words and termes be laid aside because the terme itself by which we express our Conceptions of the truth is not in so many letters syllabs to be found in Scripture if so indeed we had quickly lost a fundamental point of our Religion and yeelded the cause unto the Socinians If the Scripture may be explained we may make use of such expressions termes sentences as will according to their usual acceptation contribute to make the truthes revealed in Scripture intelligible to such as heare us And when some termes have been innocently used in Theologie for explication of truthes whether to the more learned or to the more unlearned have pâ— ssed among the orthodox without controll or contradiction beyond the ordinary time of prescriptions it cannot but give ground of suspicion for any now to remove these old Land-marks especially when it is attempted to be done by such meanes arguments as will equally enforce a rejection of many Scriptural expressions for should all the Metaphorical expressions sentences which are in â—ature be so canvassed rejected because every thing agreeing properly to them when used in their own native soile doth not quadrate with them as used in the Scriptures in things divine where should we Land If these divine mysteries had been expressed to us only in termes adequatly corresponding with suiting the matter how should we have understood the same Therefore we finde the Lord condescending in the Scriptures to our low Capacities and expressing sublime high mysteries by low borrowed expressions to the end we might be in case to understand so much thereof as may prove through the Lord's blessing saving unto us And thereby hath allowed such as would explaine these matters unto the capacity of others to use such ordinary expressions as may contribute some light understanding to them in the truthes themselves Now when the orthodox have according to their allowed liberty made use of the word Instrument in this matter and maintained that Faith was was nothing more then an Instrument in Justification it is not faire to reject it altogether because improper though fit enough to signifie what they did intend thereby because all the properties that agree to proper Physical or artificial Instruments do not agree to it and because if the same be strickly examined according to the rules of Philosophie concerning Instrumental Causes it will be found to differ from them Mr. Baxter himself writting against D. Kendal § 47. tels us that the thing which he denieth is that Faith is an Instrument in the strick logical sense that is an Instrumental efficient cause of our Iustification that he expresly disclaâ—meth contending de nomine or contradicting any that only use the word instrument in an improper large sense as Mechanicks Rhetoricians do So that the question saith he is de re Whether it efficiently cause our Iustification as an Instrument But it may be conceived to have some efficient Influence in our Justification not as that is taken simply strickly for God's act justifying but as taken largely comprehending the whole benefite as activly coming from God as Passively received by or terminated on us that as an Instrument though not in that proper sense that Logicians or Metaphysicians take Instrumental causes and explaine them in order to physical natural Effects We know that Justification is a supernatural work effect and therefore though in explaining of it in its Causes we may make use of such termes as are used about the expressing of the Causes of Natural or Artificial Works Effects yet no Law can force us to understand by these borrowed expressions the same proper Formal Efficacy Efficiency and influence which is imported by these Expressions when used about Natural Causes Effects But Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 5. tels us what great reasons he had to move him to quarrel with this calling of faith an Instrument viz. he found that many learned divines did not only assert this Instrumentality but they laid so great a stress upon it as if the maine difference betwixt us the Papists lay here And yet any might think that they had reason so to do when Papist's on the other hand laid as great stresse upon the denying of Faiths Instrumentality He tels us moreover that our divines judged Papists to erre in Justification fundamentally in these points 1. about the formal Cause which is the formal Righteousness of Christ as suffering perfectly obeying for us 2. About the way of our participation herein which as to God's act is Imputation that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith which justifieth 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in justification which is as the Instrument thereof I doubt not saith Mr. Baxter but all these four are great errors But we neither may nor can call all errors which Mr. Baxter calleth errors We have seen above how necessary truthes the two first are and have explained in part the third wherein I confesse too many yet not all of the forraigne divines have as to expression missed the explication of true Justifying faith it may be it was not their designe to describe it so as it might agree to the faith of every sincere though weak beleever but rather to shew its true nature grounds tendency when at its best yet what Papists hold on the contrare is more false absurd But as to this fourth it seemes that it hath a necessary dependance upon the foregoing and this to me seemes to be the maine reason why our Divines did owne plead for Faiths Instrumentality in the matter of Justification viz. because the Righteousness which they called the Formal or others the Material Cause thereof was not any Righteousness inherent in us as Papists said but the Surety-Righteousness of the Cautioner Christ without us And therefore they behoved to look on Faith in this matter otherwayes then Papists did and not account it a part of our Formal Righteousness but only look upon it as an hand to lay hold on bring-in the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ and therefore judged it most fit to call it only an Instrumental Cause And how ever Mr. Baxter exaggerat this matter as complying with Papist's in condemning us as to all these controversies and think it no wonder they judge the whole Protestant cause naught because we erre in these and yet make this the maine pairt of the Protestant cause yet we must not be scarred from these truthes Yea because this point hath such a connexion with the other concerning that Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be Justified in the sight of God we are called to contend also for this that so much the rather that though Papist's do utterly mistake the Nature of Justification and confound it with Sanctification yet Mr. Baxter
at which they stumbled when he said Rom. 9 31 32. But Israel which followed after the law of Righteousness hath not attained to the law of Righteousness wherefore Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law for they stumbled at that stumbling stone And againe Rom. 10 3 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righteousness going about to establish their own Righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness c. Is it not hence clear that they rejected Christ and would not owne Him as the end of the law for Righteousness that they stumbled at Him seeking after justification life by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness by seeking to establish their own righteousness How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law as performed by Christ as the jewes were who would have nothing to do with Christ but stumbled at Him while as Paul sought only to be found in Him not having his owne Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3 9. And proclamed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. Against Fit 3 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness which we have done a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned to prevent the stumbling of such as love to walk in the light he advanceth several answers pag. 62. c. As I. He never said that the active righteousness of Christ should be made a stander-by but that it hath a blessed influence into justification as it issueth into His passive obedience which together may be called a Righteousness for which but not with which we are justified except it can be proved to be either the Material or formal or instrumental cause of justification whoever attempt to do this will wholly dissolve the merite of it Ans. 1 All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand which is to show that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently what he meaneth by the works of the law which he excludeth from having any interest in justification viz. The works of the law performed by us in our own persons 2 What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness which is imputed unto us he showeth not nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice we have shown above that the personal Union did that and consequently His active obedience if it had no other influence is made a meer stander by 3. A Righteousness for which a Righteousness with which is a distinction in our case without a difference for the one doth no way oppugne or exclude the other because the meritorious cause imputed made over to and reckoned upon the score of beleevers can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified 4 Whether it may be called the Material or Formal cause of justification that any ever called it the instrumental cause is more than I know is no great matter seing it may be either as the termes shall be explained which men are at freedom to do according to their own minde when they apply them unto this matter which hath so little affinity with Effects meerly Natural unto the causes of which these termes are properly applied though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause if necessitated to use here philosophik termes 3 That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification is to overthrow the merite of it is said but not proved It is not these philosophical termes themselves but the explication of them by such as use them in this matter that is to be regarded and none shall ever show that either of these termes as explained by the orthodox doth overthrow the merite of Christ's Righteousness both doth rather establish it He saith 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing yet no wayes intimat that the works of any other should be the cause thereof If the words had gone thus not by the works of Righteousness which we our selves had done this had been some what an higher ground to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon viz. by the works of another or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose as the former for these words were here brought only to show what the Apostle meant by the works of the law which he excluded from justification viz. the works which we do and not to prove immediatly that the works of any other were understood hereby 2 It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction betwixt works which we do works which we our selves do the same word in the original which vers 5. is rendered we is rendered we our selves vers 3. What poor shifts are these which men take to support a desperat cause He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the law which we had done he had no intent to imply the works which another might do he expresseth the opposition thus according to His mercy Ans. The mistake is still continued in By these words we onely cleare what the works are which are excluded viz. our personal works or works which we do or have done whose works else are accepted other places prove expresly this by consequence unless the worke of a third could be alleiged 2 The opposition here made destroyeth not the opposition which we make for when we are justified Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ we are justified saved according to His mercy as well as we are justified freely by His grace when justified through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3 24. He saith 4. thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that wherein this Mercy of God be speaks of consisteth viz. regenerating us c. Ans. But I hope the Apostles mentioning of Regeneration doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the ground thereof nor can he suppose this unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works done after Regeneration the new birth He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable nor pertinent to the purpose because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness which he nameth from being any cause antecedaneously moving God to save us not from being the formal cause of justification and we our selves saith he will not say that the works of the law which Christ hath
done moved God to saveus Ans. 1 The Inference which he here speaketh of is his own and not ours as we have said 2 The Salvation here mentioned is comprehensive and includeth Justification Adoption as vers 7. cleareth the Mercy mentioned v. 5. comprehendeth all other subordinat causes meanes which the Lord hath appointed though the obedience of Christ be no cause moving God to decree to save yet it may be a cause of justification But then saith he pag. 65. This will only establish the merite of Christ's Righteousness in justification but overthrow the formality of it And why so Because sa it be it is unpossible that one and the self same thing in respect of one and the self same effect should put on the different habitude both of the Formal Efficient cause Ans. All this is but vaine talk a reasoning from termes of art or philosophical notions taken improperly to the same taken most properly strickly as if a Moral polititical or legal effect were every way the same with a Natural physical effect and yet in physical Effects as such meritorious causes have no proper Efficiency But as to our case we plainly say that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification yet may be called the formal cause thereof as that terme may be adapted fitly explained according as the matter will bear or the formal objective cause which we rather incline to He speaketh against Gal. 4 4. pag. 66. saying that it is adduced to prove that Paul mentioneth the works of the law as done by Christ in the discourse of justification consequently that he had no intent to exclude the works of the law as done by Christ from having their part in justification But as was shown above there are many other places of Scripture evincing this Yet let us see what he saith 1. The law under which Christ was made is the ceremonial law as is clear vers 5. we are not redeemed from the Moral law which is of eternal obligation but from the Ceremonial law Ans. 1 That Christ was made under the Ceremonial law only no reason can evince for He was made under that law under the curse whereof we were who were to be delivered there from by Him Gal. 3 10 12. But this was not the Ceremonial law only otherwise he should have died only for the jewes Againe The law which he speaketh of was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator Gal. 3 17 19. but this was the Moral law contained in the decalogue Is the ceremonial law only that law that cannot give life vers 21. was nothing a Schoolmaster to Christ but the ceremonial part of the law vers 24. 2 To be under the law is not only to be under the lawes obligation but chiefly to be under the lawes Curse which is the same with being concluded under sin Gal. 3 22. 3 If being under the law be thus limited or restricked to a being under the obligation of the ceremonial law no more can be meaned by receiving the Adoptions of Sones there mentioned as the opposite mercy than a freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law but this I suppose will be too narrow an Interpretation 4 Though none be redeemed from obedience to the Moral law yet they may be delivered there from as the sole condition of the Covenant as the sole way of obtaining life 2. He saith hereby may be meaned His subjection to the curse of the law Ans. That this may be part of the meaning may very easily be granted what then can hence follow The expression of being under the law hath not alwayes this single and sole import as we see in that same Chapter vers 21. Secondly Chap. 4. pag. 69. He argueth from Rom. 3 21 22. thus If the Righteousness of faith which is here called the Righteousness of God consists in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the law that is without the works of the law But the Righteousness of faith is sufficiently manifested without the law that is without the works or Righteousness of the law Ergo. The connexion of the Major he thus confirmeth Because to such a Righteousness the law and the works thereof are every white as necessary than faith it self for faith is made only a Meanes of the derivation of it upon men but the body substance of the Righteousness it self is nothing else but the pure law the works of it Ans. The connexion of the Major is unsound and its probation is founded upon a manifest wresting or misinterpretation of the place for the meaning of these words The Righteousness of God without the law is this The Righteousness of God which is not had by our performance of the commands of the law or doth not consist therein not the Righteousness of God which is without all obedience to the law for there be no such Righteousness all Righteousness being a conformity to the law of God if Righteousness consist not in obeying the law of God wherein shall it consist The Righteousness then of God is a Righteousness consisting indeed in full obedience to the law but yet a Righteousness consisting in obedience to the law performed by one who was God therefore also called the Righteousness of God not meerly because invented by God or because bestowed by Him upon men or because such as will only be accepted of by Him as he saith though these be also true may in part ground the denomination not by ou rselves who were properly and originally under the obligation of the law This will not satisfie him therefore he saith I. This sanctuary hath been polluted the hornes of ibis altar broken down in the demonstration of the former proof Ans. The contrary is manifest from our foregoing examination of that supposed demonstration He saith 2. There is not the least intimation given that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this Ans. Nor was there any necessity for any express mention hereof not only because the party the Apostle had here mainely to deal with understood nothing else by the law but our obedience performed thereunto knowing the meaning of the law to be this he that doth these things shall live by them but also because the whole scope and manner of argueing of the Apostle his whole procedure in this debate manifest this to be the meaning for having convinced both jewes and Gentiles to be under the law as guilty before God he inferreth that therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3 20. That is by their own deeds or actions for the law to them can do nothing but convince of sin binde guilt more upon them But it did not so to Christ who yeelded perfect obedience We might also demonstrate this from the Apostles following discourse
fault guilt charged on him by the law So that here is a long series of efficient causes bringing down from Adam's person guilt a distinct numerical person guilt of everyone of this later posterity Ans. 1. The fundamentum of that relation of guilt is more properly proximely the foederal relation of the person to Adam than the Natural relation and the fundamentum of this foederal relation is not Generation but the free Ordination and Constitution of God 2 What he meaneth by these words and Adam's generation being the communication of a guilty nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal fault and guilt charged on him by the Law I do not know If his meaning be that the Communication of a guilty Nature by the peccatum originale originatum is the fundamentum of the following personal fault and guilt by reason of the peccatum originale originans that is if he say that the corrupted Nature is the ground of the Imputation of Adam's transgression it is not consonant to truth nor to what himself said above pag. 34. against Placeus But if he meane that Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature is the fundamentum that next followeth his personal guilt charged on him by Law I must say I do not understand what he would be at though the words seem to express some such thing But the truth that I shall lay down is this That all Adam's posterity being federally in him sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression by vertue whereof when they come physically by natural Generation to partake of his Nature they are first in order of Nature guilty of Adam's transgression and then have a corrupt Nature communicated as a punishment and consequent of the other this Corrupt Nature being sin hath its own guilt attending it also 3 Though this long series of Efficient causes be requisite to the production of a distinct numerical person from Adam's person in a physical and natural sense yet every one of these physically distinct numerical persons do immediatly derive from Adam their legal and foederal personalities that is these same persons considered foederally are equally and alike neer to Adam their federal Head and Representative And therefore the guilt of Adam's sin cometh from him immedratly to each one of them foederally considered and is consequently the same numerical guilt and all this is founded upon their Federal Union with and Interest in Adam He saith 2. And it is not the same sort of guilt or so plenary which is in us for Adam's act as was on him but a guilt Analogical or of another sort that is he wes guilty of being the wilfull sinning person so are not we but only of being persons whose being is derived by Generation from the wilful sinning persons besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity that is the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to desert us and to punish us for that our pravity together This is our guilt of original sin Ans. 1 Hereby that original sin whereof we are speaking here viz Adam's breach of Covenant seemeth quite to be taken away for not only is it said that original sin as in us is another sort of thing than what it was in Adam and so not only not the same numerically as he formerly said but not the same specifically but moreover it is said to be only an Analogical guilt yea in end it is made just nothing for it is said that we are guilty of being persons whose being is derived from the wilfull sinning persons and this is no guilt at all no mans simple being let it be by generation from the most prodigiously guilty and wicked persons that can be can be imputed to him for guilt for his receiving a being is contrary to no Law And beside when he addeth by way of Explication that the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to deserte us he must either make the simple Relation to be the guilt or the ground of guilt and its Imputation The Simple Relation without some guilt following it and founded upon it cannot make it just with God to desert us c. For sin only can do this that Relation is not sin If he say That guilt is Superadded upon this account it is just with God thus to punish I would ask what is this guilt It is not Adam's sin but some analogical thing which Scripture knoweth nothing of and Reason can give us no account whence it came He cannot say that it came from Adam's sin for if we be federally united to Interessed in Adam as we are as he confessed we were and if upon that account we be reputed guilty the same Individual guilt which was on Adam must be upon us and if our guilt be of another sort he must give us another Adam from whom that other analogical sort floweth The Scripture saith that we all sinned in Adam Rom. 5 12. which were not truth if his individual sin were not ours or if ours were of another sort and only analogical But this is the fruit of Mr. Baxter's casting all these things in Aristotle's mould But moreouer 2 It hath a foule aspect towards Pelagianisme to make our guilt another than Adam's because that Adam was the wilful sinning person and so are not we for this is to confirme the Pelagians who say that that sin was only Adam's because he was the only wilfully sinning person we had no will therein 3. He saith And this guilt cometh to us by Natural propagation and resultancie from our very Nature so propagated Ans. It is true we come to be actually charged with this guilt to have it imputed to us when we partake of our beings by Natural Generation or propagation and that because of our federal Union with Interest in Adam and exclusive of this it cannot be said to come to us by resultancy from our very Nature so propagated for the guilt of all Adam's after-Transgressions should as well be said to come to us after this manner as the guilt of that one Transgression Disobedience of which only the Scripture maketh mention Rom. 5. He cometh next to consider our contrary Interest in Christ tels us 1. Our persons are not the same as Christ's person nor Christ's as ours nor ever so judged or accounted of God Ans. Physically this is true but it is not true legally for when he came in the Law-place of the Elect become Surety for-them they and he became one person in Law He saith 2. Our persons were not Naturally seminally virtually in Christ's person any further than He is Creator Cause of all things as they were in Adam's Ans. Adam was a natural Head our Lord is a Spiritual Supernatural Head as to
hath more rational apprehensions there about and yet will not have Christ's Righteousness to be that Formal Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified Yet notwithstanding we need not owne it for such an Instrument or such an Instrumental cause as Philosophers largely treate of in the Logicks Metaphysicks knowing that the Effect here wrought is no Natural Effect brought about by Natural Efficient Instrumental Causes Only we say the Scripture affirming that we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giveth us ground to call Faith if we will use such termes to expresse our mind an Instrument seing these expressions pointe forth some special interest influence that Faith hath in Justification no other Influence or Causation can be allowed to it conforme to the Scriptures but that which we express in our ordinary discourse not in a strick Philosophical sense by an Instrument And that so much the rather that hereby is pointed forth that which is the maine ground designe of using this terme viz. the Application of the Righteousness of Christ which is made by Faith as a meane or mid's laying hold upon without which we cannot be Justified according to the Gospel And though in these borrowed expressions from Causes metaphysical accuracy be not intended yet the true meaning intendment of the users of these termes being obvious it is but vanity to raise too much dust thereabout unless difference about other more Principal Questions in the matter of Justification enforce it as indeed all such as place the Formal Cause or reason of our justification before God in our own Inherent Righteousness and not in the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith must of necessity deny all interest of faith here as an Instrument or as any thing like it because having all their Righteousness within them they have no use for Faith to lay hold-on bring-in one from without There things may satisfie us as grounds of this Denomination 1. That in justification we are said to be receivers do receive something from the Lord not only the Passive justification itself expressed by our being justified but of some thing in order thereunto as of Christ himself the Abundance of Grace of the Gift of Righteousness the atonement the word of promise yea every thing that concurreth unto justification or accompanieth it we are said to receive Ioh. 1 12. Col. 2 6. Rem 5 11 17. Act. 2 41 10 43. 26 18. Heb. 9 15. 2. That the only Grace whereby we are said to receive these things is Faith receiving is explained to be beleeving Ioh. 1 12. Act. 2 41. comp with vers 44. we receive forgiveness of sins by faith Act. 26 18. 3. That the Surety-Righteousness of Christ is that only Righteousness â—pon the account of which we are justified before God not any Inherent Righteousness within ourselves hath been evinced above 4. That this Righteousness of the Surety must be imputed unto such as are to be Justified or reckoned upon their score hath also been evinced 5. That this Surety-Righteousness of Christ must be laid hold on by us in order to our justification hath been showne must be granted by all that acknowledge it to be the Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified 6. That the Scripture saith expresly that God justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith Rom. 3 24 25 28 30. Gal. 3 8 2 16. and that even when justification is denied to be by works So that Faith must have a far other interest in must otherwise concurre unto our Justification than any other Works or Graces and therefore must be looked upon as having some peculiarity of interest and influence here and this peculiarity of interest can not be otherwayes better expressed so as the matter shall be cleared then by calling it an Instrument Not as if it did concurre to the produceing of the effect of justification by any Physical operation as Physical Instruments do but as a medium mean required of us in order to Justification according to the free pleasure of God who disposeth the order methode of his bestowing of his Favours upon us aud the Relation Respect that one hath unto another as he seeth most for his own glory and for our good and that such a mean as concurreth therein and thereunto according to what is said in such a way as we be can best understand by calling it an Instrument for we can not allow it to be called any way meritorious or any formal disposition of the soul or Preparation unto the Introduction of an Inherent Formal Cause of Justification as Papists say nor can we allow it to be called such a proper Potestative Condition as some would have it to be as we saw in the forgoing Chapter 7. That no real inconvenience can follow upon the owning of Faith for an Instrument in justification for Justification is not here taken simply strickly for that which is properly God's act but more largely complexly including other things requisite unto Justification such as the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ which Faith as the Instrument or hand of the soul layeth hold on bringeth-in for this end that the man being clothed therewith may be acquitted before the Tribunal of God Pardoned accepted of as Righteous And howbeit it be God that justifieth as to this act of God justifying Faith hath no real interest or influence yet the Scripture saying that God justifieth by Faith and through faith we must acknowledge some interest that Faith hath in the work Effect as when the Scripture saith that He purifieth the heart by faith Act. 15 9. the purifying of the heart is God's work and yet it is said to be done by Faith which is our work It is said Heh 11 11 that through faith Sara herself received strength to conceive seed vers 33 34. that some through faith subdued Kingdomes stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the violence of fire c. all which were the works of God yet while they are said to be done by faith faith must have had some interest influence in these effects So in working faith in the soul which is God's work alone the Lord useth the preaching of the Gospel and ministers the peoples hearkning listning to what is preached as meanes midses thereunto though preaching hearing be mens work yet God useth them for his ends and as he sendeth Preachers to preach moveth persons to hear that thereby he may according to his own will pleasure work Faith in then so he worketh Faith in souls that he may thereby Justify them Nor is it of any weight to say that if Faith be an Instrument it must work as an efficient cause because the Instrumental Cause belongeth
to the Efficient for neither do all Philosophers agree to this some holding Instruments to be a fift kinde of Cause nor are we obliged to stand to their prescriptions rules especially in these things that are no natural causes or effects no man saith that faith hath the same kind measure of Efficiency in towards the effect justification that all Instrumental causes or Instrumental causes so called have in the Effects which they concurre to the producing of what efficiency hath an examplary cause which some Philosophers reduce to the efficient viz. Keckerman But that Faith hath some Influence is manifest from the Scripture not of it self it is true but by the gracious appointment of God and that this Influence cannot be better more saifly expressed than by the name of an Instrument appeareth to us clear hereby nothing of the glory due to God or unto Jesus Christ and to his Righteousness is ascribed unto man nor is any more hereby granted unto Man than to a beggar as to the enriching of himself when it is said his hand made him rich by receiving the Purse of gold that was given unto him yea hereby is Christ his Righteousness more fixedly established in their due place because faith is considered not as a Righteousness of it self nor as a part of Righteousness but purely and simply as an Instrument of the soul laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ and pleading the same as the only Formal ground of his justification before God If it be said that it were saifer to call it a causa sine qua non We must first know what is properly signified thereby whether it will help us more to understand the just true import of the Scripture expressions about Faith in Justification for no termes ought to be used that attaine not this end or have not a direct tendency thereunto such termes however we may please our selves in the invention of their application unto the business in hand and think we are in case to defend the same against opponents yet if they do not contribute manifestly to the clearing and explaining of the matter according to the Scriptures can only darken the matter And no reason can enforce us to embrace them with the arbitrary explications limitations of the Authors and to reject or lay aside such as do more obviously explaine the matter unto all such as have orthodox apprehensions of the matter and have given offence to none nor have been excepted against by any but such as were not orthodox in the point of justification whose erroneous Principles led them to deny or except against the same And what for a cause shall we take that causa sine qua non to be which cannot be so explained in our language as that every one that heareth it shall be in case to understand what it meaneth Such as speak of it call it causa fatua and referre to it external occasions time place and such like things without which the action cannot proceed as the place wherein we stand the time wherein we do any thing which have no more interest in or relation to one action than another for all must be done by us in some time and in some place And shall we say that faith hath no other interest or influence in justification than the hour of the day when or the place wherein a minister preacheth hath into his preaching Shall we have so meane low an account of the ordinances appointments of God in reference to spiritual ends Seing the Lord hath appointed Faith in order to Justification we must not look upon it as a causa fatua or as a meer circumstance but as having some kindly influence in the effect by vertue of the appointment of God such a connexion therewith that it no sooner existeth but as soon justification followeth Faith then can not be called a meer causa sine qua non Historical faith several other antecedents may be a conditio or causa sine qua non for no man of age can be justified without it yet we may not say that we justified by it as by saving faith the same may be said of Conviction Sense of sin of some measure at least of legal Repentance and of desire of Pardon of Peace which yet may be and oft are without justification And it may also seem strange how this causa sine qua non can be called a potestative condition or how that which is said to be a proper Potestative Condition ex cujus praestatione constituitur jus actuale ad beneficium can be called a meer conditio or causa sine qua non seing it hath such a considerable moral influence in the effect But saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 27 faith cannot justifie both as a Condition as an Instrument of Iustification for either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different neerest causal interests Ans. When we speak of Faiths justifying as an Instrument we consider the physical or quasi physical way of its operation and denote only its kindly acting on Jesus Christ and on his Righteousness which it layeth hold on applyeth apprehendeth putteth on And when we say it justifieth as a condition we consider it as appointed of God unto that end as placed by Him in that state relation unto justification which now it hath And either of these can be called the proxima ratio causalis of Faith according to its different consideration if justification meaning not God's act only but the complex relative change be considered in genere Physico or quasi physico then the neerest causal interest of faith is its instrumentality but if it be considered in genere morali or legali then its neerest causal interest is that it is a condition As when a rich man bestoweth a purse of gold on a beggar requireth that he in order to the possessing of it streatch forth his hand take it considering this act of enriching him in genere physico his hand acteth herein as an Instrument apprehending the purse taking it to himself considering this in genere legali or morali the streatching forth of his hand and apprehending the purse is a condition for so the donor hath determined to give the riches after such a manner methode for his own ends according to his good pleasure Thus we see how faith can in its way produce one the same effect of justification both as an Instrument and as a Condition taking these termes in a large sense according to the matter in hand Mr. Baxter saith Confess p. 89. he denieth that Faith is an Instrument of Iustification because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficient cause of pardoning himself Ans. And he
satisfie that demand by dying the shameful death of the cross undergoing the wrath curse due to us for sin thereby making a more perfect Satisfaction unto the Sanction and threatning part of the Law than we could have done by lying in hell for ever more And by faith closeing with Christ resting upon Him as such a satisfying Cautioner Redeemer the sinner acknowledgeth the Law in all its force confessing himself a Transhressour and obnoxious to the Curse now presenting to the Law Law-giver the obedience Satisfaction of Christ whereby both its commands Sanction are fully answered resting thereupon as the only ground of his Absolution from the sentence of the Law for his guilt and of his right to the Crown which he formerly had forfeited 4. Here is another mystery That such as are unrighteous and Ungodly should be declared and pronunced Righteous In justification the person is declared not guilty of what was laid to his charge in order to punishment that juridically and so he is declared free from the punishment that the Accuser was seeking to have inflicted upon him and so is declared pronunced to be a righteous man though not one that hath not sinneth yet now one that is juridically righteous But how can this be seing every man and woman is guilty before God and is come short of the glory of God The mystery lyeth here as was said The righteousness of their Cautioner Christ is reckoned upon their score and is imputed to them they receive it by faith and so it becometh theirs for now by faith they are united unto Christ become members of His mystical body He being the Head and true Representative thereby He and they are one Person in Law being one Spirit as the Husband and the Wife are one person in Law being one flesh and as the Representer and Represented the Cautioner principal debtor and thus they have a true Interest in His Righteousness obedience to the Law which He yeelded not upon His own account being not obliged thereunto antecedently to His own voluntary condescension for us for as to His person He was God and so not obnoxious to any such Law imposed upon man who is in the way to the obtaining of a Crown as the end of his race yea nor was this requisite as to His humane Nature which by vertue of the personal union with the God-head was as to it self either in Patria and in possession of the State of blessedness or in a capacity thereto without working therefore And it is certaine that therefore His being made under the Law was for His owne people that in their room He might in the Nature of Man give perfect obedience to the Law and so make up a righteousness with which they might all become clothed by Imputation on Gods part by faith receiving it on their part and so be justified Hence-saith the Apostle by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5 19. And thus are they who are unrighteous in themselves being Transgressours of the Law constituted righteous as to the Commands of the Law by the righteousness of their Cautioner As also they are though guilty in themselves obnoxious to wrath yet pronunced free and absolved from that charge by the Imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ made in His sufferings death who did bear our griefs and carry our sorrowes and was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His stripes we are healed Esai 53 4 5. 1 Pet. 2 24. And his own self bear our sins in His own body on the tree 3. There is likewise a mystery here That the Imputation of the obedience and Righteousness of Christ doth not take away the Imputation of His Satisfaction nor make His Satisfaction useless of no Importance or necessity as Socinians imagine who cast the whole Gospel in the mould of their own corrupt Reason and understanding For they think if Christs Righteousness be imputed to us we are perfectly righteous and if we be perfectly righteous we have no sin if we have no sin there is no need of Satisfaction for our sin But they little consider that we are both guilty of the broken Law and also nothwithstanding obliged to perfect obedience It is unreasonable to think that Adam by his breach of the Law was exeemed delivered from any obligation to obey the Law sin doth not neither can dissolve that obligation otherwayes the best way of being freed from the Lawes of God or Man were to break them cast them at our heels We then being transgressours still under the obligation of obedience to the whole Law our Mediator and Cautioner must not only obey the Law for us to the end we may inherite the promised reward but must also make Satisfaction for the Violation of the Law to the end we may escape Gods Curse wrath threatned in the Law and due to us for the breach of the same Had we perfectly kept the Law we had then had no need of any Satisfaction for our breach thereof but being guilty of sin this Satisfaction and the Imputation thereof to us is absolutely necessary And though we need not nicely here distinguish betwixt this Righteouness Satisfaction in reference to the different ends and say that by His Righteousness imputed to us we have right to the Crown by His Satisfaction freedom from death which was the penalty of the broken Law for God hath joined both together for both ends what He hath thus joined together as we should not separat so neither may we nicely scrupulously distinguish but adore the wonderful wisdom of God in this contrivance and observing our necessity of both sweetly acquiesce in and thankfully accept of both But you will say if we be perfectly righteous by the Imputation of Christs righteousness what need have we of any more are we not possessed of right to the reward and being righteous are we not free of our sin I answer It is true indeed if we said that Christs Righteousness or compleet obedience was first imputed to us or if the Scripture gave any ground to say so there might be some coloure for this Exception but as the Scripture giveth no such ground so neither do we assert it Only we have need of both both are graciously imputed and received by faith yea we being sinners if we might speak of an order here Satisfaction must first be imputed that thereby we may be freed from the sentence of the Law which most presseth a wakened convinced sinner who is most anxious hereanent crying out How shall I escape the wrath and curse of God But as the Lord hath graciously and wonderfully knit the effects together so is the Cause Both Christs obedience and Sufferings were so woven together that they belonged both to made up His
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
but also all the predictions prophecies many of which are else where to be found than in Moses's writtings Yet to fortifie this Audacious groundless Interpretation He tels us 1. That this Interpretation as far at least as â—oncerneth the clause in question that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us is confirmed by the sweet proportion between such a fulfilling c. as the effect that sending of Christ c. as the cause or meanes thereof Ans. But before this proportion appear to be so sweet it must be shown to us what proportion there is hereby kept with the manifest scope of the Apostle which is to cleare explaine how there is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus notwithstanding of the weakness of the Law through the flesh As also it must be shown to us what interest these words for what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh have or can have in this Interpretation for a proportion that suiteth not all the parts of the Text is but a disproportion being a plaine perversion of the true meaning of the words He tels us 2. In this Interpretation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfilled hath its proper genuine force which is to signify the accomplishment making good or full manifestation of a thing which before was only promised or foretold Ans. Not only the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken in another sense than is here alleged as we see Rom. 13 8. Gal. 5 14. but the very verb in the same Tense Mood that is here viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to import some other thing than a fulfilling of what was promised as we see 2. Cor. 10 6. when your obedience is fulfilled that is perfected established confirmed So Ioh. 15 11. that your joy might be full or fulfilled that is might be aboundant and full in all points and upon all considerations So Luk. 22 16. untill it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of heaven that is perfected He tels us 3. The Righteousness of the Law here must be the same with that mentioned Rom. 3 21 31. Ans. The Righteousness of the Law here is the Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jus right demand which was Satisfied by what Christ the Surety did Suffered But that Righteousness mentioned Rom. 3 21. is the Righteousness of God or of Christ which he performed to Satisfie the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Righteousness of the Law so they are not the same formally this being the obligation that the payment It is true the Law here Rom. 3 31. is the same that maketh for us as appeareth by our foregoing Vindication of that place He tels us 4. By this Interpretation this passage is of perfect Sympathy with those Rom. 3 21 22 25. Ans. This also will make for us as appeareth by our foregoing Vindication where this gloss was rejected I wonder how he could imagine such a perfect agreement seing there mention is made of the Prophets as well as of the Law giving countenance to Gospel Justification but here by his Interpretation only the Law of Moses is understood where then will he make his harmony appear And what would he hence inferre 1. saith he That the righteousness of God that is the way that God holds for justification of men stands in remission of sins Ans. Of this we have hithertill seen neither peer nor peep pardon of sins hath no affinity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legis the righteousness of the law 2. Saith he That this righteousness or justification of his is witnessed that is asserted vindicated by the law that is the writtings of Moses Ans. Neither is Righteousness justification one the same thing as we said above nor are the writtings of Moses all the law the prophets Neither is witnessed by the law the same with fulfilling of the law 3. Saith he That this way was not manifested declared or fulfilled that is fully revealed to the bottom foundation of it till the coming of Christ dying for sin Ans. What ever truth be in this there is no foundation for it here but in his Imagination as is manifest from what is said And thus this place is vindicated Sixtly He mentioneth next that he may except against Rom. 9 31 32. But why is not vers 30. mentioned Is it because the matter is there too clearly hold forth The Apostle doth there expresly say That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness That is did not pretend to justification by theâ—r own works nor once think by their own works to patch up a righteousness wherein they might appeare before God and be absolved have attained to righteousness even the righteousness which is of faith that is have a righteousness imputed to them they made possessours there of by faith laying hold upon it But Israel as it followeth vers 31. who followed after the law of righteousness hath not attained to the law of righteousness That is Israâ—l who conceiting their own works crying them up and seeking after Absolution justification life by the law of righteousness and their conformity thereunto that with all earnestness eager persecution have not attained to that they were pursueing after vers 32. Wherefore because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law that is They would not submit to the Gospel-way of justification through the righteousness of Christ laid hold on by faith but would still be essaying the way of works though all they did was rather a shadow of obedience or of conformity to the law than a true performance of what was commanded The Aethiopick Version though a corrupt Translation yet hinteth something of the true senâ—e saying But Israel following after their law could not be justified because they did not performe compleatly the commands of the law Wherefore Because the law doth not justifie but only is by faith which perfecteth the accomplishment thereof And we may further notice here that what the Apostle when speaking of the Jewes calleth the law of righteousness he called while speaking of the Gentiles simply Righteousness and what he there called the righteousness of faith he here speaking of the jewes calleth by faith in opposition to the works of the law What excepteth Mr. Goodwine He saith 1. That by the law of righteousness here cannot be meant the moral law or any law for God had prevented them with the gift of all these so that they needed not have soughs after them Ans. But Calâ—in thinketh there is an Hypallage here the law of Righteousness is put for the Righteousness of the law And if we take the law of Righteousness here for the law of that law as he himself spoke above that is that forme of righteousness and holiness which the law called for will not
that denote Beleevers Union with Him as the ground of their Interest in His Righteousness should not be asserted to Import this Imputation yet this words that we might be made the Righteousness of God will be a rock whereupon Imputation may stand for they hold this forth unto us That as God made Christ sin by Imputation so He maketh us righteous yea the Righteousness of God by Imputation Except 5. The clear meaning is this that God for that end made Christ sin that is an offering or Sacrifice for sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him that is that we might be justified or made a Society or Remnant of Righteous ones after that peculiar manner of justification which God hath established through that Sacrifice of His Son Ans. When Christ was made an offering for sin the guilt of sin was laid upon Him even the guilt of our sin And if we be justified or made a Society of justified ones we must be made a Society of righteous ones and if we be made a Society of Righteous ones we must first have a Righteousness seing we have not a Righteousness of our own we must have a Righteousness made over to us and seing we have this Righteousness made over to us as being in Christ it must be the Righteousness of God So that though this Interpretation be very far fetched and hath no countenance from the words and destroyeth the cohesion of these words with the former as also the reason that is contained in them adduced for confirmation of what was said vers 19. yet it cannot destroy the doctrine of Imputation but must contribute to its support though a little more remotely He laboureth to give strength to this his Interpretation by alleiging 1. That it is a frequent Scripture expression to call the sin-offering or the Sacrifice for sin by the name of sin simply as Exod. 29 14. and 30 10. Levit. 5 6 16 18 19 7 1 2 7 9 7. Ezek. 44 27. 45 19. 23. Hos. 4 8. Ans. Though it be true that the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do sometimes signify sin sometimes an offering for sin yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth alwayes signify sin in the New Test. and the 70 do not use this Greek word in the places cited except Exod. 29 14. there in the version that is in the Biblia Polyglot Lond. It is in the Genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sin the chald-paraph calleth it an Expiation Targ. Ionath Hierof say it is a sin so doth the persik version the Samaritan Version turneth it that is for sin the Arabik an Expiation But further though it were granted to be so taken here yet our cause would hereby suffer no prejudice but be rather confirmed as was lately shown And when the same word used to express a Sacrifice for sin which signifieth sin it self we may hence be confirmed in this that that Sacrifice for sin hath guilt laid upon it before it can be Sacrifice for sin it must be sin in respect of this before it be a due Sacrifice or oblation for sin And therefore Christ must have been sin in law by Imputation or have the guilt of sin laid upon Him before He could be a fit Sacrifice for sin He alleigeth 2. To express a Number of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of Righteousness is very agreable to the Scripture dialect in other places as poverty for poor captivity for captives Ans. 1 Yet no one instance can be given where the word Righteousness hath this Import 2 But how ever as was said these justified or righteous persons must be righteous else they cannot make up such a company as captivity can never signify a company of men that are not captives nor poverty a company of persons that are not poor So that this company of righteous ones must needs be righteous and that in order to justification seing they have no Righteousness of their own for in themselves they are ungodly they must have a Righteousness by Imputation 3 Why should they be called the Righteousness of God according to this Interpretation And how is the opposition here observed betwixt Christs being made sin their being made the Righteousness of God in Him But this man by this Interpretation transgresseth all lines of Correspondence He alleigeth 3. That addition of God imports that that righteousness or justification which beleevers obtaine by the Sacrifice of Christ is not only Righteousness of Gods free donation but of His special procurement and contrivement for them Ans. 1 Righteousness and justification are not one the same how oft so ever he name them as Synonymous 2 We grant that the Righteousness the Iustification which Beleevers obtaine are both Gods free gift His contrivement But notwithstanding hereof yea so much the rather is there a Righteousness imputed to them the Righteousness of Christ who is God and a Righteousness which will be accepted of God whose judgment is according to truth as a sufficient ground whereupon to pronounce such as in themselves are ungodly to be Righteous so to justifie them He alleigeth 4. That by the grammatical construction dependance of the latter clause our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ upon the former it is evident that in the latter such an Effect must of necessity be signified which may answere that cause to wit the death of Christ for us this is deliverance from the guilt punishment of sin not the Imputation of His active obedience Ans. As Christs death could not be separated from His Obedience which is thereby presupposed His death being the Sacrifice of one who is made under the law and was obedient thereunto unto death that in the room stead of His own So the Imputation of Righteousness to us should not be separated from the Imputation of His Sufferings both being necessarily required unto sinners who had sinned yet remained under the obligation of the law in order to their acceptance with God and Justification He alleigeth 5. The Scriptures when they speak of the Sufferings of Christ as a cause inrespect of justification never ascribe any other effect unto them but only either the Remission of sins deliverance from wrath Redemption or the like Ans. As the Scriptures making so frequent mention of the Sufferings of Christ do not exclude His Obedience so neither do they exclude the Imputation of His Obedience in order to our justification and receiving a Right to glory yea they make our being constitute Righteous an Effect of His Obedience Righteousness or Righteous-making is accompanied with Justification So that though the Scriptures speak sometimes more expresly of the Sufferings sometimes more expresly of the obedience of Christ according to the exigence of the cause handled yet both are inseparable
the most remarkable piece thereof expressive of His love and condescension and terminating point of Surety-obedience for He said it was finished when He offered up Himself gave up the Ghost He addeth So where it is said againe Chap. 5. vers 16. that the gift viz. of Righteousness by Christ is of many offences unto justification If the gift of many offences i.e. the forgiveness of Mans Sinnes will not amount to a justification without the Imputation of a legal Righteousness we must give a check to Paul's pen. Ans. This is but vanity we need give no check unto the Apostle's pen for though He said not in this verse expresly that there was a gift of Righteousness also imputed yet he said it expresly vers 17. 18. 1. And shall we think that in such a continued discourse as this is wherein the Apostle is explaining the whole mystery by its parts he should mention all things in one verse He proceeds to prove that Remission of sins is the whole of justification pag. 131. Because the end saith he for which this Imputed Righteovsness of Christ is thus brought in to the business of justification viz. to be the Right to the Inheritance is supplied in a way more evangelical of more sweetness dearness to the Children of God to wit by the grace of Adoption Ans. To this we have said enough above will have occasion to speak againe to it in the next objection He addeth further 4. That if we thus separat and divide the benefite of Christ's Active and passive Obedience in Iustification we take a course to lose destroy both Ans. Not to transcribe his tedious discourse on this accout I only say That it is wholly founded upon a mistake as if our showing the necessity of the Imputation of both were a separating or dividing of the benefite of both whileas the whole Effect floweth from the whole cause both Christ's Active His passive obedience making up one compleat Surety-righteousness and so producing one whole blessedness to beleevers consisting in Remission of Sins in a Right to Glory we say with him that neither of them separated or abstracted from the other can profite us and therefore we assert the Imputation of both as one compleat Surety-righteousness answereing our necessity in all points His own words pag. 132. 133. make clearly for us I would not have saith he the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of the common joint effect justification arising from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellency of that wisdom which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was did-and suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediat Effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally Lastly He tels us If the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be added as another part of justification then must the formal cause of one the same Effect be double yea one the same formal part of the thing shall be compounded of two things of a diverse and opposite consideration Ans. We make the Impâ—tation of Christ's Righteousness not a part of justification But the cause of it and yet the formal cause of one and the same Effect is not made double for as the Cause is one compleat Cause viz. the Surety-righteousness of Christ so the Effect is one compleat Effect though both Cause and Effect may be considered as consisting of several Integral parts There is no ground here to say That one and the same formal part of a thing is compounded of diverse or opposite things Obj. 4. Chap. 12. Pag. 136. c. That which dissolveth and taketh away the necessity use of that sweet evangelical grace of Adoption cannot hold a streight course with the thruth of the Gospel But this is done by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Ergo. The Minor which is only here to be denied he laboureth to prove because we say The Righteousness of Christ must be imputed in order to our obtaining Right and Title to Life that by Remission of Sins a man is only delivered from death but receiveth no Right to the Kingdom of heaven But what can he hence inferre for confirmation of the Minor Now saith he this being the direct proper end use office purpose intent of Adoption to invest a beleever with a capacity with heaven it followes that whosoever shall attempt to set any thing else upon this throne seeks to dissolve Adoption Ans. The Consequence is null The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will no more take away Adoption than justification for it is the ground and Cause of both He might as well say That because in and by justification we have Remission of Sins to assert the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings for this end is to dissolve justification But the truth is clear as was explained above Myst. 14. He thinks both cannot stand together because either of them is a compleat entire Title within itself perfect Righteousness is a perfect title alone so is Adoption or Sonship Ans. 1. This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings as against justification for either of these is a compleat Title according to our Adversary to Immunity from death perfect Satisfaction is a perfect title alone to this Immunity as well as perfect Righteousness is a perfect title to the Inheritance Justification or Remission of Sins which are one with him is also a perfect Right to this as well as Adoption is a perfect Right to that 2 But as Justification is founded upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ so is Adoption As Christ's death and Satisfaction is not formall pardon or Right to Impunity but is when Imputed the ground and cause of justification wherein the Beleever is solemnely brought into a state of freedome from death So Christ's Obedience and Fulfilling of the Law is not a formal Right unto the inheritance but when Imputed and received by faith the ground and cause of Adoption whereby the Beleever is as it were solemnely infeoffed of the Inheritance Here then is nothing in vaine but all things so ordered as may most commend the riches of the wisdom Grace of God may most ensure life and all to the â—eleever So that his following discourse is meer froath and vanity for as God may appoint moe meanes for the same end as He pleaseth as His promises oath Sacraments to confirme the faith of beleevers so there can be no reason given why it may not be so here yet to speak properly Adoption is no mean or Cause of the Right and Title to Glory being the solemne Collation of that Right to the beleever or the solemne stating of
Gospel-way of justification as being a way to bring us back againe to the old Covenant of works with a meer pretext of some ease as to the Conditions or Termes Yet he would prove that the two Covenants are made one by us thus where the parties Covenanting are the same the things covenanted for are the same and the Conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every way the same But if the Righteousness of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or Condition of the New Covenant all the three persons things Conditions are the same Ans. 1 It may be questioned if either the persons Covenanting or the things Covenanted for in both Covenants be the same every way but to speak of this is not our present purpose 2 The Covenants do not agree as to their Conditions for the condition required in the Covenant of works was a proper antecedent condition which is a cause of the thing promised but the Condition of the New Covenant is only a consequent condition denoting nothing else than a connexion or order betwixt the thing promised the condition required 3 The Righteousness of the Law imputed to us is no condition required of us in the New Covenant but it is required of us that by faith we close with Christ thereby come to have an Interest in Christ in all His Righteousness to all ends and purposes which our case and necessity calleth for 4 This Righteousness of the Law was called for from us in our own persons in the old Covenant but in the New Covenant the righteousness is Imputed to us when we beleeve in Him And this as is said is enough to distinguish these Covenants But he thinks The Righteousness of the Law imputed from another wrought by ourselves do not much differ the substance being the same Ans. Yet this difference may make a substantial difference in the two Covenants for when the Covenant of Works did not admit of the performance of the Conditions by a Surety as himself proved by foure Arguments pag. 155. And the Covenant of Grace holdeth forth justification only through the Righteousness of another imputed to us received by faith Though the Righteousness mentioned in both consist in conformity to the same Law yet the Covenants cannot but substantially differ as is obvious to every one Beside that the righteousness imputed consisteth in more than in Obedience to the Law for it comprehendeth his whole Surety-righteousness that took in His Sufferings also The following objection which he preoccupieth is purely his owne so I leave it Obj. 10. Chap. 17. pag. 158. c. That for which Righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve cannot be imputed to them for righteousness But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve Ergo. The Assumption he thinks none will deny but such as deny the righteousness to be the Meritorious Cause of that Righteousness or justification which is conferred upon men The Major he thus proveth If it be Impossible that the thing merited should be the same thing with that which is the Meritorious Cause thereof then it is not only not true but impossible that the Righteousness of Christ should be the Righteousness of a beleever But the former is true Ergo c. Aus This is nothing but a pure fallacy founded upon a palpable mistake viz of confounding righteousness justification as if they were one the same To discover this let us put Iustification for Righteousness in the first Argument thus That for which beleevers are justified cannot be imputed to them for righteousness But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which beleevers are justified Therefore c. Who seeth not now how false the Major propositions is how impertinent ridiculous the probation thereof is justification which is the Effect or the thing merited is not the same thing with the Righteousness of Christ the Meritorious cause thereof Obj. 11. pag. 160. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a beleever for righteousness in his justification then the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed But that cannot be imputed Ergo c. He proveth the Minor which is denied thus Because the Meritorious cause being a kind of Efficient can not be either the matter or the forme of that whereof it is Efficient It is an Inviolable Law amongs the foure kindes of causes Material Formal Final Efficient that the two former do only ingredi composition or effectum are partes rei constitutae that the two latter are alwayes extrinsecal stand without Ans. All which is but vaine argueing grounded upon this palpable mistake that justification is a physical Effect like the whiteing of a wall which is the example whereby he illustrats the matter therefore he thinketh that these termes are used in this matter in as proper a sense as when they are applied to physical causes Effects whileas the matter is quite otherwise many of these termes are here used but in a metaphorical sense But to the matter whether Imputed Righteousness be called the Material cause with some or the formal cause with others of justification is no great matter seing every one hath liberty to explaine in what sense he useth these termes in this matter I should rather choose to use the terme if such like termes must be used of the formal objective cause or Reason This is enough to us That it is that whereby they become juridically righteous that upon the consideration whereof now imputed to them they are pronounced Righteous justified so is the meritorious cause of their justification that Righteousness which covereth them upon the account of which they are declared pronounced Righteous as the payment of the Surety is as the meritorious cause in Law of the absolution of the debtor the ground upon which he is absolved being accounted his payment because the debtor Surety are one person in Law As in a juridical sentence of Absolution of an accused debtor there is no proper formal or material cause so neither in the matter of justification which is God's juridical Act Sentence Yet I cannot acquiesce to what he addeth saying That only remission of sins or absolution from punishment is as the forme applied unto or put upon the matter the matter or subject it self where unto this forme is applied Not only because according to his own argueing one thing cannot be both matter forme of the same thing but because Remission of sins in hereby made the whole of justification whereas to speak properly it is but an Effect or consequent or at most a part thereof the person justified is properly absolved from the accusation declared to be Righteous so is legally constituted or put into a state of Righteousness or of Righteous persons whereupon followeth freedom from guilt or punishment a
Right to the reward as to this State whatever we shall conceive as the forme thereof it must be a Righteousness consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed for sinners can have no other Obj. 12. If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us thon the Effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also so we may be said to have merited both our own justification salvation for if I may be accounted or reputed to have wrought that Righteousness which is meritorious why may I not be conceived as well to have merited Nay further if I may be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness in Christ whereby I am justified my self I may as well be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness by which the whole world is justified Ans. This is but a meer sophisme founded upon a mistake The consequence is false the proof thereof standeth only upon this rotten bottome That to say That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us is to say that we are reputed esteemed or accounted to have done or wrought that Righteousness our selves whileas the true meaning of Imputation is this That the Righteousness of Christ is made over by grace unto Beleevers reckoned upon their score where by they are dealt with now no other wayes than if they had fulfilled all Righteousness in their own person Whence it is clear that the Effects cannot be said to be imputed to us but only that we partake of the Effects thereofs so far as our own Necessity requireth As the Ransom payed for the Redemption of so many captives is imputed to each of the captives in order to his owne Redemption to none of them as Redemption of others without this Imputation or reckoning it upon their score as the price of their Redemption no man could have right to the Effects thereof in reference to himself or could be redeemed thereby So that it is manifest that through the meritorious cause or the righteousnes of Christ imputed to us we obtaine justification Salvation but do not merite them our Redeemer Surety meriteth them for us we enjoy what He merited for our own happiness It is false then to say That by Imputation we are conceived to have wrought that righteousness in Christ whereby we are justified therefore it cannot but be most false to think That we may be conceived to have wrought that righteousness also by which others are justified for it was only our Head Husband Surety Redeemer who wrought it free grace imputed it to or reckoneth it upon the score of Beleevers Obj 13. chap. 18. pag. 165. If the active Righteousness of Christ be in the letter formality of it imputed unto me in my justification then I am reputed before God to have wrought that righteousness in Christ. But this is false c. Ans. Neither proposition is true The Major is denied unless by these word letter and formality he understand such an Imputation as we do not acknowledge his words would seem to import this for saith he in confirmation of the Major to have any thing imputed to a man in the letter of it is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him And if this be the only sense of his proposition the conclusion maketh not against us for we asserte no such Imputation as inferreth such a Reputation Nay to say That God should repute things so were to destroy all Imputation for what God whose judgment is according to truth â—eputeth us to have done we must have done it if we have really done it be reputed to have done it by the Lord it cannot be said to be imputed to us in the sense we take Imputation for Imputation with us is of that which we have not or did not which God knoweth judgeth we did not yet is by Imputation so made over to us put upon our score reckoned upon our account as that we are as really made partakers of the Effects thereof that is of justification c. As if we had done it ourselves or it had been ours without before any Imputation Hence the beleever is made the righteousness of God in Christ not reputed or esteemed to have been the righteousness of God but now through the gracious Imputation of God through faith made to be so Hence we see that the proof of his Minor goeth upon the same Mistake if saith he I be reputed before God to have wrought Righteousness in Christ in my justification then is Christ in His Sufferings reputed before God to have sinned in me Ans. We say neither the one nor the other Christ did not sinne in us nor did the Lord repute Him to have done so But he was made sin by Imputation the guilt of sin being laid upon Him or our sinnes as to their guilt being caused to meet on Him Whence it came to passe that He suffered as really the punishment of sin as if He had sinned in us whileas as to His own person He knew no sin neither was deceit found in His mouth Obj. 14. pag. 166. If the Active obedience of Christ be imputed then His Passive is imputed also Ans. And why not If the death Sufferings of Christ saith he be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died or suffered in Christ. But this cannot be because in Christ we are justified absolved from punishment therefore cannot be said to have been punished in Him Ans. This whole Argument is of a piece with the foregoing Though therefore it be upon the matter answered already Yet we shall adde this word further That though in one sense it is false to say That we are reputed to have died Suffered in Christ viz physically yet in a legal sense it may be admitted as a truth that Beleevers who now by faith are in Christ of His Body are accounted reputed to have suffered in Christ their Head Surety Publick person therefore are now dealt with as such Hence they are said to be crucified with Christ to be dead buried with Him to be risen with Him Rom. 6 4 5 6. Ephes. 2 5 6. Col. 2 12. Yet it will not follow hence that in a legal sense Christ can be said to have sinned in us for we were not His Representative or Head Though the debtor may be said in Law sense to have paid his creditor in his Suretys payment Yet the Surety cannot be said to be contracting debt in the debtor for the debtor's deed cannot affect him untill he voluntarily submit himself to be Surety where may be after the debt is already contracted by the debtor And to say in this Law sense that Beleevers Suffered in Christ doth not weaken the ground of our justification absolution Acceptation Healing as is manifested above unless we turn Socinians then upon this same ground we
therefore enquire after Mr. Baxter's sense see wherein he really differeth from us in this matter In his late Treatise of justifying Righteousness against D. Tully The first part as the Title page sheweth is of Imputed Righteousness opening defending the true Sense confuting the false Here then belike we shall finde his meaning as to this question In his preface to this book he giveth us his sense in these words That Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted Righteous because for the merites of Christ's total fulfulling the conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father by His Habitual Holiness His Actual perfect Obedience His Sacrifice or Satiâ—factory Suffering for our sins in our stead freely without any merite or conditional act of mans God hath made an act of oblivion Deed of Gift pardoning all sin justifying Adopting giving Right to the Spirit Life eternally to every one that beleevingh accepteth Christ the gifts with by from Him when we accept them they are all ours by vertue of this purchased Covenant-gift But this I Judge cannot give satisfaction for upon the grant of the Act of Oblivion as he calleth it which in his judgment is extended to all Mankind no man in particular can be called or accounted Righteous or have Righteousness imputed to him more than another so upon this account all are equally Righteous have equally Christ's Righteousness imputed to them that is no man hath it As for these Effects pardon justification Adoption Right to the Spirit to Life they cannot be called the Righteousness of Christ no more than the Effect can be called the cause And though they become ours when we accept them or rather when we accept of Christ yet upon that account meerly it can not be said that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us no otherwayes for that is nothing but the Socinian Concession formerly mentioned it cannot Satisfie the orthodox The questin is about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the Answer given is concerning the Effects thereof given to us But these Effects are not the Righteousness of Christ nor are they to be called a Righteousness nor are they in Scripture so called unless we say with Ioh. Goodwin that Righteousness Imputed is nothing but free justification Yea these Effects must presuppose a Righteousness in the persons receiving them either Inherently or by way of Impuâ—ation for God will justifie no man or declare no man to be Righteous who is not Righteous And concerning this Righteousness is our question And Mr. Baxter giveth us nothing here for this unless it be our beleeving this is that which Servetus Socinians Arminians say In opposition to this which he calleth a short plaine explication of Christianity he setteth down what others say as necessary to go in to our Christianity so tels us that according to them we must say That Christ was habitually actually perfectly Holy obedient imputatively in our particular persons thath each one of us did perfectly fulfill that Law which requireth perfect habites act in and by Christ imputatively and yet did also in by him suffer ourselves imputatively for not fulfilling it imputatively did ourselves both satisfie God's justice and merite heaven and that we have ourselves imputatively a Righteousness of Perfect holiness obedience as sinless must be justified by the Law of Innocency or works as having ourselves imputatively fulfilled it in Christ. And that this is our sole-righteousness that faith it self is not imputed to us for Righteousness no not a meer particular subordinat Righteousness answering the conditional part of the new justifying Covenant as necessary to our participation of Christ His freely given Righteousness As touching the latter part of this discourse about the Imputation of Faith its being called our particular subordinat Righteousness it is true Several of the Orthodox have appeared against it we shall also speak our judgment of it hereafter But as to the former part which is only pertinent to our purpose now in hand I know not if ever any Orthodox person uttered his minde after this manner Yea I wote not if Antinomians themselves have at any time expressed themselves in all points as is here set down But be it so that they have thus expressed their meaning that these expressions here set down are not meer Consequences Inferences drawn by Mr. Baxter himself from their opinions assertions yet Mr. Baxter cannot but know that the Orthodox are against them in these assertions as well as he to me it appeareth no faire to set down these words as containing that opinion which all must hold who cannot fully embrace Mr. Baxter's owne judgment as if there were no Medium betwixt the Socinian or Arminian judgment on the one hand the Antinomian opinion on the other hand whileas he cannot but know the contrary Nether is this a â—â—t sure way to cleare up the true sense of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness at least that sense which we owne In the Book pag. 24. he againe setteth down his own judgment or sense of Imputation which he taketh to be the true healing middle way Part whereof is as followeth That as Christ suffered in our stead that we might not suffer and obeyed in our Nature that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification and this in the person of a Mediator and Sponsor for us sinners but not so in our persons as that we truely in a moral or civil sence did all this in and by him Even so God reputeth the thing to be as it is and so far Imputeth Christ's Righteousness and Merites and Satisfaction to us as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious Cause of our justification that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ pardon and life to all that accept the gift as it is so that the Accepters are by this Covenant and Gift as surely justified and Saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had obeyed and satisfied themselves Not that Christ meriteth that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves and stand before God in a Righteousness of our own which will answere the Law of works and justify us but that the Conditions of the GÃft in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Beleever that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as God's Instrument and giveth them a Right to life eternal for Christ's merites As to this though it may seem faire a far advancement yet I shall crave leave to say these few things against it 1. When he saith That Christ suffered in our stead I would know in whose stead it was Whether it was in the stead of some select persons or in stead of all If in the stead of some select persons only then these select persons must
to be Ans. Christ could not be made a Sacrific for sin till He had the guilt of sin laid upon Him by Imputation as the Sacrifices of old had typically His being reputed such handled as such by man is of no consideration here And by God He could not be used as a sinner or as sinners are deserve to be unless our sins had been first caused to meet upon Him imputed to Him to the end He might properly be said to Suffer become a Sacrifice for sin We say with him n. 23. that God did not suppose or repute Christ to have committed all or any of the sins which we all committed Nor to have had all the wickedness in His Nature which was in ours nor to have deserved what we did deserve nor did in this proper sense impute our sins to Christ. For indeed this had not been in a prope sense to impute our sins to Him but plainly to confound His Physical person with ours to speak thus I should account to be horrid blasphemy Yet it may be must be said that Christ being made sin for us made to suffer for sin in the room of sinners had their sins laid upon Him so was a sinner not Inherently but legally by Imputation that is had the guilt of our sins in order to punishment imputed to Him He put to suffer for that guilt or because a sinner by Imputation And when the Scripture saith that God made Christ sin for us 2 Cor. 5 21. Laid on Him the iniquity of us all Esai 55 6. It is as emphatick to me more as to say God did impute our sin to Christ which he some-way excepteth against n. 23. pag. 57. He addeth n. 26. pag. 58. Though Christ suffered in our stead and in a large sence to certaine uses and in some respects as the Representer or in the persons of Sinners yet did He not so far represent their persons in His habitual Holiness and actual obedience no not in the obedience of His Suffering as He did in the Suffering it self He obeyed not in the person of a sinner much less of millions of sinners which were to say in the person of sinners he never sinned He suffered to save us from suffering but He obeyed not to save us from obeying but to bring us to obedience yet His perfection of obedience had this end that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification and Salvation Ans. Seing Christ was appointed Mediator Sponsor to take on mans debt and come in his Law-place what reason can be given why He should not as well be said to represent them in the paying of the one part of that debt as in the paying of the other We were under the Law and obliged to performe perfect obedience in order to the obtaining of the reward promised and because of sin we were under the Curse Now when the Surety come to pay our whole debt He did as much and as well represent us in paying of and in performing obedience as in Suffering And why may we not say that He obeyed in the juridical and Law person of a sinner as well as that He suffered Though I should not use such improper and unusual expressions as Mr. Baxter here doth yet I must tell him That Christ's obeying in the person of a sinner saith no more than that He being the person representing sinners His obeying was and is repute in Law-sense their obeying He Suffered it is true to save us from suffering of the Curse of the Law But Mr. Baxter will not say that He suffered to save us from all Suffering He obeyed it is true to bring us to obedience as He died also for that end that we might haue the Sanctifying Spirit bestowed upon us yet notwithstanding He obeyed to save us from obeying viz. after that manner that we were obliged to obey under the old Covenant that is to obey perfectly or never enjoy the crown and to obey for that end that we might enjoy the crown as the legal reward of and due debt for our labour And seing Mr. Baxter granteth in the following words that Christ's perfect obedience had this end that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification why may he not say that to certaine uses and in some respects Christ obeyed to save us from obeying Or why will he not say that He obeyed for us that we who could not obey of our selves might be repute to have obeyed perfectly in Him This is all we desire He saith next n. 27. It was not we our selves who did perfectly obey or were perfectly holy or suffered for sin in the person of Christ or by Him nor did me naturally or morally merite our own Salvation by obeying in Christ nor did we satisfie God's justice for our sins nor purchase pardon or Salvation to ourselves by our suffering in and by Christ. Ans. However Christ doing all this for us as our Sponsor and Surety we are so taken-in in a Law-sense that the same is imputed unto us and we enjoy the fruits thereof pardon and Salvation no less than if we had done and suffered all in our own physical persons As to what he saith n. 29 30. it is nothing to the purpose and therefore I shall not set down his words for we are not here speaking of Relations and Accidents physically or metaphysicall rather considered which cannot pass from one Subject to another nor do we speak of Christ while speaking of the Imputation of His Righteousness physically considered but politically legally as a Sponsor and Surety some way representing us I assent to him that the meaning of this Imputation is not That we ourselves in person truely had the habites which Christ had and did all that Christ did and suffered all that he suffered as by an Instrument or legal Representer of our persons in all this meaning that we in our physical persons should have done all this by Him as our physical Instrument But why He addeth here or legal Representer unless he meane thereby that which elsewhere he hath expressed to be as our delegat or Servant I know not And however it seemeth not to me appositely here annexed if ingenuous and plaine dealing be designed But there is another sense in which he will yeeld to Imputation he thinks there cannot be a third Let us hear what this other sense is That Christ's Satisfaction saith he Righteousness and the Habites Acts Sufferings in which it lay are imputed to us made ours not rigidly in the very thing it self but in the effects and benefites Ans. But if he shall yeeld to no other Imputation than this he shall grant no Imputation for that Imputation as to effects is no Imputation at all unless the meritorious cause be imputed in order to the receiving of these Effects there is nothing imputed for they Effects are never said to be imputed There
is therefore a Third sense wherein neither Christ's Righteousness that is His Habites Acts Sufferings are said to be physically translated and put in us or upon us nor are they said to be Imputed to us meerly in their Effects as Socinians say but wherein Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience Suffering is in a Law-sense made over to beleevers put upon their score now accounted theirs they because thereof accounted Righteous legally and juridically and have therefore the Effects bestowed on them This being so obvious I wonder that Mr. Baxter cannot see it When a debtor is lying in prison for debt and a friend cometh Satisfieth the creditor for him by paying the summe in his place stead the Law doth not impute that payment to the debtor meerly in the effects but imputeth the payment it self not in its Physical acceptation as if it judged that he was the man that in his own Physical person told the money with his own hands brought it out of his own purse as the other did but in its legal force vertue efficary unto him accounted him in this Legal sense to be no more a debter unto the creditor therefore one that hath right to his liberty must therefore be set free from prison So in our case the Righteousness of Christ in a legal sense as to its efficary vertue is made over to the Beleever he thereupon is accounted Righteous and no more a debtor and therefore free of the Penalty Further Although he say that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the Effects Yet he knoweth that that is in his judgment but very remotely and that really these effects are more proximely the effects of Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness and that the Immediat effect and product of Christ's Righteousness is the New Covenant and this New Covenant being made with all Mankind as he thinketh Christ's Righteousnes is in this immediat Effect imputed to all flesh Reprobat as well as Elect. And this is in part cleared from the words Immediatly following when he saith In as much as we are as really pardoned justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious Cause by the Instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we ourselves had done suffered all that Christ did For this Instrumentality of the Covenant includeth the performance of the Condition thereof i. e. faith this Faith is properly imputed for Righteousness as he saith And therefore as the Covenant is the Effect of the merites of Christ so pardon and Salvation must be the Effects of Faith and the Effects of Christ's Righteousness only in that he did procure the Covenant which conveyeth these to us upon Condition of our performing of this faith which is therefore called by him our Gospel-Righteousness He giveth us next foure wayes n. 31. pag. 60. wherein the Lord is said to be our Righteousness an Expression that doth emphatically more than sufficiently express the meaning of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 1. In that saith he He is the meritorious cause of the pardon of all our sins our full justification Adoption Right to glory by His Satisfaction and Merites only our justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law works is purchased Ans. He cannot be said by him to be the Meritorious Cause of pardon c. But in as far as He is the Meritorious cause of the Covenant in which these benefites are promised upon Condition of faith our Gospel-righteousness which properly and only is our Imputed Righteousness according to him and so Christ is our Righteousness in meriting that faith shall be repute our Gospel-righteousness in order to our obtaining of Pardon and Right to glory But moreover where is our Righteousness For Pardon is no Righteousness neither is justification Adoption or Right to Glory properly a Righteousness But do presuppose a Righteousness after which we are enquiring and cannot finde that Christ is made to be that to us and consequently either faith must be it or there is none The other senses are 2. In that He is the legislator Testator donor of our Pardon justification by this new Covenant 3. In that He is the Head of Influx King Intercessour by whom the Spirit is given to Sanctifie us to God cause us sincerely performe the Conditions of the Iustifying Covenant 4. In that He iâ— the righteous judge justifier of Beleevers by sentence of judgment Ans. All these three will make the Father to be our Righteousness as well as the Son for He is legislator He draweth to the Son sendeth the Spirit to Sanctifie us He judgeth by the Son justifieth 2. But none of these nor all of these give us the true Import of that glorious Name according to the true scope of the place Ier. 23 6. of which we have spoken above In like manner n. 32. he giveth us four senses of these words we are made the Righteousness of God in Him The 1. is In that as he was used like a sinner for us But not esteemed one by God so we are used like innocent persons so far as to be saved by Him Ans. As He was used by God like a sinner so was He legally accounted a sinner otherwise God would not have used Him as a sinner Therefore if we be used like innocent persons we must be in God's esteem legally juridically innocent through Christ's Righteousness imputed so must be saved by Him The 2. is In that through His Merites upon our union with Him when we beleeve consent to Hiâ— Covenant we are pardoned justified so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but glorified Ans As I said neither pardon nor justification maketh us Righteous but suppose us to be Righteous and therefore in justification we are declared pronounced Righteous thereupon pardoned Moreover all our Righteousness that we have in order to justification pardon is according to Mr. Baxter our Faith which is is reputed to be our Gospel Righteousness is said to be properly Imputed to us thus Christ suffered in our stead that our faith might be accounted our Righteousness Though pardon will take away condemnation yet as we have cleared above more must be had in order to Glorification His 3. 4. are In that the divine Nature Inherent Righteousness are for His merites In that God's justice holiness truth wisdom mercy are all wonderfully Demonstrated in this way of Pardoning justifying of sinners by Christ. Ans. This last hath no ground as the sense of the words And as for the. 3. Before he make it the sense of the place 2 Cor. 5 21. he must say That Christ was a sinner inherently which were blasphemy for otherwayes that beautiful correspondence that is betwixt the First the Last part of the verse must be laid a side
me it is such that by Mr. Baxter's way the whole frame of the Gospel is changed such as hold it do in my judgment not only confound but alter the causes of justification If that which Christ did by His Merites was to procure the New Covenant what was there in Adam that can be said to answere this or hold correspondence with it With us the Parallel runneth smoothly and clearly thus As by vertue of first Covenant whereof Adam was the head engaging for all his Natural Posterity so soon as they partake of Nature thereby become actual members of that Political Body partake of Adam's guilt or breach of the Covenant which is imputed to them there upon share of the consequences thereof as immediatly resulting therefrom to wit the corruption of the whole Nature Privative positive wrath the curse c. This himself asserteth pag. 34. So by vertue of the Second Covenant whereof Christ the Second Adam is Head engaging for all His Spiritual posterity they so soon as they come to partake of His spiritual Nature so become members of His mystical body which is by a Phisical supernatural operation conveyed morally and Covenant wayes according to the Good pleasure of His will according to His wisdom who doth all things well wisely are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness which is imputed unto them thereupon do share of the Consequences which do immediatly result therefâ—om viz. of justification pardon Adoption Right to Glory He addeth n. 44. Though the person of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very person of each sinner nor so many persons as there are sinners or beleevers yet it doth belong to the person of the Mediator so far limitedly to bear the person of a sinner and to stand in the place of the persons of all sinners as to bear the punishment they deserved to suffer for their sins Ans. We do not imagine that the Physical peâ—son of the Mediator is either really or reputatively the Physical person of each sinner It is enough for us to say that the Mediator is an Head Surety publick person and so that He Beleevers are one legally and juridically And we judge also that it belongeth to the person of the Mediator being Surety to Satifie for the whole debt of these for whom He is Surety therefore must not only so far stand in the place of sinners as to Suffer for their sins bear the punishment they deserved But also give that perfect obedience which they were obliged unto and were not able to performe or pay He granteth n. 45. pag. 67. that Morally it may be said that Christ's Righteousness was given to us in that the thing purchased by it was given to us as the money given for the ransome of the Captive may besaid morally to be given to the captive though Physically it begiven to the Conquerour But neither this similitude not yet the other of a mans being said to give anotheâ— so much money when he giveth him the land bought therewith do not come home to the point in hand for there is a neer closs union betwixt Christ Beleevers which union is not supposed in these cases Next Christ was in our Law-place and undertook to do what He did as our Surety neither is this supposed in the cases proposed againe the benefite here following viz. Justification c. doth presuppose us to be Righteous consequently we must have a Righteousness imputed because we have none of our owne for we may not admit Faith to that high dignity We have mentioned more apposite fit Similitudes above I cannot assent to what he saith n. 47. pag. 68. That Christ is less improperly said to have represented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam in a general sense for the purchasing of the universal gift of pardon life called the New Covenant than to have represented in his perfect holiness and sufferings every beleever considered as from his first being to his death For of His representing all mankind newly fallen in Adam I read not in the Scriptures nor yet of His purchasing the New Covenant Whether these be not additions to the word of God let Mr. Baxter who oft chargeth others herewith consider Nor do I know what Scripture warranteth him to say pag. 69. That Christ the second Adam is in a sort the root of Man as Man as He is the Redeemer of Nature it self from destruction Nor what truth can be in it unless he think to play upon the word in a sort He seemeth to come neerer us when he saith n. 48. p. 70. The summe of all lyeth in applying the distinction of giving Christ's Righteousness as such in it self as a Cause of our Righteousness or in the causality of it as our sin is not reputed Christ's sin in it self and in the culpability of it for then it must needs make Christ odious to God but in its causality of punishment So Christ's material or formal Righteousness is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in it self as such but the causality of it as it produceth such such effects Ans. How Christ's Righteousness should be the cause of our Righteousness if we speak properly I know not for we are here speaking of Righteousness in order to justification in this case I know no other Righteousness but Christ's Surety-righteousness imputed to us and bestowed upon us it is improper to say that Christ's Righteousness is the cause of it self as given to us But it may be he meaneth that it is the cause of our Faith this I grant to be true but I deny that this faith is our Righteousnese whereupon we are justified or the ratio formalis objectiva of our justifications When we mention the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness we mean the Righteousness of Christ it self not Physically but legally juridically that is its worth or legal causality not as it produceth but in order that it may produce such Effects Our sin is reputed Christ's legally in its demerite of punishment or in its reatus culpae that He might be legally thereby reus culpae and yet He was not odious to God because it was not His Inherently but only legally by Imputation Mr. Baxter in his following Chap. 3. fearing that by all that he had said he had not made the state of the controversie plaine enough to the unexercised Reader goeth over it againe in a shorter way that he may make it as plaine as possibly he can And yet I judge such is my dulness that he never made the matter more obscure at least to the Unexercised Reader nor possibly could than he hath done here for if any man how understanding so ever shall understand his Expressions let be the matter by them that is not very well versed both in Aristotles Logicks or Metaphysicks and the termes thereof and in justinian's Lawes
of the debtor not meerly accepted for him If the payment were purely accepted neither could it be said that the Surety was anteriourly obliged nor that the Creditor might not refuse that payment neither of which can be affirmed As for the first sense of his Acceptation we owne it not more than he the second is true but not full plaine being only general nor is it as thus generally expressed any sense of his Acceptation for when two persons are obliged for a summe conjunctly severally the Creditor may distress either for the whole when one payeth the whole he may be said to pay for the other yet Common sense will not Suffer us to say that his payment was only accepted for the other He tels us afterward that Sponsors Sureties with us are of several Sorts that they who lay all upon the very name of a Surety as if the word had but one signification all Sureties properly represented the Person of the Principal obliged person do deal very deceitfully Ans. But there is no remedie against some Mens censures Some will possibly think that his dealing is not faire to speak in the Answere of Sureties representing the principal debtors when the Objection as himself set it down speaketh only of their being one person in Law sense these two are not every way the same every one that representeth another is not his Surety or Sponsor nor doth the Surety in every case represent the Principal debtor neither is he said so to do But sure it is plaine dealing to take the word Surety or Sponsor in that sense wherein it is alwayes taken by Men that use it untill he demonstrat that of necessity it must have a peculiar sense in this matter in this place and it is not faire to object deceitful dealing to us in this untill he hath first discovered the deceit He reckoneth up three or foure various things in which persons may become Sureties as Debt Punishment Duty the like But to what purpose I know not Doth he think that we make Christ such a Surety as agreeth in all things with every Surety among men We know there never was nor never will be such a Surety as our Lord Jesus is A Surety notwithstanding we acknowledge Him to be because He is so called in what respects He is a Surety we know from the Scriptures where that is aboundantly declared not from the simple name of a Surety The name tels us that that must be said of Christ which agreeth to all Sureties or is commonly acknowledged to agree unto them that is that they in so far as they are obliged or have obliged themselves whether before or after the Principal Debtor stood obliged for this maketh no difference as to the obligation Instit. fidejus ff eod l. II. are one person in Law-sense with the principal Debtor so that their payment Satisfaction is acknowledged in Law as the payment Satisfaction of the Principal Debtors His Novices that look into Calv. Lex Iurid for Fidejussor Sponsor will finde nothing contrary to this Yea they will finde that fidejussor dicitur qui pro alio fidem suam obligat fide sua id est periculo suo esse jubet quod alius debet that fidejussor proprie decitur debitor that even fidejussor conditional is nomine debitoris continetur fidejussorem proprie esse debitorem fere omnes tradunt quia jura eum plerumque appellant debitorem The same is to be seen in Spigelius As for that which Mr. Baxter addeth that fide juffor non est conveniendus nisi prius principali debitore Convento it neither altereth the case nor was it universally so but only in some certaine cases as he migt have read in the same place So that it still holdeth true that the Sponsor the Debitor are one person in Law that so that if the Debitor pay the Sponsor is free if the Sponsor pay the Debitor is free See Instit. lib. 3. Tit. 30. quibus modis tollitur obligatio l. 13. § si fide jussor D. de Acceptil Where it is said that the debitor is liberat if the Sponsor give only that which is called solutio imaginatia There must be saith he some what more than the bare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once used of Christ as Mediator of Gods Covenant or the name of a Surety as now used among men that must go to prove that the Mediator the several sinners are the same legal Persons in Gods account Ans. What he meaneth by God's covenant he would do well to explaine That the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of Christ as Mediator if he take this as reduplicatively he should prove When he saith the Mediator the several sinners are the same Legal Persons it is ambiguously uttered no clear Declaration of our minde But as to the thing we would faine know a reason why we may not take this word in its common acceptation among men seing there is nothing in Scripture to the contrary yea though this greek word be but here only found yet as we saw we have an hebrew word of the same Import several times used in the old Test the whole matter that we seek after clearly held forth thereby if the places be but lookt into To put a close to this we would call to mind that five fold Law-identity sameness that is betwixt Christ the Surety Sinners for whom He satisfied mentioned by worthy Mr. Rutherfoord in his Treatise of the Covenant part 2 pag. 251. which are these 1. Though Physically the Surety the Debtor be two different Men yet in Law they are one the same Person one the same legal party the same object of justice who so in Law pursueth the Surety doth also pursue the Debtor 2. The Debt Summe is one not two Debts not two Ransomes nor two Punishments nor two Lives to lose but one 3. It is one the same Solution Satisfaction there cannot in Law-justice come another Reckoning Dying payment asking after the Surety hath payed 4. There is one the same Acceptation upon the creditor's Part if he accept of Satisfaction in the payment made by the Surety he cannot but legally accept of the Debtor cannot pursue him in Law but must look upon him as no debtor c. 5. It is one the same legal effect Christ crucified in the Spirit risen againe 1. Tim. 3 16. we in Him as in the Meritorious Cause are legally justified Mr. Gillespy in his late piece Chap. 21. hath several things which will both cleare up confirme what is said we shall mention only a few pag. 373 374. He tels us that 3. Suretiship imports not only a voluntary obligation for another person but also union of parties Assumption of the Condition of that person in the lawes sense so that
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
a bare may be of forgiveness by a New Covenant offering the same upon new termes What next Expositors saith he commonly say that to be made sin for us is but to be made a Sacrifice for sin so that Christ took upon Him neither our numerical guilt of sin it self nor any of the same species but only our Reatum poenae or debt of punishment or left the wranglers make a verbal quarrel of it our Reatum culpae non quâ talem in se sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae Ans. Yet some Expositors will say more and that in full consonancy with the Scriptures as Esai 53 6. And however all we say is hereby sufficiently confirmed for if He be made a sacrifice for our sins our sins must necessarily be imputed to him as the sins of the people were typically laid upon the Sacrifices and therefore Christ must have taken on Him not physically but legally our very numerical guilt without which he could not be accounted reus poenoe or obnoxious to our punishment What he meaneth by the reatus culpae qua talis in se he would do well to explaine If his meaning be that Christ was not legally accounted guilty this is denied for then he could not have been a Sacrifice for our sins to have died in our stead Wrangling is not good Yet Turpe'est Doctori c. He addeth And so His Righteousness is ours not numerically the same Relation that he was the subject of made that Relation to us nor yet a Righteousness of the same species as Christ's is given to us at all Ans. Though Christ's numerical Righteousness be not ours physically yet that same is made over to us legally as it is one the same Individual payment that is made by the Surety and made over in Law unto the debtor And therefore what he addeth is to no purpose But saith he His Righteousness is the Meritorious cause reason of another Righteousness or justification distinct from His freely given us by the Father Himself by His Covenant Ans. Righteousness and justification are not one and the same more than the cause is the same with the Effect As Christ's Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification so it must be legally made ours in order to our Justification otherwayes we cannot be accounted Righteous and legally free of the Charge brought in against us And this is not granted us by a Covenant with new Conditions in Mr. Baxter's sense as hath been evinced already Therefore he is in a great mistake when he concludeth that they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin it self in its formal relation to be His own so Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Redeemed set together they that will not overthrow the Gospel by making us formally as Righteous as Christ in kind measure must needs be agreed with us in this part of the controversie For we have shown how far we are from Blasphemy how groundless his Insinuation is founded only on his Physical or Metaphysical acceptation of things here which we understand only legally and juridically according to all right and reason And as for subverting of the Gospel it is one of our choise grounds of Reason against his way because by it the Gospel is indeed changed and the true and native Gospel-way of Salvation is indeed removed and a Sociniano-Armintan Gospel substitute in its room which is daily more and more confirmed by books coming out wherein Mr. Baxter's grounds are owned and more Socinianisme Arminianisme vented than Mr. Baxter himself hath yet had the confidence to express in his own books witness Mr. Allens discourse of the two Covenants ushered in with Mr. Baxter's preface and others of that kind much commended and cryed up by Mr. Baxter 9. Object When you Inferre that if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ we cannot be againe bound to obey ourselves afterward nor be guilty of any sin you must know that it is true that we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did which is to redeem us or to fulfill the Law of works but yet we must obey to other ends viz. in gratitude and in love to God and to do good and the like Though I think the objection is not so favourably proposed as it might be seing that end to Redeem should not here be mentioned for though it was the end of Christ's coming in to our Law-place yet it cannot be said to be properly the end of that Obedience he performed while he was in our Law-place proximely Let us see how ever what he saith to it 1. Hence saith he it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our persons legally but in the person of a Mediator seing His due obedience ours have so different ends and a different formal-relation His being a conformity proximatly to the Law given Him as Mediator that they are not so much as of the same species much less numerically the same Ans. I think rather that hence it clearly followeth that Christ did indeed obey the Law as it was the Condition of the Covenant of works in each of the Elect's person legally for though His Obedience and ours now after faith have far different ends yet His Obedience as Obedience to the Law of works had the same end that our Obedience should have had by that Law viz. the fulfilling of the same in order to the obtaining of a Right to Life and if not to lose all The Law given Him as Mediator taken in its latitude is not the Law whereof the objection speaketh for it speaketh of the Law of works under which Adam was and all his posterity in him and under the breach of which we lay And Christ's obeying in the person of a mediator doth not hinder His representing His own legally for He was such a Mediator as was a Sponsor and Surety and came in our Law-place and undertook our debt Therefore though Christ's Obedience to the special Law given to Him as Mediator was not of the the same kind with the obedience required of us yet the obedience He performed to the Moral Law in our place stead and as our Surety and Sponsor was the very same debt we were oweing He saith 2. Either this Obedience of Gratitude is a duty or not if not it is not truely obedience nor the omission sin If yea then that duty was made a duty by some Law And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude or for what ends so ever either we do all that we are so bound to do or not if we do it or any of it then to say that we did it twice once by Christ once by ourselves is to say that we were bound to do it twice then Christ did not all that we were bound to but half Ans. We distinguish betwixt the Law
granted as the Immediat fruites of His merites but He only merited the New Covenant wherein these favours are offered upon new Conditions 7 Thus Christ is made only a far off Mediating person procureing new and easier termes which yet are as Impossible to us till we be renewed by grace as the old but no Redeemer or Surety suffering and obeying in the room and stead of any 8 Thus are we justified by our own works of Evangelical Obedience 9 God is made hereby to repute a Right to Pardon Glory our Imperfect Evangelical Obedience to be an acceptable Righteousness the all of our Righteousness all which are against the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed to us in the Scriptures as hath partly been discovered already will further appear by what will hereafter come to be spoken unto CHAP. XVI Mr. Baxter's Further opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness examined WHat Mr. Baxter's opinion is about the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in order to our justification we have hitherto been enquireing though in his book against D. Tully while he is giving an historical relation of the Controversie he plainely enough declareth that he is of the judgment as to the maine with Iohn Goodwine yet he there as we have heard so stateth the question against which he disputeth as the Orthodox will not owne it wherein he dealeth not so ingenuously with us as Mr. Goodwine did He will not deny that there is a midway betwixt the Socinians Papists Arminians on the one hand the Antinomians on the other though the Middle way which he hath seâ— down in his Confess pag. 152 153. c. seemeth to me not be the just orthodox way but to incline more unto the Socinians c. for all the Imputation which he seemeth to owne is nothing else than what Papists Socinians Arminians will subscribe unto for beside what we have seen examined above Chap. XIII XIV in his book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 179. he hath these words I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu And what found sense is he tels us in a parenthesis that is saith he 1. per Donationem ejus fructus and 2. per adjudicationem justitiae nobis inde promeritae that is to say by giving us the fruits thereof 2. by adjudging to us Righteousness thereby purchased which two seem to me to be but one the last being comprehended in the first so all the Imputation by him granted is only in respect of the fruits thereof which are given And will not Papists Socinians Arminians yeeld unto this Imputation Nay doth not Bellarmine come a further length in the words formerly cited Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. part 2. of Moral morks giveth us here there while speaking of other things without any apparent Connexion choosing this way rather than to give us his whole sense of that matter in one place together which might have been some ' ease to such as were desirous to know the same but I know he is at liberty to follow his own wayes methods some hints of his mind and that rather of his dissatisfaction with the orthodox and their manner of expressing their Thoughts Conceptions in this matter than any full positive declaration of his own Thoughts about the question We shall having seen examined his own judgment shortly here examine what he is pleased to say in one place or other of that Book so far as we can finde may be done without repetition against our doctrine Only we shall premit some few of his own words in the Appendix to the Premonition p. 2. whereby we may see how small the difference would appear to be how little cause he had to write so much against the Orthodox as he doth He there saith 14. No man is saved or justified but by the Proper Merite of Christ's perfect obedience Yea and His habitual holiness Satisfactory Sufferings advanced in dignity by His Divine Perfection 15. This Merite as related to us supposeth that Christ as a Sponsor was the Second Adam the Root of the justified the Reconciling Mediator who obeyed perfectly with that Intent that by His obedience we might be justified who suffered for our sins in our room and stead so was in tantum our Vicarius poenae as some phrase it or Substitute was made a curse for us that we might be healed by his stripes as He was Obedient that His Righteousness might be the reason as a Meritorious Cause of our justification which Supposeth the relation of an Undertaking Redeemer in our Nature doing this in our stead so far forth as that therefore perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by ourselves And Righteousness therefore is Imputed to us that is we are truely reputed Righteous because we as beleeving members of Christ have right to Impunity life as merited by His righteousness freely given to all penitent beleevers And Christ's own Righteousness may be said so far to be Imputed to us as to be reckoned reputed the Meritorious cause of our Right justification as aforesaid One might think the difference now to be little or none but all this is but Sutable to what is already examined and what might here further be animadverted upon will occurre hereafter He beginneth Sect. 8. n. 119. to speak against the Doctrine of Imputation taught by the Orthodox I shall yeeld to him that Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane Habitual active or Passive is not given to us or made ours truely and properly in a Physical sense as if the same were transfused in upon us Yet the same being imputed to us is made ours more than in the meer Effects for according to the Gospel methode beleevers being by Faith interesâ—ed in Him have an Interest in His Surety-righteousness as to its vertue force and efficacy or as the cause and that morally and legally so that Christ and beleevers are one person in Law Noâ— do we hereby say That Christ's Merite Satisfaction are reputâ—d by God to be inherent in us or done by us in our own proper persons or that in a sence Natural we did all these things ourselves or that God judgeth us so to have done or that all the Benefites of Christ's Righteousness shall as fully and Immediatly be ours as if we bad been done Suffered merited and Satisfied in and by Christ. But we say that Christ being a Surety putting himself in our Law-place putting as it were His name in our Obligation being thereunto Substitute by and accepted of the Father His Satisfaction obedience being performed by Him in our Law-place as a Surety voluntarily taking on the obligation is accounted in Law and justice to be ours who beleeve in Him to all ends and uses that is in order to justification pardon and Right to Glory and that as
Righteousness of Christ which meriteth our Impunity quoad damnum sensum which Meriteth our Right to the Gift of life both sub ratione doni as a Gift sub ratione Condonations as a forgiveness of the forfeiture of the poena damni And then addeth That so there is here no room for the conceite that Christ's Death was only to purchase pardon His Righteousness to merite life Ans. We have said before that we need not be so curious here in distinguishing if both be granted to make up a Compleat Righteousness to purchase both we have all we desire and from what hath been said formerly it is manifest that both are requisite Mr. Baxtor granted as much before as we see in the foregoing paragraph Note 6. Nor saith Mr. Baxter any thing here to invalidate what we have said Sure not to have this Gift was no punishment to Adam before he sinned what-ever it might be said to be after his sin Nor is forfeiture of that properly which a Man never had neither in Right nor in possession And therefore Adam could not be said properly nor we in him to have forfeited glory but only that blessedness and felicity wherein he was created and that Righteousness that was concreated So that beside the taking away of this forfeiture there will be a Righteousness of Obedience requisite according to that Constitution do this live in order to the obtaining of a Right for us unto the life of Glory And to this he assenteth in end when he saith That the same Merites of Christ's Active Passive Habitual Righteousness do causo our Glory For we do not separat them Nor need we curiously enquire whether Christ's Suffering were first Satisfactory then Meritorious His Obedience first Meritorious and then Satisfactory as he speaketh it being sufficient to us that both made up a compleat Righteousness performed for us by Him as our Surety coming in our Law-place whereby justice was satisfied and life merited Nor need I say as he supposeth n. 135. too many hold That heaven is our Reward for our perfection of Holiness and Obedience in and Christ more than that pardon is our Reward for our Satisfaction in by Christ. Yet as Christ satisfied as a Sponsor in the stead room of sinners as he confessed so it may be said that Christ obeyed as a Sponsor in their room stead that as the one was requisite for purchase of pardon so the other was requisite for purchase of Glory and that as we must be Interessed in the one imputed to us received by faith to the end we may be pardoned so we must be Interessed in the other imputed to us and received by faith both being Integral parts of one compleat Surety-righteousness to the end we may have a Right to Glory Nor can I say with him Ibid. That eternal life is ours by Christ's free Gift as a Reward to Christ for His own Merites for then we could not say that Christ suffered properly in the roome of any as their Sponsor and this would take away that fundamental relation betwixt Christ the Chosen ones that were given to Him of the Father and for whose sake He sanctified Himself was made a Curse made under the Law and became the Father's Servant and was made a Surety Blessings came through Christ as the appointed Mediator not from Him as the principal Donor speaking of Him as Mediator The blessing of Abraham cometh on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ Gal. 3 14. The God Father of our Lord Iesus Christ blesseth us with all spiritual blessings in Christ according as He hath chosen us in Him hath predestinat us unto the Adoption of Children by Iesus Christ hath made us accepted in the Beloved Ephes. 1 3 4 5 6. It is God who saveth us according to His mercy by the washing of Regeneration the renewing of the Holy Ghost which He shed on us abundantly through Iesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by His grace we should be made heirs according to the hop of eternal life Tit. 3 5 6 7. Christ is the way to the Father Ioh. 14 6. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself 2 Cor. 5 19. Yet it is true that Christ is now exalted as King and Prince and giveth the Crown of life Revel 2 10. as the great Administrator and Executor of His own Testament yet not as if He had purchased all these things firstly or primarily to Himself and were now become the Sole or Principal Donor for this doth overturn the tenor forme of the Covenant of Redemption He tels us n. 141. That Christ's Righteousness is made ours as our sinnes were made his Which is all that we desire We grant that Christ never had the Reatum culpae in it self he saith that sin was Imputed to Him as to the punishment deserved that is He assumed the Reatum poenae But sure the Reatus poenae being a dueness of punishment because of sin He could not come under this Obligation unless the Reatus culpae had been Imputed to Him not in it self physically but juridically in ordine ad poenam And accordingly we must have the Righteousness of Christ in order to its Effects and this is more than to have the meer Effects themselves as he saith we shall grant to him that we have it not in the relation of a Meritorious cause to all uses if he will grant to us that we have it in the relation of a meritorious Cause to those uses which God accepted it for hath assigned to it in the Gospel as he seemeth to grant ibid. Though we do not assert such an Imputation as he calleth the rigide sense thereof n. 142. whereby God is supposed to repute us to have done that in by Christ which we never did by Him yet we see no reason why we may not say that God judged Christ to be the publick legal person yea himself in the appendix to his Premonition yeeldeth that Christ may be called our Vicarius poenae or Substitute And when we say He is a Publick legal person we say not that He is as many persons as there be redeemed sinners in the world as Mr. Baxter speaketh but that He was such a publick legal person as did represent in Law all that were given to Him as their publick Head Surety And what he saith n. 143. of the various sorts of Sureties some of which are very Impertinent as the 3â— for no man calleth an Agent a Surety the 5. for no man calleth a pay-master who is the debtors Instrument servant or delegat a Surety doth not much help him seing there are no such Sureties among Men nor no manner of Suretyship that can quadrat with Christ's Suretiship in all things and therefore it is to no purpose to say Christ is not such a Surety as is among men in this or that or in the
our concernment to enquire after know the way how adult persones come to partake of these Privileges 5. We do not here speak of that Justification which some call a Iustification of the cause and distinguish from that which they call a justification of the person for that is but the justification of a person falsly accused as to some particular as David was frequently accused of many things by his Adversaries of which he was Innocent laying to his charge crimes he knew not about which he was in case as we finde he did several times in his Psalmes to appeal unto God the righteous Iudge being conscious to himself of no guilt in the particulars alledged knowing his own innocency in the sight of God who knew all things Such was the matter of that question concerning Job's sinceritie so much agitated betwixt him his friends in the book of Iob and at length decided in Iob's favours by God himself for though this was not concerning one or a few particular acts but concerning his whole deportment and concerning his State before God upon the account of his deportment and the Lord's dispensations with him yet it was a justification of his Cause rather than of his Person for in the justification of our Persons we have to do immediatly with God and not with man and the question was properly about a matter of fact to wit whether he had been a real beleever or an hypocrite though such a matter of fact as meerly concerned his whole State 6. Nor do we here speak of that justification even as to our state which is before men or in the judgment of men which oft proceedeth upon mistakes and unsure grounds as the now-mentioned instance of Iob's friends evidenceth and so varieth according to the various judgments apprehensions of men yea and of the same Man at several times according as the grounds whereupon he judgeth are to him clear or dark Neither is this sentence or judgment of men who are but fallible and judge by outward appearance not being able to see into the heart and judge how matters are there alwayes according to truth even though according to that judgment of Charity which the Law of God requireth Nor is it Constant and equable 7. Nor do we speak of that Iustification whereof the Apostle Iames speaketh Chap. 2. which is not the justification before God whereof the Apostle Paul speaketh in his Epistles but the evidencing proving and demonstrating thereof by effects and works obvious to the eyes of others and demonstrative of the cause Those I grant will oft admit of an intercision through Temptation and the prevalency of Corruption and so the cause or true justification may as to this manifestation he eclipsed though not in it self 8. Far less do we here speak of a groundless fancied supposed justification whether in the apprehension of deluded persons themselves or of others for this is no true Iustification but a meer delusion as to themselves and a conjecture as to others and the sooner this be quite cast away and renunced the better 9. Nor do we here speak of that Iustification which is in the court of mans own conscience or as it is there and opposed to that Iustification which is in God's court for it is certaing this Iustification which is said to be in the court of conscience is but a manifestation of the other unto the mans conscience and is some times had sometimes missed sometimes it is more clear some times more dark and therefore can be oft repeated and reiterated and intended and remitted yea and some may for a long time if not their whole life time be wholly without it Walking in darkness without all light as to this some may once get a cleare sight thereof and never see more of it till nigh the landing in eternity yet all this while the Iustification which is in the court of God remaine fixed invariable and without any interuption 10. By Justification here we meane not that which some call a Particular justification and do distinguish it from an Universal Iustification by this understanding an universal pardon of all sins past and committed and by the other understanding a particular pardon of this or that sin that is committed after the man hath been universally pardoned and accepted of God and now pardoned after a new act of faith in Christ Though it be needless to debate whether this Particular Pardon can be called a Iustification or not yet it is certaine it is not that Iustification whereof Paul speaketh so much and explaineth in all its causes in his Epistles nor that Iustification which connoteth a change of State before God and the translation of a person out of an estate of Enmity into an estate of Favour and Friedshipe in reference to which there must be a juridical sentence passed in the favours of the man through the impured Righteousness of Christ received by Faith while as this posterior act of pardon of a particular transgression is rather a Fatherly act pardoning the failing of his Son receiving him againe into his Fatherly embracements 11. Nor finally do we here speak of that sentence of Absolution that shall be pronunced at the last day for howbeit that may be called a Iustification yet it is not that Iustification whereof we are now speaking it doth not make such a change in the state of such as are thereby absolved as this doth and therefore in respect of this it is rather a publick Declaration and Manifestation before Angels and Men of their Iustification or being in a Iustified state who shall be adjudged unto eternal life than any Iustification connoteing a change of state seing none in that day will be justified but such as have been here partakers of this Iustification whereof we speak they who have been in heaven will need none such as have been in hell will expect none none of the living who have not by faith laid hold on Christ will hear any other sentence then depart from me ye cursed 12. The justification then whereof we here speak is That change of state before God which such are made partakers of as lay hold on Christ by faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ whereby they are brought into an estate of Favour Reconciliation with God who were before under his Wrath Curse and upon which they have all their iniquities whereof they are guilty actually pardoned are accepted of as Righteous and pronunced such through the Surety-Righteousness of Christ imputed to them and freed from the sentence Curse of the Law under which they were lying That we may cleare the nature of this life of Justification as to its continuance we shall lay down these few Propositions Propos. 1. Justification denoteth a State wherein the beleever is brought a real change as to state as a man accused of some crime keeped in prison till he be tryed
the score of Beleevers as if he had recalled the former pardon granted for he remembereth their sin no more Ier. 31 34. Heb. 8 12. 10 17. And for future sins by vertue of their State they have access to seek for pardon and have ground 3 The Righteousness of Christ which is a perfect Righteousness is fully and perfectly communicated and imputed so as thereby they become the Righteousness of God in Christ 2. Cor. 5. last He is their whole Righteousness in order to Iustification and wholly their Righteousness as made of God Righteousness unto them Ier. 23 6 1. Cor. 1 30. And with this Righteousness they are wholly perfectly covered to expect it as found hid there Phil. 3 9. are made Righteous Rom. 5 19. 10 4. 4 They are now wholly Reconciled unto God and have Peace with Him and not by halfes or in some certain respects only as if in other respects they were still Enemies or in a state of Enmity Being justified by faith they have Peace with God Rom. 5 1. once they were enemies but now they are reconciled vers 10. by Christ they have now received the Atonement vers 11. once alienated enemies in their mindes by wicked works but now reconciled Col. 1 21. once a far off but now made neer Ephes. 2 13. the enmity being staine vers 16. No more strangers or forreigners now but fellow citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God vers 19. Then is the Lord pacified toward them for all that they have done Ezek. 16 63. 5 They are compleetly translated into a new Covenant state not halfe the children of Saran and half the children of God not halfe in Nature and halfe in the state of Grace not half translated halfe not Ephes. 2 13 19. Col. 1 21. not halfe quickened with Christ and halfe not Ephes. 2 5. They are not now halfe without Christ or aliens from the common wealth of Israel or strangers from the Covenants of promise c. Ephes. 2 12. There is a perfect change as to their state 1. Cor. 6 11. 6 They are secured as to final Condemnation There is no condemnation for them Rom. 8 1. being beleevers they shall not perish but have eternal life Ioh. 3 15 16. He that beleeveth is not condemned vers 18. See also Ioh. 3 36. 6 47. They are passed from death unto life Ioh. 5 24. 1. Ioh. 3 14. being discharged of all guilt of eternal punishment which formerly they deserved by their sinnes And all this holdeth good notwithstanding of their after sins which as we shall shew do not annull or make any such breach upon their state of Justification It is true these sins must also be Pardoned will be Pardoned but yet when they are pardoned their Justification as to their state is not hereby more perfected as to these respects formerly mentioned It holdeth good also notwithstanding of what shall be at the great day for that will put no man in a new Justified state who was not Reconciled to God before It is true there will be many additions as to the Solemnitie Declaration Consequences Effects thereof in that day but not withstanding hereof the state of Justification here as to what respecteth its grounds the essential change it maketh together with the Right that beleevers have thereby unto all that in that day they shall be put in possession of is perfect may be said so to be Propos. 7 By what is said it is manifest how in what respects this life of Iustification differeth from the life of Sanctification 1 Sanctification maketh a real Physical change Iustification maketh a Relative change And thereby they come to have a new State or Relation unto the Law unto God the judge 2 Sanctification is continueing work wherein beleevers are more more built up daily Iustification is an act of God or a juridcial sentence Absolving a sinner pronunceing him free of the charge brought in against him and not liable to the penalty 3 Sanctification is a groÌ„wing and increasing work admitteth of many degrees is usually weak and small at the beginning Iustification doth not grow neither doth it admit of degrees but is full compleet adequate unto all ends here 4 Sanctification is ever growing here and never cometh to full Perfection before death Justification is perfect adequate unto all ends as we shewed 5 Sanctification is not alike in all but some are more some are less sanctified But Iustification is equal in all none being more justified then others 6 Some measures degrees of Sanctification which have been attained may be lost againe But nothing of Iustification can really be lost for we are not here speaking of the sense and feeling of Justification which frequently may be lost but of Justification it self 7 Sanctification is a progressive work Iustification is instantaneous as was shown 8. Sanctification respecteth the Being Power Dominion of â—in in the beleever and killeth subdueth and mortifieth it Iustification respecteth its guilt demerite taketh away guilt and the obligation to punishment or obnoxiousness to the paying of the penalty 9 In justification a man is accepted upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to him and received by Faith But in Sanctification grace is infused and the Spirit given to perfecte holiness in the fear of God 10 In Iustification there is a right had unto life and unto the rich recompence of reward upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed whence they are said to have passed from death to life But in Sanctification they are made meet to be partakers of the Inheritance of the Saints in light 11 Unto Iustification nothing is required but faith in Christ whereby the soul may become united to Him have a right to his benefites But unto Sanctification all the graces of the Spirit are requisite and all the exercises of the same all diligence is required and an adding of Vertue to Faith of Knowledge to Vertue of Temperance to Knowledge of Patience to Temperance of Godliness to Patience of Brotherly kindness to Godliness of Charity to Brotherly kindness 2 Pet. 1 5 6 7. Propos. 8 Hence it followeth also thar there is no ground to assert a first a second Justification as Papists do meaning by the first an Infusion of an inward Principle or Habite of Grace which is no Justification nor part thereof but the beginning of Sanctification and by the Second another Justification which with them is an Effect or Consequent of the former having good work which flow from the foresaid infused principle of grace love for its proper formal cause This Justification they say is by works where as the former is by faith and yet this second they make to be an Incrementum an increase of the first and for this they say the church prayeth when she saith Lord increase our saith hope
this occasion trouble the Reader with some more of their expressions that we may see that the doctrine which is now so much cried up followed after is nothing but old Socinianisme so owned professed by such as do not deserve to be called Christians Socin de Servat lib. 4. c. 4 7 11. God justifieth the ungodly but now converted penitent after he hath left off to be ungodly the justified are not ungodly in themselves neither are they so called yea they are not sinners which is more they do not now sinne And so faith works that is obedience to the commands of Christ as the forme of faith doth justifie us before God by them through them per illa ex illis he justifieth us Smalcius disp 4. c. Frantzium Regeneration all other good works Love Prayer Obedience Faith Charity c. are so far from being effects of justification that without them justification can no way really exist for God justifieth no man but him who is compleetly adorned with all these vertues â— yea the study of good works walkeing before God were the cause though not the chiefe of the justification of Noah Abraham others who are said to be justified by faith Socin ubi supra de Serv. lib. 1. c. 4. Faith doth not justifie by its proper vertue but by the mercy goâ—d will of God who justifieth such as do such a work imputeth it for righteousness With Paul to have righteousness imputed is nothing else but to have faith imputed to be accounted just faith is so imputed to us as that because of faith we howbeit guilty of many unrighteousness are esteemed perfectly righteous or God so dealeth with us as if we were perfectly righteous who can doubt that the Apostle meaneth no other thing than that we are not righteous before God because our works require that as a due reward but because it hath so seemed good to the Lord to take our faith in place of righteousness so that we receive the reward of grace by which we are declared righteous before him More might be adduced for this end as it might be shown also how herein the Arminians conspire with them against the orthodox And as for the judgment of Papists in this point it is likewise known It will not be necessary that we insist in disproving that which hath been so much witnessed against by the orthodox writting against Papists Socinians Arminians upon these heads It will suffice I suppose if we give a few reasons why we cannot acquiesce in the doctrine proposed by the forenamed Author 1. Hereby works of obedience are exalted to the same place are allowed the same Force Influence Efficacy into Justification with Faith whereby all the Apostles disputes for Faith against Works for faith as inconsistent with exclusive of works are evacuated rendered useless So that the Apostle hath either not spoken to the purpose or hath not spoken truth either of which to say is blasphemie The Apostle argueth thus we are Justified by faith therefore we are not Justified by works This man reasoneth on the contrary we are justified by faith therefore we are justified by works because by a faith that includeth works as if the Apostle had meaned a Faith that was dead had no affinity with works 2. Hereby he confoundeth all these duties which are required of Beleevers or of such as are in Covenant with God with that which is solely required of them in order to their first entering in Covenant or into a state of Justification as â— one should say that all the marriag-duties required of such as were already in that marriage state were conditions of entering into the marriag-state 3. Hereby he confoundeth Justification with Glorification making all that Faith sincere obedience which is required in order to actual Salvation Glorification to be necessary before Justification And thereby must say that no man hath his sins pardoned so long as he liveth but if he be sincerely obedient he is in the way to a Pardon to Justification He cannot say that by a practical Faith he only meaneth such a true and lively Faith as will in due time produce these effects for as that will not consist with his explication of that practical Faith so it would crosse his whole designe The just man in the eye of this new Law as he saith p. 49. is every one that rightly beleeves repents sincerely obeyes because that is all that it requires of a man himself to his Iustification Salvation Where we see that with him Justification Salvation go together have the same conditions and he that is just must be one that hath these Conditions and he who hath not these Conditions is not just in the eye of that new Law and if he be not just in the eye of that new Law his faith cannot be accounted to him for Righteousness nor he Justified 4. The man hereby confoundeth the two Covenants or giveth us a new Covenant of Works in stead of the Covenant of Grace for this practical Faith which includeth all obedience hath the same place force efficacy in the new Covenant that compleet Obedience had in the old And this Gospel is but the old Law of works only with this change that where as the old Law required Perfect Obedience to the end in order to Justification Salvation this new Covenant of works requireth Sincere Obedience to the end in order to Justification Salvation And so thus we are Justified saved as really by upon the account of our works as Adam would have been if he had continued in obedience to the end this Faith and sincere Obedience is as really to all ends purposes as effectually and formally our Righteousness as Perfect Obedience would have been the Righteousness of Adam And thus the reward must as really be reckoned to us of debt not of grace as it would have been to Adam if he had stood And as faire a ground is laid for us to boast glory though not before God as had been for Adam if he had continned to the end The evasion he hath to make all this of grace saying p. 49 50. And yet every beleevers justification will be all of grace because the Law by which they are justified is wholly of grace was enaâ—ed in meer grace favour to undone man is not able to help him for it was wholly of undeserved grace love that God did so far condescend to Adam to all mankinde in him as to strick a Covenant with him a promise of such an ample reward upon his performance of the condition of Perfect Obedience to the end yet notwithstanding this Law was wholly of grace was enacted in meer grace favoure for neither was the Lord necessitated thereunto nor could Adam say he had deserved any such thing at God's hand the reward
was requisite the perfect observation of the Law Now perfect observation of the Law saith there was no transgression but remission saith supposeth that the Law was not perfectly observed So the imputation of the Law fulfilled either saith the Law was not broken or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof therefore the person unto whom this imputation is made hath a right unto the reward which this imputation doth directly immediatly respect as such But in our case both these go together perfect remission the imputation of the Law fulfilled because freedom from the obligation to punishment right to the reward go also together inseparably For how can he be said saith he to have all his sins fully forgiven who is yet looked upon or intended to be dealt with all as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven may well be looked upon as one that hath transgressed either by omission or by commission or by both because he must be so looked upon for pardon presupposeth sin no man can be pardoned but a sinner and no man can think or dreame of a remission but withall he must suppose that the person pardoned hath sinned But it is true he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven cannot be intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punishment but doth not so destroy sin as to cause that it never was for that is impossible What more And he that is looked upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law must needs be conceived or looked upon as one that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law Ans. This is very true But what then Which is nothing else saith he but to have a perfect Righteousness or which is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him Ans. This is also true taking this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law to be to one who never broke the Law by sin but it is not true in our case who are transgressours all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners Yet he inferreth So that besides that perfect remission of sins which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ there is no need of indeed no place for the imputation of any Righteousness performed by Christ unto the Law Ans. The inconsequence of this is manifest from what is said But he addeth a reason Because saith he in that very act of remission of sins there is included an imputation of a perfect Righteousness Ans. This is but the same thing which was said is manifestly false Remission regairdeth only the punishment or the obligation thereunto dissolveth it but as such giveth no right to the reward which was promised only to obedience to the Law But then he tels us more properly with Scripture-exactness as he saith that that act of God whereby heremitteth pardoneth sin is interpretativly nothing else but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law compare Rom. 4 6 with vers 7. 11. Ans. This is but the same thing needeth no new answere for it is denied that that act of God whereby he pardoneth sin considered in itself as such is interpretativly an imputation of perfect Righteousness But it is true in our case it may be called so interpretativly in this respect that there is such an in dissoluble connexion betwixt the two that the one inferreth the other necessitate consequentis And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4 6 7 11. He addeth Even as the act of the Physician by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness may withfull propriety of speach be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health Ans. The Physician purging away the humors the causes of the distemper is the cause of health by being the causa removens prohibens because ex natura rei health followeth upon the removal of that which caused the distemper but the connexion of pardon of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei but ex libera Dei constitutione connecting the causes of both together His next similitude of the sun dispelling darkness filling the aire with light is as little to the purpose because here is a natural necessary consequence light necessarily expelling darkness which is denied in our case Hence there is no ground for what he addeth when he saith In like manner God doth not heal sin that is forgive sin by one act restore the life of righteousness that is impute righteousness by another act at all differing from it but in by one the same punctual precise act he doth the one the other For we are not here enquiring after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a Philosophical manner God can do many things by one Physical act but we are enquireing concerning the Effects whether they be one precise thing flowing from one moral cause or so diverse as to require diverse moral causes grounds or whether the one doth naturally essentially include the other as being both but one thing His following words would seem to speak to this when he saith forgiveness of sins imputation of Righteousness are but two different names expressions or considerations of one the same thing one the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins sometimes an imputing of Righteousness the forgivness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness to shew signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness or Iustification but the forgivness of his sins And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgivness of sins to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner but that which standeth in forgiveness of sins Ans. This is but gratis dictum nothing at all is proved These two pardon of sins imputation of Righteousness are two distinct parts of one compleet favour and blessing granted of God in order to one compleet blessedness consisting likewise in two parts to wit in freedome from punishment which was deserved in right to the promised inheritance which was lost And because these two both in the cause and in the effect are inseparable conjoined by the Lord therefore the mentioning of the one may doth import signifie both by a Synecdoche And hence no man with reason can inferre that they are both one the same precise thing flowing from one the same precise cause and import only the different names expressioâ—s or considerations of one the same thing Christ's obedience to the Law and his suffering for sin were not one the same thing under various considerations or names but distinct parts of one compleet Surety-Righteousness no more can the effects that
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
to offer up his son was no promise and to did not call for faith but for ready obedience though upon another account he beleeved that God was able to raise him up from the dead Heb. 11 17 18 19. But Gen. 15. promises were made unto him he is said to have beleeved upon this Righteousness was imputed unto him So that Gen. 15. he was justified by faith only as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. for thereby he confirmeth his Conclusion set down Rom. 3 28. that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law And from that other place Gen. 22. Iames could not inferre that Justification is by faith works together for then he could not inferre therefrom that the Scripture was fulfilled which said Abraham beleeved God it was imputed unto him for Righteousness because Paul doth hence inferre Rom. 4. that justification is by faith without works And what is a ground for justification by faith without works cannot also be a ground for justification by works not by faith only And thus the Apostles are made in plaine termes to contradict other by inferring contrary or contradictory conclusions from the same premises which ought not to be thought let be said But it will be said that Paul speaketh of the beginning of justification which is by faith without works but Iames speaketh of justification as continued which is by works and not by faith only This cannot satisfie for beside what is said it must first be granted hereby that this faith which Iames mentioneth when he saith not by saith only must be the same faith that Paul faith we are justified by without the deeds of the Law but this cannot be for the faith that Iames speaketh of is as we saw above a dead useless fruitless carcass no saving Faith as that is whereof Paul speaketh and whereby we are justified But now taking justification for its manifestation declaration the words of Iames are most clear carry no appearance of contradiction unto what Paul taught For his meaning is ye see then how that by works a man evidenceth proveth declareth his Justification or maketh it manifâ—st that he is a justified person not by that faith only which is but a naked fruitless dead profession 11 The same may be said of the other Instance of Rahab vers 25. She was justified by works when â—he had received the messengers not that she was brought into a justified state by that act for she received the Spies by faith Heb. 11 31. declared her faith unto them Ios. 2 10 11. And so was a beleever consequently justified before she received the Spies or they came to her Yet by this deed accompanied with so much hazard unto her self all her families she proved evidenced her faith justification 12 The Conclusion of his discourse vers 26. for as the body without the Spirit is dead fo faith without works is dead also declareth manitestly what he would be at to wit to shew that works can only demonstrate trew faith consequently prove justification for a naked profession of faith that wanteth works is dead and like a body wanting breath soul which is but a dead carcass This cannot be said of that faith whereby Paul saith and proveth that we are justified for it is true lively flowing from the Spirit of life although it be not as yet proved by outward works of obedience whereof there may be as yet no opportunity or call What is brought against this sense of the word justifie justification which we have now confirmed by the Socinian Author of the book intituled Consensus Paulâ— Iacobi c. pag. 2. c. and by the Remonstrants in their Apologie Cap. 10. is of no great weight When they say That the proposition set down vers 14. is subordinat to what is said vers 12. where the judgment of God is spoken of therefore saving justification must be here understood Ans. We grant that It is saving justification but yet it is justification that is distinct from Final Salvation We grant that Iames speaketh here of saving justification Yet he handleth not that question how by what Causes this justification is brought about but how it is evidenced proven to be true and not a meer presumptuous conjecture They say next It is said vers 25. that the Scripture was fulfilled not that it was shown to be fulfilled Aâ—s That saying of Scripture was a truth before this time even when Abraham first beleeved which was before he was circumcised as we see Gen. 15. comp with Gen. 17. Rom. 4 9 10 11. And therefore was not now first fulfilled or verified And to talk of the increase of imputation according to the increase of Faith and to measure the excellencie of faith by the excellencie of that obedience which it produceth as that Socinian Author doth is to give us nothing but the Popish justification for Relations of which Nature we hold Justification to be are not intended remitted in themselves but only as to their evidence We esteem it a Socinian dream to say that the first Narration of Faith Justification which is Gen. 15. was but a rude draught of that which was afterward Gen. 22. Abraham's faith was afterward said to be perfected by that special work of offering up his son noâ— in it self for he had a strong faith before Rom. 4 19 20 21. but in its manifestation after that signal trial It is said further Mans justification cannot be here understood for that is not necessary to salvation nor universally true seing men may justifie other upon vaine grounds Ans. Noâ— do we understand any such justification pronunced by men here but a true justification before God yet as evidenced proven declared by effects unto all that will judge understandingly spiritually so that works here are mentioned as the Effects and yet as the Causes of justification But then they object further Thas as the Apostle from that Faith which the vaine man boasted of denieth the man to be justified so from works he proveth justification that as antecedent Ans. The Apostle sheweth that the vaine man who had no more but a vaine dead empty faith had no ground to conclude himself a justified Man for this is no Cause or Condition of Justification And hence it will not follow that works by which both the reality of saâ—ing Faith of Justification thereupon may be evidenced are antecedent Causes or Conditions of Justification It is objected againe by the foresaid Socinian Author That if the meaning of these words the Scripture was fulfilled be that the Scripture was showne to be fulfilled then the meaning should be that it was demonstrated to Abraham's two servants who went with him to the mountaine by them to others But then it must be supposed that before this time that which passed Gen. 15. was known unto them it
of what is denied to wit that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word becoming man did become upon that account necessarily subject to the Law for himself His 2. Arg. is If Christ did performe active obedience in our room so as it might be imputed to us unto Righteousness then we should be no longer obliged to performe active obedience to the Law The reason of this he taketh from the like saying as we are not obliged to undergo eternal death because Christ hath sustained that in our room Ans. To this enough hath been said elsewhere I shall only here say That it will no more hence follow than from the Satisfaction of Christ whatever Socinians alleige that we are loosed from all obedience to the Law but only that we are loosed from that obedience which was required under the Old Covenant of works to wit to perfecte obedience thereby obtaine the prize as our reward of debt and faile in the least lose all which were the Conditions of the Old Covenant and as to this we deny the minor He replieth by denying what is now in question to wit That Christ performed active obedience in our room to procure eternal life to us affirming that he was bound to do it for himself so did merite nothing to ut thereby Ans. This is but what was said above hence it is cleare that in his judgment Christ wrought for the crown of glory to himself did merite it to himself so had no Right thereto before by vertue of his hypostatical union let be possession albeit all the Angels were to worshipe him his throne was for ever ever Heb. 1 6 8. He addeth If notwithstanding of Christ's active satisfaction we be obliged to satisfie actively so notwithstanding of his passive satisfaction we should be bound to satisfie passively that is suffer eternal death Ans. All the obedience now required is no satisfaction to the Old Covenant-Conditions Christ hath satisfied that and left no part thereof for us to do And therefore it will not follow that we are bound to suffer eternal death or any part of the Curse as such To that answere that some gave that by Christ's active obedience we have this advantage that we are more obliged unto rigide exact obedience He replieth That then we should not sin by short-coming or negligence Ans. But by that rigide exact obedience is not meaned full conformitie unto the Law but such a conformitie as was the Condition of the Old Covenant as is said that is we are now freed from obtaining the crown or right thereto by perfect conformity which to us is impossible from loseing of the crown upon the least escape or failing All obedience runneth now in another channel though the commands the Law as a Law rule of walk remaine the same His 3. Arg. is The Scripture every where speaking of our justification pardon mentioneth Christ's passive not his active obedience As Esai 53 5 6. Rom. 3 24 25. 5 9. Gal. 3 13. 1. Ioh. 1 7. Ans. It is denied that the Scripture doth every where mentione only Christ's passive obedience and the contrary hath been frequently showne And as to the places mentioned none of them containe any exclusive particle or hinte the exclusion of his active obedience And our Adversaries themselves must understand these the like passages Synecdochically otherwayes they shall exclude Christ's soul sufferings as well as his active obedience restrick all to his death bloud shed on the crosse which yet they will not do Now followeth his answere to some Arguments for the contrary Arg. 1. Two things are required unto our Salvation delivery from death the gift of life that is had by expiation of sin by his suffering this by the donation of Righteousness or imputation of his active obedience He answereth The passive obedience of Christ both expiateth sin giveth life his death giveth life 1. Pet. 2 24 3 18. Ans. True but the reason is because it was the death of one who had fulfilled all Righteousness we need not speak of his obedience of his sufferings so distinctly as to ascribe to each severally these several effects It is better I judge to take both conjunctly as one compleet Righteousness for us one meritorious cause of all the benefites procured thereby Arg. 3. for the Arg. 2. I passe as judging it not cogent The actual disobedience of Adam made us sinners He answereth If by actual obedience of Christ in the Conseq his active obedience be understood for his passive may also be called actual in that actually not potentially only he suffered that imputed to us the consequens is denied for Christ's passive obedience imputed hath restored unto us what we lost by Adam's disobedience Ans. But thus the comparison that Paul maketh Rom. 5. betwixt Adam's disobedience Christ's obedience is taken away He opposeth the Righteousness of Christ to the offence of Adam now Christ's death suffering is no where called his Righteousness So he opposeth obedience to disobedience therefore as the disobedience was the violation of the Law obedience must be the keeping of the Law Christ's death imputed is no Righteousness answering the commands of the Law and therefore though it did merite the recovery of what we lost in Adam being the death of one that fulfilled all Righteousness Yet considered abstractly by it self without his active obedience it cannot be our formal Righteousness with which we must be covered as having which we must be considered when justified of God who pronunceth none Righseous but such as are Righteous indeed Arg. 4. With Christ's active obedience his passive was conjoined He ans Denying the conseq that therefore the one cannot be imputed without the other for things conjunct can be distinguished as the one can be known so also imputed without the other Ans. But they are so conjoined as being integral parts of one compleat Surety-Righteousness Satisfaction for our debt therefore belong to his Estate of humiliation during which in all his obedience there was suffering for a part of his subjection was that he was made under the Law even under the commanding power thereof because otherwayes being God Man in one person he was not subject to the Law as a Viator in reference to himself So in all his sufferings there was obedience And what is thus inseparably conjoined we ought not to separate especially seing our case necessity calleth for the imputation of both Arg. 5. If only Christ's passive obedience were imputed then only the halfe of Christ should be given unto us contrary to Esai 9 6. He Ans. denying the Conseq because it is one thing to be given to us another thing to be imputed even Christ's humanity deity is given unto us Ans. But Christ was so given as that all he did suffered as such a given publick person
Cor. 11 3. Ephes. 4 15. 1 22. Col. 1 18. And so must have a body Ephes. 1 23. Rom. 12 5. Ephes. 4 4. Col. 3 15. 1 24. 2 19. Ephes. 4 16. 5 23. 3 6. He is called the Vine stock shall he have no Brancnes Ioh. 15 1 2. c. These things might be further enlairged pressed but we shall haste forward 19. Our Adversaries say That Christ by his Death passion did Absolutely even according to the Intention of God purchase Remission of sins Reconciliation with God and that for all every man Others say conditionally But withal as to the application of this purchase it is made to depend upon faith and so they distinguish betwixt Impetration Application And though it is true the purchase made is one thing and the actual enjoyment of the thing purchased is another thing Yet we may not say with our Adversaries that the Impetration is for moe than shall have the Application But we assert that both Impetration Application in respect of the designe of the Father which is absolute certain and the Intention of Christ the Mediator which is fixed peremptory are for the same individual persons so that for whomsoever God sent Christ Christ came to purchase any good unto these same shall it actually in due time in the Method manner Condescended upon prescribed be given upon them none else shall it actually be bestowed for 1. No other thing beside this Application can be supposed to have been the end of the Impettation And sure Christ was herein a Rational Agent Nay it was the Intention designe of the Father that the Application of these good things should be by the meanes of this Impetration as is abundantly cleared above 2. We cannot suppose that either Christ or his Father should faile or come short of their end designed but by our Adversaries the Impetration might have been obtained and yet no Application made of the good things impetrated obtained 3. If no Application was intended by the Father or by Christ then it must be said that both were uncertain as to what the Event should have been or at least Regardless Unconcerned either of which to affirme were blasphemy 4. The very word Impetrate having the same force import with Purchase Procure Obtaine Merite and the like doth say that such for whom this Impetration was made have a right upon the Impetration to the thing Acquired Purchased And if they have a right thereto that Possession should follow 5. Yea the word importeth the actual conferring of the good to be the very end of the Purchaseing Impetrating and so in this case the very Impetration is ground of Assurance of the Application considering who did impetrate and at whose hands and withall what was the ground of the Fathers sending of Christ and of Christs coming to impetrate even inconceiveably wonderful great Love Nor doth the intervening of a condition required before the actual collation of some of the good things purchased hinder at all for all these Blessings some whereof are as a condition to others are the one good thing Impetrated and the very conditions are also Impetrated as we declared above and so this pointeth forth only the methode of the actual bestowing of these good things purchased 6. How absurd is it to say a thing is Impetrated or Obtained and yet may or may not be Bestowed may be Possessed or not Possessed Or to say that such a good thing is Obtained by price or petitioning and yet the same good thing may never be Bestowed or the Bestowing of it hangeth dependeth upon an Uncertain Condition which may never beperformed 7. How unreasonable is it that such should have right to the Merites that have no right to the thing Merited Doth not an interest in the Merites procureing any thing include an interest in the thing Merited When a ransome is payed for captives to the end they may be delivered have not these Captives a right to the deliverance upon the payment of that ransome 8. The Scriptures do so connect these two that it argueth contempt thereof to imagine such a separation as Rom. 4 25. Yea the one is assigned as a certain Effect Consequent flowing from the Other as its Moral cause Esai 53 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many this Justification is the Application whence cometh it For he shall bear their iniquities there is the Impetration given as the ground hereof So further vers 5. he was wounded for our transgressions c. and what followeth upon this Impetration And by his stripes are we healed So Rom. 5 vers 18. By the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification So that the Application reacheth an all that is all who have interest in the Righteousness which is the thing Impetrated see also Heb. 10 10. 9. If Christs Intercession be for the same persons for whom he died then the Application is to the same for this Intercession of Christ is in order to the Application But that Christs Intercession is for the same persons for whom he died we shall see hereafter 10. If all things be ensured to such for whom Christ died then certanely this Application cannot fail but the former is true Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his owne Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not mark this manner of expression which importeth the greated of absurdities to think otherwise with him also freely give us all things 11. And in that same place vers 33 34. Christs death is given as the certain ground of Justification Salvation so that such as he died for shall certanely in due time after the methode prescribed be Justified Saved otherwayes there were no sure ground in the Apostles argueing for if all the ground of this certanty as to Application were from their Faith or fulfilling of the Condition the Apostle would have mentioned this as the maine ground not have led them to a ground common to others who never should partake of the Application 12. This matter is abundantly confirmed from what we said above concerning Christs purchasing of Faith and dying for our sanctification to bring us to God c. so that more needeth not be added here 20. For further confirmation of this and because our Adversaries think to salve the fore mentioned separation of Impetration Application by telling us that where good things are Absolutely purchased then Application must follow But not where good things are purchased only Conditionally as in our case we shall therefore shew how this will not hold nor advantage their cause for 1. If all be Redeemed Conditsonally that condition whatever it be must in equity be revealed to all 2. Either God Christ knew who would performe this condition or not If not then they were not omniscient If they