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
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
Bonefites which are freely given us for the sake thereof Ans. This is but what we heard when he was clearing the state of the question there Chap. XIII we shewed that his sense was not satisfying for in his judgment as we found there is no Righteousness truely ours in order to justification but our Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness which by Christ's Merites is advanced to this dignity of being the potestative Condition of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to life is promised upon Condition of Faith so faith is our Immediat Righteousness in order to the obtaining of these favoures Christ's Merites have only procured them remotely in procuring this Covenant But we hear no mention made by him of any such Imputation as whereby Christ's fide jussory or Surety-righteousness is really made over and Imputed to Beleevers that they thereby may become formally Righteous in the sight of God and be justified as such so pardoned and have right to life immediatly upon the account of this Surety-righteousness made theirs Nor hear we any clear ground laid down by him whereupon Christ's Righteousness can be called Ours we thereupon be reputed of God legally Righteous dealt with as such We hear of Benefites bestowed because of His Merites But we hear not that Pardon and Right to Glory are made the Immediat result and effect of Christ's Merites Righteousness but only mediat by the Interveening of the New Covenant whereby our Faith the condition thereof called our Gospel Personal Righteousness is made the Immediat cause of our possessing these benefites whereby he giveth occasion at least to judge that he maketh our faith the Immediat procuring Meritorius Cause of Pardon and Right to life However between his way that which he here rejecteth which we also reject neither asserting that Christ was our Instrumental Second cause nor claiming a strick propriety in the same Numerical Habites c. which were in Christ as if we became Subjects of the same Accidents speaking of what Christ did suffered in a Physical sense we know owne a Midway whereby Christ's Obedience Suffering considered not Physically but legally juridically are transferred communicated unto us not as Physical accidents from one Physical subject to another but in a Law juridical sense And though this Imputing communicating of Christ's Surety-righteousness cannot be explained by nor appear consistent with Logical or Metaphysical Notions applicable only to Physical Entities as considered as such to wich Mr. Baxter in all his Explications of this matter doth so frequenily laboure to restrick us contrary to all Reason Yea and to Common sense Yet we must owne it for a truth knowing that these fundamental truthes recorded in Scripture and held forth to us only by divine Revelation stand in no need of Aristotle's learning in order to their being Savingly understood practified And that Law-termes are more fit to help us to some understanding in this matter which is hold forth in Scripture as a juridical act than Metaphysical termes and yet we see no ground to say that this matter whereof we treat must in all points keep even a resemblance unto Iustinian's modes knowing that it is a divine Mystery and unparallelable He saith 2. He that is made Righteousness unto us i◠also made wisdom Sanctification Redemption to us but that sub genere causae Efficientis non autem constitutivae We are not the Subjects of the same Numerical wisdom and Holiness which 〈◊〉 Christ plainly the Question is whether Christ or His Righteousness Holiness Merites and Satisfaction be our Righteousness constitutivly or only efficiently The matter and forme of Christ's personal Righteousness is ours as an efficient cause but it is neither the neerest matter nor the forme of that Righteousness which is Ours as the subjects of it that is it is not a Constitutive cause nexly material or formal of it Ans. 1. It is true He who is made Righteousness to us is also made Sanctification c. and that He is made Sanctification by being an Efficient cause but it will not follow that He must be also the Efficient cause and no other of our Righteousness which is of a far other Nature and is no Inherent inwrought thing as is Sanctification 2. It is true we are not the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ neither can we be if they be considered Physically but yet we can be Subjects of the same Numerical Righteousness Legally and juridically considered thus we are to consider it here not Physically however Mr. Baxter ad nauseam usque inculcat this for we consider it and must consider it as a Surety-righteousness we know that that same Individuat payment and Satisfaction made by the Surety is in Law-sense the Debtor's and imputed to him as the ground of his liberation from trouble and distress at the hands of the Creditor 3. Hence we see that Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience and Sufferings is that whereby we are constituted Righteous in the sight of God in a legal sense and need not enquire whether it be the neerest matter or forme or both of our Righteousness for these Metaphysical termes have no place here though Mr. Baxter can never hold of them We are made Righteous in a Law-sense not Physically by Christ's Imputed Righteousness and upon this account it is ours legally it is folly to enquire for Physical matter and forme or Constitutive causes of Moral or juridical Beings or Effects as Phylosophers do when speaking of Physical or of Metaphysical beings He saith 3. If our Union with Christ were Personal making us the same person then doubtless the accidents of his person would be the accidents of ours so not only Christ ' Righteousness but every Christians would be each of ours But that is not so nor is it so given us by him Ans. We acknowledge no Union with Christ making us the same person with Him Physically it seemeth Mr. Baxter will understand it no otherwayes But we acknowledge an Union legal Political foederal whereby we become one person juridical in Law-sense and as to this Mr. Baxter's accidents have no substantial place or Consideration The 4. Object is you do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all which consisteth in Perfect Obedience Holiness but only a Right to Impunity and Life with an Imperfect Inherent Righteousness in our selves The Papists are forced to confess that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law not only the Retributive part But they say it is in our selves and we say It is Christ's Imputed to us Thus he proposeth it but if I were forming the objection I would say That Mr. Baxter Supposeth we have no Righteousness at all in order to justification beside our Act of Faith for as
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
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
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
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
in so many words syllabs yet that same is said in a more clear convinceing emphatick manner so that he who seeth not this lying in these words must be more blinde than Bellarmine was When this righteous Branch is raised up by Jehovah gotteth this name the Lord our Righteousness what can be more manifest than that He is made Righteousness to His people Yea all their Righteousness that this Righteousness is made over to them so that He is in a manner wholly theirs nothing but theirs all that He hath is theirs particularly that His Righteousness is all the Righteousness they owne as their Righteousness He excepteth 2 That in no tolerable sense can Christ being a person be said to be imputed to us Ans. Do we not hear that a childe was born to us a Son was given to us Esai 9 6. was not that child Son a person And may not a person be as well said to be Imputed as given seing imputation upon the matter is nothing but a giving or bestowing Yet we do not say that Christ is Imputed but that this expression here used doth manifestly evince that we are righteous through the righteousness of Christ made ours that Christ is become the Lord our righteousness that true beleevers receive owne Him as such rest upon His righteousness alone by faith He excepteth 3. The plaine direct meaning is that He shall be generally acknowledged celebrated by his people of the jewes as the great author procurer of that righteousness or justification in the sight of God upon which aboundance of outward glory peace prosperity should be cast upon them Ans. 1. That this is not to be restricted to the jewes is manifest seing it is spoken of the Gospel times when the righteous Branch shall be raised up unto David a King shall reigne prosper 2. It is too carnal an Interpretation to think the text speaketh only of such a justification as is followed with aboundance of outward Glory peace Prosperity whileas the whole Gospel informeth us of something more spiritual attending upon following justification 3. Righteousness justification are here made Synonymous which ought not to be though these two be inseparably lincked together yet they are formally different 4. Wherein standeth this righteousness justification He tels us in the place to which he here referreth us that it standeth in Remission of sins But pardon of sins is no righteousness though a man pardoned hath freedom from the obnoxiousness to punishment yet righteousness is another thing respecteth the obligation to duty required in the Law 5. Though it is true Christ is indeed the author of our justification pardon which is an effect of God's pronouncing us righteous of His accepting of us as righteous in justification as of our peace yet that needeth not destroy what we assert there being no inconsistency here but a necessary essentiall agreement betwixt the Imputation of Christ ' righteousness justification but it rather contributeth to the establishment of our Assertion Yet it is obvious that when Christ is called the Lord our Righteousness there is more Imported than His being the author of our peace justification even the way also how He bringeth about our peace justification is here denoted to wit His being made of God righteousness to His people so that His righteousness becometh theirs in order to their peace justification But to confirme his Interpretation he tels us 1. That the Imposition of name upon either thing or person often notes the quality or proprity in either or same benefite redounding from either answereable thereunto as Esai 9. his name shall be called wonderfull that is he shall be acknowledged looked upon by men as a doer of things very strange Ans. Seing all these names given to Christ Esai 9. cannot be so interpreted as to have this import mentioned for who will say that the name everlasting Father the mighty God can be so interpreted as to denote only some answerable benefite redounding there from who seeth not how little this can satisfie But 2. be it so that this name shall denote some benefite redounding therefrom why may it not denote this Effect which is only answerable hereunto to wit that His people shall be made partaker of His Surety-righteousness have the same made over unto them as they become united unto Him have His name called upon them He tels us 2. That it is familiar to attribute the Effect to its Cause or Author by a verbe substantive only as when Christ is called our Hop our life Resurrection peace Glory meaning that he is the author purchaser of all these Ans. Yet this proveth not that He is the author of all these Effects after one the same way He is otherwise our hope of which He is the Object as well as the Author than He is our life And He is otherwise our life and peace which He worketh createth in us than He is our Resurrection and Glory So He is our Righteousness by making us partaker of His Surety-righteousness imputing it unto us that it may be reckoned on our Score for this the nature of the thing requireth seing a Righteousness we must have ere we be justified and a Righteousness of our owne we have not and therefore must have one imputed to us and what Righteousness can suite us better than His who is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS He tels us 3. That by Righteousness is meaned that justification which standeth in Remission of Sinnes and the meaning is that through Him God would be reconceled to them and pacified with them Ans. Justification is something else than pardon of sins for a justified man is one that is declared and pronunced Righteous in order to pardon of Sins and in order to a persons being declared such by God who alway judgeth according to truth he must be Righteous Righteous can no man be in the sight of God in order to his justification by what is in himself therefore he must have a Righteousness from some other seing Christ is called the Lord our Righteousness it must be His Righteousness which must be bestowed upon them in order to God's being reconciled to them pacified with them Fiftly another passage is Dan. 9 24. to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting Righteousness That all this is to be understood of the grâ—at spiritual effects of power Grace which are to be brought about by the Messiah no Christian candeny and among the rest we see He is to bring in a Righteousness and a Righteousness of ages an everlasting Righteousness that shall endure for ever shall have everlasting effects and this Righteousness is something more than Remission of Sins is distinct from it which is
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
which is not by a dead faith or by a faith that cannot produce works of Obedience or by such a faith as devils have but by a faith that is working making the soul prompt ready to yeeld all Obedience unto the Lord and this is the true meaning of the words as was showne above and the whole scope of the place evidenceth Will Mr. Baxter say that by a dead Faith and by a Faith that cannot save and by a Faith that is in devils is attended with no Christian Love we are brought into a justified state at first No sure and yet this is the faith that Iames opposeth unto works or rather unto a working faith whereby we are justified first last as was Abraham vers 21. whose faith was such as it wrought with his works and by the same was manifest to be what it was the true saving faith of God's Elect. And sure this Faith of Abraham and the faith that wrought in Rahab was another sort of Faith than is the Faith of devils or that Faith that is but a dead carcase Mat. 6 14 15. speaketh of Remission of sins And I suppose it will not be said that every one who forgiveth his neighbour doth thereby and thereupon obtaine Remission of his own sins at the hands of God otherwayes Heathens wicked persons may be said to have their sins Pardoned before God because they may forgive others some wrongs done unto themselves If it besaid that such cannot forgive others a right not having a principle of grace and not being in Christ. True but then we see that it is not this forgiving abstractly considered that is spoken of here but a Forgiving flowing from faith principled thereby and so the meaning of the place is That without such a Faith in Christ as principleth prompteth to Pardoning of others we can expect no pardon of our own sins from God not have ground to suppose that we are indeed pardoned of God our forgiving of others then is here mentioned as the native Effect evident Signe of Faith as our Commentators manifest upon the place speaking against the Papists See Pareus Gualter others Pareus particularly disproveth the Papist's gloss sayeth that our pardoning of others must follow upon God's pardoning of us as he cleareth from Mat. 18. and will not have our forgiving of others said to be the causa sine qua non of our obtaining Remission from God This place then saith That while we cannot finde in our heart a readiness cheerfully heartily to forgive others we have no ground to imagine that our sinnes are pardoned for all such as are pardoned of God have this Christian disposition flowing from faith in Christ They may have this as to the seed root but till it grow up to yeeld this fruite they want the evidence of their faith consequently of pardon 1. Ioh. 1 9. meaneth such a Confession of sins as is accompanied with the making use by faith of the bloud of Christ that cleanseth from all sin vers 7. and with a running to the Advocat with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous who is a Propitiation for sins Chap. 2 1 2. Most wicked persons as Saul may make confession of their sins but not so as to run to the fountaine the blood of sprinkling And by a Confession that is not accompanied with this acting they can attaine to no Remission before God And therefore faith only acting in humble Confession to the glory of God to the taking of shame to themselves is the condition of Pardon of Continuance of Justification as to this Revel 22 14. is also abused by the Papists to prove their second justification to be by works The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hereused doth not alwayes denote right or jus for it sometimes signifieth meer freedome liberty power to do such or such a thing as 1. Cor. 9 4 5 6. And so here the words import that such as do his commandements are blessed for thereby they have free access unto the tree of life unto Christ their objective blessedness which is the same with that which is commonly said viz. that Works of Obedience are the way of the Kingdom but not the cause of reigning It will not suite with the Gospel to say that by our works of obedience we buy a right to the tree of life even in part or in subordination to Christ's blood for Christ hath purchased the whole Right nothing of ours must be joined as a part of that price otherwise must we have a proportionable share of the glory to ourselves Nor can it be said that by our works of Obedience we obtaine a Right to Christ to his Merites for before we have a Right to Christ we can do no works of Christian Obedience and Christ alone hath bought to us both Grace Glory But our works of Christian Obedience though they cannot precede our Right to yet they may go before our Possession of the Inheritance purchased now Right Possession are different things But in fine we say that this place speaking of the possession of glory is not apposite to the purpose now in hand for Justification is different from Glorification Rom. 8 30. And of justification as continued are we here speaking Ioh. 15 3 4 5 6 8 9 10. Verse 3. 9. can prove nothing in reference to what we are upon Vers. 4. sheweth that there is no fruitfulness in Grace but by a constant abiding in sucking of sap by faith from Christ the true Vine which none denieth Verse 8. sheweth that by fruitfulness in good the Father is Glorified thereby a demonstration is given to the world who are indeed the true disciples of Christ vers 6. holdeth forth the dreadful punishment that attendeth Apostates but we hope true beleevers are secured against full final Apostasie Vers. 10. proveth indeed that keeping of Christ's commands is a mean to keep the sense of our being beloved of Christ fresh in our souls to enjoy the fruites of his Love of Beneficence but saith nothing of good works being the Condition of our Continuance in the state of justification unless we will also say that Christ's obedience was the Condition of his Continueing in the State of Justification 1. Ioh. 2 24. c. proveth that full final Apostasie from the faith truth of the Gospel will indeed cutt off from all Interest in Christ from benefite by him But as true beleevers are secured from this as vers 27. cleareth So this will only prove that continuance in Faith is the Condition of continuance of Justification Mat. 18 35. Only proveth and so confirmeth what was said to Mat. 6 14. that such as do not from their hearts forgive their brethren their trespasses can have no ground of Assurance that God hath forgiven them theirs ... our Cruelty Unmercifulness towards our Brethren may give us sufficient ground to doubt of
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
all who work well keep the Law of Moses shall have free Pardon Right to life And thus they were as well justified by the works of the Law as by faith for faith was also required of them And then the meaning of the Apostles Conclusion Rom. 3 28. is therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith and by the deeds of the Law for both faith works with Mr. Baxter belong to this Subservient Righteousness as he calleth it If this be consonant to the Apostles doctrine which doth so contradict it let the Reader judge 3. Saith he That therefore it appeareth that the Jewes did so fondly admire the Law their National Privileges under it that they thought the exact keeping of it was necessary sufficient to Iustification Salvation And they thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness as a Sacrifice for sin meriter of free Pardon the Gift of life but only a great King Deliver to redeem them by Power from all their Enemies Bondage Ans. This mistake of the Jewes concerning the Messiah speaketh nothing to the point whereupon we are that is that Paul denieth justification to be by the Law And their errour mistake about the Law is not to be limited restricted to the Ceremonial Law so the thing that we say is confirmed hereby 2 They thought the Messiah was not to be their Righteousness And Mr. Baxter will not have him to be our Righteousness save only in that he hath purchased the New Covenant wherein our faith obedience to the Law is to be looked upon as all our proper immediat Righteousness upon the account of which we are to receive Pardon Right to life 4. He saith That is was not Adam's Covenant of Innocencie or persection which the Jewes thus trusted to or Paul doth speak against as to justification though a minore ad majus that is also excluded for the Jewes knew that they were sinners that God pardoned sin as a Merciful God that their Law had Sacrifices for Pardon Expiation with Confessions c. But they thought that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to Political ends to Temporal Rewards Punishments it had been sufficient to Eternal Rewards Punishments that of it self not in meer subordination to the typified Messiah Ans. Though the jewes knew that they were sinners yet they did also suppose that by their works of obedience to the Law Moral as well as Ceremonial they might make amends so think to be justified pardoned thereby and that God would accept of them grant them life for their own Righteousness sake therefore did they laboure so much to establish their own Righteousness followed after the Law of Righteousness sought Righteousness as it were by the works of the Law What Mr. Baxter talks here of the jewes not using of that Law in subordination to the Typified Messiah hath need of Explication for as to his sense of it we see no ground thereof in all the Apostles discourse 5. He saith That the thing which Paul disproveth them by is 1. That the Law was never made for such an End Ans. Yet he said that the man which doth those things shall live by them Rom. 10 5. Levit. 18 5. Gal. 3 12. that the doers of the Law are justified Rom. 2 13. And therefore speaketh of that Law which according to its primitive institution was made for such an end 2. saith he That even then it stood in subordination to Redemption free given life Ans. This we cannot yeeld to in Mr. Baxters sense often mentioned for Paul no where giveth us to understand that their obedience to this was their immediat Righteousness Condition of Justification the meritorious cause ex pacto of their Right to Christ to life c. 3. saith he That the free Gift or Covenant of Grace containing the promise of the Messiah and Pardon life by him was before the Law and justified Abraham others without it Ans. It is true this Argument did particularly militate against the Ceremonial Law Yet this not being the Apostles onely Argument other Arguments reaching the Moral Law as well as the Ceremonial we must not limite the Apostles disput only to the Ceremonial Law 4. saith he That their Law was so strick that no man could perfectly keep it all Ans. Adde also that they could not perfectly keep any one command thereof 5. saith he That every sin deserveth death indeed though their Law punished not every sin with death by the Magistrate Ans. And this holdeth true of the Moral as of the Ceremonial Law 6. saith he That their Law was never obligatory to the Gentile world who had a Law written in their hearts therefore not the common way of justification Ans. The Apostle maketh no such conclusion that therefore it was not the common way of justification for this would suppose that it were the way of justification unto them which is directly against the Apostles disput 7. saith he That their Law as such discovered sin but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it in so much as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfill it without sin yet he could not but was under a Captivity that is a moral necessity of Imperfection or sins of infirmity from which only the grace of Christ could as to guilt power deliver him Ans. Therefore the Moral Law is as well here to be understood as the Ceremonial as is manifest 8. saith he That no man ever come to heaven by that way of merite which they dreamed of but all by the way of Redemption Grace free Gift Pardoning Mercy Ans. But that way of merite attendeth all works in the matter of justification as the Apostle assureth us Rom. 4 4. Ephes. 2 8 9. is opposed to the way of Redemption Grace free Gift Pardoning Mercy Rom. 11 6. 3 21 24. Tit. 3 5 7. From these things Mr. Baxter draweth this Conclusion Therefore their conceite that they were just in the maine forgiven their sins so justifiable by the meer dignity of Moses Law which they keept by the works of the Law not by the free Gift Pardon Grace of a Redeemer by the Faith Practical Beleife of that Gift and acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts was a Pernicioue Errour Ans. 1. Nothing is here said to ground a restriction of this erroneous conceite of theirs unto the Ceremonial Law for this conceite of being justifiable by the Law and the works thereof in opposition to the free Gift Pardon Grace of a Redeemer is as applicable to the Moral as to the Ceremonial Law 2 The Apostle doth not ground his disput upon the Iewes their express rejecting of a free Gift of Pardon c. But from justification by Faith laying hold on the free Grace
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
which our case called for was to be made over to us in order to our receiving the grand benefites of pardon life Now it was necessary for us to have a Righteousness consisting in perfect obedience to the Law because of that Constitution Do this live Suffering as such is no obedience to the Law He addeth Their opinion is hard who deny that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us unto Righteousness that it is the cause of the reward or of life eternal How could Christ's blood purge us from all sin if it were not the Cause of our Righteousness how should he give his flesh for the life of the world if life were not restored to us thereby hoâ— should we be healed by his stripes if we were not sanctified by him how should Christ's death be our life if we gote not life thereby betwixt freedone from the Curse of the Law right to the everlasting inheritaâ—ce there is no middle state Ans. 1 We deny only that Christ's passive obedience alone is imputed to us unto Righteousness for alone considered being only the paying of the penalty it is not the Righteousness required in the Law 2 The paying of a penalty though it may deliver from punishment yet cannot procure a right to the reward promised to keeping of the Law as is manifest therefore Christ's passive obedience considered alone cannot procure a right to that reward of life that was promised to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience 3 Christ's blood being the blood of one that fulfilled also the Law and conjunct with that obedience both purgeth from sin meriteth life And so we say of the rest following only I cannot see how pertinently in the last sanctification is mentioned for we are speaking of right to life eternal 4 It is true as to us now there is no midd'le state betwixt freedom from the Curse of the Law Right to the Inheritance â— because Christ's whole obedience both active passive is imputed as a compleat Satisfaction Righteousness whereby we come to obtaine both a freedome from the Curse a right to the Inheritance But in Adam before he fell there was a middle state for so long as he stood he was free of the Curse yet was to finish his course of obedience in order to obtaining the right to the promised reward unless it be said that no more was promised than the continuance of what he possessed It was excpted That the Law is not fulfilled by suffering the punishment for the Law the command is one but punishment fulfilleth not the commandement it only satisfieth the threatning Therefore the suffering of the punishment can not be the cause of the reward He ans by denying the Antec saying that by suffering of the punishment the Law is fulfilled by the Mediator partly formally in that he suffered the punishment due to us by the Law partly efficiently in that by his sufferings he not only took away the Curse but acquired a holiness to us with holiness life eternal Ans. This answere is no way satisfying for suffering of the punishment as such is no obedience to the Law and of the fulfilling of the Law by obedience to the commands thereof did the Exception only speak no man will say that such as are now suffering the punishment in hell are any way fulfilling the Law Neither is that holiness procured by Christ's death any fulfilling of the Law according to the Old Covenant such a fulfilling is required in order to the obtaining of a right to the reward of life promised in that Covenant He answereth againe that when the threatning of the Law is satisfied that is done which the Law commandeth to be done so in part the Law is fulfilled Ans. Suffering as such is no commanded thing the Law constituting a penalty maketh only suffering to be due but doth not enjoine any suffering So that though the Law be satisfied with a Satisfaction laid down by another so far as that the other is not to suffer Yet by this paying of the penalty the Lawes commands are not fulfilled in whole nor in part And the Law as to the commands must be fulfilled ere a right to the reward promised to obedienceâ— be obtained Arg. 6. is taken from passages of Scripture mentioning the active obedience of Christ such as Dan. 9 24. Ier. 23 6. 1. Cor. 1 30. Rom. 5 19. Phil. 2 8. He Ans. 1. That these places do not prove that Christ's active obedience is imputed so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law Ans. These passages sufficiently prove that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness Satisfaction which is imputed unto us the fruites of the Righteousness of Christ imputed are here as well ascribed to his active as to his passive obedience of the places in particular we have said enough elsewhere our disput here is not about imputation but about that which is imputed or that which is reckoned to us as our Righteousness this we say cannot be pure suffering of the penalty for that as such is no Righteousness nor no where is it so called He Ans. 2. That it only followeth that the reforming of our corrupt nature could not be had from Christ by Christ without his active obedience Ans. The same may as well be said of the passive obedience so the cause shall be yeelded unto the Socinians But the matter is clear That Christ is our compleat Righteousness not effectivly for he worketh no compleat legal Righteousness in us that is a Righteousness according as was required in the Old Covenant And beside the expiation of sin he brought in a Righteousness which is called everlasting Dan. 9 24. which can not be understood of our imperfect sanctification And beside that he is our Sanctification he is our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1 30. therefore must be our Righteousness another way than by working it in us for so is he our Sanctification And Rom. 5. our justification life is directly ascribed to his Obedience Righteousness To that Phil. 2 8. he saith The meaning is that Christ from his birth to his death did so accommodate himself to his Fathers will that he suffered all most patiently that was to suffer even the cursed death of the crosse Ans. It was a suffering of what he was to suffer even to come under the Law for that was a part of his humiliation the text saith he humbled himself became obedient and there is no ground to restrick the word Obedient to his suffering only Arg. 7. Christ was made under the Law for us Gal. 4 4 5. He Ans. He was made under the Law for our good that he might be a fit Mediator Ans. Why may not we as well admit the same sense of Christ's being said to be made a curse for us to wit that it was only for our good and so give up the Cause
he knew before hand that these would not performe the new Condition how can he then be supposed to die for them not withstanding Thus we see what difference is among men that hold Universal Redemption about the Proper Immediat End Aime of the purpose of God in sending Christ to die and of Christ in comeing to died and how for the most part it cometh all to little or nothing for it was saith Arminius That God might save sinners what way it pleased Him his Iustice which stood in the way being satisfied or as Corvinus That God might will to save sinners That Christ intended by his death to make such satisfaction to justice as that he might obtainâ— to himself power of saving upon what Condition the Father pleased And thus Christ is said to have obtained Reconciliation Redemption to all not that they should actually be partakers thereof but that God his justice now being satisfied might prescribe a Condition which when they had performed he might would actually make them partakers thereof Some say that all men are put into a new Covenant in which Adam was a common person as well as in the old by vertue whereof none shall be damned that do not sin actually against the Condition fall thereby from that new state whereunto they are borne And this opinion differeth not much from that of Iacobus Andreae at the conference at Mompelgard which afterward Huberus maintained as Kimedoncius sheweth in his refutation of the same which was this in short That Christ suffered died for all none excepted Effectually and obtained for all a Reconciliation without any respect to Faith or Unbeleefe so that all who receive this Reconciliation continue in it shall be saved but as to those who refuse it by unbeleef it is made null and they perish Others say That Christ by his satisfaction removed Original sin in all so that all Infants dying in infancy are undoubtedly saved Others that he died for all sinnes alike but conditionally Some say that after the price was payed it was absolutely undetermined what condition should be prescribed so as God might have re-established the Covenant of works Others that the procuring of a new way was part of the fruit of Christ's death As for this condition some say that man can performe it with the help of such meanes as God affordeth to all and thus establish the Diana of Freewill But others assert the necessity of grace flowing from election hereunto and so destroy Universal Redemption which yet they assert So that some say Christ died for all Conditionally if they beleeve making the Act the cause of its own object for Faith with them is a beleeving that Christ died for them Some say that he died for all Absolutely Yet so as they partake not of the benefire until they performe the Condition which was to be prescribed and thus they affirme that Christ did no more sustaine the persons of the Elect than of the Reprobat but of all alike If we enquire therefore what was the Immediat Result Product of the death of Christ they agree not to tell us whether it was a Power or a Will or a Right to God to save any he pleased However all the Arminians Camero with them agree in this That Christ did not purchase faith for any and that as to all say some or as to the most part say others Christ hath only procured a Possibility of Salvation And what is this Possibility Some call it an Exemption from that necessity of perishing under which they came by the violation of the former Covenant if a satisfaction had not interveened and by this Exemption they say it cometh to passe that Christ if he will justice being now satisfied may bring all to life And hereby also say they all may be saved if they will But what is this else then a meer Possibility What efficacy hath it seing notwithstanding thereof all may perish againe They say it is really Efficacious as to this Possibility which was not before Justice was satisfied But yet notwithstanding of this Efficacious Possibility it might come to passe that not one should have been saved for how can salvation be possible without faith So that if faith be not hereby purchased it would seem that Salvation is not possible And further it doth hereby appear that all which is procured is but some power to God to Christ But what is mans advantage They say That a way to life is opened unto man that so he may now come to God by Faith Repentance But how can he come who hath no power to Beleeve or Repent without grace Or is it in corrupt mans power to Beleeve or Repent What that truth is which we stand for is plainly fully enough set downe in several places of Our Confession of Faith as Chap. 3. § 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory so hath he by the Eternal and most free purpose of his Will fore ordained all the meanes thereunto Wherefore they who are Elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season are Justified Adopted Sanctified Keeped by his power through faith unto salvation Neither are other Redeemed by Christ effectually Called Iustified Adopted Sanctified Saved but the Elect only So Chap. 8. § 1. It pleased God in his eternal purpose to chose ordaine the Lord Iesus his only begotten Son so be the mediator between God man â—Unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time Redeemed Called Iustified Sanctified Glorified And ibid. § 5. The Lord Iesus by his perfect obedience sacrifice of himself which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God hath fully satisfied the Iustice of his Father purchased not only Reconciliation but an Everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto him So ibid. § last To all those for whom Christ hath purchased Redemption he doth certanely and effectually apply communicate the same making intercession for them revealing unto them in by the word the mysteries of salvation effectually perswading them by his Spirit to beleeve obey and governing their hearts by his word Spirit overcoming all their enemies by his Almighty power wisdom in such manner wayes as are most cansonant to his wonderful unsearchable dispensations Our judgment is this in short That Christ according to the good pleasure of his Father laid downe his life a Ransome for the Elect only who were given to him to save from Wrath and Destruction and by that price purchased Salvation all the Meanes necessary thereunto for them only to whom in due time after the method which he thinketh best doth effectually apply the same unto them actually save them Though grounds sufficient considering the
Righteousness by upon the account of which we might be justified Saith not the Apostle Rom. 4 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt inferring debt so merite from all works that we do whereby to patch up a Righteousness in order to Iustification He doth not distinguish betwixt works that are by way of merite other works but meaneth even such works as were performed by Abraham who was far from imagineing any merite is his works 3. And sure if any work be accounted meritorius in this case that must be so accounted which is made the whole of our Righteousness upon which we are justified is said to be the only Righteousness that is imputed to us for that end that we may be Justified Is not that beleeving made our Righteousness thereby declared to be no less meritorious than Adam's perfect Obedience would have been Argum. 3. That which maketh justification not to be of grace cannot stand with the truth of the Gospel But the imputation of Faith for Righteousness maketh Justification not to be of Grace He excepteth The Scripture still maketh a perfect consistency of free grace with the condition of saith Eph. 2 8. Rom. 3 24 25. Nay the work of beleeving is purposely required that the freeness of his grace might have place Rom. 4 16. How can a gift be conceived to be more freely given than when nothing more is required than that it be received now beleeving is nothing else but a receiving of that righteousness or justification which God giveth in with his Son Iesus Christ Iob. 1 12. Ans. Here are good words but nothing to loose the argument for Faith receiving a Righteousness or the gift of Righteousness or the Atonement or Christ his Righteousness is but the instrument as it were of the soul laying hold on in law presenting to speak so the fidejussorie-righteousness of the Surety Christ as the Righteousness upon the account of which for which alone he is to be justified But beleeving considered in it self as our work made to be our Righteousness all our Righteousness said to be imputed for our Righteousness is not considered as a receiving of a gift of Righteousness which is distinct from Justification howbeit he confound them but really is made a price in our hand wherewith to purchase the gift of Justification the reckoning of this work to us which is our work as our Righteousness in order to justification maketh Justification not of grace but of debt as the Apostle argueth Rom. 4 4. maketh our Justification to be of works if it be of works it is no more of grace as the Apostle asserteth Rom. 11 6. The consideration of Faith as the act of the soul receiving laying hold upon a Righteousness or on Christ his Righteousness establisheth the Imputation of Christs Righteousness but the Imputation of Faith properly taken doth quite extrude it these two are made incompatible by our adversaries the one is asserted that the other may be denied for which there were no necessity if Faith were considered in the Scripture sense as it ought to be that is an Instrument laying hold on bringing in a Righteousness from without even the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. So that this exception if it be ingenuous must overthrow the Position maintained Arg. 4. That which ministereth occasion to the flesh of boasting in it self is not consonant to the tenor of the Gospel But the imputation of Faith for Righteousness doth minister occasion to the flesh of boasting Therefore c. He excepteth Suppose the act of beleeving which is so imputed for righteousness be a mans own work yet it is so by the meer gift of God Ephes. 2 8. Phil. 1 29. 1 Cor. 2 12. 3 6. and this cuttech off all groud of boasting 1. Cor. 4 7. Ans. 1 Though there be no true ground of boasting of that which is freely given yet the flesh can take occasion therefrom to boast as the Pharisee did Luk. 18. when yet he acknowledged all to be gives for he thanked God for what he was not for what he did so acknowledged all to be given and all to be given freely 2 The Apostle saith expresly that boasting is not excluded by the Law of works Rom. 3 27. and yet all works are given are not absolutely of from our selves 3 Saith not the Apostle expresly Rom. 4 2. If Abraham were justified by works he hath to glory And yet I hope Abraham did acknowledge that all these works of his were of grace of God's free gift and not absolutly every way his own 4 The works required in the old Covenant of works were not absolutely Adam's own but were in some sense also given of God yet by that way of Justification there had been ground of boasting 5 Though now there should be no ground of boasting before God as neither would there have been ground of boasting before him by the way of works for the Apostle addeth Rom. 4 2. but not before God yet there is ground laid for boasting before men when our Beleeving is made our Righteousness upon the account of which we are justified pronunced righteous in order to Absolution from what was brought in against us 6 Therefore is the way of Justification now so contrived that man should have ground or coloure of ground of boasting even before men for all that Righteousness which is required unto Justification as that Righteousness upon the account of which they are to be justified and by which only they are to be declared pronunced Righteous is not in them but in another and imputed unto them it is the Righteousness of Christ made over unto them of God's free grace received by Faith which receiving hand is also given so that the Righteousness upon which all are justified is one the same is a Righteousness without them therefore the flesh hath no seeming occasion of boasting in this matter He excepteth 2. Suppose the act of beleeving were from a mans self yet there were no cause of boasting because that weight of glory is not given to faith for any worth in it but by the most free gracious good pleasure of God If a King for taking a Pin of a Mans sleeve should raise his house make him honourable in the State were it not a ridiculous thing for such a man to brag of the Pin of his sleeve c. Ans. 1 Can we think that those against whom the Apostle disputed in this matter did think that there was worth excellency in all their works to merite the exceeding great eternal weight of glory did Abraham think so And yet though we cannot say that he thought so Paul not withstanding denieth that he was justified by his works 2 If the act of Beleeving were from a Mans self made all that Righteousness which he
is conceived to have when justified upon the account of which he is justified he should not only have occasion but even cause of boasting before men notwithstanding of the disproportion betwixt faith the weight of glory for it might then be said that he had made himself to differ that he had laid down out of his own purpose the whole price that was required and so had according to the termes of the Compact made a purchase of glory to himself as the man with the pin in his sleeve if the Law Covenant had so stood that all that gave the Prince a Pin out of his sleeve shall receive such such great things he only a few moe were so good merchants as to give the Pin when others did not might well have boasted said he had not gotten those great things for nothing for he laid down the full price condescended upon by Law Covenant and had ground of boasting at least before men though not before the Prince who graciously condescended to reward so richly such a mean gift 3 This answere will say that there had been no ground of boasting even by the old Covenant of works though man had keeped the Law perfectly for even then it might have been said that the weight of glory was not given for the really worth excellency of perfect Obedience Perfect Obedience Holiness having its sufficient reward in its own besome for it is a reward to it self But he saith If men had fulfilled the Law bin justified that way there had been some pretence of boasting or glorying in themselves Ans. And why not also if faith be now accounted the fulfilling of the Law and be now imputed to us as all our Righteousness Let us see if the reasons which he bringeth for the former will not also evince this His first is this Because such a Righteonsness had held some proportion at least that should have been given to it Rom. 4. vers 4. God had given them no more than what they had at least in some sort deserved Ans. But who can tell us what that proportion or that sort would have been And may not also the Righteousness of Faith which is here supposed to be of our selves and not the meer gift of God be said to hold some proportion at least in some fort Yea may it not in this respect be said to hold a greater proportion viz. that the exerting of the act of Faith now would argue more strength of free will to that which is good that Perfect Obedience in Adam for though we should suppose that man now had as full a power to beleeve if he would as Adam had to obey yet it cannot be denied but there is much more opposition now even within to that which is good than there was in Adam and consequently that the vertue appearing in the acting of Faith must be conceived as greater than what could have appeared in Adam's full obedience who had nothing within to oppose him or prove a remora in his way As it would argue more valour for a weak souldier to go a quarter of a mile fighting with his enemies in the way then for a giant to go twentie miles wherein he should meet with no opposition But though the proportion were granted to be greater betwixt the reward and Adam's Obedience than is betwixt the reward Faith yet there must be will be a proportion granted for majus minus non variant speciem degrees make no variation in kinde 2 Can or will it be said that God had given the perfect obeyer no more than he had in some sort at least deserved if we should suppose there had been no promise made of such a reward to obeyers or antecedently to a Covenant And if this cannot be said as it cannot be said by any I suppose who seriously consider the matter then the reward was made such only by God's free Condescension God had in that case given what they had deserved according to the Covenant made wherein such a reward was promised to obeyers and in justice bestowing it as a reward upon such as did fulfill the condition Now when Faith is said to have the same place in the New Covenant that Perfect Obedience had in the old and so the same Efficacy influence in the reward withall it is supposed that Faith is now no more the gift of God than Perfect Obedience was under the old Law is it not as true now that God giveth no more than what beleevers have by Faith at least in some sort deserved by vertue of the Compact New Covenant wherein this reward is promised as it would have been under the old Covenant And is it not hence also manifest that the New Covenant is made to be of the same Nature with the Old and that the reward is as well now of debt as is would have been by the Old Covenant Is it not also hence undeniable that hereby there is a proportion acknowledged in some sort betwixt Faith the Reward where is then the difference Let us see if his next reason will helpe here Secondly he saith because if they had made out their happiness that way they had done it out of themselves that is out of the strength of those abilities which were essential to their Natures in the strickest most proper sense that can be spoken of or applied to a creature their owne Ans. 1 When he supposeth as we saw in the Exception the act of Beleeving to be from a mans self must we not also say that the beleever making out his happiness this way doth it out of himself though not out of the strength of abilities essential to his Nature 2 I much doubt if those abilities if he speak of moral abilities as he must or speak nothing to the purpose can be said to have been essential to mans Nature for then it would follow that man after he lost these abilities as it must be granted he did when he fell was no more a compleet man wanting something that was essential to his nature These abilities may be said to have been natural or con-natural to him considering the state the Lord thought good to create him in and so not meerly supernatural but how they can be said to have been Essential to his Nature I see not 2 When God gave Adam these Abilities and thereby furnished him with a sufficient stock was he not to acknowledge God for all that he did or was he afterward to act without dependance upon or influence from God the first Cause If not as it is confessed when it is said to be so only in a sense that can agree to a creature and when Faith is here supposed to be from mans self acting in the same dependance on God and receiving the same influence from him as the first Cause may not Faith also be said to be mans own in as strick