ans. 1 We deny only that Christ's passive obedience alone is imputed to us unto Righteousness for alone considered being only the paying of the penalty it is not the Righteousness required in the Law 2 The paying of a penalty though it may deliver from punishment yet cannot procure a right to the reward promised to keeping of the Law as is manifest therefore Christ's passive obedience considered alone cannot procure a right to that reward of life that was promised to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience 3 Christ's blood being the blood of one that fulfilled also the Law and conjunct with that obedience both purgeth from sin meriteth life And so we say of the rest following only I cannot see how pertinently in the last sanctification is mentioned for we are speaking of right to life eternal 4 It is true as to us now there is no midd'le state betwixt freedom from the Curse of the Law Right to the Inheritance â— because Christ's whole obedience both active passive is imputed as a compleat Satisfaction Righteousness whereby we come to obtaine both a freedome from the Curse a right to the Inheritance But in Adam before he fell there was a middle state for so long as he stood he was free of the Curse yet was to finish his course of obedience in order to obtaining the right to the promised reward unless it be said that no more was promised than the continuance of what he possessed It was excpted That the Law is not fulfilled by suffering the punishment for the Law the command is one but punishment fulfilleth not the commandement it only satisfieth the threatning Therefore the suffering of the punishment can not be the cause of the reward He ans by denying the Antec saying that by suffering of the punishment the Law is fulfilled by the Mediator partly formally in that he suffered the punishment due to us by the Law partly efficiently in that by his sufferings he not only took away the Curse but acquired a holiness to us with holiness life eternal Ans. This answere is no way satisfying for suffering of the punishment as such is no obedience to the Law and of the fulfilling of the Law by obedience to the commands thereof did the Exception only speak no man will say that such as are now suffering the punishment in hell are any way fulfilling the Law Neither is that holiness procured by Christ's death any fulfilling of the Law according to the Old Covenant such a fulfilling is required in order to the obtaining of a right to the reward of life promised in that Covenant He answereth againe that when the threatning of the Law is satisfied that is done which the Law commandeth to be done so in part the Law is fulfilled Ans. Suffering as such is no commanded thing the Law constituting a penalty maketh only suffering to be due but doth not enjoine any suffering So that though the Law be satisfied with a Satisfaction laid down by another so far as that the other is not to suffer Yet by this paying of the penalty the Lawes commands are not fulfilled in whole nor in part And the Law as to the commands must be fulfilled ere a right to the reward promised to obedienceâ— be obtained Arg. 6. is taken from passages of Scripture mentioning the active obedience of Christ such as Dan. 9 24. Ier. 23 6. 1. Cor. 1 30. Rom. 5 19. Phil. 2 8. He Ans. 1. That these places do not prove that Christ's active obedience is imputed so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law Ans. These passages sufficiently prove that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness Satisfaction which is imputed unto us the fruites of the Righteousness of Christ imputed are here as well ascribed to his active as to his passive obedience of the places in particular we have said enough elsewhere our disput here is not about imputation but about that which is imputed or that which is reckoned to us as our Righteousness this we say cannot be pure suffering of the penalty for that as such is no Righteousness nor no where is it so called He Ans. 2. That it only followeth that the reforming of our corrupt nature could not be had from Christ by Christ without his active obedience Ans. The same may as well be said of the passive obedience so the cause shall be yeelded unto the Socinians But the matter is clear That Christ is our compleat Righteousness not effectivly for he worketh no compleat legal Righteousness in us that is a Righteousness according as was required in the Old Covenant And beside the expiation of sin he brought in a Righteousness which is called everlasting Dan. 9 24. which can not be understood of our imperfect sanctification And beside that he is our Sanctification he is our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1 30. therefore must be our Righteousness another way than by working it in us for so is he our Sanctification And Rom. 5. our justification life is directly ascribed to his Obedience Righteousness To that Phil. 2 8. he saith The meaning is that Christ from his birth to his death did so accommodate himself to his Fathers will that he suffered all most patiently that was to suffer even the cursed death of the crosse Ans. It was a suffering of what he was to suffer even to come under the Law for that was a part of his humiliation the text saith he humbled himself became obedient and there is no ground to restrick the word Obedient to his suffering only Arg. 7. Christ was made under the Law for us Gal. 4 4 5. He Ans. He was made under the Law for our good that he might be a fit Mediator Ans. Why may not we as well admit the same sense of Christ's being said to be made a curse for us to wit that it was only for our good and so give up the Cause
manifest that Christ must Intercede for such as he did Offer up himself for or he shall not be a Perfect Compleet High Priest or not faithfull to performe all the Offices of the High Priest neither of which can be said 2. The ground of his Intercession is held forth to be his Oblation as the High Priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifices which he had offered so Christ entered into the holy place having first obtained by the sacrifice of himself an Eternal Redemption Heb. 9 12. So he is an Advocate with the Father being first a Propitiation for sinnes 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. 3. Both his Death Intercession make up one Compleet Medium are intended designed as one Medium for the end designed viz. the bringing of many sones unto glory saving to the uttermost all that come to God through him c. 4. How unreasonable is it to think that Christ would refuise to Pray for such whom he loved so dearly as to lay down his life for yet he saith expresly that he prayeth not for the world but for others distinguished from the world Ioh. 17 9. 5. As His Death was for such as the Father had given him is we saw above so his Intercession Prayer is restricted to such Ioh. 17 9. I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine 6. Christ's end in coming into the world was to save his people Hence he gote that name Iesus but he should not be able to save them Perfectly Compleetly to the Utermost if he did not joyne his Intercession with his Oblation Yea upon this account he continueth ever a Priest having an unchangable Priesthood Heb. 2 24 25. But this man because he continueth ever hath an unchangable Priesthood wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seing he ever liveth to make intercession for them 7. The Apostle so joyneth them together Rom. 8 34. that they must do manifest violence to the Apostles reasoning who would pull them asunder separate the one from the other It is sais he Christ that died yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 8. Yea they are so joyned together here that his death alone considered could not yeeld that ground of triumph boasting nor security from Accusations Yea rather that is risen againe c. 9. So that the separating taking of these asunder is greatly prejudicial to the consolation of his people for though they should attaine to some apprehensions of Christ's dying for them as an Advocate with the Father upon new sinnes 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. Though Christ died yet they might be condemned for he must also Interceed and if he do not Intercede for them their Hopes Comforts are gone And so there should be no force in that who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dieâ—â— Rom. 8 34. And a poor soul might be hal saved but not to the uttermust contrare to Heb. 2 25. 10. And that place Rom. 8 33. restricteth both equally unto the Elect who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect 11. When Christ laid down his life a Ransome for sinners he could not but know that by that Ransome none should be actually saved without his Intercession it being accorded betwixt Father Son that the mediator should mediate both by Price by Prayer And he could not but know for whom he purposed intended to Interceed how shall we then suppose that he would lay down his life for those for whom he was purposed not to Pray Or that he would do the most for them For whom he would not do the least 12. Christ's intercession is really a presenting unto God the Oblation made Therefore sayes the Apostle Heb. 9 24. that Christ is entered into heaven it self to appear in the presence of God for us And so by appearing he Interceedeth his appearing is in his owne blood whereby he obtained Eternal Redemption Heb. 9 12. so his Intercession must be for all for whom the Oblation was the eternal Redemption was obtained 13. Yea both these are so joyned together by Esaias Chap. 53 12. as that they are made one ground procureing cause of God's divideing him a portion with the great of Christs own divideing the spoile with the strong Because he hath poured out his soul unto death and he bare the sin of many and made â—ntercession for the transgressours 14. This is further clear from the reasons we gave to confirme that fast connexion betwixt Christ's Impetration Application in the foregoing paragraph for the Actual Application of the benefite fruit of his oblation is attributed to his Intercession 15. Nay that whole Chapter Ioh. 17. confirmeth this for there Christ is both Offering himself or sanctifying himself thereunto vers 19. and Interceding and these are so lincked together both in themselves as to the persons for whom that it must argue at least much incogitancy to imagine a divulsion separation of these two acts of his Priesthood 16. If Christ Intercede not for the same persons for whom he died we ask for whom he Intercedeth Is it for actuall beleevers Then we ask a Scripture ground for this restriction And then it is manifest hence that Christ Intercedeth not for the working of faith in any And yet Esaias tels us that he maketh Intercession for transgressours And we see Ioh. 17 20. that he prayeth not only for those who were already beleevers but for such also as were not yet beleevers He told us Himself also that he would pray the Father for the Spirit Ioh. 14 vers 16. And among other things this is one work of the Spirit to cause a sinner beleeve 2. Cor. 4 13. Ephes. 1 17 18 19. The point we are upon will be further cleare if we consider 22. That Christ's death was a Redemption we are said to be Redeemed thereby Gal. 4 5. 3 13. Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. â— Pet. 1 8. Revel 5 9. Tit. 2 14. And therefore all such as he laid down this Redemption or Redemptionmoney for must of necessity be redeemed saved consequently he died not for all seing all are not redeemed saved His Ransome or Price of Redemption which he laid down viz. his blood which he shed is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome Mat. 20 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 2 6. That all such for whom this Redemption-money was payed this Ransome was given must be saved is cleare for 1. Other wayes it were no Redemption a Ransome given for Captives doth say that these Captives in Law Justice ought to be set at liberty 2. This Redemption is the same with as to the effect or hath attending it forgiveness of sins Col. 1 14. Ephes.
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
society His Church when ever any person doth beleeve is united federally to Him he then receiveth the effects of that which was before in Christ as a virtus effectiva Ans. But Christ being a federal Head to His own whom in due time He was to bring in to an holy Society beleevers receive the effects of that which was in Christ as such a federal Head which is more than as a virtus effectiva Importeth His Obligation as a Surety to work these effects speaketh out His representing of them as a publick Person and paying their debt according to His Undertaking in the Covenant of Redemption Thereafter pag. 78. from this That the Law made to Adam did not assigne Christ to this office nor oblige Him to suffer for sinners according to it that therefore He suffered not by that obligation which bound us to suffer but by the obligation of His own consent he inferreth that the Law of works took not Christ for the Civil or legal person of Beleevers more than it made Him such Ans. But this consequence is denied for when a debtor is lying in prison a friend who was not formerly obliged undertaking to satisfie the Creditor making satisfaction is by Law taken for the legal person of the debtor who is accordingly dealt with as if he himself had satisfied the Creditor In the 4 5. 6. places he tels us That beleevers receiving Christ Himself receive title to His Grace Spirit Glory are personally actually His Subjects c and have a right to all His conferred benefites which right followeth not Immediatly to them from what Christ did or suffered but from the Covenant of grace therefore they have no right before the time nor any but on the Conditions specified in the Covenant Ans. 1 Though they have no full compleat actual right untill such time as is condescended upon yet by vertue of the compact betwixt Jehovah the Mediator wherein the Mediator undertook particularly for those given unto Him these may be said to have a real fundamental right though that right be not subjected in them nor pleadable by them before the time appointed yet a Right or something equivalent for I will not strive about words must necessarily flow from Christ's Satisfying for them and paying their debt according to His Undertaking As when it is contracted that the Eldest daughter of the marriage shall have such a summe of money when she cometh to be married or to be of such an age that daughter hath another right unto that summe than any other daughter hath that fundamentally from the contract Agreement though before the time designed her right be not such as she can plead it in Law in order to the possessing of the summe 2. Therefore the right that Beleevers have floweth from the Compact Christ's Suffering according to compact though it be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace their possession of the Benefites be immediatly therefrom as that daughters right to the summe is properly from the contract though her actual possession according to the contract be from her Marriage or coming to that age Though beleevers right to the actual possession of the benefites be so conveyed as to the conveyance some be granted absolutly as faith as himself will confess some upon condition of faith that is in that order according to that Methode that faith shall preceed Yet in respect of God their right to all is absolutly purchased by Christ so in a sense theirs though not subjected in them nor pleadable by them till the time appointed come This whole scheme of Mr. Baxter's seemeth to me to be founded upon and to flow from his Notion of Universal Redemption whereby he will have Christ to have died in the room stead of all which to me is in the room place of none to have purchased the New Covenant a Common good to all whereby all that would performe the New Conditions should have right to the benefites as having obtained the same by their performance of these proper Conditions anteriour to which there was no difference at all betwixt them others but this Scheme and the ground thereof I cannot owne 7. He tels us that as none till he was a person could be a person guilty of Adam's sin nor when he was a person any sooner than he was also guilty of his own inherent pravity none that had the use of reason was guilty of either or both these only without the guilt of his own actual sin So none till he be a beleever is related as a member of a perfectly Righteous Saviour that is done no sooner in time then he hath the inherent righteousness of his personal faith federal consent that obligeth him to the further active Righteousness of a holy life Ans. The Protasâ—s Apodosâ—s seem not to agree for as upon our personal existence we become persons guilty of Adam's sin that before as to nature though not as to time we have inherent pravity because this is an Effect Consequent Punishment of the former so upon our faith which is our personal existing grace corresponding to our personal existing in Nature by our Natural being should follow as answering to this Imputation of Adam's guilt the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness but in stead of this he mentioneth nothing but a Relation as a member of a righteous Saviour which according to the comparison should correspond to our relation to Adam which is in nature before our partaking of his sin 2 As answering to our inherent pravity he should have named our justification Adoption c. as the effects of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousâ—ess in stead of this he nameth the Inherent righteousness of our personal faith federal consent thereby Importing that this federal consent is posteriour to our Relation while as I suppose he will say that our Relation is upon the condition of our federal consent Not to mention here his errour hereafter discovered of making faith to be considered here as our personal Inherent Righteousness Then he tels us That all these three conjunct though not coordinat make up the total Righteousness of a Saint viz. 1. our Relation to Christ in Union as to a perfectly Righteous Head who fulfilled all Righteousness for us to merite our justification which is called Christ's Righteousness imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours 2. our penitent beleeving consent to his Covenant which is the condition of the foresaid relation to Christ. 3. And our Sanctification Ans. 1 Here we see that Righteousness made the second Righteousness which yet is the condition of the first as if our Inherent pravity were the condition of the Imputation of Adam's sin to us 2 our Relation to Christ is not one the same with the Imputation of Righteousness to us no more than our relation to Adam is the same thing with the Imputation of
expresly said to be the free gift of God 18. Then all that Paul meaned when he desired to be found of his judge not having his own Righteousness which is of the Law was that he desired not to be found puft up with a pharisaical conceite of the perfection meritoriousness of his works as meriteing his justification life ex condigno by their intrinsick value worth But no such thing appeareth Phil. 3. 9. where he utterly renunceth his own Righteousness which is of the Law that is a Righteousness consisting in his obedience conformity to the Law for in opposition to this he desireth to be found in that Righteousness which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith this is some other thing than his own works performed without that pharisaical opinion 19. We are saved by grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast Ephes. 2 8 9. consequently not of any works seing all works give ground of boasting And he meaneth such works unto which we are created in Christ Jesus as his workmanship and which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them vers 10. Now these works are certainly works done without any vaine conceite of merite and yet we see that by these works we are not brought into a state of Salvation 20. The Apostle excludeth works of Righteousness which we have done as opposed to Mercy grace Tit. 3 5 7. Now grace standeth in opposition to all works even to works performed without this conceite of merite as we see Rom. 11 6. else we must say that the Apostle there granteth Election to be for foreseen works performed without a conceite of merite and nothing must be called works but what is done with a Pharisaical conceite of merite intrinsick worth in them which is absurd CHAP. VII James 2 14. c. cleared Vindicated ALI who have been of old and are this day Adversaries to the way of justification before God which the Orthodox owne from the Scriptures have thought to shelter themselves under the wings of of some expressions of the Apostle Iames have therefore laboured so to explaine streatch forth the same expressions as they with their corrupt Notions about justification may seem at least to have some countenance therefrom yea and warrandise to hold fast the same And for this cause they have laboured so much and do still laboure so to expound the words of Paul as that they may carry no seeming difference unto the words of Iames for it is received as a known truth and it is willingly granted that there is no real Contradiction betwixt the two Apostles but what ever apparent or seeming disagreement there be betwixt their words yet all that difficulty is removable their words how contradictory soever they seem to be are yet capable of such an interpretation as shall manifest their harmonious agreement in the truth so that Iames saying Ch. 2 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified not by faith only dot not contradict the Apostle Paul who saith concludeth that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3 28. But a question is here made whether we should interpret Iames's words by Paul's or Paul's by Iames's Our Adversaries are much for this later to wit that we must interpret Paul's words by the words of Iames because as they alledge Paul is obscure in his doctrine many were beginning to misinterpret pervert the same that therefore Iames was necessitate to clear up that doctrine of justification so as Paul's words might be better understood But how unreasonable this is the leamed D. Owen hath lately manifested his grounds are indeed irrefragable for 1 It is a received way of interpreting Scriptures that when two places seem to be repugnant unto other that place which treateth of the matter directly designedly expresly largely is to regulate our interpretation of the other place where the matter is only touched obiter on the bye and upon some other occasion and in order to some other ends And that therefore accordingly we must interpret Iames by Paul and not Paul by Iames seing it is undenible that Paul wrote of this Subject of Justification directly on purpose to cleare up the same and that with all expresness fulness on severall occasions disputing the same in a clear formal manner with all sorts of Arguments Artificial Inartificial and answereth objections that might be moved against the same at large and with a special accuracie But on the other hand it is as certaine that Iames hath not this for his scope to open up the Nature of Justification but only toucheth there-upon in order to the other end which he was prosecuting 2 There is no ground to suppose that it was the designe of Iames to explaine the meaning of Paul no footstep of any such purpose appeareth For then his maine business should be to explaine clear up the doctrine of justification which neither is apparent from this part of the Epistle nor from any part of it at all his designe being quite another thing as is obvious 3 Nor was there any necessitie for Iames to Vindicate the doctrine of Paul from such corrupt inferences as Adversaries suppose were made therefrom for as to any such as might be made to wit as if he had given any countenance unto such as were willing to lay aside good works he himself did fully sufficiently Vindicate his owne doctrine by showing on all occasions the necessity of good works and particularly when he is speaking of Justification not only in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians where he largly professedly treateth of that matter but even when he is but mentioning the same on other occasions as we see Ephes. 2 8 9 10. Phil. 3 9 10 11 c. Tit. 3 5 6 7 8. So that to imagine that Iames asserteth another interest of works in our justification than Paul doth and that to explaine Paul's meaning is not to reconcile these Apostles but to set them at further varience enmity And it cannot comport with sobriety to think or say that Iames to cleare the Apostle Paul's doctrine and to vindicate it from objections should speak to the same objections which Paul himself had spoken to fully removed and that Iames should give such answers unto these objections as Paul would not give but rather rejected And yet this must be said by our Adversaries here It will be of great use to us here to understand aright what is the plaine scope drift of the Apostle Iames for as for the designe scope of Paul in his discourses of justification it is so obviously manifest unto all that read the same that no doubt can be made thereof to wit To cleare up fully plainely the Nature Causes of this great privilege of
justification which is the hinge ground work as it were of his doctrine of the Gospel and to shew how poor sinners standing under the Curse for sin come to be justified before God as in his Epistle to the Romans And to Vindicate the same doctrine of the Gospel from the corrupt pervesions of false teachers as in his Epistle to the Galatians as also to commend the free grace of God in that noble contrivance both in the places mentioned and Ephes. 2. Phil. 3. Tit. 3. and elsewhere when he mentioneth the same Now as to the scope of the Apostle Iames there is nothing to declare unto us that it was his Intent or designe to explaine make known the way how poor convinced sinners standing under the sentence of the Law come to be justified before God and to receive pardon of their sins No such question proposeth he to be discussed No such point of truth doth he lay down to be cleared or Vindicated But his whole scope drift is to press the reall study of holiness in several points particularly spoken to through the Epistle And in that second Chapt. from vers 14. forward as will appear more fully in the explication vindication of the several verses in particular he is particularly obviating that grosse mistake of some who thought that a bare outward profession of the Gospel Faith or of Christian Religion was sufficient to save them and evidence them to be in a justified state and that therefore they needed not trouble themselves with any study of holiness And therefore sheweth that all such hopes of Salvation were built on the sand for they had no ground to suppose that they were truely justified so were in any faire way unto salvation so long as all their faith was no other than a general assent unto the doctrine of the Gospel to truthes revealed not that true lively faith hold forth in the Gospel whereby sinners become justified before God Mr. Baxter tels Cath. Theol. part 2. n. 364. that St. James having to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity that faith was a meer assent to the Truth that to beleeve that the Gospel is true trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without Holiness fruitful Lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification so that they thus beleeved perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken that when God spake of justification by faith without the works of the Law he never meaned a faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve nor that is separate from actual obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Insidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent or hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Ans. 1 It is true for it is manifest and undeniable that Iames had to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was enough that an assent unto the truth was that faith that would prove justifying saving But 2 it is not so manifest that Iames had to do with such as thought that to trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without holiness fruitful lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification for whatever Mr. Baxter imagine we finde not in Scripture that justification followeth lives that is that there is no justification before this fruitfulness of life appear And himself useth to say that in order to the first justification this holiness of life is not requisite And beside this which he calleth the first we know no other unless he mean glorification But then 3 as to glorification final Salvation we grant that Iames hath to do with such as thought a meer assent to the truth without holiness was sufficient hereunto but that their beleeving thus could flow from their misunderstanding of Paul's Epistles is not any way probable seing Paul in all his Epistles even where he speaks most of justification by Faith without the deeds of the Law presseth the necessity of holiness in order to Salvation so as no imaginable ground hereof can with the least of shewes be pretended 4 That when Paul said justification was by Faith without the works of the Law he meant a true lively faith which only is to be found in that soul in which the seed of grace is sown and which is made partaker of the holy Ghost and of the divine Nature is true but yet justifying faith doth not formally containe in it a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve as was shown elsewhere 5 Then we see that the faith whereof Iames speaketh is not the same with that Faith whereby Paul said we are justâ—fied And seing both do not speak of the same Faith there can be no appearance of discrepance 6 When he saith we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being infidels I would know what he meaneth by this charge of infidelity If he meane the charge of not beleeving the Gospel he knoweth that a meer assent to the truth will â—ustifie from that Charge If he meane the charge of not receiving resting upon Christ according to the Gospel even that will be but a particular justification from that particular charge and is not that justification from the sentence of the Law whereof Paul speaketh 7 That we must be justified as he saith by our Gospel personal holiness sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent hypocrites is true but what can all this say for a justification from the sentence of the Law under which we are all lying by Nature and of which the Apostle Paul speaketh And if Iames speak of justification by works in reference to this accusation he speaketh of no other kind of justification than that which the most wicked wreatch yea the devils are capable of when to wit they are falsely accused of having done some evil which they have not done And how can Mr. Baxter inferre from what Iames saith if he speak of no other kind of justification that works are required unto our justification as to state or unto our general justification from the sentence of the Law adjudging us to death because of transgression 8 But he addeth or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Then the Justification that Iames speaketh of that Mr. Baxter meaneth is final Salvation And we willingly grant that there must be personal holiness sincere obedience before this and that no wicked or impenitent person or hypocrite shall be adjudged to Salvation But the justification which Paul treateth of is different from