proper a sense as can be spoken of or applied to a Creature And even though we speak of Faith in the orthodox sense as being the gift of God yet seing it floweth nativly from the new Nature given in Regeneration is said to be mans faith his act all this difference will not exclude all occasion of boasting glorying before men more then Abraham's works would have done if he had been justified by them And yet the Gospel-way of Justification perfectly excludeth all boasting being so contrived in all points as that he who glorieth may only glory in the Lord. Argum. 5. If Faith be imputed unto us for Righteousness then are we justified by that which is Imperfect which it self needeth a Pardon seing no mans Faith is perfect in this life But there is no Justification to be looked for before God by that which is Imperfect but by that which is Perfect Therefore c. He excepteth These words then we are Iustified by that which is imperfect may either have this sense that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparativly imperfect may some wayes concurre contribute towards our justification In the first sense the proposition is false in the later sense the assumption goeth to wreck Ans. This distinction is to no purpose for it doth not loose the difficulty in regard that the argument speaketh of a Righteousness as the formal cause or as the formal objective cause of Justification or as that upon the account of which the person is Pronunced Declared to be Righteous and Justified and so is levelled against Faith concluding that it cannot be our Righteousness or the formal Objective cause of our justification as it is said and supposed to be by such as say that it is imputed to us for Righteousness for it is made by them to be all the Righteousness that is imputed to us that because of its Weakness Imperfection He addeth in application of this distinction The truth is that the Imputation of faith for Righteousness presupposeth somewhat that absolutely perfect as absolutly necessary unto justification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himself made a perfect atonement for sin there had been no place for the Imputation of faith for righteousness for it is through this that either we beleeve in him or in God through him it is through the same atonement also that God justifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our faith unto us for righteousness Ans. This presupposal doth not helpe the matter for notwithstanding thereof Faith it self is made the only Imputed Righteousness and faith is not considered as an Instrument receiving Christ's Righteousness and the Atonement there through but as a work making the reward of the Atonement to be of debt ex pacto and not of free grace and so to have a worth a merite in it Our Adversaries will not grant that this presupposed Righteousness of Christ whereby the perfect Atonement was made is imputed unto us for this is expresly denied and beside they say that it was equally made for all and so is equally imputed to all so far as that thereby all are put into such a state as notwitstanding of the former breach made they may now upon the new termes of Faith receive the promised reward And thus it is manifest that with them this imperfect thing saith is that for upon the account of which they are justified As for example that we may hereby illustrate cleare the matter if we should suppose that Christ had by his Atonement delivered all from wrath due for the former transgression of the Covenant and had put them into the former state wherein Adam was before he fell procured that God should take a new essay of them and make promise of life unto them upon the old termes as some who plead for Universal Redemption say God might have done had he so pleased after the Atonement was made in this case might it not be said that every person that should now be Justified upon the performance of these termes were justified by the performance of the Condition as by his own Righteousness that this new Obedience were all the Righteousness he had declared to have when justified should he not be justified upon the account thereof solely And was he more obliged unto the Atonement of Christ than others who did violate of new these Conditions And seing now Faith is put in the same place and made to have the same Force Efficacy shall we not now be Justified by this one act of Obedience as we would have been in the other case by perfect Obedience And if it be so is it not manifest that we are justified by a Righteousness that is Imperfect that all the presupposal of a perfect Atonement doth not availe 2 When it is said that it is through the Atonement made by Christ that we beleeve in him or in God through him it must be granted that Christ hath purchased Faith that either to all or to some and if to all then either absolutly or upon condition if to all that absolutly then all should have faith if upon condition we desire to know what that condition is If not to all but to some only then Christ cannot be said to have died alike for all 3 as to that he faith viz. That it is through the same atonement that God imputeth our faith to us for righteousness justifieth us upon our beleeving it being the same that others say who tell us that Christ hath procured faith to be the condition termes of the new Covenant we shall say no more now than that we see no ground to asserte any such thing here after we shall give our reasons Argum. 6. If faith be imputed to us for Righteousness then God should rather receive a Righteousness from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousness from us but we from him in Iustification Therefore c. He excepteth by denying the consequence upon these reasons 1 Because God's imputing Faith for righteousness doth no wayes implye that faith is a righteousness properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having performed that condition or Covenant upon the performance whereof he hath promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death sufferings of his owne son formally with the pardon of all our sins Ans. All this can give no satisfaction for 1 If no Righteousness be imputed to us in order to Justification but Faith and if faith it self be hereby made no Righteousness then we are justified without any Righteousness at all God shall be said to pronunce them Righteous who have no Righteousness
truth we lay down these grounds both from Scripture Reason as 1. The words of the Text whereupon we are do evince this for it is said the just liveth by Faith And as was cleared at the beginning of our discourse the words as used by the Prophet Habbakuk from whom they are cited are spoken of such as were already Beleevers Justified and pointed out the way how they were to have a life in an evil time and how they were to continue or be keeped in that State of Favoure with God whereinto they were brought to wit by Faith for the just shall live by his Faith and accordingly the same words are cited by the Apostle Heb. 10 38 39. Now the just shall live by faith but if any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve to the saving of the soul. Where living by Faith is opposed to drawing back to wit through unbeleefe and as drawing back is unto perdition so beleeving is to the saving of the soul therefore the Continuation of this life of justification unto the end even unto the final Salvation of the soul is by Faith This life of justification as it is begun by Faith as the Apostle evinceth Rom. 1 17. and in our present Text citing in both places these same words for that end so it is continued by Faith as the only condition thereof And to say that the particle only is not here added therefore other Works of Obedience must be or may be adjoyned here in this matter notwithstanding it be said the just liveth by Faith were in effect to destroy the Apostles Argument in our Text where he useth this same expression without the addition of only to prove that we are not justified by the works of the Law Therefore as this assertion that the just liveth by faith proveth justification by faith without the works of the Law so the same proveth the Continuation of Justification without the works of the Law as the Condition thereof 2. The Grounds Causes of Justification mentioned by the Apostle Rom. 3 22 24 25 26. hold good al 's well in the Continuation as in the first beginning of justification for there as well as here the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve for there is no difference Justification first lastly is free by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set fort to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood And there is not the least hint given that the matter is altered in the Continuation of justification 3. As the beginning of justification is so contrived as all boasting is taken away so must the Continnance thereof be conceived to be But if works be admitted as Conditions of the Continuance of Instification though they be denied to be the Condition of the Beginning thereof all boasting shall not be excluded contrary to Rom. 3 27. for if a sinner after that he is Iustified by the merite of Christ at first should have it to say that for the Continuance of his justification he were beholden to his own Works he should surely have matter of boasting in himself in so far at least Papists think to evite this Argument against their Second Iustification by works by saving that all these good works are not of themselves but of the Father of Lights But this shift will not help for all these works are not the Righteousness of Christ but are works of Righteousness which we do are excluded in this matter as occasioning boasting or giving ground thereunto as the next Argument will more fully cleare 4. Abraham is said to have Righteousness imputed unto him Faith imputed unto Righteousness and so to be justified by faith not only when he was first justified but many yeers after even when he offered up Isaac his son Rom. 4. Iam. 2 21 23. So was he justified first last as to have no ground of glorying and therefore not by works Rom. 4 1 3 4. But it will be said that the Apostle Iames saith expresly in the place cited that our father Abraham was justified by works when he had offered his Son Isaac on the Altar I Ans. Not to engage in the whole explication vindication of that Passage of Scripture here which is of late to good purpose most satisfyingly done by the learned Doctor Owen I only say that Abraham's being justified by works was such as thereby the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness c. vers 23. Now if Abraham had been justified by works properly so taken the Scripture had not been fulfilled which said he was justified by Faith but the contrary had been made good to wit that works were imputed to him he was justified by them as by his Righteousness But the meaning is that Abraham was justified by faith a true faith that proved itself such in time of a trial by works of obedience particularly by obedience to that command whereby the Lord tried or tempted him Gen. 22 1 2. and by such a Faith as wrought with his works was perfected or discovered manifested to be real after the trial of the fire Iam. 2 22. It is a good direction that the learned Camero giveth here Op. fol. pag. 83. That we should hóld fast the scope of the Apostle Iames to this end that we should take notice of the Apostles Proposition and of the Conclusion thereof The Proposition is set down vers 14. What doth it profite my brethren though a man say he hath faith have not works can faith or that faith save him Whereby we see that the Apostles scope is to prove that that Faith which the man supposeth he hath who hath no works is not that Faith by which we are Justified saved that because it is unprofitable to poor indigent brethren in necessity vers 15. 16. is dead vers 17. 20 it can not be shown by works vers 18. it is a Faith that devils have vers 19. All which what followeth is cleared from the Conclusion vers 26. for as the body without the Spirit is dead so faith with works is dead also 5. It will alwayes hold true that God is he who justifieth the ungodly so justifieth him that worketh not but him to whom saith is counted for Righteousness Rom. 4 5. But if the Continuance of Justification were by works works were counted for Righteoulness in order to the continuance of justification God should not continue to be the justifier of the ungodly but should justifie the ungodly at first thereafter justifie the Godly whereof the Text giveth not the least hint 6. The Instance of David cleareth this also
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
such expressions in this matter that we finde no mention made of two fold Righteousness of a twofold Justification the one subordinat the other Principal in the Scriptures but all expressions in this matter framed designedly to abase man make all appear to be of free grace that he who glorieth may glory in the Lord. And as Self will be ready in this to make that which is called a Subordinat Righteousness a Prinpal Righteousness so it will have this faire plausible ground to do so to wit That upon our own Righteousness we are Immediatly accepted of God as Righteous especially when the Merits of Christ are made subservient unto our personal Righteousness as procuring the New covenant that therein our Personal Righteousness shall be accepted accounted perfect compleet though it be not so in it self we thereupon immediatly justified accepted of God as Righteous as they love to speak who assert these things 12. Though faith be indeed the mean of our justification that is the onely thing required of us in order to our Interest in Christ actual participation of the benefites of His Redemption of justification in the first place according to the Gospel methode Yet it is too favourable to proud Self to call it such a Condition as hath a far more dangerous Import That is 1. To call it a Condition withall deny that it is an instrumental Cause or that it is to be considered in the matter of justification as it laith hold on Christ His Righteousness 2. To say that the very act of faith or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed for Righteousness that Paul is to be so understood Rom. 4. as speaking properly not metonymically 3. To say that this is the Righteousness which is imputed to us in order to justification not the Righteousness of Christ except as to its Effects in respect of some whereof Yea the chiefe only immediat it is equally Imputed to all Reprobat as well as Elect. 4. To say that this faith is our Gospel-Righteousness because a Righteousness is perfect adequate to the Rule of the New Covenant 5. To say that this faith hath the same place consideration consequently the same force efficacy in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant with Adam 6. To say that Christ hath purchased the New Covenant that this shall be the condition of persons partaking of the benefites thereo◠withall 7 To say that Christ hath died for all by his death made Satisfaction to justice for the breach of the Law so purchased freedom from the Curse of the Law to all equally at least conditionally whereby it is apparent that all are put in statu quo prius in the state they were once in that equally now have new conditions proposed unto them which if they performe they are righteous upon that performance are freed from the Curse made heirs of Glory and thus the New Covenant is of the same Nature kinde with the Old only its Conditions are a little altered made more easie their Performance of the condition must-have a 〈◊〉 with it at least ex pacto though not ex condigno as neither Adam's Perfect obedience could have had And the performers of this condition in this case may reflect upon their own deed lay their weight on it it being their Righteousness may plead upon it as their immediat ground of right before God unto justification Acceptance Let any man now consider these things see whether or not the asserting of faiths being such a condition as this be not a plaine gratification of proud Self the laing down a ground for vaine man to boast of glorying though not-before God yet before others And whether this be not an ascribing more to faith than is done by such as yeelding it to be a condition of the mean appointed of God required of us in order to justification say with all that it is to be considered not in it self nor as an act of our obedience but as an Instrument or mean laying hold upon the Righteousness of Christ without us that it may be ours our onely Righteousness where upon we may expert according to the Gospel justification absolution c. 13. It tendeth too much to blow up proud Self to say That if works of Obedience be not the Condition of our first justification yet they may be called the Condition of our Second justification or of the Continuance of our justification for as the Scripture speaketh nothing of a Second justification so to assert our works to be the Condition thereof is to crosse the argueings of the Apostle manifestly to lay a foundation of glorying for Man for if even Abraham had been justified by works a considerable time after he was first justified and first a beleever he should have had whereof to glory though not before God as saith the Apostle Rom. 4 2. And vers 3. he proveth that he was justified by faith that after he had been a beleever for that passage Abraham beleeved God it was imputed to him for righteousness was not spoken of at his first beleeving so cannot be properly meaned of his First justification onely but some yeers there after therefore must be true of his Second justification if there were any such Yea the just liveth by faith a passage that the Apostle useth as wee have seen to prove justification by faith both here in our Text Rom. 1 17. all alongs both first last so that the beginning continuance of this life of justification is by faith not by works 14. It is also dangerous to say That the work of the Law convining of sin with the Effects Consequences thereof Sorrow griefe Anxiety Legal Repentance c. are either Dispositions Preparations or Conditions of justification or Meritorious thereof by way of Congruity as if there were a certaine constituted connexion betwixt these the blessing of justification made by any Law or promise of God as if none could be justified that had not these sensible affecting Effects going before Sure the asserting of this cannot but contribute much to stirre up foster pride in Man give occasion to think that man himself hath done or suffered something that calleth for procureth in congruity at least meriteth justification CHAP. IV. Justification is so contrived in the Gospel as man may be abased have no ground of boasting THirdly we come to speak to the third thing mentioned above to wit That justification is so contrived begun carried on that man hath no real or apparent ground of glorying before men or of boasting in himself A few particulars will sufficiently cleare this I. The Lord 's ordinary usual Method in bringing His Chosen ones into a justified State is
in its convinced Conscience before the tribunal of God and then seeth in the Gospel a well contrived way of absolution closeth with it How will all this shine forth unto them with a heavenly Lustre and Majestie And how sweetly will their hearts acquiesce in this Sure and Saife way of obtaining life Secondly This may discover unto us what a manifold wisdom of God is to be seen observed in the Gospel dispensation that even Principalities and powers may look into and wonder at as it is said to be made known unto them by the Church Ephes. 3 10. That is by what they see and observe in the administration thereof in the Church And in this part of Gospel-device there are several things remarkable that may give us ground to wonder at this manifold Wisdom of God The whole is a mysterie and this is a prime part of the mysterie and in this mysterie there are many mysteries a short view of which may be of some use to us 1. What a mysterious and wonderful thing is it That such as are dead by Law lying under the sentence thereof so bound over to the wrath of God according to the threatning of the Law which is just and righteous in all points and such as have nothing to defend themselves by from the threatned death unto which they are obnoxious nor any thing whereby to make Satisfaction to the demandes of the Law or to the offended Law-maker or where with to appease Him should notwithstanding hereof be Really Formally and Effectually absolved from the sentence of the Law by the sentence of the Judge and so made and declared to live juridically in Law-sense and to be as free of the curse and penalty of the Law as if they had never been guilty of the transgression thereof And thus is it here indeed Such as were dead in trespasses and sinnes and in the uncircumcision of the flesh are quickened together with Christ Ephes. 2 1 5. Col. 2 13. He who before had the wrath of God on him and abiding on him by beleeving on the Son of God hath everlasting life Ioh. 3 36. And they who were in a manner condemned already yet by beleeving on Him are not condemned yea have eternal life Ioh. 3 15 18. 2. What a mysterie is this That God who is righteous and just and the righteous Judge of the World and who hath declared that he looketh upon it as an abomination for any man to justifie the wicked Prov. 17 15. And whose judgement is alwayes according to truth Rom. 2 2. Should be one that justifieth the Ungodly And yet so is He said to be and so is He stiled and so is He held forth as the object of faith Rom. 4. 5. But to him that worketh not but beleeveth on Him that justifieth the Ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Papists others who will not suffer their Reason to follow Revelation but will measure all the mysteries of the Gospel by the corrupt rule of Reason and wiredraw those according to the dictats of this pretend an Inconsistency here and therefore will rather pervert the whole nature of Gospel-justification than yeeld to the Spirits Revelation of the matter Hence it is that they say a person cannot be justified by God untill he be a Godly man and have a Righteousness within him upon the account of which he must be justified little adverting That by their own principles it would follow that no man should ever be justified for seing God is a God of righteousness and it is a sure and certaine thing that His judgment is alwayes according to truth He could not absolve a Person as righteous that were not perfectly righteous and void of all sin where is the man not out of his wits that dar say this remembering what David said Psal. 130. 3. 143. 2. But here lyeth the truth the mystery Such as are really and truely Ungodly in themselves and have nothing of their own but unrighteousness within them and whose righteousnesses are but as filthy rags Esai 64 6. are yet justified by God upon the account of a perfect righteousness imputed to them received by faith In the judgment of God such as in themselves are Ungodly are considered as clothed with the perfect righteousness of the Mediator Christ that Head publik person which free grace putteth on them they receive stand under by faith and so are justified declared to be righteous by God whose judgment herein and sentence is most righteous most consonant to truth for he justifieth such as are righteous though not with their own inherent righteousness yet with the righteousness of their cautioner now made theirs 3. Here is another piece of this mystery That Transgressours of the Law shall be Absolved and Justified yet the Law established which threatneth death to Transgressours and promiseth life only to such as observe it in all points Who can reconcile this seeming Contradiction that is not acquanted with the glorious mystery of the Gospel Paul a man well acquanted with this mystery tels us expresly that the Gospel-way of justification which he preached and fully cleared in his Epistles derogateth nothing from the Law but establisheth it Rom. 3 31. Where after he had cleared confirmed the Nature and Causes of gospel-Gospel-justification had said vers 30. that He was one God who would justifie the circumcision or Jewes by faith and the uncircumcision that is the Gentiles through faith hy obvâ—ateth this objection that some might have proposed said What shall then become of the Law you make it void by speaking of faith ascribing justification to it as a mean in opposition contradiction to works he answereth Do we then make void the Law through faith That be far from us yea we establish the Law So that there is nothing in this Gospel justification that weakeneth or maketh void the Law but on the contrary it is thereby more fully confirmed and established for what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the righteouness of the Law might be fulfilled in us Rom. 8 2 3. Here is then the mysterie Transgressours of the Law are justified upon the account of what their Mediator and Surety their publik person Representer did suffered for Satisfaction to Law Justice the Law-giver by what He did suffered the Law is more established then it would have been by any thing that we did or could suffer for He made Satisfaction to all its demands there was perfect obedience given thereunto its commands answered in all points by our Lord Jesus Christ who knew no sin nor was deceite found in His mouth 2 Cor. 5 21. Esai 53 9. And because it was violated by sinners the Curse threatned was due therefore He did also
Law but by the Gospel not by the Covenant of works but by the Covenant of Grace The Adversaries to Imputation alleige that we by asserting the same do establish justification by the works of the Law because the obedience of Christ was obedience to the Law and so legal Righteousness and if that be imputed to us so as we are accounted to have done what he did we must be justified by Law-righteousness consequently by the Law which is contrary to the Scriptures But in answere to this I say 1. They advert not that some of themselves do expresly call Christ's Righteousness our legal or prolegal righteousness therefore it must be a righteousness answering the Law also made ours 2. Nor do they observe that justification by the Law or by the works of the Law which the Scriptures speak so much against is not to be understood in their sense the obvious plaine and only meaning thereof being this that no man can be justified by his own personal obedience to the Law for by the Law the doers only of the Law are justified Rom. 2 13. The plaine tenor of the Law is Set down Rom. 10 5. Where Moses is mentioned as describing the Righteousness of the Law to be this that the man who doth those things shall live by them Levis 18 5. When therefore the Law saith that the man that doth these things shall live by them not the man that either doth those himself or getteth a cautioner to do them for him shall be justified it is manifest that we are not justified by the Law seing we do not these things ourselves in our oun persons but by the Gospel which only provideth this Surety proposeth justification through His Righteousness imputed received by faith Thus we see That justification through the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness doth quite annull destroy our Justification by the Law all Imputation being inconsistent with Law-justification repugnant thereunto because it is of grace what is of Grace neither is not can be of works Rom. 11 6. 3. We assert not Imputation in this sense to wit That we are accounted reputed to have done what Christ did for that cannot be God cannot judge amisse but He should judge amisse if He should judge that we did what Christ did Our meaning is this that the Beleever being now united unto Christ hath an Interest in Christ's Righteousness upon the account thereof now reckoned upon his Score by Imputation he is freed from all that the Law could charge upon him and that as fully to all ends as if he had performed that Righteousness himself 17. It is likewise here considerable That we are justified upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed and yet this Righteousness of Christ is the proper meritorious cause of our justification of all that followeth there upon Some who oppose this Imputation imagine an opposition here But mistakingly they think that the Righteousness of Christ must be made the meritorious cause of it self or of that Righteousness which is imputed whileas we only say That Christ's Rightteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification Adoption c. and that it is also imputed to us for this end that we may be thereby formally righteous juridically in Law sense and so justified c. And who seeth not that it must be so seing we can be justified by no Righteousness which is not a proper meritorious cause of our justification consequently that we cannot be justified by any other Righteousness than the Righteousness of Christ so not by our own Gospel-righteousness nor by faith as suchs a Righteousness for that cannot be a meritorious cause of our justification 18. This is also a considerable part of this mystery which carnal eyes cannot see and which men carried away with prejudice at the pure doctrine of the Grace of God in the Gospel cannot sweetly comply with to wit That our justification is Solely upon the account of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and not upon the account or because of any thing wrought in us or done by us yet our obligation to holiness conformity to the Law of God in all points is not hereby in the least weakened Paul's frequent preoccupying of this Objection in his Epistles may let us see how ready carnal hearts are to abuse the doctrine of the Grace of God revealed in the Gospel to carnal liberty and what a propensity there is in us to look for justification upon the account of our works only so that if we hear of any thing to put us of this apprehension we presently are ready to conclude that all study of and endeavour after holiness is wholly useless unnecessary and that we need not wonder much at Socinians others who do thus reasone against the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. But Paul doth cleare to us a sweet consistency betwixt free justification upon the account of Christ's Righteousness imputed and the serious study of holiness He saw no Inconsistency betwixt the study of obedience to the Law in all points and the expectation of justification by faith in Christ alone whatever men who would seem sharp-sighted zealous for the study of holiness do suppose they cannot but see And albeit men in those dayes were ready enough to except against free justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and to pretend that the asserting thereof did take away all study of holiness yet this is very remarkable the Apostle to remove that objection never giveth the least hint of the necessity of our works of obedience in order to our justification And though He doth frequently press to holiness yet he never maketh use of any argument thereunto which might so much as insinuat that we were justified by works in one measure or other Nay we will finde that He draweth arguments pressing unto holiness from the very nature of their Gospel-justification of their State by vertue thereof And experience proveth this day that the most effectual Medium to holiness is taken from free justification through faith in Christ alone and that the holiness and obedience of such as practise the orthodox doctrine concerning justification hath another heavenly lustre as it floweth from another fountaine standeth upon another ground and looketh more like true holiness universal sincere obedience than what is to be seen among such as lay most weight upon their own duties whether we speak of Papists Socinians Arminians or of others And whatever inconsistency men may imagine to be betwixt free justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and the Universal Sincere Acceptable study of holiness yet the Gospel knoweth no such thing but presseth holiness though not for this end that we may thereby be put into a state of justification or might sweat foile run work for the prize as the hire wayes of our work yet upon more Spiritual
way unto Salvation or as the actual possession of Salvation is had by Confession And as Confession it self is not Salvation but the way thereto and the mean thereof so faith it self is not the Righteousness but the way thereunto and the meane or medium thereof 5. Gal. 2 21. I do not frustrat the grace of God for if Righteousness come by the law Christ is dead in vaine Whence we see that a Righteousness must be had and that this cannot be had by the law or by our obedience to the law but by Christ to deny this is in plaine termes to frustrat the grace of God to say that Christ is dead in vaine And if we look back to vers 16. forward we shall see that the Apostle is speaking of justification by faith in opposition to the works of the law that is by faith in Jesus Christ receiving a Righteousness which He hath wrought in His estate of Humiliation 6. Gal. 3 21 22. For if there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Iesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Whence we see that Righteousness is required unto life viz. the life of justification and by whatever way life is had by the same is Righteousness had and that neither life nor Righteousness is had by the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ and both are held forth in a free promise given to the Beleever in Christ. 7. Gal. 4 4 5. But when the fulness of the time was come God sent forth His Son made of a Woman made under the law to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the Adoption of sones Christ we see was made under the law that to redeem such as were under the law that they might be freed from what they were liable to by the law and by being under the law and withall receive the Adoption of sones which necessarily taketh in His Obedience as the Aethiopik Version explaineth it saying He was begotten of a Woman was a doer of the command in the law And that His Sufferings are here included is plaine from the one end assigned that he might redeem them who were under the law or under the lawes curse The end therefore here being twofold viz. Deliverance from under the law and receiving the Adoption of sones the Cause must have a subtableness thereunto and say That this compleat Righteousness comprehending both must be Imputed unto us for the ends mentioned 8. Gal. 5 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of Righteousness by faith Whether we take here the hope of Righteousness for justification as the Aethiopick Version doth translating the words thus and we in the Holy Spirit and in faith hope to be justified to which also the scope may give some countenance or for the Recompence of glory which is the thing hoped for that which we intend will be equally confirmed for if Justification be immediatly here spoken of it is manifest that hereunto a Righteousness is requisite and that this Righteousness is had by faith and so is not in our selves and therefore must be the Righteousness of Christs unto whom faith carrieth forth the soul of whom he spoke vers 4. Saying Christ is become of none effect unto you who soever of you are justified by the law If glory be here immediatly intended we may see that the Apostle to perswade the Galatians not to seek after a Righteousness by the law tels them what he others did and were resolved to do to wit how they ventured their whole Salvation on the truth he delivered for they waited and looked for heaven and happiness which is here called hop by a Metonymy not by the works of the law for heaven with them was not the hop of the law or of the works of the law but by the Righteousness of faith that is by through that Righteousness which is by faith therefore it is called the hope of Righteousness by faith that is that which they hope for through the help of the Spirit and expect in through the Righteousness of Christ which Righteousness is had by faith in Christ that this Righteousness is none else but the Righteousness of Christ the following verse cleareth where he saith for in Iesus Christ c. 9. Philipp 3 8 9. That I may win Christ be found in Him not having mine own Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith This place is so clear and full that by speaking much of it we may rather darken it than explaine it We see what was the maine thing Paul designed in opposition to what he once intended and sought after what he did formerly look upon as gaine and was hote in the pursuite of he now had no better account of than of as much loss dung yea he had no better esteem of all things beside Christ in this judgment he persisted accounting all but dung that he might win Christ have Him for all his gaine And what would he make of Christ He would be found in Him hid in Him covered with Him and united to Him In opposition to this he desireth not to be found in or having on his own righteousness which is of the law thereby showing us That it was the Righteousness of Christ he desired to be clothed with and found in therefore addeth but that i. e. that Righteousness which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith The he was seeking is the Righteousness of God and which is of God by faith and is had through the faith of Christ and all this was said in opposition to the way that the dogs the evil workers the concision mentioned vers 2. were crying up and following viz. the observation of the law in order to justification 10. Hebr. 11 7. By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Where there is a Metonymy the Cause puth for the Effect Righteousness put for that life which is had by this righteousness which sheweth â—hat a righteousness is necessarily required unto the life of acceptance with God and unto Salvation and that this righteousness is not in or of our selves but in and from another for it is had by faith and therefore is called the Righteousness which is by faith and faith layeth hold on no Righteousness but on that which is Christs These and other passages which might be mentioned are evident proofs of the Truth we are asserting with all such as are unprejudiced in the point beside all those passages which prove justification not to be by the works of the law but by faith for they also confirme this truth That in order to our justification and
if it were necessary but we said enough of this in answere to the foregoing objection He saith 3. The works of the law are never the less the works of the law because performed by Christ. Ans. Yet when performed by Christ they are not the works of the law done by us who did lye under the obligation and by the Imputation of such an obedience as was performed by Christ we have no ground of boasting or of glorying either before God or Man and it is against such an obedience to the law as the ground of justification as doth not exclude glorying or boasting and such as consisteth in works of Righteousness which we have done is exclusive offree grace that the Apostle disputeth He saith 4. This righteousness is said to receive testimony from the law that is from that part of Scripture which is often called the law and from the Propheâ—â— Now neither of these give any testimony to such a Righteousness but to a Righteousness procured or derived upon a man by faith Gen. 15 6. Hab. 2 4. Ans. It is true this Righteousness receiveth testimony from the law and from the writtings of the Prophets we plead for no other Righteousness but such as is so testified of hath the concurrent consent both of the O. and of the N. Testament Both law Prophets that spoke of the seed of the Woman of the Messiah of His being the Lord our Righteousness or spoke of the peoples duty in reference to Him as such did bear witness to this Truth 2 What is that Righteousness which is here said to be procured or derived upon a Man by faith Is it the Righteousness of Christ Then the cause is yeelded Is it the Righteousness of men themselves Then justification by works is established the whole Gospel is overthrown And how I pray can this besaid to be procured or derived upon a man by faith The places cited speak of no such thing but have a far contrary Import as may hereafter appear He saith 5. This Righteousness of God is said to be unto all upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through faith by way of opposition to the works of the law Now between Faith the works of the law there is a constant opposition but between the law and the works of righteousness of Christ there is no opposition Ans. 1 If this Righteousness be unto and upon all by or through faith it must of necessity be the Righteousness of another in bringing home and applying of which faith is an Instrument to this way of bringing in the Righteousness of God by faith from without is the seeking of Righteousness by our own works or by our own acts of obedience to the law manifestly opposite irreconcilable this is the opposition which the Scripture alwayes maketh betwixt justification by the law by faith as the very Scriptures cited by himself make manifest to wit Rom. 3 27 28. 4 13 14. 9 32. 10 5 6. Gal. 2 16. 3 5 11 12. c. 2 This argument all the steps of its prosecution make against himself who will have our act of faith to be the Righteousness of God though it be no where so called cannot be that which is by or through faith for faith is not by or through faith nor doth faith become a Righteousness by or through faith nor is faith as our act against the law otherwise it should be no act of obedience but a piece of willworship and consequently no righteousness at all but an unrighteousness a plaine disobedience or a work of Supererogation nor do the law or Prophets any where testify to this as our Righteousness Thirdly Chap. 5. pag. 73. He reasoneth from Rom. 5 16 17. thus The gift of righteousness as it is called vers 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel is said vers 16. to be a free gift of many offences unto justification that is the forgiveness of many offences cannot be a perfect legal righteousnes imputed unto vs or made ours by Imputation but the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel is the gift of many offences Ergo c. The Major he thus confirmeth That righteousness which extends unto a mans justification by the forginess of sins can be no perfect legal righteousness imputed But the righteousness of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgiveness of sins Ergo c. The Major of this he thus proveth Because a legal or perfect righteousness doth not proceed to justifie a mans person by way of forgiveness of sinnes but is of it self intrinsecally essenâ—ially a man's justification â—t yea such a justification with which forgiveness of sins is not competible for what need hath he that is legally righteous or hath a legal righteousness imputed to him of forgiveness of sins when as such a rightousness excluded all sin all guilt of sin from his person To all which I ans 1 The Major propos of the two Syllogisâ—es is true only of a perfect righteousness wrought by our selves in conformity to the law and not of the Righteousness of another imputed to us which though it may be called legal as to Christ as consisting in perfect obedience conformity to the law yet is rather to be called Evangelical as to us upon the account of its discovery and revelation and manner of communication unto us 2 The confirmation of the Major is likewise only true of a righteousness performed by our selves for that indeed excludeth all Remission and therefore if our faith be accounted our righteousness as he faith it must be our justification so inconsistent with free forgiveness 3 As to the Scripture where upon all this founded I say The text saith not that our righteousness is only free forgiveness but that in reference to pardon free forgiveness there is a gift bestowed that this gift by grace which aboundeth unto many is attended with free forgiveness as a necessary consequent It is the free gift that cometh upon all men unto justification vers 18. that by which many are made righteous vers 19. therefore is called the gift of righteousness vers 17. He objecteth against himself thus A man's sins are first forgiven him and then this perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified But this is not the thing we would say but on the contrary That first the perfect Righteousness of Christ is imputed whereupon the beleever is justified pardoned Let us hear his answer 1. He saith If we will needs distinguish the effects of the active passive obedience of Christ so as from the active part to fetch a perfect righteousness for Imputation from the passive remission of sins yet whether it be any wayes reasonable to invert the order I leave to sober consideration Christ did not first die after
cause of the formal objective cause which some call the Formal others the Material cause and the Inferiour Meane or Instrumental cause Here also these two are confounded made one viz. We are justified by faith faith is Imputed unto Righteousness That these are far different shall be cleared hereafter But what answereth he He saith 1. If their meaning be simply so that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth they speak more truth than they are aware of But that whatsoever faith apprehendeth should justify is not true Ans. Who speaketh thus I know not yet I see little danger in it their meaning being only this in that expression we are justified by that which faith apprendeth that Christ His Righteousness which justifying faith in the act of justifying laith hold on is the formal objective cause or that upon the account of which we are justified this no way saith that our faith is that Righteousness for which we are justified Next he saith If men ascribe justification in every respect to that which faith apprehendeth they destroy the Instrumental Iustification of faith Ans. No man that I know doth or will ascribe Justification in every respect unto that which faith apprehendeth so they need not destroy the Instrumental use of faith in Justification for as to the Instrumental justification of faith I understand it not it seemeth to be a very catachrestick expression In end he addeth If faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation or account from God for righteousness because it is all that God requires of men to their justification in stead of the righteousness of the law Therefore if God shall not impute or account it to them for this righteousness it would stand them in no stead at all to their justification because there is nothing useful or available to any holy or saving purpose but only to that whereunto God hath assigned it If God in the New Covenant requires faith in Christ for our justification in stead of the righteousness of the law in the old this faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousness but his command and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it self of beleeving will both become void of none effect the intire benefite of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure purpose of God in the designation of them to their end Ans. Whatever interest or place Faith hath in the New Cov. in the matter of justification it hath it from Gods sole appointment designation it is all that which is now required of us in order to our justification entering into Covenant with God yet unless we change alter its true nature and assigne another place power to it that God hath the Crown is keeped on the head of the Mediator His Righteousness is only owned received produced by the sinner as it were in face of Court rested upon by faith in order to justification But when faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness that is when our act of beleeving is made our Righteousness said to be so accounted esteemed by God all this to shoot out the Righteousness of Christ and to take away the Imputation thereof to us as the only ground of our justification not only are the native kindly actings of justifying faith destroyed but the very nature gentus of the New Covenant is altered it is made to be the same in kinde with the first Covenant with this gradual difference that the first Covenant required full perfect obedience the second one act of obedience only viz. Faith as a Peppercorn as some speak in stead of a great rent our whole Righteousness for no other Righteousness will our adversaries grant to be really imputed to us save what they grant of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness only as to Effects and thus they make the Lord to repute for that is the meaning of imputing with them that to be a Righteousness which at best is but imperfect not every way conforme to the command of God enjoining it Whereby thus one imperfect act of obedience viz. Faith is made that whereupon the wakened sinner is to rest and lay his whole weight wherein he is to refuge himself from the wrath of God which he is to hold up as his legal defence against all accusations coming in against him and all this use is to be made of faith immediatly in stead of Christ His Surety-righteousness Whence we see that it is false to say 1 That if faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation for righteousness For it justifieth as the mean appointed of God to lay hold on an Imputed Righteousness and to carry the soul forth thereunto The reason added is vaine for though it be all that God requires of men to their justification it is not that Rightheousness which is imputed unto Justification or the ground thereof but the Mean or Instrument of a soul 's partaking of that Righteousness of Christ which is the only ground or formal objective reason 2 It is false to say That if God shall not account it to them for righteousness it shall stand them in no stead to justification For it is required as the meane whereby the Sinner is married unto Christ partaketh of His Righteousness in order to justification and is as the legal production of the righteousness of the Surety in face of court as the ground of absolution to be pleaded stood unto The reason he here addeth is of no force because faith is assigned of God to this end purpose as the Gospel cleareth only to this end that so the Mediator alone may weare the Crown beare the weight of sinners nothing in us or from us may share with Him in that glory It is false 3 to say or suppose as his following words intimate That faith in the New Covenant hath the same place force efficacy which the righteousness of the law had in the old Covenant For then Faith should be Meritorious ex pacto should give ground of glorying before men It is 4 false to say That if faith hath not this place force efficacy in the New Covenant the command for beleeving beleeving it self shall be vaine Seing it hath another use designed to it of God and it is required for another end as is said according to the gracious pleasure purpose of God Lastly Chap. 8. pag. 93. c. he argueth from Gal. 3 12. thus If the Scriptures do not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the Righteousness of Christ from one person to another then there is no Imputation of Christ's Righteousness But the former is emphatically true from this place Ergo c. Ans. This upon the matter is but what Socinus said lib. 3. cap. 3. viz.
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
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
the score of Beleevers as if he had recalled the former pardon granted for he remembereth their sin no more Ier. 31 34. Heb. 8 12. 10 17. And for future sins by vertue of their State they have access to seek for pardon and have ground 3 The Righteousness of Christ which is a perfect Righteousness is fully and perfectly communicated and imputed so as thereby they become the Righteousness of God in Christ 2. Cor. 5. last He is their whole Righteousness in order to Iustification and wholly their Righteousness as made of God Righteousness unto them Ier. 23 6 1. Cor. 1 30. And with this Righteousness they are wholly perfectly covered to expect it as found hid there Phil. 3 9. are made Righteous Rom. 5 19. 10 4. 4 They are now wholly Reconciled unto God and have Peace with Him and not by halfes or in some certain respects only as if in other respects they were still Enemies or in a state of Enmity Being justified by faith they have Peace with God Rom. 5 1. once they were enemies but now they are reconciled vers 10. by Christ they have now received the Atonement vers 11. once alienated enemies in their mindes by wicked works but now reconciled Col. 1 21. once a far off but now made neer Ephes. 2 13. the enmity being staine vers 16. No more strangers or forreigners now but fellow citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God vers 19. Then is the Lord pacified toward them for all that they have done Ezek. 16 63. 5 They are compleetly translated into a new Covenant state not halfe the children of Saran and half the children of God not halfe in Nature and halfe in the state of Grace not half translated halfe not Ephes. 2 13 19. Col. 1 21. not halfe quickened with Christ and halfe not Ephes. 2 5. They are not now halfe without Christ or aliens from the common wealth of Israel or strangers from the Covenants of promise c. Ephes. 2 12. There is a perfect change as to their state 1. Cor. 6 11. 6 They are secured as to final Condemnation There is no condemnation for them Rom. 8 1. being beleevers they shall not perish but have eternal life Ioh. 3 15 16. He that beleeveth is not condemned vers 18. See also Ioh. 3 36. 6 47. They are passed from death unto life Ioh. 5 24. 1. Ioh. 3 14. being discharged of all guilt of eternal punishment which formerly they deserved by their sinnes And all this holdeth good notwithstanding of their after sins which as we shall shew do not annull or make any such breach upon their state of Justification It is true these sins must also be Pardoned will be Pardoned but yet when they are pardoned their Justification as to their state is not hereby more perfected as to these respects formerly mentioned It holdeth good also notwithstanding of what shall be at the great day for that will put no man in a new Justified state who was not Reconciled to God before It is true there will be many additions as to the Solemnitie Declaration Consequences Effects thereof in that day but not withstanding hereof the state of Justification here as to what respecteth its grounds the essential change it maketh together with the Right that beleevers have thereby unto all that in that day they shall be put in possession of is perfect may be said so to be Propos. 7 By what is said it is manifest how in what respects this life of Iustification differeth from the life of Sanctification 1 Sanctification maketh a real Physical change Iustification maketh a Relative change And thereby they come to have a new State or Relation unto the Law unto God the judge 2 Sanctification is continueing work wherein beleevers are more more built up daily Iustification is an act of God or a juridcial sentence Absolving a sinner pronunceing him free of the charge brought in against him and not liable to the penalty 3 Sanctification is a groÌ„wing and increasing work admitteth of many degrees is usually weak and small at the beginning Iustification doth not grow neither doth it admit of degrees but is full compleet adequate unto all ends here 4 Sanctification is ever growing here and never cometh to full Perfection before death Justification is perfect adequate unto all ends as we shewed 5 Sanctification is not alike in all but some are more some are less sanctified But Iustification is equal in all none being more justified then others 6 Some measures degrees of Sanctification which have been attained may be lost againe But nothing of Iustification can really be lost for we are not here speaking of the sense and feeling of Justification which frequently may be lost but of Justification it self 7 Sanctification is a progressive work Iustification is instantaneous as was shown 8. Sanctification respecteth the Being Power Dominion of â—in in the beleever and killeth subdueth and mortifieth it Iustification respecteth its guilt demerite taketh away guilt and the obligation to punishment or obnoxiousness to the paying of the penalty 9 In justification a man is accepted upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him and received by Faith But in Sanctification grace is infused and the Spirit given to perfecte holiness in the fear of God 10 In Iustification there is a right had unto life and unto the rich recompence of reward upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed whence they are said to have passed from death to life But in Sanctification they are made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in light 11 Unto Iustification nothing is required but faith in Christ whereby the soul may become united to Him have a right to his benefites But unto Sanctification all the graces of the Spirit are requisite and all the exercises of the same all diligence is required and an adding of Vertue to Faith of Knowledge to Vertue of Temperance to Knowledge of Patience to Temperance of Godliness to Patience of Brotherly kindness to Godliness of Charity to Brotherly kindness 2 Pet. 1 5 6 7. Propos. 8 Hence it followeth also thar there is no ground to assert a first a second Justification as Papists do meaning by the first an Infusion of an inward Principle or Habite of Grace which is no Justification nor part thereof but the beginning of Sanctification and by the Second another Justification which with them is an Effect or Consequent of the former having good work which flow from the foresaid infused principle of grace love for its proper formal cause This Justification they say is by works where as the former is by faith and yet this second they make to be an Incrementum an increase of the first and for this they say the church prayeth when she saith Lord increase our saith hope
for answere to clear up the matter in hand more we say 1 Pardon of sins is not adequatly the same with Justification nor the whole thereof but at most a part or rather a partial effect in justification the person is constituted Righteous and declared such and thereupon hath his sins pardoned and a Right to the purchased reward and he is thus made declared Righteous through the Mediators Surety-Righteousness imputed to him and laid hold upon by faith 2 When a person is justified he is at once and for ever freed from the punishment due from the Law from vindictive justice for the broken Covenant the Obligation to punishment required by vindictive justice is taken away and dissolved Christ having fully born that Punishment and satisfied that demand of Justice they in through him are delivered from the Curse and the maledictory sentence 3 Hence all their sufferings afflictions here being no part of the Curse nor of Satisfaction to divine vindictive justice nor of the Condemnation threatned how ever they be materially evil and Fatherly Chastisments or Punishments yet are no effects of Law-vengeance nor parts of vindictive Punishment and so cannot give ground to inferre an imperfect Pardon or an imperfect Justification 4 Nor must we call them any part of the Punishment threatned by the Law remaining yet unremoved for that would make them parts of the Curse and yet Mr. Baxter Confess p. 125. conceiveth it fittest to say that beleevers are freed from the curse are not under it and addeth his reasons there And the consequence is clear because what the Law threatneth as such belongeth to the Curse for the Law saith Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do then Gal. 3 10. Deut. 27 26. And therefore every Punishment that is a punishment of the Law must be part of the Curse So if the Punishments or Afflictions that the Godly are now under be part of the Curse that is yet remaining unremoved or of the Punishment as Mr. Baxter there p. 124. saith it will inevitablie follow that beleevers are yet under the Curse and not wholly delivered there from and as to these outward afflictions many of the truly Godly shall be more under the Curse then several of the wicked and if they be under any part of the Curse how can they be pronunced Blessed how can they be said to be Redeemed from the Curse of the Law how can Christ be said to have been made a curse for them how shall their sufferings not be a part of Satisfaction to Vindictive justice Shasl not they be in part Satisfiers for themselves Shall not they then be beholden to Christ only in part How shall then these Afflictions flow from love run in the channel of love and work-out their good through grace love if they be any real formal parts of the Curse Shall not the curse then be a part of the blessedness of the Saints and of their bequeathed portion which they may owne as theirs as well as they may owne life Shall not the curse or a part of the curse separat from the Love of God and of Christ What I pray will if that do it not and yet the Apostle tels us Rom. 8 33. c. that afflictions cannot do it nor death it self How can any part of the curse work for us a far more exceeding eternal weight of glory and yet Afflictions do that 2. Cor. 4 17. The curse will not conforme us unto Christ yet afflictions will and do Rom. 8 29. 5 Even as to the remnants of the body of death that cause the godly to groan and cry out Miserable man c. if we consider them as an Affliction we cannot say that they are a remanent part of Law-vengeance of Law-punishment or of the curse threatned in the Law for then they should be effects of God's hatred towards the Persons of pure vengeance and of juridical judicial Wrath Anger and were not capable of Sanctification to their spiritual advange and Beleevers upon this account could not be said to be delivered from the Law and dead to that wherein they were formerly held as they are Rom. 7 6. for they who are under the Curse and under such an especial part or Effect thereof cannot but be under the Law and that as a cursing Condemning Law Gal. 3 10. Nor could the Apostle inferre as he doth after the mentioning of the sad wrestlings that the godly have with the body of death Rom. 7 15. c. that there is now therefore no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Rom. 8 1. for this would not follow from their being really properly under such a great part of the Curse Sure this cannot but be derogatory unto the perfect Satisfaction made by Christ seing hereby there is in some measure a Satisfaction made unto the justice of God and it was the end of Christ's suffering satisfaction to deliver his people from the curse of the Law in whole and in part from that penalty threatned in the Covenant of works Christ was made a curse for us and thereby did redeem us not in part only but wholly from the curse of the Law and this penal Law Mr. Baxter must understand pag. 127. Confess or he speaketh not to the purpose Nor can I say with him ibid. p. 119. that every threatning is it in one sense the execution in another that is commonly called the curse of the Law for the execution of the Law upon any person is inconsistent with loving-kindness towards that person but so is not every threatning nay nor the execution thereof upon beleevers as we see Psal. 89 30 31 32 33. Nor could these executions of threatnings be said to flow from Love contrare to Revel 3 19. Heb. 12 6. Prov. 3 12. for there is no fatherly Love in executing of the Curse CHAP. XXI Justification is by Faith what this Faith is how it is wrought HAving thus spoken unto laboured to clear up the Nature some causes of this life of â—ustification we come in the next place to speak to the following part of the Text. Where the way how this life of justification is brought about and attained is pointed forth when it is said The just shall live by faith Faith we see is here mentioned as that which interesseth us in this privilege of life Whence we see 1. That no man is made partaker of the life of Justification before Faith or that untill souls exercise faith they are without this life of Justification Some talk of a Justification from Eternity thus confound Justification with Gods love of Election or with Gods decree purpose to justifie Some speak of Justification of all in the death of Christ but neither is this to be admitted if we speak of actual Justification It is true Christ did when he laid down
abstracto i. e. without the receiving subject thereof in concreto i. e. together with the beleever The first which signifieth Remission of sins and Righteousness to Acceptation prepared though not yet conferred upon the Elect he saith hath a being before Faith and so the object is before the act though the ather be after faith But I conceive there is no great necessitie of this for answering of the argument if any should propose it to evince justification before faith and Bellarm. adduceth it not to this end as we saw for I see no ground to assert justification to be the object of justifying faith as if in order to justification we were called to beleeve that we are justified and that our sins are pardoned as was said above And as for this justification considered in the abstract which is said to have a being not only in the Purpose of God but also in the Covenant between the Father the Mediator in the Purchase of Christ not only is it not called justification in Scripture but also in so far as it is the object of faith as all other revealed truthes are it is of the elect in general and not of this or that particular person so that though justifying faith may beleeve that God Purposed Christ Purchased the Covenant of Redemption did expresly containe the justification of the Elect yet it doth not beleeve in order to the mans justification that he in particular so was justified either in the Purpose of God or in the Purchase of Christ or in the Covenant betwixt Iehovah the Mediator nor is this Faith called for because this object is not a revealed truth Yet this same justifying Faith is of that Nature as to produce afterward reflecting acts whereby the man may see his own justification be perswaded of it in truth hence also be perswaded that the Lord Purposed to justifie him in particular that Christ Purchased his justification in particular and that it was an article of the Covenant of Redemption that he in particular should be justified 2. While it is said That the just liveth by faith we see that faith is the way whereby persons come actually to live the life of justification and hence it can not it self be the matter of their life What interest properly faith hath in this affaire must be debated afterward to wit whether it be properly imputed as the matter of our Righteousness or only be to be considered as an Instrument or as a Condition how so 3. We see That this living by Faith proveth that there is no justification by works in the sight of God whence it is manifest that faith here cannot be considered as a work of the Law or as a duty enjoined by the Law or under any such consideration 2 That works have no interest as a cause or condition with Faith in justification 3 That the life of justification as to its continnation is by faith and by faith as opposite to works for the just or the man already justified liveth by faith This being also questioned we will have occasion to speak more to it afterward 4. While it is said the just liveth by faith it is considerable That this faith in its kinde and not in such or such measure is here said to be the meane whereby persons come to live the life of justification So that this true Faith how weak so ever is the only mean of interessing a soul in this privilege of justification This will give occasion to speak of the object of this justifying faith which will help to cleare the nature of it Our larger Catechisme qu. 72. giveth us such a definition or description of justifying faith that may satisfy us as to most of these difficulties The answere is this justifying faith is a saving grace Heb. 10 39. wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit 2 Cor. 4 13. Ephes. 1 17 18 19. word of God Rom. 10 14 17. whereby he being convinced of his sin misery of the disability in himself all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition Act. 2 37. 16 30. Ioh. 16 8 9. Rom. 5 6. Eph. 2 1. Act. 4 12. not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gosspel Ephes. 1 13. but receiveth resteth upon Christ and his Righteousness therein hold forth for pardon of sin Ioh. 1 12. Act. 16 31. 10 43. for the accepting and accounting of his person Righteous in the sight of God for salvation Phil. 3 9. Act. 15 11. And this question is none of these particulars wherein Mr. Baxter in his Confess desireth to dissent from the said Catechisme as the next Question is as we shall hear We may hence take notice of these particulars concerning this faith ' whereby it may be known distinguished from what some may mistake for it 1. As to its nature kinde it is saving for all such as have this grace of justifying faith are in the sure way of salvation whatever faith persons may have if they have not this they are not in the sure path of life There is a faith of miracles both Active Passive as we may say that is a faith to do miracles and a faith to receive miracles wrought upon them The first was that which the Apostles had and others who wrought Miracles and is to be understood Mat. 17 20 21. Luk. 17 6. The other is that which some of those had who received miraculous cures as the woman Mal. 9 21 21. and that Man who cried out I beleeve help mine unbeleefe Mark 9 24. and the man of lystra Act. 14 9. and others This in it self considered is not a saving grace Iudas had this faith whereby he cast our devils and had commission to work miracles with the rest Mat. 10 8. Luk. 9 1 6 10. So also the Seventy disciples Luk. 10 9 17 19. And how great a privilege so ever this was yet Christ told them vers 20. that it was a far greater matter and much greater ground of joy to have their names written in heaven whereby he giveth us also to understand that these are distinct different from other and also separable Many saith Christ Mat. 7 22 23. will say to me in that day Lord Lord have we not prophesied in thy name in thy name have cast out devils in thy name have done many wonderful works And then will I professe unto them I never knew you depart from me ye that work iniquity And it is of this Faith that Paul speaketh 1. Cor. 13 2. though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have no charity I am nothing Importing that this Faith may be where there is no saving Christian Love There is an Historiâ—al faith that is a beleeving not only of the histories recorded in the word of God but of the whole Revelation of God's minde there yet only
pregnant for it Ans. We finde it only twice said in express termes that faith is counted for Righteousness vers 5. and againe vers 9. that faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness It is then too widely spoken when he saith that there is not any truth in Religion nor any article of the Christian Faith that can boast of more full expresse pregnant letter of Scripture yea even though it were as oft as expresse as he allegeth but we must let many such confidente expressions passe with him 2 The question is not touching the letter or the words but the true meaning if a truth be but once delivered in the Scriptures it is sufficient to command our faith but words never so oft repeated when corruptly glossed yeeld no foundation to faith We know what Papists say of these words This is my body which with them is as full expresse and pregnant a proof of their dream as this passage of Paul's is of our Adversaries fancies And we know what Arrians say of these words My Father is greater than I And yet their false glosses cannot be embraced for truthes let them boast of expresse Scriptures never so much And what errour I pray or heresie is it that doth not pretend to the like Let us see his next ground 2. Saith he The scope of the place rejoiceth in the Interpretation given I grant indeed that this is a good rule or interpreting of Scriptures for it is as a sure threed to lead us through many labyrinths But which is the miserie many imagine that to be the scope of the place which is not so indeed thus pervâ—rting or mistaking the scope they must needs pervert all Yet let us see how he would make the scope contribute to his Notions The Apostles maine drift saith he was to hedge up with thornes that false way of Iustification which lay through works legal performances with all to open and discover the true way of justification that is to make known what they must do what God requireth of them to their justification that is as Ioh. 6 28 29. faith or to beleeve in the proper formal signification not the righteousness of Christ this he required of Christ himself he requireth our faith in Christ himself nos in his righteousness Ans. Paul's scope is indeed to hedge up all Justification by the Law or by the works thereof in subordination to this other of shewing that in the Gospel the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith Rom. 1 17. And therefore he cannot speak for the Imputation of Faith in its proper formal signification for that is a work commanded by the Law of God the Imputation thereof is expresly alledged by our adversaries to shoot out the Righteousness of God which is revealed from faith to faith 2 To say that the Apostle here only requireth faith in Christ and not faith in his Righteousness in order to Justification is either to divide Christ his Righteousness or to give us an Historical Faith in stead of justifying Faith that is such a faith in Christ as is the faith of any other truth revealed in the Scriptures such as the creation of the world And this is indeed to make a fundamental Alteration in the Gospel Covenant to destroy the true Nature of Justifying faith 3 It is true the Apostle is withall shewing what we must do in order to our Justification but this no way impeacheth the interest of Christ's Righteousness as the formal ground of the Justification of the ungodly but rather establisheth it for he sheweth that we are not now Justified by our doing or working but by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by Faith 4 Though God doth not require of us the performance of the Righteousness of Christ yet he requireth of is that we lay hold thereupon and be covered therewith by faith that under that rob we may appear before our judge for to this end is Christ made of God unto us Righteousness and is become the Lord our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1 30. Ier. 23 6. And he requireth of us that we renunce all our own Righteousness in this affaire acknowledge the Righteousness of Christ the only Righteousness upon which we are to be justified and therefore he willeth us to say that in the Lord have we Righteousness Esai 45 24. He is pleased to add Therefore for Paul to have said that the righteousness of Christ should be imputed unto them had been quite beside his scope Why so His telling them what was required of themselves maketh nothing against this but doth rather confirme it for when faith is pressed upon us it is clearly supposed that the Righteousness of Christ is Imputed this being the peculiar work of faith as justifying to bring in put on Christ's Righteousness and so where our Redemption or Justification by Christ is mentioned faith though it be not expresly mentioned is to be understood as the Mean or Instrument whereby the same is applied to us as also the Redemption Righteousness of Christ is to be understood where Justification by faith is only expressed And as sometimes we finde both expresly mentioned so both are most emphatically comprehended and included in that expression now under consideration Such a glorious firme connexion is betwixt all these Causes of our Justification such a beautiful harmonie of grace that as they cannot be separated so the deforming misplaceing or any way altering of any one piece thereof destroyeth the harmonie darkeneth the beauty of the whole In the third place he argueth against faiths being here taken Tropically or Metonymically to this end adduceth these confiderations 1. It is not likely that the Apostle in this great weighty point should time after time in one place after another without ever explaining himself through out the whole disputation use such an harsh uncouth expression or figure of speach as is not to be found in all his writting beside nor in all the Scriptures Ans. Figurative expressions are neither harsh in themselves being rather emphatically explicative and more forcible upon the understanding as to the uptaking of these mysteries nor are they strange uncouth to the Apostle even in this matter as might be abundantly evinced almost as to every expression used in this matter or at least as to such expressions as are about the maine parts thereof Let any read Paul's writtings on this subject here his Epistle to the Gallatians he shall finde this true almost in every Chapter But it should satisfie us that the Holy Ghost hath thought fit to expresse the matter thus that to prevent mistakes he hath given both here elsewhere abundance of clear plaine and down right expressions for a supply as hath been shown above so as none may mistake but such as will wilfully step aside to follow their own wayes And it is not
this occasion trouble the Reader with some more of their expressions that we may see that the doctrine which is now so much cried up followed after is nothing but old Socinianisme so owned professed by such as do not deserve to be called Christians Socin de Servat lib. 4. c. 4 7 11. God justifieth the ungodly but now converted penitent after he hath left off to be ungodly the justified are not ungodly in themselves neither are they so called yea they are not sinners which is more they do not now sinne And so faith works that is obedience to the commands of Christ as the forme of faith doth justifie us before God by them through them per illa ex illis he justifieth us Smalcius disp 4. c. Frantzium Regeneration all other good works Love Prayer Obedience Faith Charity c. are so far from being effects of justification that without them justification can no way really exist for God justifieth no man but him who is compleetly adorned with all these vertues â— yea the study of good works walkeing before God were the cause though not the chiefe of the justification of Noah Abraham others who are said to be justified by faith Socin ubi supra de Serv. lib. 1. c. 4. Faith doth not justifie by its proper vertue but by the mercy goâ—d will of God who justifieth such as do such a work imputeth it for righteousness With Paul to have righteousness imputed is nothing else but to have faith imputed to be accounted just faith is so imputed to us as that because of faith we howbeit guilty of many unrighteousness are esteemed perfectly righteous or God so dealeth with us as if we were perfectly righteous who can doubt that the Apostle meaneth no other thing than that we are not righteous before God because our works require that as a due reward but because it hath so seemed good to the Lord to take our faith in place of righteousness so that we receive the reward of grace by which we are declared righteous before him More might be adduced for this end as it might be shown also how herein the Arminians conspire with them against the orthodox And as for the judgment of Papists in this point it is likewise known It will not be necessary that we insist in disproving that which hath been so much witnessed against by the orthodox writting against Papists Socinians Arminians upon these heads It will suffice I suppose if we give a few reasons why we cannot acquiesce in the doctrine proposed by the forenamed Author 1. Hereby works of obedience are exalted to the same place are allowed the same Force Influence Efficacy into Justification with Faith whereby all the Apostles disputes for Faith against Works for faith as inconsistent with exclusive of works are evacuated rendered useless So that the Apostle hath either not spoken to the purpose or hath not spoken truth either of which to say is blasphemie The Apostle argueth thus we are Justified by faith therefore we are not Justified by works This man reasoneth on the contrary we are justified by faith therefore we are justified by works because by a faith that includeth works as if the Apostle had meaned a Faith that was dead had no affinity with works 2. Hereby he confoundeth all these duties which are required of Beleevers or of such as are in Covenant with God with that which is solely required of them in order to their first entering in Covenant or into a state of Justification as â— one should say that all the marriag-duties required of such as were already in that marriage state were conditions of entering into the marriag-state 3. Hereby he confoundeth Justification with Glorification making all that Faith sincere obedience which is required in order to actual Salvation Glorification to be necessary before Justification And thereby must say that no man hath his sins pardoned so long as he liveth but if he be sincerely obedient he is in the way to a Pardon to Justification He cannot say that by a practical Faith he only meaneth such a true and lively Faith as will in due time produce these effects for as that will not consist with his explication of that practical Faith so it would crosse his whole designe The just man in the eye of this new Law as he saith p. 49. is every one that rightly beleeves repents sincerely obeyes because that is all that it requires of a man himself to his Iustification Salvation Where we see that with him Justification Salvation go together have the same conditions and he that is just must be one that hath these Conditions and he who hath not these Conditions is not just in the eye of that new Law and if he be not just in the eye of that new Law his faith cannot be accounted to him for Righteousness nor he Justified 4. The man hereby confoundeth the two Covenants or giveth us a new Covenant of Works in stead of the Covenant of Grace for this practical Faith which includeth all obedience hath the same place force efficacy in the new Covenant that compleet Obedience had in the old And this Gospel is but the old Law of works only with this change that where as the old Law required Perfect Obedience to the end in order to Justification Salvation this new Covenant of works requireth Sincere Obedience to the end in order to Justification Salvation And so thus we are Justified saved as really by upon the account of our works as Adam would have been if he had continued in obedience to the end this Faith and sincere Obedience is as really to all ends purposes as effectually and formally our Righteousness as Perfect Obedience would have been the Righteousness of Adam And thus the reward must as really be reckoned to us of debt not of grace as it would have been to Adam if he had stood And as faire a ground is laid for us to boast glory though not before God as had been for Adam if he had continned to the end The evasion he hath to make all this of grace saying p. 49 50. And yet every beleevers justification will be all of grace because the Law by which they are justified is wholly of grace was enaâ—ed in meer grace favour to undone man is not able to help him for it was wholly of undeserved grace love that God did so far condescend to Adam to all mankinde in him as to strick a Covenant with him a promise of such an ample reward upon his performance of the condition of Perfect Obedience to the end yet notwithstanding this Law was wholly of grace was enacted in meer grace favoure for neither was the Lord necessitated thereunto nor could Adam say he had deserved any such thing at God's hand the reward
hath ground of glorying before men in himself and not in the Lord alone for all have alike ground of glorying upon that account seing what the Lord did was common to all and this new personal Righteousness maketh the difference But it will be said That Christ's Righteousness being acknowledged to be our only legal Righteousness whereby we answere the charge of the Law the asserting of a Gospel-Righteousness whereby we come to have an interest in that legal Righteousness can do no prejudice I Ans. Beside that this maketh two distinct Righteousness as the one a meane to obtean another the one within us a price ex pacto for the other without us and all this in order to Absolution from one charge of the Law brought in against the sinner hereby as to us our personal Righteousness is really made our legal Righteousness because it is made that Righteousness whereupon this man and not the other that wants it is freed from the charge of the Law for according to this way Faith is not imployed to lay hold on Christ's Righteousness that by presenting that Surety-Righteousness unto justice the soul may escape the charge but when the charge of violation of the Law of God is brought in against the sinner his only reliefe is his Gospel-Righteousness which he presenteth whereupon he pleadeth for Pardon Absolution by vertue of the new Covenant which Christ hath purchased for should he alledge the death satisfaction of Christ that should give no reliefe because that was for all alike thereby the New Covenant was purchased where in the Gospel Righteousness whether Faith alone or Faith New Obedience was set down as the Condition and therefore it can stand him in no avail but he must refuge himself from wrath under the wings of his own Gospel-Righteousness for he hath no other and thereupon rest secure be confident of his Absolution from all that the Law could charge against him As for example if the Princes son should by a valuable price given to the Prince procure new Termes and Conditions to be proposed to a company of condemned treatours lying in prison if any one of these were challenged for the old crime threatned with the execution of the sentence past upon that account it would be of no avail to him to say the Princes son hath laid down a valuable price to buy me from death because he knew that he did that for all the rest in purchasing a New Covenant new conditions but the first sure course he would take would be to present his performance of the new conditions say the charge cannot reach me because I have performed the Conditions of the New Covenant procured by the Princes son This I suppose is plaine cleare this in our case would be found to be the only saife course that poor challenged sinners would take if they should act according to the doctrine of our Adversaries to which as I said I should not dar to advise one or other But really the Gospel-way which is opposite to this is plaine saife if we have but so much humility as to complye therewith And a difference may seem small in the debate which yet in practice may prove great of dangerous consequence CHAP. XXVI Christ did not procure by his death the New Covenant or the termes thereof WE heard what the Author of the discourse of the two Covenants what Iohn Goodwine said of this New Covenant As the foundation of their assertion of the imputation of faith properly taken they tell us that the New Covenant wherein this Righteousness is required as the condition thereof is founded wholly in the blood of Christ so that whatever is required of man by way of condition of his acceptation with God becomes accepted to that end upon account of Christ's suffering Mr. Allen p. 16. p. 53. 54. saith Nor doth this that faith accompanied with obedience is imputed for righteousness at all derogate from the obedience sufferings of Christ in reference to the ends for which they serve Because the whole Covenant all the parts termes of it both promises of benefites the Condition on which they are promised are all founded in Christ his undertaking for us and all the benefites of it accrue to us upon our beleeving obeying upon his account for his sake Mr. Baxter also telleth us in his book against D. Tully p. 66. That that which Christ did by his merites was to procure the new Covenant And elsewhere p. 181 that they were the meritorious cause of the forgiving Covenants the like he â—aith elsewhere frequently The Arminians ground the imputation of faith upon the merites obedience of Christ Apol. f. 113. And Arminius himself disp 19. thes 7. that justification is attribute to faith not because it is the very righteousness which may be proposed to God's rigide severe judgment howbeit acceptable to God but because by the judgment of mercy triumphing over judgment it obtaineth pardon of sins is graciously imputed unto righteousness the cause of which is both God righteous merciful Christ by his obedience oblation intercession And in his Epistle ad Hyppolet he tels us that the word imputing signifieth that faith is not the righteousness it self but that it is graciously accounted for righteousness whereby all worth is taken away from faith except that which is by God's gracious estimation that gracious estimation of God is not without Christ but in respect of Christ in Christ for Christ. Christ by his obedience is the impetrating cause or meritorious why God imputeth faith to us unto righteousness And againe in his Artic. perpend de justif What fault is it so say that faith by free gracious acceptation is accounted for righteousness because of Christ's obedience But with this assertion we are not satisfied for these reasons 1. The Arminians who maintaine this so confidently make it the whole of what Christ merited by his death Satisfaction saying that Christ by his death did so satisfie the offended party as he would be favourable to the offender and so say that he acquired to the father a jus a will to enter into a new Covenant with men See their Confess c. 8. § 9. collat cum Apolog. c. 8. § 9. and as the learned Voetius inferreth Select dispp p. 2. p. 233 234. it followeth hence that Christ was not in very deed our Cautioner that he died not in our room stead that he did properly obtaine acquire nothing to us that he did not sustaine the person of the elect while he suffered on the crosse 2. ... that Christ procured no more but a power or liberty unto God of prescribing new Conditions and some go so far as to say that this liberty was such only at the Lord might if he had pleased have appointed the old way of works againe for the condition So said
through his blood the forgivness of sins c. Ephes. 1 4 5 6 7. the chosen ones are predestinated both to the end to the meanes leading to the endâ— But this matter is not consistent with their Assertion who say that Christ by his death hath purchased Faith New Obedience to be the Condition of the Covenant because by their Universal Redemption they leave all at an uncertainty especially when also they will not grant that Christ hath purchased Faith itself to any person 12. It must be said ... that Christ purchased the termes of the new Covenant ... and purchased that God should abolish the Law quite and not require a conformitie thereunto as our Righteousness by vertue of the new Covenant nor exact full Obedience to the Law from any in our name consequently it must be said that Christ hath purchased that the Law giver should wholly passe from that established Constitution do live without any real accomplishment thereof or requiring the accomplishment thereof from any on their behalf to the end the Lord might be just when he is the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus 13. This assertion also stricketh against Christ's being the Surety of the New Covenant for it is not the work of a Surety as such to purchase the Making Constitution of a Covenant but to confirme ratifie the same to engage for the party for whom he is a Surety that he shall performe the conditions accorded to in the Covenant so to establish the Covenant or contract already agreed unto constituted 14. Thus it should be said that Christ died rather for graces than for persons to wit That Faith new obedience may be elevated beyond their ordinare sphere exalted to be the Condition of the New Covenant But the whole Scriptures speak otherwise of Christ's death 15. If this were the thing that Christ procured he could not be said to have Redeemed any not so have died in the room stand of any but only for our good as say the Sociniant To purchase a new Covenant is not to be a Propiltation an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to â—ear our sins to Reconcile any unto God 16. Mr. Baxter himself against Mr. Cartwright p. 91. hath these words And therefore the Performer the Accepter did themselveâ— NB. choose on what termes it i.e. Christ's Righteousness should be applied to us or be made ours quoad fructus And the termes resolved on were the New Covenants conditions which are now required of us to our participation hereof These words import some other rise unto this Covenant than the purchase of Christ. CHAP. XXVII How Faith is and may be called a Condition of the new Covenant and of Justification how not IT may be of some use ... to enquire in what way faith is and may be called a Condition ... The orthodox never denied that it may be called a Condition ... yet with all we must alwayes look upon Faith as an Instrument or Instrumental Meane in Justification because of its being as the hand of the soul to receive bring-in grip-to lay hold on the Righteousness of Christ as the Righteousness of a Cautioner of a publick person to the end they might be Justified Absolved from the sentence of the Law Accounted pronunced Righteous in the sight of God Upon the other hand Socinians Arminians who cast the whole Gospel in a new mould of their own deny Faith to be an Instrument assert that it is only a Condition or a cause sine qua non as they speak And this they do that their doctrine about Justification which is wholly corrupt may appeare to hang the better together We heard how they denied the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness now they must of necessitie also deny Faith to be considered here as an Instrument â— for they know that it was called an Instrument meerly upon 〈◊〉 account of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ which it was to apply to receive to put on They affirmed that Faith properly taken was imputed unto Righteousness by vertue of Christ's merites was accepted of God for a Righteousness was so accounted now consequentially they must say that Faith together with new Obedience which they also 〈◊〉 conjoine as making up one Righteousness is to be looked upon us a Condition or causa sine qua non Socinus de Iustis tels us that though that obedience which 〈◊〉 performe unto Christ be neither the different nor Meritorious cause of our Iustification eternal Salvation yet it is the causâ— sine quation as they say The same he saith Synops justis 2. p. 14. So doth Volkelius do vera Relig. lib. 4 c 3. Smalc Coner Frantz disp 4. p. 103. So the Remonstrants in their Apologief 112. Faith say they if we consider the matter aright cannot properly be called an Instrument of Iustification nor can the act of beleeving be an Instrumental action far less can it as an Instrument be opposed to faith as an action Corvin cont Tilen Faith carrieth that respect unto the gift of adoption that it is an obedience required of God upon condition of which the gift of adoption is decerned unto the sinner for a reward faith is not a meanes or instrument but a condition ordained of God for obtaining of life Simon Episcop disp 22. faith in this matter cometh to be considered not as an instrument apprehending Christ's Righteousness imputed but as apprehending Christ Iesus by whom that Righteousness is obtained It cannot be called properly an instrument but a condition prescribed by required in the Gospel-Covenant without which God will not pardon sin impute Righteousness Lawyers as may be seen in Spigely Calvinilexic â—urid tell us of various sorts of Conditions Some Possible Some impossible Some certaine some uncertaine Some ... Voluntarie conditions say they do suspend the whole obligation untill they be performed Casual also necessary conditions do only prorogue the effect of the obligation the obligation itself its force is instantly perfected A condition thus taken they usually define Suspensio cujus de futuro effectus vel confirmatio pendet or futurus eventus pendet or leâ—â— adposita hominum actionibus eas suspendens or Modus qui suspendit actum donec ca existente confirmetur or Modus vel causa que suspendit id quod agitur donec ex post facto confirmetur They tell us with all that the word Conditio is some time in the Law taken pro Modo though in many things these two differ much and that it is the same with ratio lex pactio pactum fortuna status locus jus causa so that it admitteth of various significations and in which of these significations here definitly to take it the Scripture giveth no determination for it is no scripture-expression in this matter And if it be said that the termes used in Scripture in this matter such as these beleeve
words and termes be laid aside because the terme itself by which we express our Conceptions of the truth is not in so many letters syllabs to be found in Scripture if so indeed we had quickly lost a fundamental point of our Religion and yeelded the cause unto the Socinians If the Scripture may be explained we may make use of such expressions termes sentences as will according to their usual acceptation contribute to make the truthes revealed in Scripture intelligible to such as heare us And when some termes have been innocently used in Theologie for explication of truthes whether to the more learned or to the more unlearned have pâ— ssed among the orthodox without controll or contradiction beyond the ordinary time of prescriptions it cannot but give ground of suspicion for any now to remove these old Land-marks especially when it is attempted to be done by such meanes arguments as will equally enforce a rejection of many Scriptural expressions for should all the Metaphorical expressions sentences which are in â—ature be so canvassed rejected because every thing agreeing properly to them when used in their own native soile doth not quadrate with them as used in the Scriptures in things divine where should we Land If these divine mysteries had been expressed to us only in termes adequatly corresponding with suiting the matter how should we have understood the same Therefore we finde the Lord condescending in the Scriptures to our low Capacities and expressing sublime high mysteries by low borrowed expressions to the end we might be in case to understand so much thereof as may prove through the Lord's blessing saving unto us And thereby hath allowed such as would explaine these matters unto the capacity of others to use such ordinary expressions as may contribute some light understanding to them in the truthes themselves Now when the orthodox have according to their allowed liberty made use of the word Instrument in this matter and maintained that Faith was was nothing more then an Instrument in Justification it is not faire to reject it altogether because improper though fit enough to signifie what they did intend thereby because all the properties that agree to proper Physical or artificial Instruments do not agree to it and because if the same be strickly examined according to the rules of Philosophie concerning Instrumental Causes it will be found to differ from them Mr. Baxter himself writting against D. Kendal § 47. tels us that the thing which he denieth is that Faith is an Instrument in the strick logical sense that is an Instrumental efficient cause of our Iustification that he expresly disclaâ—meth contending de nomine or contradicting any that only use the word instrument in an improper large sense as Mechanicks Rhetoricians do So that the question saith he is de re Whether it efficiently cause our Iustification as an Instrument But it may be conceived to have some efficient Influence in our Justification not as that is taken simply strickly for God's act justifying but as taken largely comprehending the whole benefite as activly coming from God as Passively received by or terminated on us that as an Instrument though not in that proper sense that Logicians or Metaphysicians take Instrumental causes and explaine them in order to physical natural Effects We know that Justification is a supernatural work effect and therefore though in explaining of it in its Causes we may make use of such termes as are used about the expressing of the Causes of Natural or Artificial Works Effects yet no Law can force us to understand by these borrowed expressions the same proper Formal Efficacy Efficiency and influence which is imported by these Expressions when used about Natural Causes Effects But Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 5. tels us what great reasons he had to move him to quarrel with this calling of faith an Instrument viz. he found that many learned divines did not only assert this Instrumentality but they laid so great a stress upon it as if the maine difference betwixt us the Papists lay here And yet any might think that they had reason so to do when Papist's on the other hand laid as great stresse upon the denying of Faiths Instrumentality He tels us moreover that our divines judged Papists to erre in Justification fundamentally in these points 1. about the formal Cause which is the formal Righteousness of Christ as suffering perfectly obeying for us 2. About the way of our participation herein which as to God's act is Imputation that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith which justifieth 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in justification which is as the Instrument thereof I doubt not saith Mr. Baxter but all these four are great errors But we neither may nor can call all errors which Mr. Baxter calleth errors We have seen above how necessary truthes the two first are and have explained in part the third wherein I confesse too many yet not all of the forraigne divines have as to expression missed the explication of true Justifying faith it may be it was not their designe to describe it so as it might agree to the faith of every sincere though weak beleever but rather to shew its true nature grounds tendency when at its best yet what Papists hold on the contrare is more false absurd But as to this fourth it seemes that it hath a necessary dependance upon the foregoing and this to me seemes to be the maine reason why our Divines did owne plead for Faiths Instrumentality in the matter of Justification viz. because the Righteousness which they called the Formal or others the Material Cause thereof was not any Righteousness inherent in us as Papists said but the Surety-Righteousness of the Cautioner Christ without us And therefore they behoved to look on Faith in this matter otherwayes then Papists did and not account it a part of our Formal Righteousness but only look upon it as an hand to lay hold on bring-in the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ and therefore judged it most fit to call it only an Instrumental Cause And how ever Mr. Baxter exaggerat this matter as complying with Papist's in condemning us as to all these controversies and think it no wonder they judge the whole Protestant cause naught because we erre in these and yet make this the maine pairt of the Protestant cause yet we must not be scarred from these truthes Yea because this point hath such a connexion with the other concerning that Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be Justified in the sight of God we are called to contend also for this that so much the rather that though Papist's do utterly mistake the Nature of Justification and confound it with Sanctification yet Mr. Baxter
hath more rational apprehensions there about and yet will not have Christ's Righteousness to be that Formal Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified Yet notwithstanding we need not owne it for such an Instrument or such an Instrumental cause as Philosophers largely treate of in the Logicks Metaphysicks knowing that the Effect here wrought is no Natural Effect brought about by Natural Efficient Instrumental Causes Only we say the Scripture affirming that we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giveth us ground to call Faith if we will use such termes to expresse our mind an Instrument seing these expressions pointe forth some special interest influence that Faith hath in Justification no other Influence or Causation can be allowed to it conforme to the Scriptures but that which we express in our ordinary discourse not in a strick Philosophical sense by an Instrument And that so much the rather that hereby is pointed forth that which is the maine ground designe of using this terme viz. the Application of the Righteousness of Christ which is made by Faith as a meane or mid's laying hold upon without which we cannot be Justified according to the Gospel And though in these borrowed expressions from Causes metaphysical accuracy be not intended yet the true meaning intendment of the users of these termes being obvious it is but vanity to raise too much dust thereabout unless difference about other more Principal Questions in the matter of Justification enforce it as indeed all such as place the Formal Cause or reason of our justification before God in our own Inherent Righteousness and not in the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith must of necessity deny all interest of faith here as an Instrument or as any thing like it because having all their Righteousness within them they have no use for Faith to lay hold-on bring-in one from without There things may satisfie us as grounds of this Denomination 1. That in justification we are said to be receivers do receive something from the Lord not only the Passive justification itself expressed by our being justified but of some thing in order thereunto as of Christ himself the Abundance of Grace of the Gift of Righteousness the atonement the word of promise yea every thing that concurreth unto justification or accompanieth it we are said to receive Ioh. 1 12. Col. 2 6. Rem 5 11 17. Act. 2 41 10 43. 26 18. Heb. 9 15. 2. That the only Grace whereby we are said to receive these things is Faith receiving is explained to be beleeving Ioh. 1 12. Act. 2 41. comp with vers 44. we receive forgiveness of sins by faith Act. 26 18. 3. That the Surety-Righteousness of Christ is that only Righteousness â—pon the account of which we are justified before God not any Inherent Righteousness within ourselves hath been evinced above 4. That this Righteousness of the Surety must be imputed unto such as are to be Justified or reckoned upon their score hath also been evinced 5. That this Surety-Righteousness of Christ must be laid hold on by us in order to our justification hath been showne must be granted by all that acknowledge it to be the Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified 6. That the Scripture saith expresly that God justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith Rom. 3 24 25 28 30. Gal. 3 8 2 16. and that even when justification is denied to be by works So that Faith must have a far other interest in must otherwise concurre unto our Justification than any other Works or Graces and therefore must be looked upon as having some peculiarity of interest and influence here and this peculiarity of interest can not be otherwayes better expressed so as the matter shall be cleared then by calling it an Instrument Not as if it did concurre to the produceing of the effect of justification by any Physical operation as Physical Instruments do but as a medium mean required of us in order to Justification according to the free pleasure of God who disposeth the order methode of his bestowing of his Favours upon us aud the Relation Respect that one hath unto another as he seeth most for his own glory and for our good and that such a mean as concurreth therein and thereunto according to what is said in such a way as we be can best understand by calling it an Instrument for we can not allow it to be called any way meritorious or any formal disposition of the soul or Preparation unto the Introduction of an Inherent Formal Cause of Justification as Papists say nor can we allow it to be called such a proper Potestative Condition as some would have it to be as we saw in the forgoing Chapter 7. That no real inconvenience can follow upon the owning of Faith for an Instrument in justification for Justification is not here taken simply strickly for that which is properly God's act but more largely complexly including other things requisite unto Justification such as the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ which Faith as the Instrument or hand of the soul layeth hold on bringeth-in for this end that the man being clothed therewith may be acquitted before the Tribunal of God Pardoned accepted of as Righteous And howbeit it be God that justifieth as to this act of God justifying Faith hath no real interest or influence yet the Scripture saying that God justifieth by Faith and through faith we must acknowledge some interest that Faith hath in the work Effect as when the Scripture saith that He purifieth the heart by faith Act. 15 9. the purifying of the heart is God's work and yet it is said to be done by Faith which is our work It is said Heh 11 11 that through faith Sara herself received strength to conceive seed vers 33 34. that some through faith subdued Kingdomes stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the violence of fire c. all which were the works of God yet while they are said to be done by faith faith must have had some interest influence in these effects So in working faith in the soul which is God's work alone the Lord useth the preaching of the Gospel and ministers the peoples hearkning listning to what is preached as meanes midses thereunto though preaching hearing be mens work yet God useth them for his ends and as he sendeth Preachers to preach moveth persons to hear that thereby he may according to his own will pleasure work Faith in then so he worketh Faith in souls that he may thereby Justify them Nor is it of any weight to say that if Faith be an Instrument it must work as an efficient cause because the Instrumental Cause belongeth
to the Efficient for neither do all Philosophers agree to this some holding Instruments to be a fift kinde of Cause nor are we obliged to stand to their prescriptions rules especially in these things that are no natural causes or effects no man saith that faith hath the same kind measure of Efficiency in towards the effect justification that all Instrumental causes or Instrumental causes so called have in the Effects which they concurre to the producing of what efficiency hath an examplary cause which some Philosophers reduce to the efficient viz. Keckerman But that Faith hath some Influence is manifest from the Scripture not of it self it is true but by the gracious appointment of God and that this Influence cannot be better more saifly expressed than by the name of an Instrument appeareth to us clear hereby nothing of the glory due to God or unto Jesus Christ and to his Righteousness is ascribed unto man nor is any more hereby granted unto Man than to a beggar as to the enriching of himself when it is said his hand made him rich by receiving the Purse of gold that was given unto him yea hereby is Christ his Righteousness more fixedly established in their due place because faith is considered not as a Righteousness of it self nor as a part of Righteousness but purely and simply as an Instrument of the soul laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ and pleading the same as the only Formal ground of his justification before God If it be said that it were saifer to call it a causa sine qua non We must first know what is properly signified thereby whether it will help us more to understand the just true import of the Scripture expressions about Faith in Justification for no termes ought to be used that attaine not this end or have not a direct tendency thereunto such termes however we may please our selves in the invention of their application unto the business in hand and think we are in case to defend the same against opponents yet if they do not contribute manifestly to the clearing and explaining of the matter according to the Scriptures can only darken the matter And no reason can enforce us to embrace them with the arbitrary explications limitations of the Authors and to reject or lay aside such as do more obviously explaine the matter unto all such as have orthodox apprehensions of the matter and have given offence to none nor have been excepted against by any but such as were not orthodox in the point of justification whose erroneous Principles led them to deny or except against the same And what for a cause shall we take that causa sine qua non to be which cannot be so explained in our language as that every one that heareth it shall be in case to understand what it meaneth Such as speak of it call it causa fatua and referre to it external occasions time place and such like things without which the action cannot proceed as the place wherein we stand the time wherein we do any thing which have no more interest in or relation to one action than another for all must be done by us in some time and in some place And shall we say that faith hath no other interest or influence in justification than the hour of the day when or the place wherein a minister preacheth hath into his preaching Shall we have so meane low an account of the ordinances appointments of God in reference to spiritual ends Seing the Lord hath appointed Faith in order to Justification we must not look upon it as a causa fatua or as a meer circumstance but as having some kindly influence in the effect by vertue of the appointment of God such a connexion therewith that it no sooner existeth but as soon justification followeth Faith then can not be called a meer causa sine qua non Historical faith several other antecedents may be a conditio or causa sine qua non for no man of age can be justified without it yet we may not say that we justified by it as by saving faith the same may be said of Conviction Sense of sin of some measure at least of legal Repentance and of desire of Pardon of Peace which yet may be and oft are without justification And it may also seem strange how this causa sine qua non can be called a potestative condition or how that which is said to be a proper Potestative Condition ex cujus praestatione constituitur jus actuale ad beneficium can be called a meer conditio or causa sine qua non seing it hath such a considerable moral influence in the effect But saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 27 faith cannot justifie both as a Condition as an Instrument of Iustification for either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different neerest causal interests Ans. When we speak of Faiths justifying as an Instrument we consider the physical or quasi physical way of its operation and denote only its kindly acting on Jesus Christ and on his Righteousness which it layeth hold on applyeth apprehendeth putteth on And when we say it justifieth as a condition we consider it as appointed of God unto that end as placed by Him in that state relation unto justification which now it hath And either of these can be called the proxima ratio causalis of Faith according to its different consideration if justification meaning not God's act only but the complex relative change be considered in genere Physico or quasi physico then the neerest causal interest of faith is its instrumentality but if it be considered in genere morali or legali then its neerest causal interest is that it is a condition As when a rich man bestoweth a purse of gold on a beggar requireth that he in order to the possessing of it streatch forth his hand take it considering this act of enriching him in genere physico his hand acteth herein as an Instrument apprehending the purse taking it to himself considering this in genere legali or morali the streatching forth of his hand and apprehending the purse is a condition for so the donor hath determined to give the riches after such a manner methode for his own ends according to his good pleasure Thus we see how faith can in its way produce one the same effect of justification both as an Instrument and as a Condition taking these termes in a large sense according to the matter in hand Mr. Baxter saith Confess p. 89. he denieth that Faith is an Instrument of Iustification because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficient cause of pardoning himself Ans. And he
and too metaphysical apprehensions notions in this matter cannot but be displeasing And too much Philophical accuracy in the clearing up of these mysteries is not the most edifying saife way of explication 2. We are not against the use of the terme Condition in this matter knowing that faith may well be called a condition but the question is in what sense we must take the word condition And to say that it is taken as commonly used for the condition of a free gift will not satisfie in our case because though the gift which we expect by faith is to us indeed free yet it is a purchased free gift such a free gift as these who get it have all the legal title Right thereunto through the Caâ—tioners purchase payment only come to the possession of it through Faith according to the wise methode Connexion made by the Soveraigne Lord. Adam's perfect obedience might have been called the condition of a free gift and we cannot give the same place power to Faith in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old for Adam if he had perfectly obeyed had gote his reward without any intervention of a Price by a Mediator purchasing it but we must hold all our reward solely of Christ that he may have the glory of all 3 as if can denote a Condition so by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can denote an instrumental cause Himself tels us som-where in his Confut of Ludom Colvinus alià s Ludov Molinaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth an efficient cause we read that we are Iustified by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And further though these passages which he citeth and the conditional if and the conditional forme of the promise do indeed express a Condition yet they do not say or prove that the terme Condition is the only one terme that properly expresseth the nearest formal interest of faith in Justification or that the terme of an Instrument is no way fit to express this neer formal interest of faith in justification seing to be justified by faith or through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which the Scripture useth is as expressive of an Instrumental interest as if thou beleeve c. is expressive of a condition He saith ibid. p. 89. Conclus 10. That the difference betwixt him others is not that he giveth any more to works than they but that they give more to faith than he consequently to man if he be guilty of equalling faith obedience too much it is not by bringing up works too high to be Instruments of Iustification as they make Faith but in taking down Faith too much consequently in too much abaseing all acts of man Ans. If he bring up works to Faith in our Justification give a like interest to both he giveth more to works than the orthodox will do And when we call faith an Instrument in justification we give not so much to it as they do who call it conditio potestativa and give it the same place in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old as was seen above And who ever say this are so far from debasing man his actions that they give him as much ground of glorying boasting as ever Adam would have had if he had fulfilled the condition given full perfect Obedience And he cannot but know that that terme Instrument was of purpose applied to Faith in this matter to depresse man to keep the crown upon the head of Christ as it is apt enough to do if it be but candidely understood taken as it is applied and no further nor vexed with metaphysical niceties a way that might render every borrowed terme whether from arts or sciences how expressive so ever of our meaning explicative of the matter intended utterly useless It is true when he calleth faith only a causa sine qua non he seemeth to giveless to Faith than we do if that terme be taken in its strick sense as it is by Philosophers taken who will not have it called a Cause at all but rather conditio sine qua non But thus he depresseth it below that place interest which is due to all the institutions appointments of God as such for none of them can rightly be called conditio sine qua non and no more in reference to that effect end for which they are appointed of him and far less can Faith be said to be only conditio sine qua non in reference to justification seing by the unalterable appointment of the Soveraigne Lord justification so dependeth upon is connected with Faith that who ever beleeveth to wit savingly or with that Faith which here we only understand whensoever he beleeveth doth immediatly passe from death unte life and is justified But no man will say that the effect doth so much depend upon or is connected with that which is but a conditio sine qua non as was before shewn in several Instances And where is then his Conditio Potestativa is that but a causa fatua But ibid. Conclus 9. he tels us that one maine reason which constrained him to deny that Faith is an Instrument in justification is because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficiont cause of pardoning himself Ans. When we make Faith an Instrument in justification we make it not an Instrument of the act of pardoning which is solely the Lords act but taking justification largly as including the Righteousness of Christ the only ground thereof we say that in reference to Christ this Surety-Righteousness of his which is imputed in order to the Lord 's justifying Pardoning of us faith acteth as an Instrument apprehending Christ his Righteousness upon that account is to be considered as an Instrument in the matter of justification And himself Concl. 11. ibid. saith that he ever held that it is only faith that is the receiving of Christ that faith being the only receiving grace wherein no meer moral duty or grace doth participate of its honour or nature it was therefore by God peculiarly destinated or appointed to the office of justifying as fittest to the glorying of free grace of God Redeemer therein And if this be the all as to the substance of what we say or the most of that which we meane when we call faith an Instrument what ground was there of differing from his brethren or what ground was there to feare that Christ's honour should have been wronged thereby Sure while Faith is called an Instrument as receiving Christ his Righteousness in order to justification Christ is more honoured in that affaire than when our Faith is made our Gospel-Righteousness called a perfect Righteousness so our whole Righteousness as some a chiefe part of it as others upon the account of which we are
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
observable that the Apostle useth a very comprehensive terme beside saying And I count all things but losse c. Moreover thâ— jewish observances while that Law stood in force were useful good a Righteousness as well as the observation of the moral Law to which they were also reducible being enjoined by vertue of the Second Command And if these observances could be brought through mens corruption in competition with set in opposition to Christ and therefore were justly accounted as loss dung nothing in that respect why ought not also moral observances be â—o accounted seing they through mans corruption can be are too oft brought in competition with set in opposition against Christ his Righteousness If Mr. Baxter will yeeld to this he needs disput no more at this rate He addeth So if a man will conceit that his common grace will justifie without holiness or his holiness without pardon the Righteousness of Christ he must deny this Righteousness that is he must deny it to be what it is not must cast away not it but the false concâ—its of it Ans. We think them in an errour who conceit that either common grace will justifie without holiness or holiness with or without pardon the Righteousness of Christ and it is not proper for him who will not hear others saying that Faith justifieth to say that holiness justifieth And it is as improper to say that pardon justifieth Let him tell me how holiness with pardon can justifie And as for the Righteousness of Christ all men with Mr. Baxter are justified by it alike for it only purchased the New Covenant and that it did to all alike and is no other way imputed unto any whatsomever And so according to his judgment it must be denied that Christ's Righteousness becometh the beleevers through God's imputation that beleevers are there with clothed and thereupon made juridically Righteous and then justified or pronunced Righteous through that imputed Surety Righteousness of Christ this is the self-denyal that Mr. Baxter will teach us and stead of this Surety-Righteousness of Christ we must be clothed according to him with our own Gospel Righteousness Faith New Obedience and upon that ground as the only neerest formal reason or meritorious cause expect to be justified because Christ's Righteousness hath purchased this Covenant and connexion Mr. Baxter must not be offended that I mention the word Merite here remembering what he saith himself n. 194. where his friendliness to Papists his displeasure at Protestants is so remarkable in these words And those that reject the saying of some Papists who in this sence say that Christ merited that we might merite placing our Evangelical merite in a meer subordination to Christ's do but shew what prejudice partiality can do and harden those who perceive their errors Finally he saith here And so if any Libertine will say that Christ's Righteousness imputed to him will justifie him without Faith or be in stead to holiness to him he must deny imputed Righteousness thus to be what indeed it is not Ans. Though I know the Lord hath thought good to ordaine Faith as a mean whereby we may be made partaker of Christ's Surety-Righteousness and so be justified Yet I may say that Christ's Righteousness imputed as being the sole meritorious cause Ratie formaliâ— objectiva of our justification will justifie without Faith as any part of that Righteousness which we are considered as clothed with when declared pronunced Righteous And though it be not in stead of holiness as if holiness were no more required of us Yet it is must be in stead of that holiness Righteousness which was required of us in the Old Covenant by the Law in order to our being accepted justified thereupon He tels us in the margine that none deny That all that are saved have inherent Righteousness and that in tantum we are Righteous by it That a man accused as being an Insidel Atheist Impenitent Ungodly a Hypocrite c. must be justified by pleading all the contraries in himself or else perish And that this inherent Righteousness is imperfect and in us found with sin that therefore no man can be justified by it without pardon of sin nor at all against the charge of being a sinner condemnable by the Law of innocency But what is all this to the point Must we not therefore say with Paul that in the business of justification we must account our own Righteousness to be but dung and only lean to the Righteousness of Christ What would he hence conclude And what remaineth then saith he but to trouble the world with contending de nomine whether this Imperfect Righteousness shall be called Righteousness the giving of it called justifying or making us Righteous so far Ans. And who I pray more guilty of troubling the world with these contendings than he But to the matter it is no meer contending de nomine that he hath caused when in stead of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ with which the Orthodox Asserted beleevers to be clothed as the immediat ground of their justification before God and which they by Faith were to lean to and rest upon in order to justification he substituteth in its place our imperfect holiness maketh that to merite justification Salvation as a subordinat Righteousness so called though indeed in this case the principal advanced to that dignity by the merites of Christ's Righteousness and as all that Righteousness which can properly be said to be ours and to be imputed to us as the only Potestative Condition of our Justification Salvation according to the New Covenant purchased by Christ. This is something more and a great something more than a meer contest about a word or a name This toucheth the foundation of the Gospel let Mr. Baxter think as little of it as he will I need not take notice of his making these two one thing justifying making us Righteous and of his calling the giving of Righteousness or holiness a justifying of us for this is but sutable to him who would confound all This is all he speaketh to this matter in this place But thereafter Sect. 5. of merite n. 196. he tels us It is a great question whether a man may trust to his own Faith Repentance or Holiness And I should think that no orthodox man should once make a question about it but should reject the very insinuation of such a thing with detestation seing Trusting to these things is the native consequent of the Popish Socinian Arminian errour about justification or of all who speak of the Imputation of Faith c. as our Righteousness in stead of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. What answere giveth he But some men saith he will trouble the world with unexplained words where no sober men differ Ans. The words are plaine enough and need no explication every ordinary Christian
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
of asserting justification by other works than perfect works required by the Covenant of works to wit by imperfect works which they say are required in the Gospel And therefore their meaning is we are not justified by perfect sinless obedience but by imperfect obedience to the Law This is the Evasion of the Socinians who say the Apostle speaketh of the works of the Law to shew that he speaketh of those works which are enjoined by the Law to wit of perpetual perfect obedience required by the Law And they say that by Faith he meaneth that confidence obedience which every one is able to performe and which is endeavoured after studied That this cannot be the meaning of the Apostles conclusion we suppose will be clear from these Considerations 1. This supposeth that they against whom the Apostle is here disputing were of opinion that men could yet be justified must be justified by perfect obedience to the Moral Law But it is hardly imaginable that men in their wits did ever so dreame or think that they were innocent could expect to be justified before God by their own perfection or perfect obedience to the Law in all points for this were to say they never had sinned 2. When the Apostle in the beginning of his disput in his Epistle to the Romans proveth that all have sinned are guilty before God both jew Gentile he thence inferreth that by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in God's sight Rom. 3 20. Whereby he giveth us to understand that there is no justification by the Law unless it be perfectly keeped And because no meer man did ever keep it perfectly or can so keep it therefore he concludeth that no man can be justified thereby There is no justification by works unless the works be perfect consequently that such as expect justification thereby be wholly sinless 3. If the Apostle had so disputed against justification by perfect works as to have granted or established justification by imperfect works he needed not have used any moe arguments to that end than what was mentioned cleared Rom. 1. 2. in the beginning of the 3. Chapter for his evincing that all had sinned come short of the Glory of God had been sufficient to this end without the addition of any one argument more seing it is impossible that sinners can be perfect obeyers And we must not think that all the Apostles further argueings are meerly superfluous for this would reflect upon the Spirit of God who acted Paul in this 4. How strange is it to imagine that the Apostle should disput against perfect works that he might establish imperfect works in the matter of justification to think that the Apostle is proving that we are not justified by the perfect works of the Law but by the imperfect works thereof that is we are not justified by such works as keep a conformity with the Law but by such works as are violations of the Law as all works are which are not conforme thereunto in all points 5. Imperfect works as to the ground of justification are not that Righteousness of God without the Law which is by Faith of Jesus Christ but opposite theâ—eunto and inconsistent therewith as well as perfect works for as he that perfectly keepeth the Law needeth not another Righteousness in order to his justification so neither needeth he who hath an imperfect obedience if that be made the formal objective merite cause of justification But gospel-Gospel-justification is by the Righteousness of God which is without the Law which Faith laith hold on Rom. 3 21 22. 6. Gospel justification is by Faith as the whole Gospel cleareth but faith imperfect works are not one the same Yea they are as repugnant in this affaire as faith perfect works are We are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3 28. Gal. 2 16. Living by faith living by works are opposite Gal. 3 11 12. 7. Justification by imperfect works is not free justification by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood as is manifest But this is the Gospel-justification Rom. 3 24 25. 8. Imperfect works exclude grace are as inconsistent therewith as perfect works are But Gospel-justification is by grace without works Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 2 8 9. Tit. 3 5 6 7. The Major is clear from the places cited as also from Rom. 11 6. If by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace But if it be of works then is it no more grace otherwise work is no more work Now if it be said that perfect works are here understood and not imperfect works it must be said also that Election of which the Apostle here speaketh is upon foresight of imperfect works 9. Imperfect works if made the Cause of Justification can give ground of boasting of glorying as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18. But Gospel justification removeth all ground of boasting Rom. 3 27 4 2. 10. Imperfect works can not be accounted a perfect Righteousness by the Lord whose judgment is according to truth Rom. 2 2. But there is no justification without a perfect Righteousness either inherent or imputed God will pronounce no man Righteous who is not so nor justifie any as Righteous who is not so indeed But upon the account of an imperfect Righteousness can no man be justified as Righteous 11. Even this imperfect Righteousness when made the ground of justification will make the reward of debt and not of grace As Abraham's works if he had been justified by them would have done for Abraham's works were not perfect works but imperfect works as is manifest 12. If justification were not by perfect works but by imperfect works then through faith or through Gospel justification the Law should be made void contrary to Rom. 3 31. The reason of the consequence is because hereby the Law that requireth perfect obedience is laid aside another Law that requireth imperfect obedience admitted in its place or rather the same Law is pretended but it is made void as to its requireing perfect obedience must now be satisfied with an imperfect obedience But this is not to establish the Law but to destroy it when many Jotes titles are taken away from it Mat. 5 17 18. 13. The Iewes did not imagine that they were perfect without sin but followed after the Law of Righteousness that as it were â—s by the works of the Law Rom. 9 31 32 And this of necessity must have been mixed with much imperfection And yet the Apostle plainly saith in the place cited that they did not attaine to a Righteousness nor to the Law of Righteousness because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law so that seeking after Righteousness as it
to offer up his son was no promise and to did not call for faith but for ready obedience though upon another account he beleeved that God was able to raise him up from the dead Heb. 11 17 18 19. But Gen. 15. promises were made unto him he is said to have beleeved upon this Righteousness was imputed unto him So that Gen. 15. he was justified by faith only as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. for thereby he confirmeth his Conclusion set down Rom. 3 28. that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law And from that other place Gen. 22. Iames could not inferre that Justification is by faith works together for then he could not inferre therefrom that the Scripture was fulfilled which said Abraham beleeved God it was imputed unto him for Righteousness because Paul doth hence inferre Rom. 4. that justification is by faith without works And what is a ground for justification by faith without works cannot also be a ground for justification by works not by faith only And thus the Apostles are made in plaine termes to contradict other by inferring contrary or contradictory conclusions from the same premises which ought not to be thought let be said But it will be said that Paul speaketh of the beginning of justification which is by faith without works but Iames speaketh of justification as continued which is by works and not by faith only This cannot satisfie for beside what is said it must first be granted hereby that this faith which Iames mentioneth when he saith not by saith only must be the same faith that Paul faith we are justified by without the deeds of the Law but this cannot be for the faith that Iames speaketh of is as we saw above a dead useless fruitless carcass no saving Faith as that is whereof Paul speaketh and whereby we are justified But now taking justification for its manifestation declaration the words of Iames are most clear carry no appearance of contradiction unto what Paul taught For his meaning is ye see then how that by works a man evidenceth proveth declareth his Justification or maketh it manifâ—st that he is a justified person not by that faith only which is but a naked fruitless dead profession 11 The same may be said of the other Instance of Rahab vers 25. She was justified by works when â—he had received the messengers not that she was brought into a justified state by that act for she received the Spies by faith Heb. 11 31. declared her faith unto them Ios. 2 10 11. And so was a beleever consequently justified before she received the Spies or they came to her Yet by this deed accompanied with so much hazard unto her self all her families she proved evidenced her faith justification 12 The Conclusion of his discourse vers 26. for as the body without the Spirit is dead fo faith without works is dead also declareth manitestly what he would be at to wit to shew that works can only demonstrate trew faith consequently prove justification for a naked profession of faith that wanteth works is dead and like a body wanting breath soul which is but a dead carcass This cannot be said of that faith whereby Paul saith and proveth that we are justified for it is true lively flowing from the Spirit of life although it be not as yet proved by outward works of obedience whereof there may be as yet no opportunity or call What is brought against this sense of the word justifie justification which we have now confirmed by the Socinian Author of the book intituled Consensus Paulâ— Iacobi c. pag. 2. c. and by the Remonstrants in their Apologie Cap. 10. is of no great weight When they say That the proposition set down vers 14. is subordinat to what is said vers 12. where the judgment of God is spoken of therefore saving justification must be here understood Ans. We grant that It is saving justification but yet it is justification that is distinct from Final Salvation We grant that Iames speaketh here of saving justification Yet he handleth not that question how by what Causes this justification is brought about but how it is evidenced proven to be true and not a meer presumptuous conjecture They say next It is said vers 25. that the Scripture was fulfilled not that it was shown to be fulfilled Aâ—s That saying of Scripture was a truth before this time even when Abraham first beleeved which was before he was circumcised as we see Gen. 15. comp with Gen. 17. Rom. 4 9 10 11. And therefore was not now first fulfilled or verified And to talk of the increase of imputation according to the increase of Faith and to measure the excellencie of faith by the excellencie of that obedience which it produceth as that Socinian Author doth is to give us nothing but the Popish justification for Relations of which Nature we hold Justification to be are not intended remitted in themselves but only as to their evidence We esteem it a Socinian dream to say that the first Narration of Faith Justification which is Gen. 15. was but a rude draught of that which was afterward Gen. 22. Abraham's faith was afterward said to be perfected by that special work of offering up his son noâ— in it self for he had a strong faith before Rom. 4 19 20 21. but in its manifestation after that signal trial It is said further Mans justification cannot be here understood for that is not necessary to salvation nor universally true seing men may justifie other upon vaine grounds Ans. Noâ— do we understand any such justification pronunced by men here but a true justification before God yet as evidenced proven declared by effects unto all that will judge understandingly spiritually so that works here are mentioned as the Effects and yet as the Causes of justification But then they object further Thas as the Apostle from that Faith which the vaine man boasted of denieth the man to be justified so from works he proveth justification that as antecedent Ans. The Apostle sheweth that the vaine man who had no more but a vaine dead empty faith had no ground to conclude himself a justified Man for this is no Cause or Condition of Justification And hence it will not follow that works by which both the reality of saâ—ing Faith of Justification thereupon may be evidenced are antecedent Causes or Conditions of Justification It is objected againe by the foresaid Socinian Author That if the meaning of these words the Scripture was fulfilled be that the Scripture was showne to be fulfilled then the meaning should be that it was demonstrated to Abraham's two servants who went with him to the mountaine by them to others But then it must be supposed that before this time that which passed Gen. 15. was known unto them it
of the Second Justification But their opinion of a first second justification is vaine having no ground in the word and the whole of their fabrick is sufficiently demolished by the Reformed writting against them so that we need not insist thereupon Others there are who suppose that James is here shewing how justification is continued therefore say though faith alone be the Condition of Justification as begun Yet unto the continuance thereof works are required as the Condition But all that speak thus think that Iames pointeth forth the Condition of Justification as continued must say that those persons who had this faith whereof James speaketh were really justified that James doth presuppose them to be justified speaketh to them of them as such But then it must be granted that the Popish faith consisting in a meer assent unto the truth revealed is justifying faith and that that faith which is no more true saving faith than that is true Christian Charity which saith to a brother or sister that is naked destitute of daily food depart in peace and giveth not those things which are needful to the body is sufficient to bring one into a justified state and that a dead faith a faith of the same nature kinde with the faith of devils a faith which a vaine man puft up with a vaine conceite a fleshly mind may have a faith that cannot will not worke with works is a justifying faith which if true it would follow that all men who beleeve that God is Devils also who beleeve this should be justified But none who understand the Gospel can think or speak thus And therefore this place carrieth no shew of proof that works are the Condition of Justification as continued Nor can this place give any countenance to such as say that Faith Works together are the Condition of Justification making no difference betwixt justification as begun as continued For 1 James'â— scope as we manifested above is not to cleare up explaine the way how justification is brought about or to shew what are the Causes or Conditions thereof but to discover the vanity of that ground whereupon some professours who indulged their Lusts deceived themselves supposed that they were in a state of justification salvation notwithstanding they neglected all duties of holiness 2 James opposeth a faith here unto works a faith which he called unprofitable dead c. doth not ascribe justification hereunto as to a Condition in whole or in part But such as speak thus include faith works as making up one full compleat Condition 3 The Instances which James here adduceth should not then serve his designe if his purpose was to prove faith works to be the Condition of Justification for Abraham was long justified before that particular act of obedience in offering up his son Isaac was called for And so was Rabâ—â— justified before she sent away the spies 4 This work by which Abraham is said to have been justified was a work that seemed contrary unto the Moral Law And therefore if this be urged as a ground of justification by works it will rather prove justification by other works then by works commanded in the Moral Law of God 5 The works mentioned in both the Instances are outward external works obvious to the eyes eares of others And hence it may as well be proved that only external works are required unto justification and no other And indeed if it had been Iames's designe to prove justification by works he had named other works then meerly external that he might have prevented a mistake But more fully to discover the vanity of this supposition let us see what can be alleiged from the several parts of this passage for justification by works from vers 14. it is said Faith alone cannot save but is unprofitable but yet faith works is profitable will save Ans. This maketh nothing for justification by works because it is denied that whatever is requisite before Salvation is requisite also before justification for if so no man could be said to be justified as long as he lived But next the faith whereof Iames here speaketh availeth not to Salvation because it is not of the right kinde we say also that this faith availeth not to justification because it is but meer empty profession deceiving puffing up it is but a faith that a man saith he hath From vers 15 16 17. It is said As charitable wishes joined with real acts of Love Alms deeds is profitable no other charitable wishes so Faith with works is available to justification but not without them Ans. These charitable wishes not accompanied with Alms deeds as they are not profitable unto the indigent brother sister so they are far from that Christian charity that is called for in the Gospel as that charity is not true Christian saving charity so neither is the Faith which he proveth to be dead true saving or justifying Faith Nor doth the Apostle say that faith with works is available unto justification but that that faith which hath not works is dead not available to prove evidence that the man that hath it is in a saife in a justified state But the maine ground of this apprehension is vers 21 22 23 c. for it is objected that it is expresly said that Abraham was justified by works Ans. That it is so said we grant but the difference is about the sense meaning in which it is said so We have shown that the meaning is That by works Abraham was declared proved manifested to be a justified person and one that had a true lively faith for it is added that hereby the Scripture was fulfilled declaring him to have been justified by faith or that he beleeved God it was accounted to him for Righteousness And this is it which others have called justification before men in opposition to justification before God that is a justification declared manifested to the mans own conscience to others not the justification before God in its causes And this Mr. Baxter seemeth to have mistaken in his Aphorismes when he argued against this justification before men as if it had been meerly a justification from Mens Accusation not the true justification before God as evidenced proved to men And when we speak of justification in this sense we do not make the world lawful judges of our Righteousness before God or in reference to the Law of God or say that they are competent or capable judges But we only say that by works of obedience Faith Justification by Faith is evidenced And where as he saith That works are no certaine medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be Righteous for there is no outward work which an hypocrite may not performe inward works they cannot discerne nor yet
given unto him to redeem Yea are not the given ones clearly distinguished from the rest Ioh. 17 6 9 as we cleared above Againe 32. If the Redemption of Christ be Universal and Conditioonal it must necessarily follow that Christ laid down his life and the price of his blood as much for Iudas and all the Reprobate as he did for Iohn and all the Elect for the Redemption being Conditionally for all it cannot be more for one then for another And yet this cannot be said as appeareth from the reasons formerly adduced This would lay that the Fathers and Christs love was equal towards all and that no more was purchased for the one than for the other and that the Elect have no more benefite by Christs death than the Reprobat have and that Christ had no more an eye to Redeem the Elect by his death than to Redeem the Reprobat was no more a Cautioner for the one than for the other all which and the like cannot but be looked upon as most absurd Shall we think that Christ became sin as well or as much for Iudas as for Peter Shall we think that He redeemed all alike from the Curse of the Law These sound ill to Christian ears So 33. we may thus reason Either Christ's Redemption is Conditional Universal as to the Price laid down Satisfaction made or as to the Application Actual bestowing of the benefites purchased But neither can be said to the advantage of the Adversaries cause for if the last be said we willingly grant that some of the benefites as Justification Adoption and actuall Glorification are conferred in a manner conditionally but some as faith and the New heart are given absolutely and this cannot Help the Adversaries cause for they will not say that either all have faith bestowed upon them or that all are by believing Justified Adopted c. and so this is not Universall and if the first be said to wit That Christ laid down his life Conditionally it must be said that Christ did not lay down his life Absolutely but upon some condition and what can that Condition be upon which the death of Christ was suspended If it be said that the faith of those to whom it was to be preached was the Condition then it must be said that christ did not die untill these believed or that his death was no satisfaction or price untill they actually believed and then the Father could not be well pleased with the price as a satisfaction until mens Faith came to make it an Actual price which is both absurd and contrary to Scripture If it be said That Christ did absolutely lay down his life a satisfactory Ransom and that for all yet so as none that would not fulfil the Condition should be redeemed I Answer If it was an Absolute satisfactory Ransome accepted as such something must have been purchased thereby all behoved actually really to be delivered from the Law from the curse or from something by vertue of that Absolute Price and they could not be made to pay over againe what was payed by the price of his blood for Justice could not call for two satisfactions And if all were upon this Absolute Price payed Redeemed from the Law the Curse the Sentence of the first Covenant no man shall now die for that broken Covenant If it be said No man was Absolutely delivered even from that but only Conditionally I Ans. How then was it an Absolute Price Or what was purchased thereby If it be said That a possibility of Freedom was absolutely purchased Ans. This was rejected above and the Scripture inferreth Actual Redemption from Christs purchase He shall justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Esai 53 11. which saith That all whose iniquities he did bear shall be Actually Really Justified by him not have a meer Possibility of Justification Further 34. We may thus argue If Christ died for all every one He either died for all Absolutely or Conditionally The first cannot be said for the reasons already adduced militate against that Nor can it be said that He died for all Conditionally for then either he died to purchase Life Salvation to all upon Condition of their performance of something proposed as a Condition or to purchase salvation and all the meanes thereunto or Conditions thereof Conditionally But neither of these can be said Therefore c. The major is clear from this that the enumeration is full noother way can this Conditional Redemption be conceived or explained The minor may be thus confirmed The first way cannot be said to wit that life and salvation was purchased to all upon a Condition to be by them performed that is upon Condition of their believing for either this Condition is in the power of every son of Adam or not if it be not in their power as all but Pelagians will confess then this Redemption is no Redemption for a Redemption of Captives upon a Condition impossible to them is as good as no Redemption Nor can the last way be said to wit that Redemption and all the Conditions Means thereof were Conditionally purchased for what can be assigned as the Condition of these Conditions And though there were a Condition of the Lords working of Faith assigned which yet we finde not in Scripture yet that would not help the matter for that Condition of Faith would it self be a mean to salvation and so purchased Conditionally upon another Condition and that other Condition must be purchased upon another Condition so in infinitum which is absurd As also 35. this is considerable That the asserting of Universal Redemption goeth not alone but there are several other Universalities also affirmed and maintained either as Consequences or Concomitants or Grounds thereof which the Scripture knoweth not such as these 1. An Universal Love Philanthropie towards all every one without any difference which they lay down as the ground of the Sending of Christ to die for all indiscriminatly 2. An Universal Will in God to save all which they call an Antecedent Will and hold forth as a Velleity or a wish desire that all might be saved as if God could not effectuat whatever he desired or could have a velleity towards any thing which either he could not or would not effectuat 3. An Universal Predestination conditional which expression Amerald used untill the Synods in France did disswade him therefrom 4. An Universal gift of all to Christ or an Universal gift of Christ to all that is a Will purpose that Christ should lay down his life for all and Redeem all at least Conditionally 5. An Universal Justification conditional And why not also an Universal Salvation conditional 6. An Universal Covenant of Grace made with all mankinde in Adam wherein is a free universal deed of gift of Christ first and of Pardon Spirit Glory in by him to all Mankinde without
sap life influence from the head much more must this be the way of getting the first change made from death to life And this way or not much different of argueing in this same debate we see the Apostle followeth Rom. 4. where from what was said of Abraham a considerable time after he was a beleever he proveth justification by faith without works or that Abraham was justified by faith not by works The Import then of the Testimony is that this life whereof beleevers are made partakers is begun continued carried on by faith therefore it is not by the works of the Law but by faith that they are justified brought into a state of life If it be true that without faith even belevers cannot be supported nor in case to live as becometh to the glory of God to their own peace Comforth in new Trials Difficulties much more is it true that without faith those who are in nature in state of Enmity to God cannot live the life of justification with it alone they can shall Before we come to speak particularly to any Truthes deducable from the words we shall premise some few things considerable CHAP. II. Naturally we are inclined to cry up Selff in Justification THe Apostle as we see in all his writtings about this matter is very carefull to cleare the question of justification so as Man may have no cause of boasting or of glorying in himself upon the account of any thing he hath or he hath done in order to justification that hereby he might cast a copie unto all such as would approve themselves faithful unto the Lord in being co-workers with Him in the Gospel that he might so much the more set himself against that innatelusting of heart that is in all naturally unto an exalting crying up of Self in the matter of their justification before Acceptance with God and especially we finde how zealously how frequently with what strength multitude of Arguments he setteth himself against cryeth down that which men do so naturally with such a vehement byasse incline unto to wit justification by their own works or by their own obedience to the Law to the end their innate pride may have ground of venting it self in boasting glorying before men From this we may premit in short the consideration of these Three things to prepare our way unto the clearing-up of the Gospel-Doctrine in this matter First That there is a corrupt byasse in the heart of men by nature a strong Inclination to reject the Gospel-Doctrine of free justification through faith in Christ to ascribe too much to themselves in that affaire as if they would hold the life of justification not purely of the free grace rich mercy of God through Jesus Christ but of themselves either in whole or in part in one measure or another Secondly That it is the duty of all who would be found faithful Ambassadours for Christ after the example of the Apostle so to preach forth the Grace of God in this mystery to explaine the same as corrupt Nature within such without as are byassed with mistakes about this matter are led away with proud carnal self conceits may have no apparent or seeming ground of boasting nor be confirmed in their natural prejudices Mistakes therein Thirdly That in very deed free Gospel-justification is so contrived ordered as that none have any real ground of boasting or of glorying in themselves or of ascribing any part of the glory thereof unto themselves as if they by their deeds works did contribute any thing to the procuring thereof It will not be necessary to speak to these at any length but only briefly to touch upon them to make way unto what followeth to be said on this weighty subject which is of so much concernment to us all As to the First of these to which we shall speak little in this Chapter thereafter of the rest in their due order it is too too apparent to be a truth from these grounds following I. This is most manifest from the many Errours false opinions that are Vented Owned Maintained with so much Violence corrupt zeal all to cry-up Self in less or in more to cry down Grace Hence so many do plead with great confidence for an Interest of our works in our justification Such as Papists who quite mistake the nature of true justification Socinians Arminians Others who side with these in less or in more will plead for a justification by our inherent Righteousnoss or works of Righteousness which we do Others that will not plead for such an early Interest of our works in this matter will plead for faith as our Gospel-Righteousness affirme that the very act of our Obedience in us is imputed for a Righteousness to us is accounted such by God so hath the same place in the New Covenant that compleet perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant of works made with Adam which as shall hereafter appear driveth us upon the same rock II. It is manifest likewise from the large frequent Disputes about this matter that we have in Paul's Epistles If there had not been a great pronness in man by nature to cry-up himself to set up his own Righteousness in matter of justification why would the Spirit of the Lord have been at so much paines to speak so to cry down Self our works in this matter as He is in these Epistles of Paul if He had not seen the great necessity thereof by reason of this strong Inclination that men Naturally have hereunto We must not think that any thing is there spoken in vaine or that the Spirit of the Lord would have left that Doctrine so fully cleared wherein our works are so expresly excluded if there had not been a necessity for it if it had not been as necessary in all after ages of the Church as at that time when first written Whatever the truth be that is so frequently pungently inculcated in the Scriptures we may saifly suppose that as the faith practice of that truth is necessary so there must be much reluctancy of Soul in us to receive the same to close with it and a strong Inclination to beleeve practise the contrary III. In the Infancy of Christianity we see what a strong Inclination there was to cry-up works what we do the Law as the only ground of justification or at least to have a share with Christ in that Interest which gave occasion to the penning of these Epistles of Paul where this matter is so fully clearly handled particularly that to the Romans that to the Galatias unto the speaking less or more hereunto in almost all his other Epistles And this Inclination to the crying up of works the Law in Opposition to the pure Gospel-way of
justification was not only among the Gentiles who had been without God without Christ all the Meanes of understanding any thing of Salvation through a slaine Saviour but even amongst the Jewes who by the Dispensation of the New Covenant which they were under might have been better principled for it was they who most urged the Interest of the Law of works therebyâ— laboured to corrupt the Gentiles to lead them off the simplicity of the Gospel-truth and of them saith the Apostle Rom. 10 3. that being ignorant of God's Righteousness going about to establish their own righteousness they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God They sought after a Righteousness another way than by faith in Christ who is the end of the Law for righteouness to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. but as it were by the works of the Law Rom. 9 32. IV. The Pharisee who went up to the Temple Luk. 18 11 12. prayed thus with himself God I thank thee that I am not as other men are Extortioners Unjust adulterers or even as this Publican I fast twice in the week I give Tithes of all that I possesse c. hath many followers Many there are who will have confidence in the flesh in what they do Nature never taught Paul to account all his great Privileges Attainments loss dung but rather to account them gaine for he saith they were gaine to him that is while he was a stranger to the Gospel to the Grace of God manifested therein Hence is it that the last are first the first are last such as thought themselves far advanced to have attained a great measure of righteousness so to be children of the Kingdom are shut out Publicanes Harlots are preferred as being willing to renounce themselves their own righteousness more than such Legalists Iusticiaries who confide in something which they themselves do have attained V. This is also manifest from the great difficulty of prevaling with such as seem to themselves to have in them something more than ordinary to relinquish renounce these things to betake themselves only unto Jesus to rest on Him alone for Righteousness Life Salvation from the little fruit that the Gospel Doctrine findeth among them How many subterfuges finde they out under which they think to shelter themselves from the wrath of God How many fig-leaves do they sowe together that they may cover the shame of their nakedness withall And at what cost paines charges are they in seeking to establish their own Righteousness And all to fortifie themselves in their own delusions to keep our the pure Doctrine of the Gospel And how ready are some to take hold of the smallest wig that they may hang upon it finde reliefe if it can yeeld but the least ground of hop in their imaginations ere they betake themselves to Christ according to the Gospel How many Fetches Turnings Windings hath a Soul pursued with wrath the apprehension of death ere it be willing to close heartily with Christ offered in the Gospel Yea if such as have had some wakenings come so far as to change something of their former outward sinful courses be not so loose prophane as formerly how ready are they to sit down even upon that bit of negative righteousness Much more if they be brought the length to go about some religious duties how will they then sit down sing as if all were well All which do plainly evince that there is a strong Inclination in us by nature to follow the way of works that we may have some share of the honour of our own justification VI. This sad truth is hence apparent likewise That when any Opinion is broached that but seemeth to give more to works than ought to be given though possibly upon the matter there be but little said that may make any real Difference how ready are many to close therewith to entertaine that Doctrine to cry it up commend it to improve the Advantages real or supposed there had to the furâ—er Confirmation of that Anti-evangelik errour which their Soul 's fully comply with when upon the other hand there is such a nauseating in many too too manifest at the Simplicity of the Gospel of the Doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ. If it be enquired whence doth this proceed or what can be the true causes hereof I answer Many things have a powerful Influence into this as I. The Natural Enmity unto all the wayes of God that each hath as a piece of his heirship from Adam What ever God willeth we will not yea we will nill though our nilling of it be against ourselves we have no reason for it There is a Spirit of Contradiction Enmity to God in us all by nature that we neither can nor will comply with God's wayes with what tendeth to set forth His Glory It is marked of the Iewes that they stumbled at that stumbling stone Jesus Christ who was the end of the Law for righteousness to all such as beleeve Rom. 10 4. 9 32. They had such a prejudice at Christ at the way of Salvation through Him that they brake their necks upon Him who onely was the rock of Salvation II. The innate darkness of Mens mindes touching themselves all the things of God especially the Mysteries of Salvation is another cause of this Opposition to the Gospel-way of justification They neither know their own hearts nor their own wayes doings nor are they acquainted with the holy righteous Nature of God nor with the nature of His Lawes Commandments c. They know not I say the Corruption of their own Natures the innate wickedness which is there which neither is nor can be subject to the Law of God Hence ordinarily such as erre in this matter of justification do intertaine erroneous apprehensions about Original sin our innate Pravity as do all the Sâ—cinians Papists many Arminians others So they are ignorant of the Law of God not knowing how Holy Good Spiritual it is how it obligeth the whole man Spirit Soul Judgment Understanding Will Affections Memory all the out ward Man condemning the least sin in Thought word or deed commanding the highest pitch of holy duties right Principles Ends Motives c. And hence they see neither Omissions of what is commanded not their Commissions of what is prohibited whether as to their Nature Multitude or other Aggravations and the ignorance of this maketh them to see less the necessity of a Righteousness without them to seek for it with less earnestness zeal whence it cometh to passe ordinarily as is to be seen among Papists that such as are most for works in justification shape the Law according to their minde curtaile it as did the Pharisees of old that
it may look more conforme to their works when their works are no way conforme to it So likewise they are ignorant of god of His Holiness Righteousness because they see that if He be Such as the Orthodox say He is according to His Word they cannot stand before His justice therefore they deny His justice altogether as do Socinians or Imagine Him to be all Mercy c. so imagine Him to be altogether such an one as themselves therefore are not very zealous for any other righteousness than what may come most readily to hand they themselves can make up with their own diligence care never remembering that the justice of God must be satisfied therefore deny all Satisfaction as do Socinians or suppose Christ hath satisfied for all procured a New Covenant or way to life wherein we may bring what we have it will be accepted there is no more to do Nor remembering that we must have an Interest in Christ by faith ere we have any Interest in His Merites Satisfaction that the whole of our Salvation is so contrived as Man may be abased Christ only exalted III. A vaine conceite that all things in Religion must be just as we apprehend them to be our blinde corrupt byassed Reason Understanding must be the Supream judge Determiner of all these Mysteries Hence the Socinians down-right say that 〈◊〉 the Scripture say what it will how oft it will they are to beleeve to receive nothing but according to their Reason so that what their blinded Reason cannot comprehend they may will reject And others who possibly will not so plainely lay down this ground Yet in stead of conforming their judgments and Apprehensions to the word of being led by it do frame a conception of the Matters of God in their own heads then cause the Scriptures comply with their Apprehensions by Interpreting them accordingly So that following a corrupt guide here they cannot but incline to that way which suiteth most with that corrupt Principle be most averse from compliance with the Mystery of God which is most opposite there-unto IV. Natural corrupt self love is another evil Principle concurring to this effect by its malignant Influence We love to cry-up ourselves to have something of our owne to boast of to glory of before men and hence we cannot naturally comply so sweetly with that way which taketh away all boasting leaveth no ground for man to glory in any thing save in the Lord such is the way of faith of Gospel-justification Rom. 3 27 4 2. V. A vaine groundless high conceite that people have of themselves of what they do as if there were worth excellency in it to oblige God to bestow upon them what reward they think meet not knowing that when they have done all they can they are but unprofitable that they have nothing but what they have received that for any good they do they are more beholden to God than God is beholden to them that the best of their actions are so defiled that they could not answere for one of them nor stand if God should enter into judgment with them strickly mark iniquity Psal. 130 3 143 2. VI. Pride of heart is another malignant cause of this Aversation Unwillingness to comply with God's way of this strong Inclination to the way of justification by Works This was it which led the jewes away from Christ the end of the Law for righteousness they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God Rom. 10 3. because they would not bow themselves to take on this Righteousness therefore they were at so much paines labour to establish their own to cause it stand Proud man would work enjoy the reward of his laboures will not willingly hearken to any other way he will not be beholden to free Grace nor ascribe glory to the Lord Mediator but will still be at the old way of the first Covenant at work wages that he may have it to say he hath erned purchased the crown of life with his own hands industrie Therefore from this we should all take warning to look about us to guard against this strong violent torrent that is ready to carry us headlong to our ruine to be jealous of our treacherous hearts Hence also we may see whence it cometh that the Gospel getteth so little footing among many how nothing less than the mighty power of God will be able to prevail with a Natural Soul cause it comply with the Gospel-way of justification submit it self unto the Righteousness of God hold on Christ by faith Further We need not wonder to see so many riseing-up in all ages against the Gospel of the Grace of God corrupting the Gospel-Doctrine of justification seing blinded unmortified Man is not in case to be cast in its mould nor willing to embrace it untill he be broken broken over againe CHAP. III. The Doctrine of justification should be keeped pure with all diligence what dangerous expressions should be shunned WE come next to speak a word unto the Second particular mentioned to wit That all who would be found faithful Ambassadours be accepted of the Lord should endeavoure both in practice in Doctrine to keep this doctrine of the Grace of God pure unmixed particularly guard against the giving ground or occasion to proud Nature to cry-up Self in the matter of justification by any expression used in the explication thereof We see here elsewhere how careful Paul is in this Matter using such expressions as may most emphatically exclude man all his paines set free grace on high that God alone may be exalted for here elsewhere he debaseth man excludeth all his works even the works of the best of men even his works who was the father of the faithful he crieth up Christ as all free grace as beginning carrying on all consonant to what the Prophet Esaias said Esai 45 24 25. Surely shall one say in the Lord have I righteousness strength or as it is in the Margine Surely he shall say of me in the Lord is all righteousness strength Even to him shall men come In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified shall glory So that such as look to Him as it is vers 22. come to Him as it is vers 24. have all their righteousnesses in the Lord from Him and in Him alone are they shall they be justified shall glory not at all in themselves So Ieremiah Chap. 23 6. expresseth the matter very emphatically holding it forth as one of Christ's glorious comfortable Titles of honour that He shall be called the Lord our Righteousness thereby Importing that all the Saints their righteousness in order
within it or because of one work of righteouness done by it so glory in it self not in the Lord for though it were granted that faith were the gift 〈◊〉 God yet that would not sufficiently keep down pride seing such as plead for justification by good works will also grant that these good works come from the Grace of God are wrought by the Spirit yet such a justification would lay a foundation of boasting of glorying before men some would have more ground of boasting than others because of their stronger faith And justification by this way would as well be opposite to justification through Christ His Imputed righteousness by Grace as justification by good works for faith here would not be considered as bringing-in laying hold on a Righteousness without the Righteousness of Christ imputed but as a commanded duty as a piece of obedience to the Law would as well make the reward of debt ex congruo ex pacto as if justification were by works 8. It is of the same Nature to say That Paul excludeth the works of the Law but not the works of the Gospel for the same ground of pride boasting glorying should be laid that would be laid by pleading for the works of the Law because these are still works of righteousness which we do so opposite in this matter unto mercy Tit. 3 5. And Paul to exclude all boasting glorying before Men opposeth faith not considered in it Self but as laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ as carrying the Man out of himself to Christ for Righteousness unto works not Gospel-works unto works of the Law And sure we cannot say that none of Abraham's works were Gospel-works or works required in the New Covenant seing even then he was a beleever when the object of his faith or that which he laid hold on by faith in the Gospel which was preached unto him was said to be imputed unto him for righteousness And is it not plaine that if justification were upon the account of Gospel works that God should not then be said to justifie the ungodly seing he who is clothed with a Gospel righteousness cannot be called or accounted an ungodly person And yet faith looks out unto laith hold upon a God that justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. In a word the asserting of this would be the same upon the matter with asserting of justification by the works of the Law for what ever is required in the Gospel is injoined by the Law so is an act of obedience to the Law which is our perfect Rule of Righteousness all our obedience must be in conformity thereunto 9. It must also be accounted dangerous for puffing-up of Self to say That we are justified by our Inherent Righteousness for then the Man could not say that all his righteousnesses were as filthy rags Esai 64 6. Nor could that be true which is Psal. 143 3. for in they sight no man living should be justified to wit if God should enter into Iudgment with him Why should Iob have abhorred himself Chap. 42 6. if he had a righteousness within him had been justified by the Lord upon the account of that inherent righteousness And had not Paul as good ground as any to assert his justification by his personal inherent holiness righteousness Yet we hear of no such thing out of his mouth but on the contrary his accounting all things but less dung that he might gaine Christ be found in His Righteousness hath a far different import How proud might man be if he had it to say that he was justified in the sight of God by works of Righteousness which he had done or by his own inherent righteousness 10. Nor will it much help the matter to say That this Inherent Righteousness is not the price laid down but onely the Condition or Causa sine qua non or the like for still man would hereby have some thing to be proud of to glory of before men because he would have it to say that his own Inherent Holiness was as well the ground of his justification the Condition thereof as Adam's obedience would have been the ground of his justification And who knoweth not that Self can wax proud be puffed up upon a smaller occasion than is this And is it not strange that Paul never once made mention of this distinction Shall we think that Paul denied Abraham to have been justified by works because Abraham looked upon them as the meritorious cause not as the Condition only of his justification or that Abraham indeed did so or that Paul included them as the condition of his justification when he said he desired not to be found in his own Righteousness meaning not his own righteousness as a price or as the Meritorious cause of his acceptance Why should David have spoken so absolutely said Psal. 143 2. enter not into judgment with thy Servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified seing even though God should enter into judgment with His servants they should be justified as having fulfilled the condition And why should he have said Psal. 130 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities ô Lord who shall stand seing though the Lord should mark iniquities yet where the Person hath fulfilled the Condition hath a Personal Inherent Righteousness to hold up as the fulfilling of the condition required he is in case to stand in judgment to plead for his justification absolution upon the account of his performing all the condition required And would not vaine man have great ground of boasting here 11. Neither yet will it prevent this boasting to say That this Inherent Righteousness is but a Subordinat Righteousness whereby we have right unto the Merites of Christ which are the Principal Righteousness answering the demandes of the Law for if man have any thing in himself that can be called a Righteousness though but a Subordinat Righteouness yet such a Righteousness as giveth right ground to justification though that justification be also called only a subordinat justification conforme to the New Covenant the Condition thereof he will soon boast account his justification not of free grace but of due debt conforme to the covenant And though this be called only a Subordinat Righteousness yet proud Self will account it the Principal because upon it dependeth all his justification for thereby not onely hath he a right unto Christ's Merites but unto justification it self this being called the proper condition of the New Covenant wherein justification Adoption c. are promised as they say upon this condition And will not proud Man see that he hath a price in his hand a complâ—â—â— Righteousness conforme to the Covenant to presente unto God where-upon to seek expect the reward of debt according to the covenant And so much the rather should we abstaine from
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
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
16. the free gift is of many offences to be the same with free pardon of many offences else he must say that this free pardon goeth before justification consequently is not justification it self as he saith else where for the text saith that the free gift is of many offences unto justification as judgment or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was antecedent to condemnation 4. So then the true meaning is that the free gift of Righteousness hath respect unto many sinnes to the end that justification pardon that followeth thereupon might be full whileas the guilt that was imputed to Adam's posterity had respect only to his first breach of the Covenant for which all were made obnoxious to condemnation Lastly He saith It is but loose and unsavoury argueing to reason from a thing simply done to a determinat manner of doing of it so is it to reason from being made Righteous to a being made Righteous by Imputation Ans. The particular manner or way how we are made Righteous is aboundantly signified by our being made constitute Righteous by the Righteousness of another who was our Head Representative Surety that because it can be imagined to be no other way than by Imputation And Further the whole discurse of the Apostle here particularly the comparison so much here insisted upon putteth the matter beyond all debate As Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity whereby all were accounted sinners dealt with as such even as guilty by reason of Adam's act of sin So Christ's Righteousness becometh ours by Imputation we are made Righteous accounted such dealt with as such upon the account thereof No man can imagine how one shall be accounted guilty punished as guilty of a sinful act done by another unless the guilt of that sinful act be imputed to him so no man can imagine how one can be accounted Righteous dealt with as such upon the account of the Righteousness of another if that Righteousness of the other be not imputed to him And beside This is called a gift a free gift a free gift of Righteousness a free gift of Righteousness received which fully pointe forth this Imputation which we contend for Fiftly Rom. 8 3 4. For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us The Law could not help a sinner from under the Curse nor unto the recompence of reward because it was weak through the flesh through the sin corruption of man whereby he could not give right and full obedience thereunto And therefore God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh who by His obedience suffering in His state of humiliation took away the sting of death the strength of sin by satisfying all the demandes of the Law the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the jus right of the Law which consisted in yeelding full perfect obedience in making full Satisfaction for the violation committed for the Law said cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written therein to do them Deut. 27 26. Gal. 3 13. And the Righteousness which is of the Law is that the man who doth these things shall live by them And this was so ordered that the Righteousness of the Law the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Law the jus and demand of the Law mentioned might be fulfilled in us that is in our Nature by the Redeemer Surety who did suffered all this in for His own The Ethiopik Version is a clear commentary and when we were impotent to do the commands of the Law God sent His own Son for that sin who took on our body of sin condemned sin it self in our body that he might justifie us be propitious unto us and that so he might fulfill the work of the commands of the Law for them who walk in the Law of the holy Spirit Let us now see what John Goodwine excepteth p. 145. c. He saith 1. Some understand this rather of Sanctification than of justification by the fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law that Evangelical obedience to the precepts thereof which all those that truely beleeve in Christ do in part performe and desire and strive to performe more perfectly Ans. Gospel justification Gospel-Sanctification agree well together and Christ is the true foundation cause of both But that this is to be understood rather of justification appeareth hence 1. That this is a further explication confirmation of what was said vers 1. There is therefore now no Condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus 2. all that measure of Sanctification which the Saints through Grace attaine unto here cannot be called a fulfilling of the Righteousness of the Law the Lawes demands are not thereby satisfied for it calleth for perfect obedience which none of the Sanctified can give 3. If this were understood of Sanctification why are these words added who walk not after the flesh bue after the Spirit 2. He said By the Righteousness of the Law which is here said to be fulfilled in beleevers cannot be meant the Righteousness or active obedience of Christ imputed because it must of necessity be such a Righteousness and such a fulfilling as may be apprehended as a proper and sutable effect of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declareth But it is unpessible that the active obedience of Christ or the imputation of it should be any proper effect of condemning sin in the flesh that is of the abolishing or taking away the guilt or the accusing and condemning power of sin for when the guilt of sin is purged away there needeth no other Righteousness nor Imputation of Righteousness for justification Ans. 1. Christ's obedience Suffering need not be distinguished both being done in His state of humiliation and belonging-thereto both being necessary to answere the demand of the Law which we did lye under Christ performed both to the end the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or jus right of the Law might be fulâ—illed in us and for us by this Surety And before guilt be purged away we must have both imputed to us for justification by saith must not make the Law void but rather establish it 2. Neither is this vers 4. to be looked on as holding forth the end of that which did immediatly preceed in the end of vers 3. or of Christ's condemning sin in the flesh but rather as a further end of God's sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh or as a comprehensive end of all that was mentioned before 3. He saith That clause in them still notes either a subjective inhesion of some things in persons or else some kind of Efficiency But the Righteousness
this satisfie But the matter is plaine Their fault was that they sought after a righteousness by their owne obedience to the law neglected that righteousness which the Gentils attained by faith viz. the Righteousness of Christ at whom they stumbled vers 32. 33. And the Righteousness of God of which they were wholly ignorant Rom. 10 3. This was not a simple endeavour of keeping the law as he hinteth in the following words where he would preoccupy this objection and then tell us that this study could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness as Christians are never further off from justification by keeping the commands of God but a proposeing of that designe of attaining a Righteousness by their own works whereby alone they might be justified And when Christians endeavour after holiness but not from Gospel-principles nor upon Gospel-grounds but to the end they may attaine unto a Righteousness of their owne by their works of obedience they prejudge themselves of justification for thus they do not lay hold on Christ but reject Him and stumble at that stumbling stone that is at Christ who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. 2. He faith neither Calvine nor any other restaine the law to the Moral law Ans. Nor do we so restraine it to that law strikly so taken but comprehend thereby all that God prescribed for a righteousness and this is the Moral law in its full sense the ceremonial judicial being parts thereof appendices thereto 3. He saith There is no reason to limite this to the Moral law only for the jewes sought righteousness by the Ceremonial also Ans. This is but the same with the former and we have told him that the Ceremonial law was then enjoined by the Moral law so the Moral law did comprehend it so long as the Ceremonial law was unrepealed And whatever law it was their seeking of righteousness by it and their refusing of Christ and his Righteousness went together and they so pursued after it that they sought Righteousness by their obedience to it and did not seek by faith after Christs Righteousness nor would they submit thereunto 4. He saith The righteousness of the Moral law alone suppose they should have attained to it by beleeving could have stood them in no stead they being bound also to the observation of the Ceremonial law Ans. This hath been answered before Christ fulfilled all righteousness and satisfied that law of righteousness which was an Universal Rule of righteousness so comprehended the ceremonial lawes so long as they were in force so that if they had forsaken their own righteousness and embraced by faith the righteousness of Christ they had been certainely saved the Imputation of this Righteousness had made them up Lastly he saith The clear sense is that the law of righteousness is justification it self or righteousness simply and indefinitely taken which the jewes seeking to attaine to by the works of the law that is by themselves the merites of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christs lost Gods favour and perished in their sinnes Ans. 1 That the jewes sought after justification by the merites of their own works otherwise than merites are included in all works is not manifest in this place 2 Otherwayes this may passe for part of the sense for by faith he understands the act of faith it self as our righteousness not the Righteousness of Christ which faith laith hold on or faith as laying hold on receiving a Surety-righteousness which is here imported when the contrary is expressed of the jewes of them it is said that they stumbled at that stumbling stone in the next chapter it is said they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God What he addeth as a confirmation of this interpretation is to no purpose for he speaketh nothing to cleare the maine thing in doubt but all is to prove that by the law of righteousness Righteousness is meaned which is not denied withall he taketh for granted what is not proved hath been denied viz. That Righteousness and Justification are one the same thing Seventhly Rom. 10 3 4. A passage cleat pregnant for our purpose where the Apostle is but prosecuting the same purpose as to the jewes and shewing whence their disappointement missing of that came which they so earnestly endeavoured after viz. A righteousnss by which they might be justified before God for saith the Apostle they being ignorant of Gods Righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth There is a Righteousness here called Gods Righteousness which is opposite to inconsistent with mens owne righteousness that is all that is done by them in conformity to the law of God as a righteousness whereupon to be justified yea so great is this opposition that who ever laboures most to establish set on foot his own Righteousness or to seek after a Righteousness by his own performances is furthest from the Righteousness of God as being both ignorant thereof and in pride refuising to submit thereunto This Righteousness of God is explained vers 4. to be the end of the law that is the full righteousness which the law in its primitive institution called for which is the accomplishment of the lawes designe as proposed to be a Rule of Righteousness and the condition of life promised upon the performance thereof And Christ is said to be this end of the law for righteousness He by yeelding perfect obedience hath brought forth a righteousness in which the law hath its End And Christ is this to every one that beleeveth the righteousness being made over unto them who beleeve and by faith lay hold on him which because the Gentiles did they therefore attained to this righteousness Rom. 9 30. Mr. Goodwine pag. 137. c. excepteth several wayes 1 There is saith he no coloure of Reason that by the law here should be meaned precisely determinatly the Moral law because the jewes never dreamed of justification by this law only but chiefly by the Ceremonial law Besides vers 5. he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousness of the law not out of any passage of the Moral law but out of the heart as is were of the ceremonial law Lev. 18 5. Ans. The first part of this Exception hath been often answered we take not the Moral law so precisely determinatly as not to include as parts or appendices all other lawes given by God And the last part of this Exception will say nothing unless he think this law is precisely determinatly to be understood of the Ceremonial law excluding all others especially the Moral law taken as distinct from judicial and ceremonial But why doth he say that this description
of the righteousness of the law is taken out of the heart of Ceremonials seing in the place cited both before and after the words morals are mentioned yea that whole Chapt. is taken up in rehearsing morals Except 2. Neiter is it any wayes agreable to truth that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to beleevers should be called the end of the moral Law for no Law considered simply as such is any cause or meanes of justifing a person than by the observation of it self consequently justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the moral Law for nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but that which in likelyhood may be obtained by it Now it is impossible that justification by Christ should be procured by the moral Law It may be said with a for more favourable aspect to truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law yet not simply considered as a Law but as comprehending in it such such usages rites typifying Christ. Ans. 1. This whole Exception looketh with a very ill favoured aspect both to truth modesty For its scope drift is not so much against the truth which we maintaine as against the Apostle Paul himself against the language of the Spirit of Lord for it faith this in effect that either the Apostle spoke not truth or spoke not good sense when he said that Christ was the end of the Law for to use Mr. Goodwin's reason as nothing can be properly said to be the Intent or end of a thing but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it so nothing can be said to be the Intent end of a Law but what in likelihood may be obtained by it But how can any think that Christ can be in any likelihood obtained by the Law 2. But we say not that justification by Christ is had by the moral Law yet why the righteousness of Christ consisting in perfect obedience to the Law in full answering of the same in all its demands may not be called the end or fulfulling of the Law I see not especially seing the Apostle saith expresly that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness The question being moved about a Righteousness required by the Law this not being to be found in Man's obedience but in Christ's who was the end of the Law for righteousness the Law hath its full accomplissement in him also when He suffered satisfied the Sanction of the Law the Law had satisfaction or the Law-giver rather the Law its end accomplishement Now this Righteousness of Christ being imputed to beleevers they are thereupon justified the Law is satisfied And though the Law because it was weak throuw the flesh could not bring about this righteousness this end in us yet Christ having answered all the demands of the Law given full Satisfaction both in point of obedience in point of Suffering the Law hath its full accomplishment in Him that End which is here meaned 3 We do not say that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to beleeleevers is or is called the end of the moral Law but that Christ came was made under the Law that He might answer all the demands thereof both satisfie for its violation yeeld perfect obedience unto its commands so fulfill it in all points So that it had its end accomplishment in through Him what He did suffered that He submitted Himself hereunto that He might make up a righteousness wherewith the Law should be satisfied for the justification of Believers 4. Though the Moral Law nor no Law considered in it self can be any cause or meanes of justifying a person otherwise than by the observation of it self though justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of moral Law yet in Christ's obedience Suffering the Law may be said to have received its Accomplishment and Satisfaction thereby a compleat Righteousness may be said to be obtained for all Believers Except 3. The Greek Expositors make Christ in this sense to be called the end of the law for righteousness because he performed or exhibited unto them that which the law propounded to it self as its end would have performed but could not to wit their justification Ans. Seing the law ptopounded their justification as its end only by the perfect observation of it self or by a full perfect conformity unto it Christ cannot be called the end or accomplishment of the law unless He had performed all that which the law required nor could He be called the end of the law for righteousness unless He had fully satisfied the law and thereby made up a Righteousness in the behalfe for the behove of Believers to whom it being Imputed they might be accepted justified upon the account thereof And this righteousness where with the law was satisfied wherin it had its full accomplishment is I grant exhibited in the Gospel to the end that all who would be justified may lay hold on it receive it rest upon it as the only righteousness in and through which they desire to be accepted and to stand before God the righteous judge Except 4. Some conceive that Christ is said to be the end of the law c. Because the law by convinceing men of sin and exacting of them a Righteousness which it doth not enable them to performe againe by threatning condemning them for the want of it it doth as good as lead them by hand to Christ by whom they are freely justified But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place Ans. Seing he himself is not satisfied with this interpretation he might have forborne to have added it But as for the interpretation it self I judge the thing said to be true and that it hath a subordinat aspect unto what we have said holdeth forth part of the truth though it be not a plaine and full exposition of the place for there is mention made here of a Righteousness of God which the jewes neither understood not would submit unto but in opposition to this they went about to establish their own righteousness that is to seek after a righteousness by their own works or by their own obedience to the law therefore did misse their end for this righteousness which they were seeking after which they could not attaine unto by all their own acts of obedience that is a righteousness that was a perfect obedience conformity to the law withall a Sufficient compensation Satisfaction for the breaches of the law already committed was only to be found in Christ who is the end of the law for righteousness that is made full Satisfaction for the breaches committed and performed compleat and perfect obedience which the law did principally require what ever other accidental ends it might have had or the law-giver in promulgating
speak of this matter as if Righteousness Sanctification were one the same thing so give us here a most needless Tautologie And others who will not yeeld to imputed Righteousness yet will grant a difference betwixt Righteousness Sanctification must tell us distinctly how He is the one how He is the other to His chosen ones 3. Wisdom Sanctification are of a different Nature from Righteousness for Righteousness cannot be here taken for Inherent Grace Holiness for then it should be the same with Sanctification so there must needs be here a Tautology withall no perfect enumeration of the several great things we stand in need of Christ is made to be unto us of God seing they are different there is ground to say that He is not to us Righteousness the same way that He is Sanctification Sanctification is wrought in us by His Spirit but so is not Righteousness for if we had a Righteousnes wrought in us we should be justified by vertue thereof upon the account thereof if we be justified by a Righteousness within us we are justified by our own works by the law contrary to all the Apostles disput contrary to what preceedeth followeth the words under consideration for then he who glorieth might glory in himself not in the Lord alone 4. Al these particulars here mentioned we must have or finde in Christ as the Aeâ—â—â—opik version hath it each according to its Nature And withall we must be made partakers posâ—essors of them all according as the Nature of the benefite will admit therefore as Christ is forthcoming to His chosen ones for Wisdom so as they may really become wise for Sanctification that they may become holy for Redemption that they may be redeemed so is He forthcoming to His own for Righteousness that they may be justified for though Righteousness justified be not one the same as our Excepter often alleigeth yet they have constant respect to other and are inseparable in our case If then we finde a Righteousness in Christ for justification that Righteousness must be made ours this being a Righteousness that is not our own before it be made our own it must be imputed to us that we may be there by justified He addeth Suppose Christ were made Righteousness unto us by Imputation yet this special manner of his being righteousness to us must be made out by other Scriptures than this as because a rich man hath silver gold jewels in possession it will not follow that he hath silver in one chest and gold in another jewels in a third Ans. Christs being made Righteousness to us who have no Righteousness of our own in order to our justification saith that the Righteousness we have from Him can be no otherwayes ours than by Imputation for it cannot be wrought in us else it should be the same with Holiness Sanctification And therefore the similitude of gold silver jewels is not worth a straw in this case because the dissimilitude is obvious Except 2. The meaning only is this That Christ is made ordained of God to be the author or sole meanes by way of merite of our justification Ans. 1 According to his former exception it will follow hence that He worketh not Holiness Wisdom in us by His Word and Spirit but only is the meanes thereof by way of merite for he will have Christ to be all these particulars to us one the same way 2 This differeth little from the answere of Schlightingius cont Meisnerum p. 250. who saith It is enough that Christs righteousness be the cause of our justification Christ may be said to be made righteousness to us because his righteousness redoundeth to our good and justification 3 It is not said that Christ is made justification to us but it is said He is made Righteousness to us though it is true that He hath merited our justification yet when He is said to be made of God Righteousness to us it is apparent that He bestoweth a Righteousness upon us in order to justification or He must be Righteousness to us ere we be justified how shall we partake of His Righteousness if not by Imputation 4 Christ can not be the Author or sole meanes by way of merite of our justification till we have a Righteousness that is He must be the sole Author Meanes of a Righteousness for we must not say That He hath merited that we shall be justified without a Righteousness it being an abomination to the Lord that even a terrene judge should justifie one that hath no Righteousness If then He hath merited that we shall be justified by having a Righteousness that Righteousness must be within us or without us if within us then He hath merited that we shall be justified by the works of righteousness which we do by the law by the works of the law contrary to the whole Gospel If without us then it must either be Christs own Righteousness or the Righteousness of some other It cannot be the Righteousness of any other as will easily be granted and if it be Christs Righteousness it must be imputed to us to the end it may be ours and we justified thereby and this is the thing we press He addeth to confirme this sense That Righteousness is very frequently used for justification Ans. Thus he gaineth nothing for 1 That will not prove that it is so used here 2 And though it did Import justification here yet seing there is no justification before God without a Righteousness it would say That Christ were our Righteousness too or that He merited a Righteousness for us and what is that Righteousness that He hath procured that we shall have in order to our justification Is it the Righteousness of our own works Then He hath merited that our works shall merite justification why not also glorification Is not this to overturne th◠〈◊〉 Gospel He addeth 2. Righteousness or justification which Beleevers have in or by Christ is still attributed unto His death Sufferings never to His active obedience Ans. But he hath forgetten what is said Rom. 4 25. Who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification Sure His Resurrection was neither His death nor His Sufferings He hath forgotten also what is said Rom. 5 19. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous And to be Righteous and to be justified is all one with him as we have oft-times heard Except 3. This will not say That Christs active obedience only is imputed or that he only by his active obedience is made righteousness to us Ans. I plead not for the sole Imputation of Christs active obedience but for the Imputation of Christs whole Surety Righteousness that is His compleet obedience Suffering or of what He did suffered in answering all the demands of the law
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
as a cause so is our Righteousness Justification inseparable as the full Effect CHAP. IX Other passages of the N. T. briefly mentioned which plead for this Imputation of Christs Righteousness THere are other passages of Scripture beside these mentioned in the preceeding chapter and against which I finde no Exceptions made by Mr. Goodwine in the forecited Book which yet do with no small clearness and fulness of evidence plead for the truth which we owne to wit The Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Beleevers in order to their Justification These we shall not insist upon but only mentione in short seing the full insisting upon them will not be necessary after what is said in the Explication Vindication of foregoing passages 1 Rom. 1 17. For therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The Apostle is here giving a reason proving the Gospel whereof he was not ashamed to be a preacher of to be the power of God unto Salvation that to every one that beleeveth be he jew or be he Gentile viz. Because there is a Righteousness revealed therein which sinners only stand in need of that Righteousness of God that is not only a Righteousness which is devised by God and is accepted in His sight but an excellent Righteousness even the Righteousness of one who is God and a Righteousness revealed for faith to lay hold on receive that which faith leaneth to first and last when it is weakest and when it is strongest that thereby the poor sinner who formerly was dead by law may live as one reconciled to God So that hence we see Sinners have need of a Righteousness and this Righteousness is the Righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel that it may be received by faith and so Imputed made over to the poor sinner in order to his Justification and acceptance with God 2 Rom. 4 11. And he i. e. Abraham received the signe of circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also Here is a Righteousness and a Righteousness called the Righteousness of faith because received applied only by faith and a Righteousness whereof circumsion was appointed a seal granted to Abraham as such and a Righteousness which was imputed to Abraham that he might be the Father of all them that beleeve for it is added that Righteousness might be Imputed to them also And this must be the same Righteousness that was Imputed to Abraham the same way Imputed the same way received that there migt be no essential difference betwixt the way of justification of Father and Children The Aethiopick Version may serve for a commentary and he had circumsion a signe of his righteousness which He gave him and the signe thereof that this might be made known unto him that God justified Abraham by faith when he was not at that time circumcised that they may know that they also are justified by faith 3. Rom. 4 24 25. But for us also to whom it shall be Imputed if we beleeve on Him who raised up tesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences was raised againe for our justification Here is some thing said to be Imputed this must be in order to justification And this that is Imputed cannot be faith it self or our act of beleeving for what is said to be Imputed is promised to be Imputed upon condition of faith or our beleeving on Him who raised up Iesus our Lord. So that it must be the Righteousness of Christ consisting in His Mediatory work which He undertook performed for His owne for it is added that He was delivered for their offences that is He was delivered unto the death to make satisfaction for their sinnes He rose againe that He might declare He had given full Satisfaction that He might apply this Surety-righteousness of His to the end they might be justified Socinus doth not understand this therefore de Servat part 4. p. 333 saith It is most certaine that the Apostle doth not speak of any Imputation of the righteousness of Christ but assert that the faith or credite we give God because He hath called Iesus Christ our Head from death to eternal life shall be accounted unto us in the place of righteousness just as faith whereby Abraham gave credite to the words of God was Imputed to him for righteousness But the Text hereby is manifestly perverted for it saith that some thing shall be imputed if we beleeve which can not be faith but something distinct from faith which is to be Imputed upon condition of faith And what can this be else than the Surety-righteousness of Christ who is here mentioned as dying riseing in the place and for 〈◊〉 good of His people that they might be justified And further if it were faith it self that were here said to be Imputed in order to justification the justified man should not be one that is in himself ungodly because he hath a Righteousness in himself and he who hath a Righteousness in himself is not ungodly yet it is said Rom. 4 5. That God justifieth the ungodly Againe That which is Imputed must be a Righteousness without works vers 6. but if faith it self be Imputed a work is Imputed and not a Righteousness without works and this would also lay down a ground of boasting make the reward of debt not of grace v. 14. 4. Rom. 10 10. For with the heart man beleeveth unto Righteousness with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation The Apostle had been before vers 4. telling us That Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth thereafter he discriminateth the way of justification by the law and by the Gospel under the Notion of a Righteousness which is of the law and a Righteousness which is of faith then more particularly he describeth the Righteousness of faith or a Righteousness is had unto Salvation in through faith vers 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus shalt beleeve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved which he proveth in the 10. vers now cited therein sheweth how by this beleeving that God hath raised the Lord Jesus from the dead Salvation is brought about viz. That by beleeving with the heart a Righteousness is obtained received and this righteousness must be Christs even His Surety-righteousness for faith looketh on Him as raised from the dead that by God as having now received full Satisfaction from Him thereupon bringing Him as it were out of prison And in the Text cited we see that by faith a Righteousness is received or faith is the way unto the possession of a Righteousness as Confession is the
from the Sun in one act expelling darkness bringing in light which are here adduced for illustration have no force to prove any thing here in regard there is no correspondence in all points betwixt Matters Natural Matters meerly Moral or Political There is no Medium betwixt light and darkness or the habite and its privation but there is a Medium here betwixt Transgressing of the law perfect obedience to the law unto the end Adam so long as he stood was no Transgressour yet he had not then given perfect obedience to the end according to the Covenant So there is a Medium betwixt Freedom from the Penalty the Right to the Reward as was shown above Arg. 7. If do this live be an everlasting Rule of God which shall never be dissolved then must the Active obedience of Christ be imputed unto Men in justification that so they may be said to have done this and so live But the former is true Ergo c. That these words do this and live containe a determination constitution of the Lord as unalterable as these words That day thou eats thou shalt die cannot well be denied and therefore if because of this latter no man can be saved unless their Surety die for them so because of that former no man can have right to the reward unless his Surety performe perfect obedience And as the one is imputed to the Beleever so must the other be Imputed also in order to his compleat Salvation Against this he excepteth pag. 216. c. thus In this sense I grant that do this and live is an everlasting Rule that is it is hath been and shall be everlastingly true that who so ever shall fulfill the law perfectly shall live But not in this sense that it is the only perpetual and standing Rule whereby and according to which men must be justified and so saved for in this sense it neither is nor ever was nor ever shall be a rule of God for God hath alwayes had and for ever will have another rule for the justification of men Ans. 1. Was it not a Rule of life justification to Adam in the state of Innocency was he not according to that Covenant where in he stood to purchase the good promised by his doing It may be the Excepter thinketh with the Socinians that no more was promised to Adam than what he had in possession 2. We do not assert it as a standing rule whereby we should now expect to be justified but we say that it being a constitution of God's as well as the other viz. That day thou eats thou shalt die It must be satisfied as well as the other And as the rule of faith taketh not away Christs suffering of death according to what was threatened in the law so nor doth the law of faith take away His obedience according to the command of the law and as Christs paying down of the Penalty was necessary for our freedom from death so His giving full obedience to the law is necessary to our life though as was said we need not nicely thus distinguish save to shew the necessity of the Imputation of both Arg. 8. That Righteousness which God accepteth on our behalfe is the Righteousness imputed to us in justification But the Righteousness of Christ is that Righteousness which God accepteth on our behalf Ergo c. He excepteth pag. 217. 1. Denying the Major because God may and doth accept that for us or on our behalf which yet He need not impute to us at He accepted of Abrahanis prayer in the behalf of Ismael of the prayer of Elisha for the Shumanites Son and yet neither was imputed to the other Ans. But all this a thousand Instances of the like nature can evince nothing for the Argument speaketh of what is accepted of God in order to justification as the ground and meritorious cause thereof which the Instances adduced come not nigh unto He addeth In like manner these in whose behalf Christs Sufferings were accepted receive an unspeakable benefite blessing by them but this operats nothing to the Inference of the Imputation pleaded for that is that God must look upon these Sufferings of Christ as if they had personally endured them on whose behalf they are accepted Ans. Then it seemeth not only is the Imputation of Christs active obedience denied but also the Imputation of His death and Sufferings and no more is granted than what Socinians will yeeld unto 2 The Imputation we plead for is not such as maketh God to look upon these Sufferings of Christ as if Beleevers had personally endured them but such as maketh God to look upon them as the Sufferings of Christ as Surety Head Publick person in the room stead of His chosen ones which Sufferings payment of the Penalty by the Surety being made over unto reckoned upon the score of Beleevers they are upon the account thereof accepted dealt with as if they themselves had so Suffered and Satisfied in their own persons 2. He distinguisheth thus If by the Righteousness of Christ the proposition meaneth precisely that obedience which He exhibited to that general common law whereunto all Men are obliged considered apart from His obedience to that particular law of Mediator given to Himself alone so it is false If by Righteousness be here meant that obedience of Christ commonly called passive or both active and passive together so it may be true but then the other will be found tardy Ans. 1 Christs obedience to that general law by which all men were obliged did as well belong to His law of Mediation and was comprehended under it as His giving up Himself to Suffering to death for as Mediator He was made under the law as well as suffered the Curse 2 The Minor proposition is to be understood of the whole Surety-righteousness consisting not only in Suffering but also in actual obedience to the law when this is granted the whole we seek is granted Neither is the former proposition found tardy as appeareth from what is said the Syllogisme is good and no Paralogisme what ever he supposeth Arg. 9. If Christ were a publick Person standing in the place or stead of all those that should beleeve in Him then all that He did and Suffered is to be looked upon reputed by God as done Suffered by these consequently are Imputed to them But the former is true Ergo c. Sure if Christ was a publik person standing in the place and room of the chosen ones all that He did as such a person or as a Surety as to that whâ—â—h law and justice required of them they were obliged unto must needs be imputed unto them reckoned upon their score and they must be dealt with upon the account thereof as if all had been done suffered by themselves We do not say that all He did Suffered is or must be
Imputed but that all which He did and suffered in Satisfaction of the law and in payment of that which we were liable unto stood under the obligation of is and must of necessity be imputed to the end we may be deliverâ—â— from under the former obligation He excepteth pag. 220. c. 1. The publickness of Christs person or His standing in the place of those that should beleeve is no sufficient ground to build this Inference upon That therefore all He did suffered are looked upon by God as done and suffered by them such as His conception Birth c. Ans. We have obviated this already by showing that the Major is to be limited to understood of those things only which the law required of us which we were under the obligation of and were debtors to do and suffer amongst which none of the particulars mentioned and many moe such-like can be reckoned His after rambling discourse upon this mistake is not worth the noticeing And who seeth not how vaine it is for him to say that then God should look upon men as having redeemed the world For as the law did not require this of us so to speak thus destroyeth all acts of Sutetyship for the Sureties acts can never be so imputed to the debtor as to make him thereby the Surety We know that Sureties and publick persons may do many things which cannot be said to be imputed to the debâ—ors persons represented but these things are not done by them as such publick persons Sureties but in another capacity And it is folly hence to inferre that therefore the Sureties payment of the debt cannot be said to be imputed to the debtor or that wherein the publick person was a publik person and which he did as such cannot be said to be imputed to those whom he represented 2. Except Itagreeth not with Scripture expression to say that the Sufferings of Christ are by God looked upon as our Sufferings or to conceive that we should suffer in Him It is not all one to say we were punished in Christ and Christ was punished for us This last as warranted by Esai 53 6. But the other cannot be affirmed for seing in Christs death we havâ— remission of sins we cannot be said for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ. Ans. This is wholly founded upon his own way of wording the Argument so as he thought it would give him most advantage for all this looketh to these words in the Major propos are to be looked upon are reputed by God as done suffered by those which words might have been left out without any hurt to our cause the Argum. without them would have been full and concludent for us whether any have argued so or he hath framed the Argum to his own mind I know not Sure there is no necessity for adding of these words yet the words may admit of a candide Interpretation for it hath no repugnancy or dissonancy to Scripture expression to say that the Sufferings of Christ are looked upon as the beleevers sufferings when they are impuâ—â—d to him not as if God should think judge or conceive that the beleever in his own Physical person had suffered that which Christ did suffer but that he hath a special legal interest in these Sufferings as being in a special manner interessed in Christ and are now dealt with by God no otherwayes than as if he himself had in his own person laid down that satisfactory price And in this sense there is no difference betwixt the saying that we are punished in Christ that Christ was punished for us for we 〈◊〉 only punished in Christ legally as Christ suffered for us as coming in â—ur law-place Neither doth the saving in this sense That we are punished in Christ take a way Remission of sins but doth rather establish the same as being the only ground thereof for till we have an Interest in Christ and in His Sufferings by the Imputation thereof to us our leaning to them by faith we can have no Remission according to the Gospel-way Except 3. The publikeness of a person who negatiats the affaires of others doth no further nor any other wayes interesse those whose affaires he mannageth in what he doth in or about such a transaction buth only with reference to the issue success of what he doth for them in that behalf so that his dishonest or unconscientious way in the miscarying or his wisdom faithfulness in the right managing are no wayes imputable to the persons whose business is negotiated Ans. It is not necessary that that special manner of managment should be so imputed unto the persons whose affaire is negotiated it being sufficient that the persons represented be interessed in the transaction it self in reference to an interest in the issue in the same affaire managed and the transaction it self is so imputed to the persons represented in reference to the effects as if it had been done by themselves So in our case though the Wisdom Faithfulness patience of Christ used in the managment of that publick affaire intrusted to Him as a publick person undertaking for and representing all His Children be not imputed unto them yet the business it self with which He was intrusted viz. Giving satisfaction to the law in all points by Suffering Obedience which the law required of us is imputed to us must be so in order to our partaking of the benefites advantage thereof Except 4. It is not altogether so solide or sound as is supposed that Christ stood in the place stead of those that should beleeve in Him especially in all things performed by Him and which tended to the qualification of His person To stand in the place and stead of another implieth a necessity of his being in the same place doing the same things himself wherein he stands which he doth who is supposed to stand in his stead unless they had been done by this other for him Ans. This last Exception is the same with the first needeth little more consideration We do not assert that He did so stand in the place stead of beleevers as to all things He did suffered but only that He stood in in our room stead in the whole of His active passive obedience or in making satisfaction to the demands of the law in His state of humiliation this being it for in reference to which He was appointed to be a publick person all other things He did as His Miracles assuming a body and the like need not be said to be imputed to us though in that they concerned His person were requisite thereunto to the work He was imployed in they carry a special advantage in them for Beleevers were in a particular manner designed for their good were subservient to that maine designe Arg. 10. If we cannot be justified by the Righteousness of Christ
at which they stumbled when he said Rom. 9 31 32. But Israel which followed after the law of Righteousness hath not attained to the law of Righteousness wherefore Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law for they stumbled at that stumbling stone And againe Rom. 10 3 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righteousness going about to establish their own Righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness c. Is it not hence clear that they rejected Christ and would not owne Him as the end of the law for Righteousness that they stumbled at Him seeking after justification life by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness by seeking to establish their own righteousness How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law as performed by Christ as the jewes were who would have nothing to do with Christ but stumbled at Him while as Paul sought only to be found in Him not having his owne Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3 9. And proclamed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. Against Fit 3 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness which we have done a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned to prevent the stumbling of such as love to walk in the light he advanceth several answers pag. 62. c. As I. He never said that the active righteousness of Christ should be made a stander-by but that it hath a blessed influence into justification as it issueth into His passive obedience which together may be called a Righteousness for which but not with which we are justified except it can be proved to be either the Material or formal or instrumental cause of justification whoever attempt to do this will wholly dissolve the merite of it Ans. 1 All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand which is to show that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently what he meaneth by the works of the law which he excludeth from having any interest in justification viz. The works of the law performed by us in our own persons 2 What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness which is imputed unto us he showeth not nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice we have shown above that the personal Union did that and consequently His active obedience if it had no other influence is made a meer stander by 3. A Righteousness for which a Righteousness with which is a distinction in our case without a difference for the one doth no way oppugne or exclude the other because the meritorious cause imputed made over to and reckoned upon the score of beleevers can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified 4 Whether it may be called the Material or Formal cause of justification that any ever called it the instrumental cause is more than I know is no great matter seing it may be either as the termes shall be explained which men are at freedom to do according to their own minde when they apply them unto this matter which hath so little affinity with Effects meerly Natural unto the causes of which these termes are properly applied though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause if necessitated to use here philosophik termes 3 That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification is to overthrow the merite of it is said but not proved It is not these philosophical termes themselves but the explication of them by such as use them in this matter that is to be regarded and none shall ever show that either of these termes as explained by the orthodox doth overthrow the merite of Christ's Righteousness both doth rather establish it He saith 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing yet no wayes intimat that the works of any other should be the cause thereof If the words had gone thus not by the works of Righteousness which we our selves had done this had been some what an higher ground to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon viz. by the works of another or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose as the former for these words were here brought only to show what the Apostle meant by the works of the law which he excluded from justification viz. the works which we do and not to prove immediatly that the works of any other were understood hereby 2 It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction betwixt works which we do works which we our selves do the same word in the original which vers 5. is rendered we is rendered we our selves vers 3. What poor shifts are these which men take to support a desperat cause He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the law which we had done he had no intent to imply the works which another might do he expresseth the opposition thus according to His mercy Ans. The mistake is still continued in By these words we onely cleare what the works are which are excluded viz. our personal works or works which we do or have done whose works else are accepted other places prove expresly this by consequence unless the worke of a third could be alleiged 2 The opposition here made destroyeth not the opposition which we make for when we are justified Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ we are justified saved according to His mercy as well as we are justified freely by His grace when justified through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3 24. He saith 4. thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that wherein this Mercy of God be speaks of consisteth viz. regenerating us c. Ans. But I hope the Apostles mentioning of Regeneration doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the ground thereof nor can he suppose this unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works done after Regeneration the new birth He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable nor pertinent to the purpose because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness which he nameth from being any cause antecedaneously moving God to save us not from being the formal cause of justification and we our selves saith he will not say that the works of the law which Christ hath
done moved God to saveus Ans. 1 The Inference which he here speaketh of is his own and not ours as we have said 2 The Salvation here mentioned is comprehensive and includeth Justification Adoption as vers 7. cleareth the Mercy mentioned v. 5. comprehendeth all other subordinat causes meanes which the Lord hath appointed though the obedience of Christ be no cause moving God to decree to save yet it may be a cause of justification But then saith he pag. 65. This will only establish the merite of Christ's Righteousness in justification but overthrow the formality of it And why so Because sa it be it is unpossible that one and the self same thing in respect of one and the self same effect should put on the different habitude both of the Formal Efficient cause Ans. All this is but vaine talk a reasoning from termes of art or philosophical notions taken improperly to the same taken most properly strickly as if a Moral polititical or legal effect were every way the same with a Natural physical effect and yet in physical Effects as such meritorious causes have no proper Efficiency But as to our case we plainly say that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification yet may be called the formal cause thereof as that terme may be adapted fitly explained according as the matter will bear or the formal objective cause which we rather incline to He speaketh against Gal. 4 4. pag. 66. saying that it is adduced to prove that Paul mentioneth the works of the law as done by Christ in the discourse of justification consequently that he had no intent to exclude the works of the law as done by Christ from having their part in justification But as was shown above there are many other places of Scripture evincing this Yet let us see what he saith 1. The law under which Christ was made is the ceremonial law as is clear vers 5. we are not redeemed from the Moral law which is of eternal obligation but from the Ceremonial law Ans. 1 That Christ was made under the Ceremonial law only no reason can evince for He was made under that law under the curse whereof we were who were to be delivered there from by Him Gal. 3 10 12. But this was not the Ceremonial law only otherwise he should have died only for the jewes Againe The law which he speaketh of was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator Gal. 3 17 19. but this was the Moral law contained in the decalogue Is the ceremonial law only that law that cannot give life vers 21. was nothing a Schoolmaster to Christ but the ceremonial part of the law vers 24. 2 To be under the law is not only to be under the lawes obligation but chiefly to be under the lawes Curse which is the same with being concluded under sin Gal. 3 22. 3 If being under the law be thus limited or restricked to a being under the obligation of the ceremonial law no more can be meaned by receiving the Adoptions of Sones there mentioned as the opposite mercy than a freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law but this I suppose will be too narrow an Interpretation 4 Though none be redeemed from obedience to the Moral law yet they may be delivered there from as the sole condition of the Covenant as the sole way of obtaining life 2. He saith hereby may be meaned His subjection to the curse of the law Ans. That this may be part of the meaning may very easily be granted what then can hence follow The expression of being under the law hath not alwayes this single and sole import as we see in that same Chapter vers 21. Secondly Chap. 4. pag. 69. He argueth from Rom. 3 21 22. thus If the Righteousness of faith which is here called the Righteousness of God consists in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the law that is without the works of the law But the Righteousness of faith is sufficiently manifested without the law that is without the works or Righteousness of the law Ergo. The connexion of the Major he thus confirmeth Because to such a Righteousness the law and the works thereof are every white as necessary than faith it self for faith is made only a Meanes of the derivation of it upon men but the body substance of the Righteousness it self is nothing else but the pure law the works of it Ans. The connexion of the Major is unsound and its probation is founded upon a manifest wresting or misinterpretation of the place for the meaning of these words The Righteousness of God without the law is this The Righteousness of God which is not had by our performance of the commands of the law or doth not consist therein not the Righteousness of God which is without all obedience to the law for there be no such Righteousness all Righteousness being a conformity to the law of God if Righteousness consist not in obeying the law of God wherein shall it consist The Righteousness then of God is a Righteousness consisting indeed in full obedience to the law but yet a Righteousness consisting in obedience to the law performed by one who was God therefore also called the Righteousness of God not meerly because invented by God or because bestowed by Him upon men or because such as will only be accepted of by Him as he saith though these be also true may in part ground the denomination not by ou rselves who were properly and originally under the obligation of the law This will not satisfie him therefore he saith I. This sanctuary hath been polluted the hornes of ibis altar broken down in the demonstration of the former proof Ans. The contrary is manifest from our foregoing examination of that supposed demonstration He saith 2. There is not the least intimation given that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this Ans. Nor was there any necessity for any express mention hereof not only because the party the Apostle had here mainely to deal with understood nothing else by the law but our obedience performed thereunto knowing the meaning of the law to be this he that doth these things shall live by them but also because the whole scope and manner of argueing of the Apostle his whole procedure in this debate manifest this to be the meaning for having convinced both jewes and Gentiles to be under the law as guilty before God he inferreth that therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3 20. That is by their own deeds or actions for the law to them can do nothing but convince of sin binde guilt more upon them But it did not so to Christ who yeelded perfect obedience We might also demonstrate this from the Apostles following discourse
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
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
Right to the reward as to this State whatever we shall conceive as the forme thereof it must be a Righteousness consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed for sinners can have no other Obj. 12. If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us thon the Effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also so we may be said to have merited both our own justification salvation for if I may be accounted or reputed to have wrought that Righteousness which is meritorious why may I not be conceived as well to have merited Nay further if I may be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness in Christ whereby I am justified my self I may as well be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness by which the whole world is justified Ans. This is but a meer sophisme founded upon a mistake The consequence is false the proof thereof standeth only upon this rotten bottome That to say That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us is to say that we are reputed esteemed or accounted to have done or wrought that Righteousness our selves whileas the true meaning of Imputation is this That the Righteousness of Christ is made over by grace unto Beleevers reckoned upon their score where by they are dealt with now no other wayes than if they had fulfilled all Righteousness in their own person Whence it is clear that the Effects cannot be said to be imputed to us but only that we partake of the Effects thereofs so far as our own Necessity requireth As the Ransom payed for the Redemption of so many captives is imputed to each of the captives in order to his owne Redemption to none of them as Redemption of others without this Imputation or reckoning it upon their score as the price of their Redemption no man could have right to the Effects thereof in reference to himself or could be redeemed thereby So that it is manifest that through the meritorious cause or the righteousnes of Christ imputed to us we obtaine justification Salvation but do not merite them our Redeemer Surety meriteth them for us we enjoy what He merited for our own happiness It is false then to say That by Imputation we are conceived to have wrought that righteousness in Christ whereby we are justified therefore it cannot but be most false to think That we may be conceived to have wrought that righteousness also by which others are justified for it was only our Head Husband Surety Redeemer who wrought it free grace imputed it to or reckoneth it upon the score of Beleevers Obj 13. chap. 18. pag. 165. If the active Righteousness of Christ be in the letter formality of it imputed unto me in my justification then I am reputed before God to have wrought that righteousness in Christ. But this is false c. Ans. Neither proposition is true The Major is denied unless by these word letter and formality he understand such an Imputation as we do not acknowledge his words would seem to import this for saith he in confirmation of the Major to have any thing imputed to a man in the letter of it is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him And if this be the only sense of his proposition the conclusion maketh not against us for we asserte no such Imputation as inferreth such a Reputation Nay to say That God should repute things so were to destroy all Imputation for what God whose judgment is according to truth â—eputeth us to have done we must have done it if we have really done it be reputed to have done it by the Lord it cannot be said to be imputed to us in the sense we take Imputation for Imputation with us is of that which we have not or did not which God knoweth judgeth we did not yet is by Imputation so made over to us put upon our score reckoned upon our account as that we are as really made partakers of the Effects thereof that is of justification c. As if we had done it ourselves or it had been ours without before any Imputation Hence the beleever is made the righteousness of God in Christ not reputed or esteemed to have been the righteousness of God but now through the gracious Imputation of God through faith made to be so Hence we see that the proof of his Minor goeth upon the same Mistake if saith he I be reputed before God to have wrought Righteousness in Christ in my justification then is Christ in His Sufferings reputed before God to have sinned in me Ans. We say neither the one nor the other Christ did not sinne in us nor did the Lord repute Him to have done so But he was made sin by Imputation the guilt of sin being laid upon Him or our sinnes as to their guilt being caused to meet on Him Whence it came to passe that He suffered as really the punishment of sin as if He had sinned in us whileas as to His own person He knew no sin neither was deceit found in His mouth Obj. 14. pag. 166. If the Active obedience of Christ be imputed then His Passive is imputed also Ans. And why not If the death Sufferings of Christ saith he be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died or suffered in Christ. But this cannot be because in Christ we are justified absolved from punishment therefore cannot be said to have been punished in Him Ans. This whole Argument is of a piece with the foregoing Though therefore it be upon the matter answered already Yet we shall adde this word further That though in one sense it is false to say That we are reputed to have died Suffered in Christ viz physically yet in a legal sense it may be admitted as a truth that Beleevers who now by faith are in Christ of His Body are accounted reputed to have suffered in Christ their Head Surety Publick person therefore are now dealt with as such Hence they are said to be crucified with Christ to be dead buried with Him to be risen with Him Rom. 6 4 5 6. Ephes. 2 5 6. Col. 2 12. Yet it will not follow hence that in a legal sense Christ can be said to have sinned in us for we were not His Representative or Head Though the debtor may be said in Law sense to have paid his creditor in his Suretys payment Yet the Surety cannot be said to be contracting debt in the debtor for the debtor's deed cannot affect him untill he voluntarily submit himself to be Surety where may be after the debt is already contracted by the debtor And to say in this Law sense that Beleevers Suffered in Christ doth not weaken the ground of our justification absolution Acceptation Healing as is manifested above unless we turn Socinians then upon this same ground we
of justice truth in God in reference to Christ yet as to us it is of free grace so much the more of free grace that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for that end And such as understand not this are more principled with Socinian abominations than with the doctrine of the Gospel of the grace of God Obj. 18. pag. 173. If men be formally just by God's act imputing Christ's righteousness then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin But this is not true for then an Act of God should be as the life soul of that sin which is in men Ergo Ans. As this argument concludeth nothing against the truth now asserted this conclusion being different from the question now in hand so it is but a meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical termes notions that thereby the truth may be more darkened We are not obliged by any Law of God to explaine or interpret these mysteries of Salvation according to these Notions which men explaine after their own pleasure knowing no Law constraining them to follow either one man or other in the arbitrary sense which they put upon these termes But as to the present â—rgument no answer can be given untill it be known what is the true meaning of these words formally just Possibly he will understand hereby the same that others meane by Inherently just so indeed do all the Papists And if so we can answere by saying That no orthodox man thinketh or saith that in this sense we are made formally just by God's act imputing Christ ' righteousness but by Holiness wrought in us by His Spirit And as to that righteousness which is imputed whether it be called the Formal or the Material cause of our justification it is but a nominal debate having no ground or occasion in the Word of God by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts expressions in this matter Nor do they who say we are formally just by Christ's righteousness say we are formally just by God's Act imputing that righteousness But by the righteousness it self imputed by God received by faith Nor do they say that men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin unto his posterity but by Adam's sin imputed though God's Act be the cause of this effect it is not the effect it self Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners that is guilty obnoxious to wrath so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute beleevers Righteous Obj. 19. pag. 175. If justification consists in the Imputation of Christ's righteousness partly in Remission of sins then must there be a double formal cause of justification that made up compounded of two several natures really differing the one from the other But this is impossible Ergo. Ans. 1. This Argument is founded upon another School-nicety or notion viz the Simplicity Indivisibility of Natural formes this Philosophical Notion is here adduced to darken the mystery we are treating of It were a sufficient answere then to say That the Minor though it be true in natural formes Yet will not necessarily hold in the privileges of Saints which may be single or compounded as the Lord thinketh meet to make them And can any reason evince that the Lord cannot conferre bestow in the grand privilege of justification moe particular favoures than one Can He not both pardon sins accept as declare to be Righteous Can He not both free the beleever from the condemnation of hell adjudge him to the life of glory or cannot these two be conceived as two things formally distinct though inseparable 2. But I shall not say That Imputation of Christ's righteousness is a part of justification But rather that it is the ground thereof necessarily presupposed thereunto Nor shall I say that Remission of sins is the forme or formal cause of justification a pardoned man as such not being a justified man It is true pardon of sins doth inseparably follow upon is a necessary effect of our justification a certaine consequent of God's accepting of us as righteous in His sight upon the account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith I grant also that justification may be so described or defined as to take in that Effect without making it thereby a formal part thereof when strickly considered 3. But he will have Remission of sins to be the whole of justification nothing more included therein or conferred thereby abusing to this end as we heard above Rom. 4 6 7 8. Where the Apostle is citing the words of the Psalmist is not giving us a formal definition of justification nor saying that justification is the same with Remission nor that Remission's the formal cause of justification but only is proving that justification is not by our works as the ground thereof that by this reason Because that would utterly destroy free Remission which is a necessary Effect consequent of Gospel-justification cannot be had without it in order to which justification he there asserteth expresly an Imputation of righteousness Now an Imputation of righteousness is not formally one the same thing with Remission of sins nor can Remission of sins be-called a righteousness or the Righteousness of God or of Christ yet the Man is a blessed man whose sins are covered because that man is necessarily covered with the righteousness of Christ whose sins are covered for Imputation of righteousness free pardon do inseparably attend one another Nor is it to the purpose to say That pardon is a passive righteousness though not an Active righteousness for all righteousness rightly so called is conformity to the Law that is not a passive or Negative righteousness which may be in a beast that transgresseth no Law consequenly hath no unrighteousness Obj. 20. pag. 176. If such Imputation be necessary in justification this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God or in respect of His Mercy or for the salving or advancing of some other attribute But there is no necessity in respect of any of these Ergo. Ans. 1 This same man tels us that there is a necessity for the Imputation of faith as our Righteousness not withstanding of all that Christ hath done and why may he not grant the same necessity for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ will it satisfie him that we found the necessity of Imputation of Christ's Righteoufness on the same ground 2 Though we should not be in case to assigne the real just ground of this necessity yet I judge it should satisfie us that the Lord in His wisdom Goodness hath thought fit to appointe and ordaine this methode manner of justification so far should we be from disputing against this Truth with such Arguments from rejecting of it untill we be satisfied as to
posterity after him into the same condemnation And how could they be punished for that same guilt if it was not some way theirs by the just righteous Judge Governour of the world The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great hainous sins of their progenitors than for their lesser sinnes if they have no interest in these sinnes nor partake of the guilt thereof But as to Original sin the Scripture giveth the Sin as the ground of the punishment maketh the one to reach all as well as the other telling us Rom. 5 12. that by one Man sin â—ntered in to the world death by sin so death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned See vers 19. 2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person who could not beat that fulness of punishment which God might require for that great sin we cannot think that God should sit down with loss Ans. This is his second pillar But neither is it sufficient for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin but when the posterity is punished for that sin also that sin must be theirs Though for great crimes as Treason the like the Posterity suffeâ—eth when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin nor can be said to be so as we are punished for Original sin because it is ours we sinned in Adam 3. His 3d. maine pillar is the peculir near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person for then they were in it as it were a part or some what of it so that Adam was us all we were all that one Adam as Augustine speaketh the whole generation of mankind is but Adam or Adam's person expounded at large Ans. This is sufficient for us for it will hold forth the Covenant relation wherein Adam stood as representing all his posterity so they were as well in him a part of him in his sin as in his punishment which is all we desire for hence it appeareth that all sinned in that one Adam as well as they were all punished in him Then he tels us that all these three are jointly intimat Râ—â— 5 12. Where first there is the demerito Imported when death is said to enter the scantiness of Adam's person when it is said to have passed upon all men the relation of his posterity to him in that all are said to have sinned in him Ans. But the maine thing which he denieth is there also imported when it is said that all men sinned in him or became guilty of his sin for thereby it is manifest that only they had an interest in his person but that they had such an Interest in relation to his person as so stated as standing in a Covenant-relation to God that they sinned in him or became guilty of his sin therefore suffered with him the demerite thereof Whence it is evident howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207. That the Imputation of Adam's sin or of his sinful Act as sinful or as it was a sin not of the act as such for that himself faith once againe was directly efficiently from God himself therefore was good is the ground or cause of punishment that cometh on his posterity But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case it is of every mans own sin in Adam for is was Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him It is not said that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam Ans. If he wil stand to this we need not contend with him about the word Impute this expression of Scripture comprehending plainely holding forth all that we would say And if he will grant as much in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as is here said of Adam who was the type of him that was to come he must I judge retract all that he hath said against the same What followeth in that Chapter being but founded upon what is already mentioned examined needeth not here againe be repeated or expressed considered Thus we have taken notice of all which this voluminous Adversary hath said upon this matter both against the Truth for his own Errour no doubt he hath scraped together all that he could finde giving any seeming contribution unto the Notion which he hugged hath laboured after his usual manner to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence with an affected pedantrie of language supplying with bombast expressions the want of reality of truth solidity of reasoning What remaineth in that book concerning the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined when we come to the second part of our Text to speak of the matter of justification And as for other things we may take notice of them elsewhere CHAP. XIII M. Baxter's opinion Concerning Imputation examined THere being so frequent mention made in Scripture of Imputation of Righteousness or of Righteousness Imputed of Christ's being our Righteousness or of our being Righteousness or Righteous in Him the like many that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ maintained by the orthodox must yet yeeld to it in some sense or other at least in such a sense as may in their apprehensions not cross their other Hypotheses Dogmes Yea sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense at least in words which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary Schlightingius in defence of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant That Christ's Righteousness may be called accounted ours in so far as it redoundeth to our good righteousness is the cause of our justification And Bellarmin will also say de just lib. 2. cap. 10. That Christ is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the father for us so giveth communicateth that Satisfaction to us when He justifieth us that it may be said to be our Satisfaction Righteousness Mr. Baxter though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ yet will not professe himself an Enemie to all Imputation but on the contrary saith he owneth it in a right sense And it is true men have their own liberty in expressing their sense meaning of Truths where there seemeth to be some considerable difference as to words expressions yet there may be little or none upon the matter And it is not good I confess to make real differences of these that are but verbal nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions as to exaggerat the expressions of others whose meaning may be good because not complying with our own in all points Let us
therefore enquire after Mr. Baxter's sense see wherein he really differeth from us in this matter In his late Treatise of justifying Righteousness against D. Tully The first part as the Title page sheweth is of Imputed Righteousness opening defending the true Sense confuting the false Here then belike we shall finde his meaning as to this question In his preface to this book he giveth us his sense in these words That Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted Righteous because for the merites of Christ's total fulfulling the conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father by His Habitual Holiness His Actual perfect Obedience His Sacrifice or Satiâ—factory Suffering for our sins in our stead freely without any merite or conditional act of mans God hath made an act of oblivion Deed of Gift pardoning all sin justifying Adopting giving Right to the Spirit Life eternally to every one that beleevingh accepteth Christ the gifts with by from Him when we accept them they are all ours by vertue of this purchased Covenant-gift But this I Judge cannot give satisfaction for upon the grant of the Act of Oblivion as he calleth it which in his judgment is extended to all Mankind no man in particular can be called or accounted Righteous or have Righteousness imputed to him more than another so upon this account all are equally Righteous have equally Christ's Righteousness imputed to them that is no man hath it As for these Effects pardon justification Adoption Right to the Spirit to Life they cannot be called the Righteousness of Christ no more than the Effect can be called the cause And though they become ours when we accept them or rather when we accept of Christ yet upon that account meerly it can not be said that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us no otherwayes for that is nothing but the Socinian Concession formerly mentioned it cannot Satisfie the orthodox The questin is about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the Answer given is concerning the Effects thereof given to us But these Effects are not the Righteousness of Christ nor are they to be called a Righteousness nor are they in Scripture so called unless we say with Ioh. Goodwin that Righteousness Imputed is nothing but free justification Yea these Effects must presuppose a Righteousness in the persons receiving them either Inherently or by way of Impuâ—ation for God will justifie no man or declare no man to be Righteous who is not Righteous And concerning this Righteousness is our question And Mr. Baxter giveth us nothing here for this unless it be our beleeving this is that which Servetus Socinians Arminians say In opposition to this which he calleth a short plaine explication of Christianity he setteth down what others say as necessary to go in to our Christianity so tels us that according to them we must say That Christ was habitually actually perfectly Holy obedient imputatively in our particular persons thath each one of us did perfectly fulfill that Law which requireth perfect habites act in and by Christ imputatively and yet did also in by him suffer ourselves imputatively for not fulfilling it imputatively did ourselves both satisfie God's justice and merite heaven and that we have ourselves imputatively a Righteousness of Perfect holiness obedience as sinless must be justified by the Law of Innocency or works as having ourselves imputatively fulfilled it in Christ. And that this is our sole-righteousness that faith it self is not imputed to us for Righteousness no not a meer particular subordinat Righteousness answering the conditional part of the new justifying Covenant as necessary to our participation of Christ His freely given Righteousness As touching the latter part of this discourse about the Imputation of Faith its being called our particular subordinat Righteousness it is true Several of the Orthodox have appeared against it we shall also speak our judgment of it hereafter But as to the former part which is only pertinent to our purpose now in hand I know not if ever any Orthodox person uttered his minde after this manner Yea I wote not if Antinomians themselves have at any time expressed themselves in all points as is here set down But be it so that they have thus expressed their meaning that these expressions here set down are not meer Consequences Inferences drawn by Mr. Baxter himself from their opinions assertions yet Mr. Baxter cannot but know that the Orthodox are against them in these assertions as well as he to me it appeareth no faire to set down these words as containing that opinion which all must hold who cannot fully embrace Mr. Baxter's owne judgment as if there were no Medium betwixt the Socinian or Arminian judgment on the one hand the Antinomian opinion on the other hand whileas he cannot but know the contrary Nether is this a â—â—t sure way to cleare up the true sense of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness at least that sense which we owne In the Book pag. 24. he againe setteth down his own judgment or sense of Imputation which he taketh to be the true healing middle way Part whereof is as followeth That as Christ suffered in our stead that we might not suffer and obeyed in our Nature that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification and this in the person of a Mediator and Sponsor for us sinners but not so in our persons as that we truely in a moral or civil sence did all this in and by him Even so God reputeth the thing to be as it is and so far Imputeth Christ's Righteousness and Merites and Satisfaction to us as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious Cause of our justification that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ pardon and life to all that accept the gift as it is so that the Accepters are by this Covenant and Gift as surely justified and Saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had obeyed and satisfied themselves Not that Christ meriteth that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves and stand before God in a Righteousness of our own which will answere the Law of works and justify us but that the Conditions of the GÃft in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Beleever that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as God's Instrument and giveth them a Right to life eternal for Christ's merites As to this though it may seem faire a far advancement yet I shall crave leave to say these few things against it 1. When he saith That Christ suffered in our stead I would know in whose stead it was Whether it was in the stead of some select persons or in stead of all If in the stead of some select persons only then these select persons must
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 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
contrary to the manifest scope of the place He tels us n. 36. pag. 61. It is an errour contrary to the scope of the Gospel to say that the Law of Works or of Innocency doth justifie us as performed either by our selves or by Christ for that Law condemneth curseth us we are not efficiently justified by it but from or against it Ans. I shall not say that we are justified by the Law of works efficiently yet I hope Mr. Baxter will not say that upon the fall that Law or Covenant was quite abolished annulled if it was only dispâ—nsed with in order to the admitting of a Surety which it did not provide or give place to in its primitive Institution we may saifly say That it must be satisfied both as to the commands as to the penalty ere we can escape wrath obtaine Life for this Law said as himself confesseth pag. 63. Obey Perfectly Live sinne dye And though it condemne curse us sinners Yet it hath nothing to say against our Surety nor against any clothed with His Surety-righteousness whereby all the demands of this Law and Covenant were Satisfied Hence he inferreth n. 37. Therefore we have no Righteousness in Reality or Reputation formally ours which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency we are not reputed Innocent But only a Righteousness which consisteth in Pardon of all sin right to Life with sincere performance of the condition of the Covenant of Grace that is true faith Ans. If by formally ours he mean Inherently ours I grant what he here saith but I deny it if by formally ours he meane that by which we may be denominated formally Righteous for by Imputation we have a Righteousness whereby we are formally righteous legally Juridically this Righteousness must needs consist in conformity to the Lawes commands It is true we are not repute inherently Innocent Yet we are repute non-sinners legally hence cometh our Pardon Right to Life which of it self is no Righteousness but the Result of a Righteousness So that with him Beleevers have no Righteousness in order to justification but faith the Gospel Righteousness as was said above this he saith here in effect yet more plainely fully pag. 64. He addeth n. 38. pag. 62. our Pardon puts not away our guilt of fact or fault but our guilt of and obligation to punishment God doth not repute us such as neversinned or such as by our Innocency merited heaven but such as are not to be damned but to beglorified because pardoned Adopted through the Satisfaction merites of Christ. Ans. Though pardon as pardon will do no more than he here granteth Yet Righteousness justification presupposing Righteousness will take away the Reatum culpae not as if it would make us such as never sinned for that is Impossible but because by Righteousness imputed we are now reputed sinless Legally that is not guilty of the fact in order to punishment this must be that we may not only not be damned but may be glorifeed according to the Constitution that said Obey perfectly live And though now every pardoned man shall be glorified Yet that is not meerly and formally upon the account of Pardon but because no man is pardoned till he have the compleet Righteousness of Christ consisting in obedience and iâ— Suffering imputed to him whereby beside pardon he obtaineth a right to glory He cometh to cleare the matter of Imputation of Christ's Righteouss by the Imputation of Adam's sin which is a good Medium the Apostle going before us herein Rom. 5. And though he saith somethings n. 41. p. 65. wherewith I am not Satisfied yet I passe because not much to our present purpose come to n. 42. p. 66. where he saith As Adam was an head by Nature therefore conveyed guilt by Natural Generation so Christ is a Head not by nature but by Sacred contract therefore conveyeth right to pardon Adoption and Salvation not by Generation but by Contract or Donation So that what was to be Naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personally in existence even that it is in order to our benefite by Him to be in Christ by contract or the New Covenant virtually though not in personal existence when the Covenant was made Ans. As Adam was an Head by Nature so was he by Covenant and as Christ is an head by Covenant so is He an Head by supernatural Influences and conveyeth His blessings by Regeneration as well as by Covenant And therefore what was to be Naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personally in existence that is to be in Christ by supernatural Regeneration virtually And as his Effects of Adam's fall are conveyed by Natural generation so that we are made partakers thereof actually by actual partaking of our Natural being so the Effects of Christ's Righteousness are conveyed by Spiritual Regeneration we are actually made partakers thereof when we partake of this Spiritual being He proceedeth n. 43 They therefore that look upon justification or Righteousness as coming to us immediatly by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us without the Instrumental Intervention and conveyance or Collation by this deed of Gift or Covenant do confound themselves by confounding and overlooking the causes of justification That which Christ did by His merites was to procure the New Covenant Ans. Though the Instrumental Intervention of a Covenant be acknowledged Yet Righteousness must come to us immediatly by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness For His Righteousness imputed is our Righteousness and is only that Righteousness whereby we become formally Righteous in order to justification The difference lyeth here betwixt us Mr. Baxter thinketh thaâ— Christ's Righteousness is imputed in that it purchased the New Covenant and consequently is euqlly imputed to all for the Covenant with him is equally made with all and in and through the new Covenant which conveyeth pardon and life to such as performe the conditions thereof i.e. beleeve so are inherently Righteous these benefites are bestowed so Christ's Righteousness is not the immediat ground of our justification and Right to Glory but our own Personal Righteousness Faith called our Gospel-righteousness Christ's Righteousness is only the immediat ground of the Covenant being the Meritorious cause thereof the immediat ground whereupon our faith is so far advanced But our judgment is that though Christ convey the blessings purchased covenant-wayes yet the Covenant it self is not purchased by His Merites the way of conveyance is this that He first by His Spirit worketh the soul up to faith in Christ then communicateth Christ His Righteousness unto the beleever upon that immediat ground of Christ's Imputed Surety-righteousness whereupon they become Righteous in the sight of God they are justified pardoned receive a right to the Crown And though the difference here may appear to be but small yet to
Law of Innocency which we dishonoured broke by sin is perfectly fulfilled honoured by Him as a Mediator to repaire the injurie done by our breaking it Ans. The Law which the Devils dishonoured broke by sin was perfectly honoured fulfilled by the Angels who stood is therefore their Righteousness to be called the devils But he will say They obeyed not as Mediator True But then the ground of Christ Righteousness becomning ours must be some other thing than His honouring that Law by fulfilling it which we dishonoured by breaking But he saith Christ repaired the injurie done by our breaking it True yet 〈◊〉 there be no more that will not make His Righteousness ours because as is obvious ere this be we must have an Interest therein this obedience must be performed by Him a our Mediator Surety undertaking Satisfying the demands of the Law for us in our stead 2. In that saith he He suffered to satisfie justice for our sin Ans. Neither is suffering as such Righteousness Nor could He satisfie justice for our sin in by suffering if He had not done it in our stead as one Person with us in Law If Titius steal from Sempronius a 1000. Pound Maevius givius Sempronius a 1000. Pound upon some distinct account Sempronius receiveth no satisfaction for what Titius stole from him but if he come give it for Titius he be satisfied there-with then there is a Law Union oneness betwixt Titius Maevius whereby the Satisfaction given by Maevius becometh the satisfaction of Titius 3. He saith in that hereby He hath merited of God the Father all that Righteousness which we are truely the Subjects of whether it be Relative or qualitative or Active that is our right to Christ in union to the Spirit to Impunity to glory 2. the grace of the Spirit by which we are made holy fulfill the conditions of the Law of grace we are the Subjects of these he is the Meriter the Meritorius Cause of out life is well called our Righteousness by many the material Cause as our own perfect obedience would have been because it is the matter of that merite Ans. That Righteousness which he saith here Christ hath merited is not that Righteousness unto justification of life as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5 18. And which we have by the Obedience of Christ made ours by Imputation vers 19. whereof we are here speaking in respect of which Christ is said to be our Righteousness 2. Our right to Christ is not our Righteousness in order to justification nor is our Right to Impunity Glory that Righteousness but a consequent thereof 3. In respect of the Graces of the Spirit which follow justification do not preceed it Christ is called our Sanctification Mr. Baxter knoweth there is a difference betwixt Righteousness Holiness 4. The Meritorius Cause of our life is well called our Righteousness when it is Imputed to us put upon our score as the Ground of our justification Absolution upon this account only is it by many called the Material Cause 4. And also saith he Christ's jntercession with the Father still procureth all this as the fruit of His Merites Ans. Of Christ's procuring our holiness we make no Doubt but that upon this account He is called our Righteousness is denied for this is not His Obedience Righteousness whereby we become Righteous unto justification of life 5. And we are related saith he as His members though not parts of His person as such to Him that thus merited for us Ans. if we be related to Him as members in order to our partaking of His Righteousness Meritâ—s we must be parts of His legal Persons though not of His Physical Personâ— for by Members here I suppose he meaneth Members of His Mystical body or members of His Ransomed Redeemed body And head Members here make one Political body become one Political Person or one in Law-sense 6. And saith he we have the Spirit from Him as our Head Ans This is but what what was said before in the 3. place And this Spirit is given for holiness but Christ is our Righteousness as well as our Sanctification it is of His being Righteousness that we are speaking 7. And he is our Advocat saith he will justifie us as our judge Ans. His being our Advocat is the same with His Intercession spoken of in the 4. place 2. The Father will judge us justifie us by Him therefore God the Father shall be our Righteousness as well as Christ consequently shall have merited all for us by His blood Sufferings that in a more principal manner according to this Reason 8. And all this saith he is God's Righteousness designed for us thus far given us by Him Ans. But all this is not that Righteousness which God hath designed for us in through Christ in order to our justification nor that Righteousness by which we become formally Righteous in Law-sense thereupon are justified pronounced Righteous in the sight of God for this is Christ's Surety-Righteousness imputed to us none else can be it Lastly saith he And the Perfect justice holiness of God is thus glorified in us through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove that we justly owne all asserted by these Texts Ans. It remaineth to be cleared how the Perfect justice holiness of God can be said to be glorified in us through Christ if Christ's Righteousness Satisfaction be not imputed to us accounted ours Christ we be not looked upon as one Person in Law for all that is wrought in us is far from being answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God because of its Imperfection And because Mr. Baxter doth not grant the Imputing of Christ's Surety-righteousness which is only answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God unto us in all that he hath here said he cannot be said to owne all that is asserted by these Texts The 3. object is If Christ's Righteousness be ours then we are righteous by it as ours so God reputeth it but as it is But it is ours 1. by our Union with him 2. by his gift so consequently by God's Imputation To this he answereth 1. That he hath told before in what sense it is ours in what sense not Shortly here he giveth us his mind againe saying It is truely Imputed to us or reputed reckoned as ours but not in their sense that claim a strick Propriety in the same Numerical Habites Acts Sufferings Merites Satisfaction which was in Christ or done by Him as if they did become subjects of the same Accidents or as if they did by an Instrumental second cause But it is ours as being done by a Mediator in stead of what we should have done as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness
a bare may be of forgiveness by a New Covenant offering the same upon new termes What next Expositors saith he commonly say that to be made sin for us is but to be made a Sacrifice for sin so that Christ took upon Him neither our numerical guilt of sin it self nor any of the same species but only our Reatum poenae or debt of punishment or left the wranglers make a verbal quarrel of it our Reatum culpae non quâ talem in se sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae Ans. Yet some Expositors will say more and that in full consonancy with the Scriptures as Esai 53 6. And however all we say is hereby sufficiently confirmed for if He be made a sacrifice for our sins our sins must necessarily be imputed to him as the sins of the people were typically laid upon the Sacrifices and therefore Christ must have taken on Him not physically but legally our very numerical guilt without which he could not be accounted reus poenoe or obnoxious to our punishment What he meaneth by the reatus culpae qua talis in se he would do well to explaine If his meaning be that Christ was not legally accounted guilty this is denied for then he could not have been a Sacrifice for our sins to have died in our stead Wrangling is not good Yet Turpe'est Doctori c. He addeth And so His Righteousness is ours not numerically the same Relation that he was the subject of made that Relation to us nor yet a Righteousness of the same species as Christ's is given to us at all Ans. Though Christ's numerical Righteousness be not ours physically yet that same is made over to us legally as it is one the same Individual payment that is made by the Surety and made over in Law unto the debtor And therefore what he addeth is to no purpose But saith he His Righteousness is the Meritorious cause reason of another Righteousness or justification distinct from His freely given us by the Father Himself by His Covenant Ans. Righteousness and justification are not one and the same more than the cause is the same with the Effect As Christ's Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification so it must be legally made ours in order to our Justification otherwayes we cannot be accounted Righteous and legally free of the Charge brought in against us And this is not granted us by a Covenant with new Conditions in Mr. Baxter's sense as hath been evinced already Therefore he is in a great mistake when he concludeth that they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin it self in its formal relation to be His own so Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Redeemed set together they that will not overthrow the Gospel by making us formally as Righteous as Christ in kind measure must needs be agreed with us in this part of the controversie For we have shown how far we are from Blasphemy how groundless his Insinuation is founded only on his Physical or Metaphysical acceptation of things here which we understand only legally and juridically according to all right and reason And as for subverting of the Gospel it is one of our choise grounds of Reason against his way because by it the Gospel is indeed changed and the true and native Gospel-way of Salvation is indeed removed and a Sociniano-Armintan Gospel substitute in its room which is daily more and more confirmed by books coming out wherein Mr. Baxter's grounds are owned and more Socinianisme Arminianisme vented than Mr. Baxter himself hath yet had the confidence to express in his own books witness Mr. Allens discourse of the two Covenants ushered in with Mr. Baxter's preface and others of that kind much commended and cryed up by Mr. Baxter 9. Object When you Inferre that if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ we cannot be againe bound to obey ourselves afterward nor be guilty of any sin you must know that it is true that we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did which is to redeem us or to fulfill the Law of works but yet we must obey to other ends viz. in gratitude and in love to God and to do good and the like Though I think the objection is not so favourably proposed as it might be seing that end to Redeem should not here be mentioned for though it was the end of Christ's coming in to our Law-place yet it cannot be said to be properly the end of that Obedience he performed while he was in our Law-place proximely Let us see how ever what he saith to it 1. Hence saith he it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our persons legally but in the person of a Mediator seing His due obedience ours have so different ends and a different formal-relation His being a conformity proximatly to the Law given Him as Mediator that they are not so much as of the same species much less numerically the same Ans. I think rather that hence it clearly followeth that Christ did indeed obey the Law as it was the Condition of the Covenant of works in each of the Elect's person legally for though His Obedience and ours now after faith have far different ends yet His Obedience as Obedience to the Law of works had the same end that our Obedience should have had by that Law viz. the fulfilling of the same in order to the obtaining of a Right to Life and if not to lose all The Law given Him as Mediator taken in its latitude is not the Law whereof the objection speaketh for it speaketh of the Law of works under which Adam was and all his posterity in him and under the breach of which we lay And Christ's obeying in the person of a mediator doth not hinder His representing His own legally for He was such a Mediator as was a Sponsor and Surety and came in our Law-place and undertook our debt Therefore though Christ's Obedience to the special Law given to Him as Mediator was not of the the same kind with the obedience required of us yet the obedience He performed to the Moral Law in our place stead and as our Surety and Sponsor was the very same debt we were oweing He saith 2. Either this Obedience of Gratitude is a duty or not if not it is not truely obedience nor the omission sin If yea then that duty was made a duty by some Law And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude or for what ends so ever either we do all that we are so bound to do or not if we do it or any of it then to say that we did it twice once by Christ once by ourselves is to say that we were bound to do it twice then Christ did not all that we were bound to but half Ans. We distinguish betwixt the Law
granted as the Immediat fruites of His merites but He only merited the New Covenant wherein these favours are offered upon new Conditions 7 Thus Christ is made only a far off Mediating person procureing new and easier termes which yet are as Impossible to us till we be renewed by grace as the old but no Redeemer or Surety suffering and obeying in the room and stead of any 8 Thus are we justified by our own works of Evangelical Obedience 9 God is made hereby to repute a Right to Pardon Glory our Imperfect Evangelical Obedience to be an acceptable Righteousness the all of our Righteousness all which are against the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed to us in the Scriptures as hath partly been discovered already will further appear by what will hereafter come to be spoken unto CHAP. XVI Mr. Baxter's Further opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness examined WHat Mr. Baxter's opinion is about the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in order to our justification we have hitherto been enquireing though in his book against D. Tully while he is giving an historical relation of the Controversie he plainely enough declareth that he is of the judgment as to the maine with Iohn Goodwine yet he there as we have heard so stateth the question against which he disputeth as the Orthodox will not owne it wherein he dealeth not so ingenuously with us as Mr. Goodwine did He will not deny that there is a midway betwixt the Socinians Papists Arminians on the one hand the Antinomians on the other though the Middle way which he hath seâ— down in his Confess pag. 152 153. c. seemeth to me not be the just orthodox way but to incline more unto the Socinians c. for all the Imputation which he seemeth to owne is nothing else than what Papists Socinians Arminians will subscribe unto for beside what we have seen examined above Chap. XIII XIV in his book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 179. he hath these words I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu And what found sense is he tels us in a parenthesis that is saith he 1. per Donationem ejus fructus and 2. per adjudicationem justitiae nobis inde promeritae that is to say by giving us the fruits thereof 2. by adjudging to us Righteousness thereby purchased which two seem to me to be but one the last being comprehended in the first so all the Imputation by him granted is only in respect of the fruits thereof which are given And will not Papists Socinians Arminians yeeld unto this Imputation Nay doth not Bellarmine come a further length in the words formerly cited Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. part 2. of Moral morks giveth us here there while speaking of other things without any apparent Connexion choosing this way rather than to give us his whole sense of that matter in one place together which might have been some ' ease to such as were desirous to know the same but I know he is at liberty to follow his own wayes methods some hints of his mind and that rather of his dissatisfaction with the orthodox and their manner of expressing their Thoughts Conceptions in this matter than any full positive declaration of his own Thoughts about the question We shall having seen examined his own judgment shortly here examine what he is pleased to say in one place or other of that Book so far as we can finde may be done without repetition against our doctrine Only we shall premit some few of his own words in the Appendix to the Premonition p. 2. whereby we may see how small the difference would appear to be how little cause he had to write so much against the Orthodox as he doth He there saith 14. No man is saved or justified but by the Proper Merite of Christ's perfect obedience Yea and His habitual holiness Satisfactory Sufferings advanced in dignity by His Divine Perfection 15. This Merite as related to us supposeth that Christ as a Sponsor was the Second Adam the Root of the justified the Reconciling Mediator who obeyed perfectly with that Intent that by His obedience we might be justified who suffered for our sins in our room and stead so was in tantum our Vicarius poenae as some phrase it or Substitute was made a curse for us that we might be healed by his stripes as He was Obedient that His Righteousness might be the reason as a Meritorious Cause of our justification which Supposeth the relation of an Undertaking Redeemer in our Nature doing this in our stead so far forth as that therefore perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by ourselves And Righteousness therefore is Imputed to us that is we are truely reputed Righteous because we as beleeving members of Christ have right to Impunity life as merited by His righteousness freely given to all penitent beleevers And Christ's own Righteousness may be said so far to be Imputed to us as to be reckoned reputed the Meritorious cause of our Right justification as aforesaid One might think the difference now to be little or none but all this is but Sutable to what is already examined and what might here further be animadverted upon will occurre hereafter He beginneth Sect. 8. n. 119. to speak against the Doctrine of Imputation taught by the Orthodox I shall yeeld to him that Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane Habitual active or Passive is not given to us or made ours truely and properly in a Physical sense as if the same were transfused in upon us Yet the same being imputed to us is made ours more than in the meer Effects for according to the Gospel methode beleevers being by Faith interesâ—ed in Him have an Interest in His Surety-righteousness as to its vertue force and efficacy or as the cause and that morally and legally so that Christ and beleevers are one person in Law Noâ— do we hereby say That Christ's Merite Satisfaction are reputâ—d by God to be inherent in us or done by us in our own proper persons or that in a sence Natural we did all these things ourselves or that God judgeth us so to have done or that all the Benefites of Christ's Righteousness shall as fully and Immediatly be ours as if we bad been done Suffered merited and Satisfied in and by Christ. But we say that Christ being a Surety putting himself in our Law-place putting as it were His name in our Obligation being thereunto Substitute by and accepted of the Father His Satisfaction obedience being performed by Him in our Law-place as a Surety voluntarily taking on the obligation is accounted in Law and justice to be ours who beleeve in Him to all ends and uses that is in order to justification pardon and Right to Glory and that as
our concernment to enquire after know the way how adult persones come to partake of these Privileges 5. We do not here speak of that Justification which some call a Iustification of the cause and distinguish from that which they call a justification of the person for that is but the justification of a person falsly accused as to some particular as David was frequently accused of many things by his Adversaries of which he was Innocent laying to his charge crimes he knew not about which he was in case as we finde he did several times in his Psalmes to appeal unto God the righteous Iudge being conscious to himself of no guilt in the particulars alledged knowing his own innocency in the sight of God who knew all things Such was the matter of that question concerning Job's sinceritie so much agitated betwixt him his friends in the book of Iob and at length decided in Iob's favours by God himself for though this was not concerning one or a few particular acts but concerning his whole deportment and concerning his State before God upon the account of his deportment and the Lord's dispensations with him yet it was a justification of his Cause rather than of his Person for in the justification of our Persons we have to do immediatly with God and not with man and the question was properly about a matter of fact to wit whether he had been a real beleever or an hypocrite though such a matter of fact as meerly concerned his whole State 6. Nor do we here speak of that justification even as to our state which is before men or in the judgment of men which oft proceedeth upon mistakes and unsure grounds as the now-mentioned instance of Iob's friends evidenceth and so varieth according to the various judgments apprehensions of men yea and of the same Man at several times according as the grounds whereupon he judgeth are to him clear or dark Neither is this sentence or judgment of men who are but fallible and judge by outward appearance not being able to see into the heart and judge how matters are there alwayes according to truth even though according to that judgment of Charity which the Law of God requireth Nor is it Constant and equable 7. Nor do we speak of that Iustification whereof the Apostle Iames speaketh Chap. 2. which is not the justification before God whereof the Apostle Paul speaketh in his Epistles but the evidencing proving and demonstrating thereof by effects and works obvious to the eyes of others and demonstrative of the cause Those I grant will oft admit of an intercision through Temptation and the prevalency of Corruption and so the cause or true justification may as to this manifestation he eclipsed though not in it self 8. Far less do we here speak of a groundless fancied supposed justification whether in the apprehension of deluded persons themselves or of others for this is no true Iustification but a meer delusion as to themselves and a conjecture as to others and the sooner this be quite cast away and renunced the better 9. Nor do we here speak of that Iustification which is in the court of mans own conscience or as it is there and opposed to that Iustification which is in God's court for it is certaing this Iustification which is said to be in the court of conscience is but a manifestation of the other unto the mans conscience and is some times had sometimes missed sometimes it is more clear some times more dark and therefore can be oft repeated and reiterated and intended and remitted yea and some may for a long time if not their whole life time be wholly without it Walking in darkness without all light as to this some may once get a cleare sight thereof and never see more of it till nigh the landing in eternity yet all this while the Iustification which is in the court of God remaine fixed invariable and without any interuption 10. By Justification here we meane not that which some call a Particular justification and do distinguish it from an Universal Iustification by this understanding an universal pardon of all sins past and committed and by the other understanding a particular pardon of this or that sin that is committed after the man hath been universally pardoned and accepted of God and now pardoned after a new act of faith in Christ Though it be needless to debate whether this Particular Pardon can be called a Iustification or not yet it is certaine it is not that Iustification whereof Paul speaketh so much and explaineth in all its causes in his Epistles nor that Iustification which connoteth a change of State before God and the translation of a person out of an estate of Enmity into an estate of Favour and Friedshipe in reference to which there must be a juridical sentence passed in the favours of the man through the impured Righteousness of Christ received by Faith while as this posterior act of pardon of a particular transgression is rather a Fatherly act pardoning the failing of his Son receiving him againe into his Fatherly embracements 11. Nor finally do we here speak of that sentence of Absolution that shall be pronunced at the last day for howbeit that may be called a Iustification yet it is not that Iustification whereof we are now speaking it doth not make such a change in the state of such as are thereby absolved as this doth and therefore in respect of this it is rather a publick Declaration and Manifestation before Angels and Men of their Iustification or being in a Iustified state who shall be adjudged unto eternal life than any Iustification connoteing a change of state seing none in that day will be justified but such as have been here partakers of this Iustification whereof we speak they who have been in heaven will need none such as have been in hell will expect none none of the living who have not by faith laid hold on Christ will hear any other sentence then depart from me ye cursed 12. The justification then whereof we here speak is That change of state before God which such are made partakers of as lay hold on Christ by faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ whereby they are brought into an estate of Favour Reconciliation with God who were before under his Wrath Curse and upon which they have all their iniquities whereof they are guilty actually pardoned are accepted of as Righteous and pronunced such through the Surety-Righteousness of Christ imputed to them and freed from the sentence Curse of the Law under which they were lying That we may cleare the nature of this life of Justification as to its continuance we shall lay down these few Propositions Propos. 1. Justification denoteth a State wherein the beleever is brought a real change as to state as a man accused of some crime keeped in prison till he be tryed
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
of nature if not also in order of time And if matters be thus sins are first forgiven and then Faith is imputed 2 If the supposing of a righteousness will follow to wit Remission of sins then there is no answere to the argument for the argument speaketh of a Righteousness anterior to Justification and in order there unto 3 It is againe said but was never proved that to forgive sins is to give a Righteousness And I would ask what for a Righteousness this pardon of sins is is it a Righteousness perperly so called But that cannot be for all such Righteousness consisteth in obedience to the Law therefore it must be a Righteousness improperly so called if so it cannot be called our formal righteousness as he said it was 4 When he saith we are made righteous in justification yet will not grant an Imputed Righteousness and his Remission of sins is not yet found to be a proper Righteousness the sense must either be Popish or none at all I shall not here adde other reasons against this Assertion whereby it might be made manifest how dangerous this Opinion is if it be put in practice how it tendeth to alter the Nature of the Covenant of Grace It may suffice at present that we have vindicated these few reasons against it that we have found it in the foregoing Chapter inconsistent with the doctrine of grace in the New Testament repugnant to the Nature of Justification as declared explained to us by the Apostle and that we shall finde it in the next Chapter without any footing in the Apostles discourse Rom. 4. which is the only place adduced for its confirmation CHAP. XXIV The imputation of Faith it self is not Proved from Rom. IV. THe maine if not only ground whereupon our Adversaries build their Assertion of the Imputation of our act of Beleeving is Rom. 4. where they tell us the Apostle doth frequently expresly say that Faith is imputed unto Righteousness We must therefore in order the vindication of truth vindicate this place from their corrupt glosses to this end we shall first show that that can not be the meaning of the Apostle in this place which our Adversaries contend for next we shall examine what they say to enforce their Exposition of the place That the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 4. where it is said Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousness afterward his faith is counted for righteousness and faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness c. is not that Abraham's act of beleeving was accounted the Righteousness whereupon he was accepted was imputed unto him as a Righteousness in order to his justification and consequently that the act of Beleeving is now imputed to Beleevers for their Righteousness as said Servetus Socinus his followers Arminius his followers Papists others that I say this is not the true meaning of the place may appear from these particulars 1. If the act of Beleeving be accounted a Righteousness it must either be accounted a Perfect Righteousness or an Imperfect Righteousness If it be accounted for an Imperfect Righteousness no man can be thereupon Justified But Paul is speaking of a righteousness that was accounted to Abraham the father of the faithful in order to Justification that behoved to be a perfect righteousness for all his works wherein was an Imperfect Righteousness were rejected It cannot be accounted for a perfect righteousness because then it should be accounted to be what it is not and this accounting being an act of God's judgment it would follow that the judgment of God were not according to truth contrare to Rom. 2 2. The reason is because our faith is not perfect in it self there being much drosse admixed many degrees wanting in it far lesse can it be a Perfect Righteousness seing a Perfect Righteousness must comprehend full Obedience to the whole Law of God 2. The Imputation whereof the Apostle speaketh is of some thing to be made the Beleevers by the Imputation of God which the Beleever had not before But this cannot be Faith or the work of Beleeving because Faith is ours before this Imputation for Abraham beleeved God then followed this Imputation and vers 24. it is said that it to wit some other thing than the act of beleeving shall be imputed to us if we beleeve therefore it is not the act of Beleeving properly taken that is imputed or accounted here 3. Faith being antecedent to this Imputation if the act of Beleeving be imputed the word impute or account here must not signifie to Bestow Grant or Reckon upon their score but simply to Esteem Judge or Repute and thus Faith or the act of beleeving shall be in a beleever and yet not be a Righteousness till God repute it to be so But when God esteemeth judgeth or reputeth any thing to be in us he doth not change it nor make it something that it was not before but judgeth it to be what it is indeed for his judgment is according to truth Rom. 2 2. 4. This sense glosse is quite opposite unto and inconsistent with the Apostles maine scope in the first part of that Epistle which is to prove that Righteousness is now revealed from faith to faith Rom. 1 17. and that we are not Justified by the works of the Law but freely by grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3 24 25. And therefore not through the Imputation of Faith the act of Beleeving or any work of Righteousness which we have done for that should not exclude boasting or glorying but through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ received by Faith 5. That which was accounted to Abraham for righteousness did exclude all works and that to the end that all ground of boasting even before men might be take away vers 2. 3. Therefore Faith as a work or the act of beleeving can not be it which is here said to be reckoned or accounted to Abraham for righteousness for this is a work and being made the Ground Formal Objective Cause of justification can not but give ground of glorving before men 6. This glosse maketh the Apostles discourse wholly incoherent for he saith vers 4 5. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned ef grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth tht ungodly his faith is counted for Righteousnese Now if Faith properly taken be imputed the reckoning shall be of just debt for to reckon a men righteous who is righteous antecedent to that act of accounting is no act of grace but of just debt but Faiths being accounted for Righteousness is an act of grace and therefore it must be the Object of Faith or the Righteousness that Faith laith hold on that is here said to be counted upon
had been reckoned to Adam if he had stood of debt not simplie and absolutly but ex pacto by reason of the compact So that we see the cases run parallel the Covenant is of the same nature kinde The difference betwixt the Power granted to Adam now to man to performe the conditions required is with him the same upon the matter for if man will go the length he can may he may be sure of God's help to convoy him all the length he should And what had Adam more And as for the diversitie of the conditions which then were Perfect Obedience now only Sincere that can make no alteration in the Nature of the Covenant and beside I see not why this Man can not as well say that if man now will go as far as he may can by his own stock of power unto the performance of Perfect Obedience God will certainly give him his help to carry him forward as he saith that if man will now go all the length he can unto the performance of Faith Repentance new sincere obedience God is ready willing to contribute his help to carry him forward thereunto 5. He confoundeth the right to with the possession of life eternal as to their Causes Antecedents for as new holy Obedience is by us made the way to the possession of the Kingdom so by him it is made the way or cause of the Right jus to the Kingdom for he requireth it as antecedent to a mans Justification first being brought into a Covenant state with God when he first receiveth the Right to the inheritance And thus the Inheritance is made to be of the Law not of promise contrare to Gal. 3 18 for the whole and sure Right thereunto is had by Obedience to the Law with him I shall say no more to this here because there is a sufficient confutation of this to be found in Mr. Durham on the Revel pag. 234. c. where that digression is handled concerning the way of Covenanting with God of a sinner obtaining of Iustification before him And in all such as write against Papists and Sociniant on this head But if it be asked may not faith be called our Gospel-Righteousness be said to be imputed to beleevers as such a Righteousness without any wrong done to the Righteousness of Christ which keepeth still its own place of being our legal or pro legal Righteousness I Ans. Though it be true that Faith is now required of all that would be Justified yet I no where finde that it is called our Gospel Righteousness and I judge it not saife to admit expressions without warrand of the word in this tender matter especially such expressions as have a manifest tendency to corrupt rather then explicate the truth in this particular as I judge will be found true of this expression for how beit it be said by the Asserters thereof that Faith is but a less principal Subordinat Righteousness Yet in effect according to their explication of the whole doctrine as may be seen by this Treatise last mentioned answered it is made the Principal only Righteousness that is imputed to us for Christ's Righteousness say they is only imputed as to is effects or in its causality See Baxter against D. Tully p. 70. just as Suarez said de divin gr lib. 7. de sanct hom c. 7. § 39. cited by Mr. Rutherfoord Exercie Apel. Exerc. I. c 2. pag. mihi 64. the merites of Christ are not given to us that we might be formally justified but that they may be a price wherewith we may buy a Righteousness whereby we may be formally justified as he who giveth a price to another whereby he may buy clothes is said to clothe him not foomally but effectivly morally as is manifest And even as to these effets it dependeth wholly upon Faith and this Faith is only said to be properly imputed for our Righteousness And beside they tell us that the Righteousness of Christ is alike common to all to the Reprobat as well as to the Elect and so it can be imputed properly to none And as to its effective â—mputation as Suarez calleth it or Imputation as to its effects or in its causality as others speak after that it is offered held forth to all hath the same common effects unto all untill the condition be performed that dependeth wholly upon mans performance of the Condition And as to its antecedent effects it is equally absolutly imputed to all that is it is imputed to none but the effects thereof are equally made common to all in making Salvation possible the condition to be faith and the like And as to the special effects as they may be called which depend on faith when one beleeveth so fulfilleth the Condition he hath thereby a Gospel-Righteousness or this Faith of his is reckoned upon his score for a Gospel-Righteousness thereupon he receiveth Pardon Justification c. Now let any Judge whether or not these effects are not more the effects at least more immediatly of their own Gospel-Righteousness than of Christ's for Christ by all his Righteousness did purchase these effects to all a like that conditionally and now they themselves by their own personal Gospel Righteousness of Faith do make an actual purchase of these effects according to the Covenant ex pacto And to say That Christ did by his merites purchase the New Covenant doth but confirme what I have now said towit That all that which Christ procured was That all such as should acquire a Gospel-Righteousness of their owne shonld be justified c. And thus Christ died to purchase a vertue merite to our faith that to this end it should become a Gospel-Righteousness whereby they might have whereof to boast to glory before men at least Hence we see that Christ's Righteousness might rather be called the Subservient ours the Principal And further which may justly make Christians ab horre this opinion Thus this poor convinced sinner pursued by justice for a broken Law is called to leane his whole weight of Acceptance with God found all his hope of Pardon Justification upon his own Faith or Gospel Righteousness as the only Righteousness wherewith he is to be covered the only Righteousness which is imputed unto him not upon Christ his Righteousness for what Christ did or purchased was common to all had only a conditional vertue which the personal Righteousness reduceth into act so must have a principal share of the glory for as to what Christ did Iudas had the same ground of thankfulness praise that Peter had Peter no more then Iudas and thus Peter was to sing the song of praise for his Justification Pardon unto his own personal Faith Gospel-Righteousness If this be not the Native result of this doctrine let any put it in to practice which I shall be
than Justification c. And though it be true that in this case what is inconditione non est in obligatione as to the actual possession yet we cannot think but the holy Just God having received satisfaction from the Mediator in behalfe of such for whom it was laid down is under an obligation as we may conceive and speake unto the Mediator to cause him see of the travel of his soul to give him his seed and those he purchased and in due time to call them effectually work Faith in them then Justifie c. Adopt them c. thus bestow all the benefites purchased upon then in the time methode wisely determined But if Mr. Baxter understand by this jus actuale that is constituted upon the performance of the condition a plaine and simple Right unto the benefite we can acknowledge no such Condition lest we render the death of Christ void for in him alone have we all our Law-title Right to all the blessings of the Covenant to Faith all that follow upon it That we may put an end to this we shall first shew in what sense we cannot admit Faith to be a Condition then shew in what sense we do admit the denomination As to the first we say 1. We cannot admit it to be a Condition in their sense who will have Justification so to depend upon it as on a Procuring Cause some way or other meriting at least ex pacto or ex congruo as Bellarm saith that benefite as a Reward for this destroyeth the Freedome of Grace that shineth forth in our Justification overturneth the whole nature of the Covenant of Grace spoileth Christ of his glory and doth man to come in as a sharer in the glory of that purchase 2. We cannot admit it to be a Condition in their sense who take a new Obedience with it for this taketh away the special Use of Faith and its special End in laying hold on refuging the soul under the wings of the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ This changeth the nature of the Covenant of Grace maketh it a new Covenant of Works giveth ground of boasting of glorying before men yea maketh the reward of Justification and what followeth thereupon to be of debt not of grace And such a Condition in the Covenant of Grace we cannot owne 3. We cannot admit it to be a Condition in their sense who make it strickly a Potestative Condition placeing it in the power free will of man to beleeve or not as he will for as this overturneth the whole Covenant of Grace and exalteth proud man so it parteth at least the glory of Redemption betwixt Christ Man giveth man ground to sing to the praise of his own Lord free will to say he hath made himself to differ he oweth but halfe thanks hardly so much to Jesus Chaist for all that he hath done and suffered in order to the purchasing of Salvation 4. We cannot own it for a Condition in their sense who make it or it our new obedience together our Gospel-Righteoâ—sness that Righteousness which only is properly Imputed to us Reckoned upon our score as the Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified for thus the nature of the Covenant of Grace is changed God is made to estimate that for a Righteousness which is no fulfilling of the Law Christ is made to have procured that it should be so that his own Surety-Righteousness should no otherwayes be imputed 5. We cannot account Faith a Condition in their sense who ascribe to it or to it with works the same Place Use Efficacie in the new Covenant that Perfect Obedience had in the old Covenant of Works for this maketh the New Covenant nothing but a new Edition of the old and shooteth Christ the Lord our Righteousness far away who is should be our immediat Righteousness that in him we might be found hid secured from the dint of the Law-Curse and with all giveth proud man too palpable ground of boasting contrare to the whole Contrivance of the Gospel-Covenant 6. We cannot owne it for a Condition in their sense who reject it and disowne it for an Instrument or an Instrumental Meane in our Justification because they deny that particular and special Use which it hath in our Justification so pervert its whole Gospel-Nature It s special use work in Justification being to lay hold on the Lord Jesus his side jussorie-Righteousness to carry the Man out of himself as renuncing his own Righteousness every thing that is not Christ his Righteousness that as poor empty naked he may lay hold on rest upon the Surety-Righteousness of the publick person Cautioner Jesus Christ for thus Christ his Righteousness are put by and he getteth not that rent of glory that is only due to him the soul is made to leane upon something beside this Rock of ages 7. We cannot admit it for a Condition in their sense who will have us hereby to have gotten a legal Title or Right unto Justification other benefites according ... following the same seing this puts the crown upon Mans head as having by his deed acquired a jus Law-right unto these blessings which become hereby a reward not of grace but of just debt We acknowledge all our Right Title to all the blessings of the Covenant to be from Christ the only purchaser of him must we hold all that all may be of free grace he even he alone may have all the Glory having redeemed us with his precious bloud purchased the whole Inheritance of grace glory for us 8. We cannot account it a Condition in their sense who plead for Universal Redemption because thereby Christ is only made to have purchased something to all alike that Conditionally no more grace glory for Peter than for Iudas but Peter by his own Paines Industrie by his Faith New Obedience did purchase the whole personal and immediat Right unto the blessings which he enjoyeth and hath received no more from Christ than what Iudas had so hath no more ground of exalting him for Redeemer than those have who perish seing what he purchased was common to all no more for one in particulur than for another for this setteth the crown upon mans head who hath saved himself by his sweating paines labour and spoileth our Lord Redeemer of his glory 9. Nor can we account it a condition in their sense who will have the whole or principal part of what Christ purchased to be the New Covenant the Termes Conditions thereof as if Christ had been a Cautioner for none in particular but had so far redeemed all as to have brought them into such an estate wherein they might now work won for themselves run fight for the prize according to
knoweth that the orthodox do of purpose call faith an Instrument in justification in opposition to the Papists that Christ may weare the honour alone and man may be abased if they have been unhappy in falling upon the medium to that end Yet their Intention was honest But when Faith is called an Instrument in justification justification is not taken for an act of accepting pardoning alone for they knew that it was God only that accepteth pardoneth that it is he only who Justifieth but they took justification in a more comprehensive sense as including Christ's Righteousness the only formal ground of justification in reference to which Faith is said to act as an Instrument receiving And this may satisfie such as will not have the mysteries of God cast in a pure Philosophical mould because some such termes are used for explications sake Mr. Baxter Confess p. 95. saith Such as say faith justifieth qua instrumentum de most certainly make it to justifie as an action And in his postscript to Mr. Cartwright Those that make faith to justifie as an Instrument or as apprehensio Christi do set up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere which they cry down for that which they call instrumentality is the apprehensive act apprehendere credere are here all one They contradict themselves in saying that Paul excludes all works because faith say they justifieth not as a work for to justifie qua instrumentum or qua apprehensio Christi is to justifie as a work or as this work And so this doctrine sets up justification by works that in an unlawful sense for it maketh the formal reason of Faiths justifying to be its apprehension that is that it is such an action or its instrumentality which is an operation Ans. This is no new Objection for Schlichtingius the Socinian Cont. Meisnerum p. 130. did object the same upon the matter It is true when we say faith Justifieth as an Instrument we make it to Justifie as an action taking qua specificativè as he himself also must do when he faith it justifieth as a Condition Potestative for a potestative condition is some action performed himself as we heard called it actio voluntaria de futuro But he knoweth that when it is said that Faith justifieth as an Instrument the meaning is but more emphatically to shew that it is the Righteousness of Christ which faith apprehendeth by which we are justified that they who cry up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere make that the Righteousness by which we are justified so that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere in their sense who will have it imputed to us for Righteousness respecteth immediatly the benefite to wit Pardon Acceptation c. Faith as an Instrument or apprehension in our sense respecteth Christ his Righteousness immediatly which it receiveth as an Instrument in order to the benefite which is had upon the account of Christ his Righteousness made ours In our sense faith is no more but as the hand receiving bread and as the mouth eating it in order to food nourishment thereby in their sense faith is made the very food nourishment or meat it self that nourisheth When we say that Faith Justifieth as an Instrument it is but as if we said man liveth by his hands taking meat and by his mouth eating it when they say that faith justifieth as a work that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed for Righteousness it is as if they said the hand the mouth are the very food or the meat it self by which we live and are nourished we looking upon Faith as an Instrument as upon the hand and mouth as instruments of nourishment ascribe all the vertue of nourishment unto the meat They denying the hand and the mouth to be considered here as instruments and saying that we live and are nourished by the hand and the mouth just as they do when they make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere our Righteousness in reference to justification ascribe all the vertue of nourishment unto the hand the mouth and so set up the hand the mouth in the place that is due unto the meat and rob the meat of that power vertue that is only proper to it Yet withall when we say that hands and mouth nourish us as Instruments we do not deny but in a general sense our receiving of meat with our hands eating of it with our mouth are conditions of nourishment importing hereby that the wise God hath appointed this order and methode giving us hands to receive meat mouths to eat it a stomach to digest it in order to the living and receiving thereby nourishment only we do not say they are such conditions as have all the vertue of nourishment in them This is but a similitude and so must halt in some things as all similitudes do yet it serveth to illustrate the matter and to shew the difference betwixt our expressions and the expressions of our Adversaries in this matter how little ground there is so this objection and particularly how when we say faith justifieth as an Instrument we do not withall say it justifieth as a work in our Adversaries sense And how when we say Faith is a condition we do not withall say that it justifieth as a potestative proper condition in our Adversaries sense as also how we cannot admit that faith shall be called no more than a causa sine qua non seing it is so manifest that eating digesting of meat hath another influence into nourishment by food than a meer causa sine qua non hath into any effect Mr. Baxter Confess p. 95. 96. I must therefore professe that after long consideration I know no one terme that properly expresseth this neerest formal interest of faith in justification but only the terme condition as that is usually taken for the condition of a free gift when the Scripture telleth us how faith justifieth it is in such termes as these if thou confess with thy mouth c. he that beleeveth shall be saved c. In all which if the conditional if the conditional forme of the promise express not a condition I despaire of ever understanding it in this life Ans. As for the neerest formal interest of Faith in Justification if all other questions touching that fundamental truth of Justification were satisfyingly determined put to an end there needed not be much controversie but when as we have seen the decision of this hath such an interest in the decision of more substantial points or necessarily attendeth the same enquirie with sobriety after the truth even in these lesser things cannot be condemned And on the contrare receding from condemning received termes expressions which have an obvious plaine sound meaning being taken according as they have been constantly used because not quadrating every way with mens new Philosophical
justified CHAP. XXIX What Interest Repentance hath in our Justification IN reference to the clearing of this Question about the Interest of Repentance in Justification it will not be necessary to speak much of Repentance it self the premitting of a few things will be sufficient unto our purpose The Hebrew word which is rendered repent is of a general signification for it signifieth to return whether from a place or from the distemper of our minds or from our former courses so denoteth a motion or change of the body from one place to another or of the mind from any purpose or of the whole way walk and in special it sometime signifieth a change of the whole man to the better both as to his Mind Resolution and Deportment thus denoteth a mans turning unto God And accordingly we read in the New Testam of the Prodigals coming or returning to himself or to his right mind wits and we heare of Repentance towards God In the N. Testam there are two greek words the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing such a change as it attended with after care the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying such a change as denoteth after-wit or after thought Some do so difference these two as that they say the last signifieth so to sorrow for what is done as to amend it called by the latines Resipiscere therefore properly is meaned of a good saving Repentance wherein the penitent returneth to his right wits so as to reforme amend what hath been amisse and the other denoteth properly care anxiety solicitude after something done called by the Latines poenitere and this may be used in an evil sense as denoting properly no change of minde or carriage to the better but simply such a trouble anxiety for what is done as maketh them wish it were not done whether the thing done was good or evil But in the New Test. we finde not this difference constantly obsérved for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken both in a good sense for a good Repentance saving Mat. 21 32 29. and for a common Repentance that is not saving Mal 27 3. where mention is made of Iudas repenting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that cometh therefrom import a good saving Repentance except Heb. 12 17. What this word denoteth when used of God either affirmativly or negativly we need not here enquire It is more for our purpose to consider that Repentance may be taken in a threefold sense 1. for a common work of legal sorrow through conviction of hazard because of sin whereby the man may rew be grieved be sorrowful for what he hath done and wish he had not done it as Iudas repented of his wickedness This may be and yet not be attended with Pardon of sins And as to such in whom the Lord purposeth to carry on the work of Condition Humiliation untill it come to real Conversion and an Union with Christ though it may be called a conditio sine qua non of Justification Pardon in such in regaird that usually if not alwayes the Lord premitteth some thing of this as to some sensible measure or other unto his more gracious workings yet this Common Repentance hath no proper interest in justification cannot be called a Condition thereof far less a Cause seing in it self it hath no certain connexion with justification though it be an antecedent in the justified yet it may be and often is where no justification followeth being in many nothing but the sorrow of the world that worketh death 2. Cor. 7 10. But 2. There is a Repentance that is only peculiar unto such as are already Justified Pardoned following upon flowing from the sense and intimation of Pardon expressed by Self-abhoring Self-lothing Melting of heart and Tenderness the like so Ezek. 16 63. That thou mayest remember be confounded never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame when I am pacified toward thee c. So Ezek. 36-25 26 27 28. comp with vers 31 See also Ier. 31 19 20. Neither can this be called or accounted a Condition of Justification Remission because it manifestly followeth not only Justification Remission itself but also the sense and intimation thereof therefore cannot go before it But. 3. The greatest difficulty is anent that work of Repentance which is a saving work of the Spirit going a longs with Faith ariseing from the sense of sin committed and the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ causing spiritual kindly griefe sorrow and indignation at themselves and their sinful wayes with an hatred of sin a fixed purpose to forsake it and to turn to the Lord this is frequently mentioned in the Scriptures Now this Repentance may be considered two wayes first as it is in these in whom the Lord is working a work of Conversion whom He is translating out of dearkness in to the Kingdom of his dear Son and Secondly as it is in such as are already brought in to a justified state after new sins committed As to this last we will have a fit occasion to enquire afterward how or what way it is required in reference to Remission Pardon of after-sins The first falleth now under consideration because we are speaking of Justification which holdeth forth a change of state as was formerly explained That we may therefore proceed the more distinctly in this Inquisition we must fiâ—st take notice of the several senses of the word or of the termes equipollent in Scripture and see what is properly denoted there by And 1. Sometime it denoteth most griefe sorrow or that which is called contrition or that part of Repentance as Luk. 10 33. where it is explained by sitting in sackcloth ashes Ier. 8 6. No man repented him of his wickedness saying what have I done Thus it may also be taken 2. Cor. 11 21. that I shall bewail many which have sinned already have not Repented of the uncleaness fornication lasciviousness which they have committed Here I say it may be looked upon as mostly denoting this part of Repentance though not as excluding the other parts 2. Some time it denoteth mostly a change of former courses wayes whether of errour as 2. Tim. 2 25. If God per adventure will give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the truth or of Conversation called Repentance from dead works Heb. 6 1. So 2. Chron. 7 14. it is called a turning from their evil wayes from sins Ezek. 18 21. It was said to Simon Magus Act. 8 22. repent of this thy wickedness See Rev. 2 21 22. 3. Sometime it denoteth the whole work of Conversion turning unto God Act. 26 20 that they should Repent turn to God where the latter expression is but exegetick of the former So also Act. 3 19. Repent ye therefore be converted where both expressions
to say we are Justified by Repentance as we are justified by Faith It is best for us to follow Scripture language The Scripture expresly denieth that we are justified by works yet Repentance is sometimes taken in such a large sense as to include all acts of Obedience This way then would allow us to sav we are justified by all works of obedience even as to constitutive Justification as we are by Faith Yet Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 89 90. putteth a difference betwixt Faith Evangelick Obedience as to this Constitutive Justification making the one like consent to marriage relation or taking one to be my Captaine the other like conjugal fidelity obedience or obeying the captain sighting under him tels us that he no more comprizeth all Obedience in Faith than conjugal obedience in the marriage consent 3 That Repentance is not the same with Faith in the matter of justification in reference to which we now speak of both will appear from our following reasons So that whatever paines be taken to make them one on other accounts will be to no purpose as to our present business 2. If Repentance have the same interest in Justification that Faith hath then works shall have the same interest with Faith but this is diametically opposite to all the Apostles disput Rom. 3. 4. Gal. 2. 3. The reason of the Consequence is because Repentance includeth works is a special work act of obedience itself Mr. Baxter tels Confess p. 94. That Paul's scope is both to take down Moses's Law especially its necessity conceited sufficiency the Dignity of legal works consequently of any works that therefore by works Paul meaneth to exclude only merites or works which are conceited Meritorious or which for the worth of the dead done should procure Pardon acceptance with God without a Mediators blood so Paul himself described the works that he speaketh against Rom. 4 4. That they are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt Ans. This is but the same we heard before from Iohn Godwine and the same answer may suffice 1 If the scope of Paul had been only to take down Moses's Law why did he speak so much of the Gentiles shew how they were all under sin therefore must be justified by Faith not by the Law or by works This had no manifest tendency to that scope 2 Why brought he in the Instance of Abraham who was before the Law of Moses Abraham's not being justified by works could not prove the insufficiency of Moses's Law thereunto 3 To think that the Jewes did conceite that they would obtaine Pardon Acceptance with God only by their laborious performance of Ceremonies costly Sacrifices excluding all Moral acts of obedience is apparently groundless contrary to Rom. 9 30 31 32. 10 3 4 5. would say that Paul took not a right medium to destroy that conceite for his neerest surest course had been to have shown the nullity of that Law now under the Gospel hereby all occasion of further debate being perfectly removed 4 Paul is so far Rom. 4 4. from describing the works that he speaketh of to be such only as make the reward of debt that he proveth that Justification cannot be by works by this medium because then the reward should be reckoned not of grace but of debt and so telleth us that all work make the reward of debt This is a manifest perversion of the Apostles argument for he saith not now to him that so worketh as to conceite his works meritorious the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt but now to him that worketh far less can this be the meaning or construction of the words now to him that maketh the reward to be not of grace but of debt for what sense is here And further the meaning of the following words must accordingly be this but to him that so worketh as not to make the reward of debt but of grace his working is counted for Righteousness While as the Apostle saith a plaine other thing But to him that worketh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Sure working without this conceite of merite is not beleeving on him that justifieth the ungodly neither are these works counted for Righteousness for holy Abraham wrought without that conceite yet he was not justified by works vers 2 3. Nor did David meane that mans blessedness did consist in the imputation of such works nor did he describe that blessedness when he said blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Consider 1. Cor. 4 4 Ephes. 2 9. Phil. 3 9. Tit. 3 5. 3. Repentance hath no instrumentall acting on Christ his Righteonsness in order to our being justified But Faith hath this as was shown in the foregoing Chapter Therefore Repentance hath not the same Interest in Justification that Faith hath It is requisite necessary in order to our Justification that we be clothed with a Righteousness even the Surety-Righteousness of Christ and Faith only can lay hold on this put it on not Repentance Repentance doth not act so upon any thing without a man to bring it home that it may become the mans Righteousness it hath other work acteth upon another object upon sin within the man It is true Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. of God's Government Sect. XI will have faith rather to be called a receiving cause than an Instrumental a medium or dispositive cause of the effect justification as as received but not as given And then Sect. XII he calleth Repentance a disposit to materiae recipientis too a part of the condition of the Covonant But we think it needless here to distinguish with him betwixt receiving Iustification being Justified we do not call Faith an Instrument of God's act Justifying as was said above If Faith Repentance be dispositive causes of the effect causa dispositiva be part of the causa materialis as he also saith I suppose they are not meer causae sine quibus non as he said elsewhere But to our business we have cleared before how â—aith acteth in the matter of Justification how it receiveth an imputed Righteousness laith hold on this Surety-Righteousness of Christ applieth it to the end the accused impeached man may have wherewithall he may stand before the Tribunal of God be accepted of as Righteous in his Cautioner through his Cautioners Righteousness imputed to him now received by Faith though Mr. Baxter do account Faith's accepting of Christ life offered on that condition only its aptitude to the office that the formal reason of its office as to our Justification is its being the performed condition of the Covenant as he there speaketh yet that will not invalidat our argument for 1 Faiths aptitude as he calleth it or
the Inheritance or would receive them But all this is nothing to our present question Obj. 4. He citeth in the Margine Luk. 24 47. And that Repentance Remission of sins should be preached in his name And Luk. 15 7. I say unto you that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth Ans. This last place maketh no mention of Pardon or of Justification only saith that Repentance will Include Faith doth import the whole Conversion of a sinner unto God whereof Faith in Christ is the first chiefe step As to the other place we told before that by Repentance here is understood all that duty which is called for in the Gospel this being a short summe of the whole preaching of the Gospel that therefore by Remission of sins all the blessings favours that sinners need are promised in the Gosspel must be understood So that this maketh nothing against us Yea if these two expressions were strickly to be taken it would give ground to inferre that Repentance alone were the Condition of Remission But what saith all this to the purpose now in hand do any of these expressions give the least coloure to inferre that Repentance strickly taken hath the same use Interest in Justification that Faith hath Obj. 5. Others possibly may urge Act. 8 22. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee Ans. 1 If this place prove any thing that way it will say as much for the Interest of Prayer in Justification equal to the Interest of Faith as for the Interest of Repentance 2 Yea plead for these only with exclusion of Faith or at least for the Sufficiency of Repentance prayer without Faith which is not here expresly mentioned 3 But Repent here is taken in a comprehensive sense as including Faith its ground Cause whereof it is the expressive evidence sensible effect So that the presence of Repentance in such as would be Pardoned may hence be well inferred which is granted necessary upon several accounts but the present question is whether it hath the same Place Office Influence in Justification Pardon that Faith hath Obj. 6. It may be some will fâ—rther object Luk. 13 3 5 except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish And this likely was the passage which Mr. Baxter cited in the first place the printer putting vers 35. for 3. 5. through a mistake But I Ans. This place only proveth what is not denied to wit That Repentance is necessarily required of such as would be saved And if hence it be inferred that therefore not only its presence but its interest is the same with Faiths in Justification the Interest of good works of all commanded duties may be hence inferred to be the same with Faiths in justification because these are as necessary in order to Salvation as is Repentance Obj. 7. Prov. 28 13. He that covereth his sin shall not prosper but who so confesseth forsaketh them shall finde mercy Ans. 1 If forsaking of sin be here taken strickly for Repentance if this place be urged pertinently to the point now in hand Confession of sin will be made to have the same influence will be made more necessary than Faith it self which is not here expresly named 2 Finding mercy is not strickly to be understood of Justification or of meer Pardon but is to be taken more largly for Felicity here hereafter as being opposed to a not prospering And so hence can only be inferred the necessity of the presence of confessing forsaking of sin in such as would finde grace mercy in the eyes of the Lord would prosper in all their wayes Obj. 8. Christ is sent to preach good tidings to the meek the broken hearted the mourners to such as are under the Spirit of heaviness Esai 61 1 2 3. Ans. This place indeed proveth that Christ was annointed to preach good tidings unto the meek to binde up the broken hearted to comfort all that mourne to appoint give unto them beauty for ashes the oile of joy for mourning the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness but here as the Repentance imported is something more than ordinary as the expressions intimate so the good that Christ is here said to be sent to do unto them is something more than ordinary to wit Comfort Joy in an high measure which is more than meer Pardon or Justification some pardoned justified may stand in need hereof being indeed mourners in ashes under a spirit of heaviness notwithstanding of their being in a justified state So that this place cometh not home to the point now in question Obj. 9. Is not this to favoure the Antinomians who say that Repentance is needless and is a meer legal duty neither to be urged nor practised under the Gospel Ans. Though we say that Repentance hath not the same Place Office Interest in about Justification Remission of sins that Faith hath Yet we give no countenance unto the Antinomian errour because we affirme Repentance to be necessary in all such as are Justified and the real beginnings of Gospel Repentance to be also necessary unto such as are to be justified I say the beginnings because I conceive the principal parts or workings of saving Gospel-Repentance follow faith and upon Faith in Christ is the union betwixt Christ the Beleever made and the man brought into a justified state Seing then we presse urge the exercise of Repentance as a constant duty require it in all such as would enjoy Peace Comfort here be saved here after we yeeld nothing unto the Antinomians And against them we urge the same Scriptures that have now been alledged others also as irrefragable proofs of the necessity of this grace though to other ends than to be justified thereby in such manner as we are said to be Justified by Faith Obj. 10. Do not our Divines ordinarily say prove that Faith Repentance are Conditions of the Covenant of Grace I Ans. True but their meaning is not that Repentance is the same way a Condition of Justification that faith is but that terme Conditions of the Covenant they take largely to wit to signifie import the duties required of such as are within the Covenant of Grace not strickly for Conditions of entering into Covenant These two are carefully to be distinguished many things may be called the Conditions of marriage that is duties of married persons to other that can not be called Conditions of making up the marriage Relation as is manifest so is it here Many duties are required of Beleevers that neither are nor can be called Conditions of Justification or of entering into Covenant with God Obj. 11. But do not many both in sermons in writtings even when speaking of Pardon of justification joyn Repentance with
Christ the ground meritorious cause thereof is a far other thing And when he saith Apologie ag Mr. Eyre § 4. that he is well content to call Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction the matter of ours and that the imputation of Christ's Righteousness taken for Donation is the forme of Constitutive Iustification that sentential adjudication of Christ's Righteousness to us is the forme of our sentential Iustification That Faith in order to Justification doth in a special manner eye the Righteousness of Christ is clear from Esai 45 24 25 Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness then followeth In the Lord shall alâ— the seed of Israel be justified This truth is also clearly held forth when faith in the matter of Justification is called faith in Christ's blood Rom. 3 25. for when faith laith hold on the bloud of Christ it cannot but lay hold on his Surety-Righteousness whom God set forth to be a Propitiation and in through whom there was a Redemption wrought vers 24. for this hlood was the Redemption-money the price payed in order to Redemption 1. Pet. 1 18 19. And the blessedness of Justification is through the Imputation of Righteousness without our works Rom. 4 6. and therefore faith in order to the obtaining of this blessedness must eye and relye upon this Righteousness which is the Righteousness of him who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our Justification vers 25. where we may also observe a manifest difference betwixt this Righteousness which consisteth in his being delivered for our offences and our Justification the one being the Cause as was said the other the Effect Moreover this same truth is clear from Râ—m 5 17. where we read of the receiving of the gift of righteousness which is by faith and that in order to a reigning in life by one Jesus Christ where also we see a difference put betwixt this gift of Righteousness Reigning in life which is also more cleare in the following vers 18. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto Iustification of life this righteousness of one to wit one Jesus Christ is the Cause and the Iustification of life is the Effect And further this difference is againe held forth vers 19 20 21. Our being made Righteous is different from the obedience of one Christ Jesus and by the Imputation of this Obedience to us do we become Righteous as our being made sinners is different from Adam's act of Disobedience and we are made sinners by the Imputation of it to us And as sin death are different when it is said that sin hath reigned unto death so Eternal life is different from Righteousness when it is said so might grace reigne through righteousness unto eternal life We need say no more of this seing it clearly followeth from what was formerly at length confirmed to wit That justification is by the Righteousness of Christ imputed CHAP. XXXIV Faith in Justification respecteth not in a special manner Christ as a King but as a Priest MR. Baxter did long ago in his Aphorismes tell us That the Accpting of Christ for Lord is as essential a part of Iustifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour that is as he explained himself That faith as it accepteth Christ for Lord King doth justifie And this was asserted by him to the end he might cleare confirme how Sincere Obedience cometh in with Affiance to make up the Condition of Justification for his Thesis LXXII did run thus As the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts Subjection is as essential a part of Justifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath at much to do in justifying us before God as Affiance which is the fruit of the later Hence the question arose and was by some proposed thus Whether faith in Christ qua Lord be the justifying act or whether the Acceptation of Christ as a Lord and not only as a Priest doth justifie And Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 35. § 13. saith that it is not only without any ground in God's word but fully against it to say that faith justifieth only as it apprehendeth Christ as a Ransome or Satisfier of justice or Meriter of our Iustification or his Righteousness as ours not as it receiveth him as King or as a Saviour from the staine tyranny of sin I have shewed before that the moving of this question is of little use in reference to that end for which it seemeth it was first intended to wit to prove that Sincere Obedience hath as much to do in Justification as faith or Affiance hath where I did shew the inconsequence of that consequence That because Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as King Therefore Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification yea or therefore a Purpose or a promise of Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification So that in order to the disproving of that Assertion that maketh obedience or a Purpose or a promise of obedience an essential part of the Condition of Justification we need not trouble ourselves with this question Yet in regaird that the speaking to this may contribute to the clearing of the way of Justification by faith which is our great designe we shall speak our judgment there anent And in order thereunto several things must be premitted As 1. The question is not whether Christ as a King belongeth to the compleet adequate object of that faith which is the true justifying faith for this is granted as was shown above this faith being the same faith whether it be called True Faith or Saving Faith or Uniting Covenanting faith or Justifying faith it must have one the same adequate Object 2. Nor is the Question whether Faith in order to Justification doth so act on Christ as a Priest as to exclude either virtually or expresly the consideration of any other of his offices or of Christ under any other of his offices for under whatever office Christ be considered when faith acteth upon him whole Christ is received and nothing in Christ is or can be excludeth So that there is no virtual exclusion nor can there be any express exclusion of any of his offices when he under any other of his offices is looked to a right received for such an exclusion would be an open rejection of Christ and no receiving of him 3. When we speak here of receiving of Christ as a Priest or in respect of his Sacerdotal Office it is all one as if we named his Sacerdotal work or what he did in the discharge of that office offering up himself a Satisfactory Sacrifice and giving his blood and life for that end and suffering inwardly outwardly what was laid upon him by the Father in order to the making of full Satisfaction to justice
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
heirs of God joynt heirs with Christ Rom. 8 17 and are discharged as Mr. Baxter granteth himself Confess p. 102. Concl. 9. from all guilt of Eternal Punishment yea of all destructive Punishment in this life Yea they are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law Act. 13 39. They are blessed Rom. 4 5 6. And all this is so fixed that none can lay any thing to their charge Rom. 8 33 34. Yea they are said to have Everlasting Life Ioh. 5 24. Now seing all this is by Faith what necessitie is there for another Condition beside this same Faith keeping fast by Christ unto the Continuance of this State If it be said that notwithstanding hereof they are liable to future sins and these must also be forgiven and in reference to the Pardon of these other Conditions may be required in that respect these may be called Conditions of the Continuance of Justification 4. The answere to this will furnish us with another Argument for answere therefore I say That works are not the Condition of Pardon of after sins but faith going to Christ and washing in his bloud 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. If any man sin we have an advocat with the Father Iesus Christ the Righteous he is the propitiation for our sins Christ is here proposed to sinning beleevers in his Priestly office as the object of their Faith in order to Pardon And Mr. Baxter in the forecited place Concl. 11 saith that when ever the Iustified do commit any sin they have a present effectual certaine remedie at hand for their pardon that is the merit of Christ's blood his Intercession the Love of God the Promise of Pardon in which they have interest the Spirit to excite them to Faith Repentance No word of works of obedience as Condition here David in order to the obtaining of the pardon of his sin did betake himself to the free mercy of God that he might get his sin covered his iniquities forgiven and his sin not imputed unto him Psal. 32 1 2. and this was in Paul's judgment Rom. 4 6 7 8. a betaking himself to imputed Righteousness without works So he betook himself to mercy and withall he desired to be purged with hysope Psal. 51 1 7. which looked to the blood of Christ that only sprinkleth consciences Heb. 9 13 14 22. 5. If Justification be continued upon Condition of works we enquire what these works are Are herein comprehended all commanded duties or all that is required of justified persons by way of duty then a faloure in any of these whether by Omission or Commission should cause an intercision of that State and a breach of that Relation But this is utterly false Yea if so the justified should become Unjustified every day for no man liveth sinneth not The reason of the Consequence is because the non-performance of the Condition upon which the State Relation of the justified is continued must make a breach in that State If it be said That not every sin but only such sins as are inconsistent with the State of Justification will make an Intercision Then it must consequently be said that upon these alone or on the non-performance of these alone doth the Continuance of Justification depend as on a Condition And what be these David's sin I hope nor Peters sin were none of these And whatever they be I suppose it will be granted except by Arminians that there is sufficient provision against these laid-in in the New Covenant of Grace and that such as are justified indeed shal never fall into such sins And then what need it be said that the State of Justification is continued upon such termes 6. By this way Proud Nature should have occasion to boast and say It was of God's Grace Mercy that I was brought into a justified State had all my former sins pardoned but for my abiding continueing therein and for the pardon of all my sins that I have committed or do commit since I am beholden to my own Gospel-obedience immediatly for Remission is granted and my Justification continued upon Condition of my personal Gospel-obedience But how inconsistent this is with the whole straine of the Gospel cannot be unknown We no where read that our sinnes are pardoned or not imputed to us in or by our Evangelick Obedience but as we are justified freely by grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom. 3 24. so it is in through Him his bloud that we are washen our sinnes purged away Mat. 26 28. Revel 1 5. Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. 7. The dayly experience of the people of God may cleare to us what that is upon which their State is continued and upon which they seek obtaine new Remission of their new Transgressions and shew us that it is not their own personal Obedience but the Grace Mercy of God in Jesus Christ for it is to this they betake themselves daily both in reference to their being keeped in the favour of God in reference to their getting new extracts of Pardon It is to the blood of sprinkling they goe dayly that there they may be washen cleansed from all their sins sailings It is to this fountaine opened to the house of David to the Inhabitans of Ierusalem that they run with their sins uncleannesses Zach. 13 1. For it is his bloud alone that cleanseth from all sin 1. Ioh. 1 7. And so they finde by experience that they stand only by Faith and that it is through Faith in this bloud that they are keept in the favoure of God get their sins pardoned These proofs may serve for confirmation of what we say Let us now see what Mr. Baxter saith for the contrary In his Confess p. 47 he adduceth three Arguments The first is this The word expresly constituteth these Conditions of our not-loseing our State of Justification or of Continueing it And this he tels us he hath formerly shewed in many Scriptures meaning I suppose the passages he had immediatly before cited on the margine But to these I Answere in general That not one of them maketh mention of the continuance of our justification or of our not loseing of it And therefore it cannot be said from these that the word expresly constituteth these Conditions of our not-losing Justification But we shall consider them particularly Mat. 12 36 37. speaketh not of justification whereof we are now treating but of the last judgment and we see no cause of confounding this Justification whereof we speak or its Continuance with the last Judgment as Papists do confound their second justification with this judgment and abuse the same Scriptures here adduced by Mr. Baxter the like to prove their second justification to be by works Jam. 2 24. speaketh not of the Continuance or not losing of justification but of the very beginning of justification
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
understand their meaning but against such as will seek knots in rushes and raise dust in the most clear aire for their own ends there is no remedie I am afraied the point of difference shall be found such here as that our agreement shall not be expected in â—haste unless our sobriety be such as well make us embrace inconsistences Let us hear what he saith No wise man can dream that we may trust to those for more than their proper part as that we may trust them to do anything proper to God to Christ to the Spirit to the promise c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own Faith or holiness when it soundeth absolutly or may tempt the hearers to think that they may trust them for God's part or Christ's part not only for their own is a dangerous deceiving course Ans. It is true no wise man will say that we may trust to these for more than their proper part but when we are mistaken about their proper part conceive them to have that place part which they have not and accordingly trust unto them do we not amisse And Mr. Baxter maketh it their part to be the immediat meritorious cause expacto which he otherwayes expresseth to be the Potestative Condition of Justification Salvation which we say is the part of Christ his Righteousness alone And sure who ever shall trust unto them for this part which according to the Gospel is Christ's part trust unto them for more than their proper part Neither is it any dangerous or deceiving course to speak thus when the meaning is obviously known except to such as have wit enough to darken things to be this that we must not Trust to Faith c. as the price the merite ex pacto as perfect obedience was under the first Covenant of our Justification Adoption Salvation But it is a most dangerous deceiving course to call them only Conditions or cause fine quibus non when in the meane time they are made to have the same place in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old are made our Gospel-Righteousness for which we are justified yea put in the same place that the Orthodox put Christ his Surety Righteousness that is to be the immediat ground formal cause Ratio formalis objectiva of our Justification What more But that really they may be trusted for their own part and must be so no sober person will deny for so to beleeve obey pray to God c. not to trust to them in their place that is not to think that we shall be ever the better for them is unbeleefe indeed distrusting God saying it is in vain to seeke him and what profite is it that we call upon him such diffidence despair will end all endeavours Let every man prove his own work c. This is our Rejoicing c. If we are justified by Faith we may trust to be justified by it But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture the danger of it must make us never use it without need Ans. As I said all the question is concerning what is their own part And by saying that they are not to be trusted unto we deny them to have that part or place in the matter of our Justification Salvation that others give unto them And if there were no more this is a shreud ground of presumption to us that Mr. Baxter owneth not the Orthodox doctrine in this matter viz. That he cannot with patience heare it said That we must not trust to our own Faith Repentance or Holiness but accounteth such expressions dangerous aud deceiving 2 It is but a wrong gloss put upon this expression We must not trust to our own Faith c. to make the meaning of it to be we must not think that we shall be ever the better for our Faith c. And therefore his following words are vaine and to no purpose 3 It is one thing to trust to be justified by Faith which is but beleeve God and trust in his word and a far other to trust in our Faith For this is to lay our stress lean our weight found our hopes of Justification Salvation on our weak feckless Faith in stead of trusting to relying upon Jesus Christ his Surety Righteousness as the only immediat ground as that Righteousness by upon consideration of which we are justified have a Right to Glory And if Mr. Baxter do not see a difference betwixt these two it is not because he cannot but because he will not as some may suppose 4 He talks of the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture but I would know where he findeth it used at all iu Scripture And it is well that he confesseth there is danger in it which two me thinks should be enough to make him as great an enemie to this expression as we are But the truth is according to his principles we are as much now to Trust to our Faith Repentance Holiness in order to Justification Salvation as Adam was to trust to his perfect obedience according to the Covenant of works as much as according to our doctrine we are to trust to Christ his Surety-Righteousness CHAP. IV. The Law by the works whereof Paul denyeth that we are justified is not the jewish Law WE finde the Apostle Paul directly proâ—essedly proving concluding that we are not justified by the Law nor by the works of the Law Yet such as differ from us about the interest of works in justification not being willing to yeeld submit unto the truth do seek what Evasions they can to evite the force of the Apostles a gueings peremptour Conclusions and therefore say that Paul is to be understood as speaking only of such or such a Law excludeth only such such works in which they think they may yeeld unto what the Apostle saith the same being limited restricted according to their own minde and yet do no prejudice to their own Hypothesis But yet what this Law in particular is and what are the works thereof our Adversaries are not at all agreed among themselves but some imagine one thing and some another as we shall heare Some by the Law and the works thereof which Paul excludeth from justification do mean the Ceremonial Law and the Observances thereof or as others express it the Iewish Law including their judaical Law so understanding hereby all that Law which is called Moses's Law this is owned by some Papist's as Bellarmine sheweth us De justif Lib. 1. Cap. 19. but he himself rejecteth it upon this ground that the Apostle Rom. 4. Ephes. 2. Tit. 3. doth simply exclude works making no mention of the Law of Moses The Socinians do chuse this way of interpreting the Apostle as perticularly may be seen in the Author of a book inâ—â—â—â—led Consensus
Merites of a Mediator he argueth against justification by the Law the works thereof And according to the Apostle's Methode do we argue 3 To cover Justification by our own inherent Righteousness having the same place in the New Covenant which inherent Righteousness Obedience had in the old by these fine words Faith a Practical beleef of the Gift acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts is not such ingenuous dealing as the Importance of the matter requireth But this will be clearer by what followeth But saith he the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians that is with such a penitent thankful accepting practical beleefe or affiance to beleeve in God as the giver of Salvation in Christ as the Redeemer his Spirit as our life Sanctifier and to accept Christ and all his procured Benefites Iustification Life as purchased by his Sacrifice Meritorious Righteousness given in the New Covenant on this Condition and so to give up ourselves to his whole saving work as to the Physician of our souls only Mediator with God This is the summe of Paul's doctrine on this point Ans. Not to speak of this matter here which is elsewhere done I shall only say that we are not enquiring after the true way of Righteousness but after the true way of Justification before God And enquire where the Apostle teacheth that all the Righteousness required unto justification must be within us none at all imputed as this Summe holdeth forth Where he teacheth that this faith including works all obedience is the only meane of justification Where he teacheth that this inherent imperfect Righteousness of ours is the immediat ground and meritorious Cause ex pacto of our justification Salvation Where he teacheth that Christ's Righteousness is no otherwise ours than as purchasing the New Covenant wherein our own personal Righteousness is made the Potestative Condition of our Justification Salvation And yet these and several other Particulars of this alloy doth Mr. Baxter hold forth as taught in Scripture as hath been seen elsewhere CHAP. V. Works excluded in Justification are not works only done before Faith nor perfect works required in the Law of Innocency nor outward works only THe other Evasion which such as plead for the Interest of Works in Justification fall upon to evite the dint of the Apostle's argueing concludings against Works is That by the works of the Law which Paul excludeth from justification works are meant which are done before Conversion Faith by the strength of Nature not the works of grace done after This is the Evasion of Bellarmine others But against this we have these Reasons to propose 1. When the Scripture saith we are justified by faith the meaning is that so soon as a soul beleeveth in Christ by a true Faith he is justified before God But this opinion saith That a man is not justified when he beleeveth in Christ No not untill he performe Works of Righteousness after he hath beleeved And thus we may conceive a man to be a beleever yet not to be justified which is contrary to the Gospel 2. If we were justified by the Works of Regenerat persons we should be justified by works that are imperfect and consequently by an imperfect Righteousness for these works being made our Righteousness if we be justified by them as our Righteousness we must be justified by an imperfect Righteousness for they are not perfect neither as to parts nor as to degrees Esai 64 5. 1. Ioh. 1 8 10. 1. King 8 46. 2. Chron. 6 36. Eceles 7 20. 3. Regenerat persons have renunced their own Righteousness in the matter of justification before God therefore they judged that they were not justified thereby And this is registrate in the word for our Instruction example that we may learne also to renunce our own works in this business The Antecedent is clear from these Instances 1 David saying Psal. 130 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquity o Lord who shall stand And in opposition to this he betakes himself to free Remission saying vers 4. But there is forgiveness with thoe So Psal. 143 2. And enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified So that if God should enter in judgment with the best even with his servants they could not expect to be justified by their works even by their best works So when he saith Psal. 32 1 2. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sin is covered c. he renunceth all justification by the best of his works for Paul Rom. 4 6 7. giveth the meaning hereof to be that David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works 2 Paul also renunceth his Righteousness in this matter that several times for he saith 1. Cor. 4 4. for I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified And he speaketh of himself while in the State of Regeneration So Gal. 2 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ not by the works of the Law And Phil. 3 9. he desired to be found in Christ not having his own Righteousness which is of the Law No man can think that by his own Righteousness here he meaneth only works done before he was regenerate 4. The Instances whereby Paul proveth Justification by Faith without the works of the Law confirmeth this that works after regeneration are excluded as well as works before for 1 Abraham was a regenerat man when his saith was said to be imputed to him Rom. 4 1 2 3. compared with Gen. 15. for before this time Gen. 12 1. he obeyed the call of God by faith Heb. 11 8. See also Rom. 4 9 10 11. 2 David another Instance of Justification by Faith was also regenerat when he was justified as Paul cleareth Rom. 4 6 7. by the imputation of a Righteousness without the works of the Law 5. The Apostle excludeth simply the works of the Law from being the Righteousness of any in point of justification And we have no warrant to except or distinguish where the Law excepteth not nor distinguisheth The works of Regenerat persons are works works of the Law as well as any other And Paul doth absolutely simply exclude works the works of the Law from being the ground of justification 6. By what reason can it be evinced that the Law or the Works of the Law signifie works before Regeneration or works done before faith more than other works Do these words carry this sense where ever they are used Or can it be demonstrated that they carry this express sense any where 7. Are only regenerat persons said to be under the Law Now the Apostle speaketh of all the works of
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
Cor. 11 3. Ephes. 4 15. 1 22. Col. 1 18. And so must have a body Ephes. 1 23. Rom. 12 5. Ephes. 4 4. Col. 3 15. 1 24. 2 19. Ephes. 4 16. 5 23. 3 6. He is called the Vine stock shall he have no Brancnes Ioh. 15 1 2. c. These things might be further enlairged pressed but we shall haste forward 19. Our Adversaries say That Christ by his Death passion did Absolutely even according to the Intention of God purchase Remission of sins Reconciliation with God and that for all every man Others say conditionally But withal as to the application of this purchase it is made to depend upon faith and so they distinguish betwixt Impetration Application And though it is true the purchase made is one thing and the actual enjoyment of the thing purchased is another thing Yet we may not say with our Adversaries that the Impetration is for moe than shall have the Application But we assert that both Impetration Application in respect of the designe of the Father which is absolute certain and the Intention of Christ the Mediator which is fixed peremptory are for the same individual persons so that for whomsoever God sent Christ Christ came to purchase any good unto these same shall it actually in due time in the Method manner Condescended upon prescribed be given upon them none else shall it actually be bestowed for 1. No other thing beside this Application can be supposed to have been the end of the Impettation And sure Christ was herein a Rational Agent Nay it was the Intention designe of the Father that the Application of these good things should be by the meanes of this Impetration as is abundantly cleared above 2. We cannot suppose that either Christ or his Father should faile or come short of their end designed but by our Adversaries the Impetration might have been obtained and yet no Application made of the good things impetrated obtained 3. If no Application was intended by the Father or by Christ then it must be said that both were uncertain as to what the Event should have been or at least Regardless Unconcerned either of which to affirme were blasphemy 4. The very word Impetrate having the same force import with Purchase Procure Obtaine Merite and the like doth say that such for whom this Impetration was made have a right upon the Impetration to the thing Acquired Purchased And if they have a right thereto that Possession should follow 5. Yea the word importeth the actual conferring of the good to be the very end of the Purchaseing Impetrating and so in this case the very Impetration is ground of Assurance of the Application considering who did impetrate and at whose hands and withall what was the ground of the Fathers sending of Christ and of Christs coming to impetrate even inconceiveably wonderful great Love Nor doth the intervening of a condition required before the actual collation of some of the good things purchased hinder at all for all these Blessings some whereof are as a condition to others are the one good thing Impetrated and the very conditions are also Impetrated as we declared above and so this pointeth forth only the methode of the actual bestowing of these good things purchased 6. How absurd is it to say a thing is Impetrated or Obtained and yet may or may not be Bestowed may be Possessed or not Possessed Or to say that such a good thing is Obtained by price or petitioning and yet the same good thing may never be Bestowed or the Bestowing of it hangeth dependeth upon an Uncertain Condition which may never beperformed 7. How unreasonable is it that such should have right to the Merites that have no right to the thing Merited Doth not an interest in the Merites procureing any thing include an interest in the thing Merited When a ransome is payed for captives to the end they may be delivered have not these Captives a right to the deliverance upon the payment of that ransome 8. The Scriptures do so connect these two that it argueth contempt thereof to imagine such a separation as Rom. 4 25. Yea the one is assigned as a certain Effect Consequent flowing from the Other as its Moral cause Esai 53 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many this Justification is the Application whence cometh it For he shall bear their iniquities there is the Impetration given as the ground hereof So further vers 5. he was wounded for our transgressions c. and what followeth upon this Impetration And by his stripes are we healed So Rom. 5 vers 18. By the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification So that the Application reacheth an all that is all who have interest in the Righteousness which is the thing Impetrated see also Heb. 10 10. 9. If Christs Intercession be for the same persons for whom he died then the Application is to the same for this Intercession of Christ is in order to the Application But that Christs Intercession is for the same persons for whom he died we shall see hereafter 10. If all things be ensured to such for whom Christ died then certanely this Application cannot fail but the former is true Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his owne Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not mark this manner of expression which importeth the greated of absurdities to think otherwise with him also freely give us all things 11. And in that same place vers 33 34. Christs death is given as the certain ground of Justification Salvation so that such as he died for shall certanely in due time after the methode prescribed be Justified Saved otherwayes there were no sure ground in the Apostles argueing for if all the ground of this certanty as to Application were from their Faith or fulfilling of the Condition the Apostle would have mentioned this as the maine ground not have led them to a ground common to others who never should partake of the Application 12. This matter is abundantly confirmed from what we said above concerning Christs purchasing of Faith and dying for our sanctification to bring us to God c. so that more needeth not be added here 20. For further confirmation of this and because our Adversaries think to salve the fore mentioned separation of Impetration Application by telling us that where good things are Absolutely purchased then Application must follow But not where good things are purchased only Conditionally as in our case we shall therefore shew how this will not hold nor advantage their cause for 1. If all be Redeemed Conditsonally that condition whatever it be must in equity be revealed to all 2. Either God Christ knew who would performe this condition or not If not then they were not omniscient If they
him in that Right as justification properly is no Meane to or Cause of pardon and Acceptation of Sinners but rather the solemne bringing of them into or placeing of them in that state of peace Pardon and Reconciliation who beleeve in Jesus and lay hold on His Righteousness What he speaketh of the opposition betwixt the Law and the promise in giving of life from Gal. 3 21. is most Impertinent so also is that which he saith from Gal. 2 21. for though it be an abrogating and making void of the ordinances of God when another thing that is contrary expresly excluded by the Lord from that office work is set up with it to bring the same end to passe or to serve in the same place and office yet is there not the least coloure of ground to say That if our Right Title to heaven be by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness then doth God give the grace of Adoption in vaine for the Righteousness of Christ is the Meritorious procuring Cause of this Right and Title to heaven and when this is Imputed made over to the beleever he receiveth the Effect and Fruit of that purchase viz. an Actual Right to glory is solemnely infeofed as it were thereof What ignorance folly would it discover in a man to say That the legal installing of a man by publick seasing Infeofment in the legal Right to possession of such a Land or House is that which giveth the man Right and therefore the price he hath laid down to purchase that Land or house hath no Interest or Consideration in that purchase for these two cannot consist the one must necessarily render the other useless if he hath made a purchase of the Land house by his money he needeth no Charter or Infeofment thereof or if his Charter Infeofment giveth him Right to possesse the same the price laid down is of no use would not every one smile at such Non-sense And yet so reasoneth this learned Adversary who will have the Righteousness of Christ laid by which is the only price and purchasing Merite of our Right to Heaven or the Grace of Adoption whereby the beleever becometh legally as it were infeofed of the Inheritance It is vaine if he should think to escape by saying That he acknowledgeth the price of Christ's Righteousness but speaketh of the Imputation of that Righteousness in order to this Right For the Imputation of this Righteousness is but the Interessing of the beleever in that price as the price of such a purchase to the end he may receive the legal infeofment of the Inheritance purchased in Adoption Obj. 5. Chap. 13. pag. 145. He that hath a perfect compleat Righteousness of the Law imputed to him standeth in need of no Repentance Ans. This Consequence is utterly false as was shewed above Chap. 6. Mystery 13. Repentance is not prescribed in the Gospel for any such use or end for which the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is called for If Adam saith he had kept the Law he had needed no Repentance more than Christ himself needed those that kept the Law in him as exactly perfectly as he did what more neâ—d of Repentance have they than he had Ans Adam it is true had needed no Repentance if he had kept the Law But the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness obedience to us though thereby we come to enjoy the Effects purchase thereof as really as if we had Fulfilled the Law ourselves yet it maketh us not to have been no sinners nor doth it exeem us from the Law in time coming nor put us out of case of sinning any more and consequently prejudgeth not the true lively exercise of that grace of Repentance He addeth He that is as righteous as Christ is which those must needs be who are righteous with His righteousness needeth no more Repentance than He needed Ans. We do not love to say that beleevers through this Imputation are as Righteous as Christ was for that expression might import that thereby they become as Righteous inherently as He was which is false But that thereby they are legally accounted Righteous to all ends purposes as if they themselves in their own persons had Fulfilled the Law And therefore though thereby they become in Law-sense Righteous yet they are inherently ungodly unrighteous till sanctifying grace make a change here therefore stand in need of Repentance To that That Beleevers need Repentance for their daily personal failings he saith But they that have an entire perfect Law-righteousness Imputed to them have no such need in any respect because in the Imputation of a perfect Righteousness there is an universal non-Imputation of sin apparently included Besides if God doth Impute a perfect Law-righteousness it must be supposed that the rights privileges belonging to such righteousness do accompany it in the Imputation Now one maine privilege hereof is to invest with a full entire right unto life out of its own intrinsecal inherent dignity worth which is a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least tincture of sin in the person that stands possessed of it Ans. Where there is an Imputation of a perfect Righteousness there there is an universal Non-Imputation of sin in reference to actual condemnation or to the prejudging of the person partaker of this Imputation of the reward of life but as this Imputation of Righteousness maketh not a sinner to have been no sinner so neither doth it make their future sinnes to be no sinnes or them to be no sinners in time coming because it is imputed for no such end 2 It is true the Rights privileges belonging to this Righteousness do accompany the Imputation thereof that thereby beleevers become invested with a full entire Right to life because of its intrinsecal inherent dignity but it is utterly false to say That this full entire Right to life is inconsistent with the least tincture of sin in the person possessed of it hereby he must say one of these two either that there is no full Right had to life while persons are in this life or that there is a full and sinless perfection attainable and had by all beleevers so that they sinne no more Both which are most false But what will he say of Faith which he will have imputed for Righteousness seing this must bring alongs with it the same privileges so exclude Repentance too To this he saith The meaning is not as if God either Imputed or accepted or accounted faith for the self same thing which the Righteousness of the Law is intrinsecally formally or as if God in this Imputation either gave or accounted unto faith any power or privilege to justifie out of any inherent worth of it But the meaning only is that God upon Man's faith will as fully justify him as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Lawâ— He that fulfilled the Law thereby
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