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
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
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
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
state of humiliation by both imputed by God and received by faith the beleever receiveth the whole Effect that is both Immunity from punishment a Right to the reward promised to obedience or to the Crown As Christ the Messias made an end of sins made reconciliation for iniquity so He brought in an everlastingh righteousness Dan. 9 24. And beleevers have the benefite of both for as they receive the grace of God the gift by grace aboundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness so they shall reigne in life and grace through righteousness reigneth unto eternal life Rom. 5 15 17 21. 5. Upon the other hand this mystery is also observable That Christs Satisfaction taketh not away the necessity of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness obedience as some do say who think that because we have full pardon of all sinnes by vertue of the Satisfaction of Christ therefore we need no more a person who is pardoned being therefore one that is not unrighteous one that is not unrighteous being righteous for say they there is no mids betwixt just or righteous and not unjust or not unrighteous he who is righteous having done all his duty so having a right to the promised reward of life So that upon this ground they suppose there is need of no more in order to obtaining of life beside say they the Scripture saith that the man is blessed to whom the Lord imputeth not sin he who is blessed upon this account needeth no righteousness to be added to render him blessed and to give a right unto glory But 1 we were as was said guilty of the breach of the Law so liable to punishment were also under obligation to give perfect obedience unto the Law Satisfaction therefore for our breach our pardon upon Satisfaction faith not that we have not broken the Law and if we have broken the Law we cannot be said to have yeelded perfect obedience unto the Law when God pardoneth upon a Satisfaction made He doth not judge or suppose that the person pardoned hath perfectly kept the Law for His judgment is according to truth and the very pardon supposeth a Transgression and a Transgression taketh away perfect obedience as perfect obedience destroyeth or rendereth useless all pardon Wherefore neither before God nor man can a person meerly because of Pardon be said or be accounted to have all that was required Upon Pardon it is true he is as much exeemed from the obligation to punishment as if he had kept the whole Law but yet by that pardon he is not made nor accounted to be one who never broke the Law there upon hath a right unto the reward promised As supposing for illustrations sake when a Prince maketh a Law commandeth such such persons to obey the same under the paine of death with all promiseth to such as observe the Law and do what is commanded that they shall enjoy a rich reward become heirs of a great Kingdom and the persons after they have broken the Law and become guilty of death are pardoned upon the Interposition of some great person Satisfaction made by the same for the failure they cannot upon the account of this Satisfaction their pardon thereupon be said to have done what was commanded nor to have right unto the reward to the Inheritance promised to such as obeyed the Law 2 Therefore though a person that is pardoned be one that is not unrighteous that is obnoxious to the penalty yet he is not one that is righteous positively or in reference to the reward but only one that is negatively righteous that is one that though he hath no right to the reward yet he is not liable to the punishment and therefore though he be thus negatively not unrighteous that is one that is freed from the punishment yet he cannot be accounted one that hath done all that was commanded so he cannot be accounted Righteous in reference to the reward 3 So that there is a manifest mids betwixt being righteous that is one having a right to the reward and being not unrighteous that is not obnoxious to the punishment as is clear by the Instance of Adam before his fall for during that time how long or how short so ever it was he could not be said to be untighteous because he had not yet sinned nor could he be said to be righteous in reference to the reward that was promised on condition of perfect obedience to the end that is such as had done all his duty for if he had then done all his duty or all that was required in order to the reward he had then had a full and compleat right to the reward of life promised God would have given it to him according to the Covenant and Promise But we know it was not so for he was to finish his course run his race to the end before he could have challenged a right to the promised inheritance and this he did not So that before he fell by transgression it might have been said of him that he was not unrighteous that is that he was one that had not yet transgressed and deserved the punishment-threatned but he could not be said to have been fully positively righteous that is one that had done all his duty and therefore had now a full compleat right unto the reward 4 It is true the Scripture saith that the man is blessed to whom the Lord doth not impute sin but it doth not say That he is blessed to whom the Lord only imputeth not sin or to whom He giveth no more nor doth the Scripture say that this pardoning or not imputing of sin purely abstractively considered that is considered alone without any more as it must be considered by such as oppose us here is that compleat blessedness whereof the Scripture speaketh But the reason why such are said to be blessed to whom the Lord doth not impute sin is because Imputation of â—ighteousness is inseparebly annexed with non-imputation of sin therefore in that same place of Scripture to wit Rom. 4. 6. It is said that David Psal. 32 1 2. describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness while he saith blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin c. Whereby we see that both these are so firmly connected by the Lord that the one cleareth and confirmeth the other that who ever hath the one hath the other also and upon that account are blessed enjoying the whole Effect of the Imputation of Christs whole Surety-righteousness and these two to wit pardon of sins and the Right to the Inheritance flowing from the Imputation of Christs Satisfaction of His obedience though they are never separated yet they are distinguished spoken of distinctly in Scripture It is one thing to be delivered from under the Law another thing to
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
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
posterity after him into the same condemnation And how could they be punished for that same guilt if it was not some way theirs by the just righteous Judge Governour of the world The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great hainous sins of their progenitors than for their lesser sinnes if they have no interest in these sinnes nor partake of the guilt thereof But as to Original sin the Scripture giveth the Sin as the ground of the punishment maketh the one to reach all as well as the other telling us Rom. 5 12. that by one Man sin â—ntered in to the world death by sin so death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned See vers 19. 2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person who could not beat that fulness of punishment which God might require for that great sin we cannot think that God should sit down with loss Ans. This is his second pillar But neither is it sufficient for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin but when the posterity is punished for that sin also that sin must be theirs Though for great crimes as Treason the like the Posterity suffeâ—eth when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin nor can be said to be so as we are punished for Original sin because it is ours we sinned in Adam 3. His 3d. maine pillar is the peculir near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person for then they were in it as it were a part or some what of it so that Adam was us all we were all that one Adam as Augustine speaketh the whole generation of mankind is but Adam or Adam's person expounded at large Ans. This is sufficient for us for it will hold forth the Covenant relation wherein Adam stood as representing all his posterity so they were as well in him a part of him in his sin as in his punishment which is all we desire for hence it appeareth that all sinned in that one Adam as well as they were all punished in him Then he tels us that all these three are jointly intimat Râ—â— 5 12. Where first there is the demerito Imported when death is said to enter the scantiness of Adam's person when it is said to have passed upon all men the relation of his posterity to him in that all are said to have sinned in him Ans. But the maine thing which he denieth is there also imported when it is said that all men sinned in him or became guilty of his sin for thereby it is manifest that only they had an interest in his person but that they had such an Interest in relation to his person as so stated as standing in a Covenant-relation to God that they sinned in him or became guilty of his sin therefore suffered with him the demerite thereof Whence it is evident howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207. That the Imputation of Adam's sin or of his sinful Act as sinful or as it was a sin not of the act as such for that himself faith once againe was directly efficiently from God himself therefore was good is the ground or cause of punishment that cometh on his posterity But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case it is of every mans own sin in Adam for is was Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him It is not said that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam Ans. If he wil stand to this we need not contend with him about the word Impute this expression of Scripture comprehending plainely holding forth all that we would say And if he will grant as much in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as is here said of Adam who was the type of him that was to come he must I judge retract all that he hath said against the same What followeth in that Chapter being but founded upon what is already mentioned examined needeth not here againe be repeated or expressed considered Thus we have taken notice of all which this voluminous Adversary hath said upon this matter both against the Truth for his own Errour no doubt he hath scraped together all that he could finde giving any seeming contribution unto the Notion which he hugged hath laboured after his usual manner to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence with an affected pedantrie of language supplying with bombast expressions the want of reality of truth solidity of reasoning What remaineth in that book concerning the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined when we come to the second part of our Text to speak of the matter of justification And as for other things we may take notice of them elsewhere CHAP. XIII M. Baxter's opinion Concerning Imputation examined THere being so frequent mention made in Scripture of Imputation of Righteousness or of Righteousness Imputed of Christ's being our Righteousness or of our being Righteousness or Righteous in Him the like many that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ maintained by the orthodox must yet yeeld to it in some sense or other at least in such a sense as may in their apprehensions not cross their other Hypotheses Dogmes Yea sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense at least in words which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary Schlightingius in defence of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant That Christ's Righteousness may be called accounted ours in so far as it redoundeth to our good righteousness is the cause of our justification And Bellarmin will also say de just lib. 2. cap. 10. That Christ is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the father for us so giveth communicateth that Satisfaction to us when He justifieth us that it may be said to be our Satisfaction Righteousness Mr. Baxter though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ yet will not professe himself an Enemie to all Imputation but on the contrary saith he owneth it in a right sense And it is true men have their own liberty in expressing their sense meaning of Truths where there seemeth to be some considerable difference as to words expressions yet there may be little or none upon the matter And it is not good I confess to make real differences of these that are but verbal nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions as to exaggerat the expressions of others whose meaning may be good because not complying with our own in all points Let us
to be in another manner in Him than any others whatever 9. He addeth so far imputeth Christ's Righteousness as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious cause of our justification But it was reputed and estimate so to be before this Imputation for it was accepted as such therefore Imputation must denote something more than this Reputation even a reckoning of it as it were now upon their Scoce and accounting it theirs or them to have a full special and actual Interest therein in order to their justification and absolution from the charge of guilt and death brought in against them whereby they are accounted and reckoned to be Righteous because of that Imputation therefor pronounced such in justification so that now it is the objectum formalâ— or the ratio formales objectiva of our justification 10. When he addeth that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace if those words mean that in this also Christ's Righteousness is said to be imputed then it seemeth it is equally imputed unto all Adam's posteâ—ity for with him all are comprehended within this Covenant But this were as much as to say it is imputed to none in particular Moreover it may be thought that this is explicative of what went immediatly before so Christ's righteousness shall be repute the true Meritorius Cause of our justification in that it was the Meritorious cause of the Covenant of Grace now hereby the immediat ground of justification will be the Gospel-righteousness he speaketh of that is our performance of the conditions of the New Covenant of Grace Christ's Merites Satisfaction Righteousness shall be only a remote ground But we shall show hereafter how groundless it to say That Christ procured the New Covenant by His Merites Satisfaction 11. He saith in which i.e. Covenant of Grace He freely giveth Christ pardon Life to all that accept the gift as it is That all these are hold-forth in the Covenant that such as receive Christ receive pardon and Life is true But what is that to accept the gift as it is what is meaned by this gift 12. He addeth so that the accepters are by this Covenant Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had obeyed Satisfied themselves But this is not by vertue of any immediat of that Righteousness unto them whereby they are looked upon as Righteous in the sight of God but by vertue of faith whereby the gift is accepted that is offered in the Covenant which faith is indeed immediatly imputed to them according to him reputed their Gospel-righteousness they thereupon are reputed Righteous so justified as such for the Righteousness of Christ is only imputed in that it is reputed the meritorious cause of the New Covenant 13. Though Christ hath not merited that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves c. Yet he will say that Christ hath merited that faith shall be the Condition of the New Covenant consequently that we may stand before God even as the great Law giver so before His Law also in that Gospel-righteousness as he calleth it of our own which will justifie us 14. In end when he saith the Covenant of grace doth pardon give right to Life for Christ's Merites I suppose because of what is already observed it is only upon the account that Christ's Meâ—ites have purchased this Covenant not because they become our Immediat Righteousness whereupon we are justified have pardon he should rather say conforme to what went before that this Covenant doth Pardon give Right to Life for faith our Gospel-righteousness the condition thereof These are my Exceptions against this supposed healing middle way the grounds why I cannot acquiesce therein as the right way He tels us againe pag. 45. Note 3. That it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the same sence as our sins are said to be imputed to Him And to this I also heartily acquiesce hence inferie That as Christ was made sin by that Imputation so we are made righteous by vertue of this Imputation as our sins were laid on Him as the sins of the people were laid on the scape goat the type so His Righteousness is put on us as He came in our Law-place so we come in His As our sins imputed to Him were the immediat procuring cause of His stripes punishment or suffering so His Righteousness imputed to us is the Immediat procuring cause of our justification c. As Christ was repute legally or juridically though not inherently a sinner because of this Imputation of our sins to Him therefore dealt with punished chastened as if He had been a real sinner because He stood in our Law-place to His Righteousness being imputed to us we are repute legally juridically though not inherently Righteous thereupon are dealt with justified accepted c. as if we had been really Righreous because now standing in His Law-place So that if Mr. Baxter will stand to this that ordinarily protestants agree unto I am fully Satisfied had he done so from the beginning many of his discourses would have been forborne And whether he or others who owne what protestants agree unto be to be reckoned among the self conceited wranglers as he speaketh in the following page indifferent men may judge I conceive if he would yet stand to this he should alter that which he gave us in the fore-mentioned words as the only healing middle way For that middle way as he calleth it giveth us a far other sheme than can be drawn out of this wherein protestants are commonly agreed as is obvious He tels us Chap. 2. where he cometh to state the question pag. 51. that we must distinguish of Imputation giveth us six senses thereof five whereof are such as I know not if even Antinomians did owne them They are these 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christ't Acts the Subjects of His Habites passion in a physical sense I know not who in their wits would affirme this to me it is not a fit way to end or clear controversies to raise so much dust needlesly imagine senses out of our owne heads as if they were owned maintained by some what is the 2 Or to repute the same formal relation of Righteousness which was in Christ's Person to be in ours as the Subject But this is only a consequent of the foregoing 3. saith he or to repute us to have been the very Subjects of Christ's Habites passion the Agents of His Acts in a Political or Moral sence not a physical as a man payeth a debt by a Servant or attornay ordelegate If this be the only meaning of his Political Moral sense I suppose no man will owne it either for no man will say That Christ was our Servant Attornay
is 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
but a part of justification because a man may be for-given yet not reputed never to have broken the Law To put away guilt and to make one Righteons are two things This is most clear yet Mr. Baxter saith n. 128. Still confusim Which is wonderfull where I pray must the confusion lye Is it in this that we say Remission of sin is at most but part of justification Doth not himself say as much hereafter n. 208. when he saith that our first constitutive justification is in its own Nature a right to Impunity to life or glory Now this Right to Impunity is the same with Remission but a Right to life or glory is something more Is it in this that we say a man may be forgiven and yet not reputed one who never broke the Law That I am sure can be no confusion and contradiction for it is a contradiction to say that a man is pardoned and yet reputed one that never broke the Law for pardon is of a breach of the Law What saith he to make out this alleiged Confusion Guilt saith he is either of the fault as such or of the punishment of the fault only as the cause of punishment If all guilt both culpae poenae were done away that person were reputed positively righteous that is never to have omitted a duty or committed a sin Ans. But do we say That pardon taketh away the Reatus culpae in it self His own following words may partly be our answer But indeed saith he when only the Reatus poenae culpae quoad poenam is done away the Reatus culpae in se remaineth And this Christ himself never taketh away no not in heaven where for ever we shall be judged once to have sinned not to be such as never sinned Where is now the Confusion Mr. Baxter spoke of But yet I suppose he is in a mistake when he saith that the Reatus culpae cannot be taken away for it must be taken away legally or there shall be no justification though it can never be taken away Metaphysically the same may be said of the Reatus culpae it self seing it will alwayes be true that they did once deserve punishment are not such as never deserved punishment He addeth n. 129. that which to him is the Core of our errour That we â—hink we must be justified in Christ by the Law of Innocency which justified Christ Himself that we are quite or washed simply from all guilt of fault as well as Obligation to Punishment But neither of these do we say as hath been frequently shown We are justified by the Law of Grace by faith yet we say with Paul that the Law is not made void by faith but established the Law of Innocency must be fulfilled but it is not fulfilled by us but by Christ His Righteousness is Imputed to us and received by faith and we thereupon are justified receive Remission and Right to Glory We do not say That Adam's Law meant do this by thyself or by Christ thou shalt live yet we say that that Constitution of God do this and live must as well be established as this Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Law and that as by vertue of this Christ our Surety was to die the cursed death so by vertue of that He was to fulfill all Righteousness He 〈…〉 next n. 130. that the truth which we grope after and must reconcile us all is as followeth As if all the Reformed divines almost had been hither to but groping after the truth like blinde men groping for the wall and he and possibly two or three moe had their eyes opened to see the truth His discourse here is too long to be rehearsed that it may be examined a few observes upon it may suffice 1 He saith Christ in His sufferings did stand in the room of sinners as their Sponsor Ans. Then His Satisfaction to justice must in due time be reckoned on the score of such in whose room He suffered Why will he not say this also of Christ's Obedience seing both were performed by Him in His estate of Humiliation as the Surety of the Covenant Was He not made under the Law as well as under the Curse And was He not made of a woman given and born to us But neither can we say That Christ stood in the room of all sinners as he supposeth 2 We saith That Christ acquired a Right first to Himself of giving out the purchased benefites to sinners by a new Law viz. by what He suffered did Ans. This is denied as not yet being confirmed and it destroyeth His being a Sponsor and Surety and saith He was not born to us nor died for us but to and for Himself And yet I deny not that Christ hath gote all power and is the General dispensator of the blessings of the Covenant purchased 3 He saith Had Christ antecedently done all that He did in our person we in Him in Law sense the thing its self with its inseparable consequents effects had been all ours ipso facto Ans. There is no necessity for this seing Christ was not thereunto appointed by us or conjunctly obliged with us in the first Covenant but after we were broken did of His own accord put His Name in our Obligation and came in our Law-place so was made sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him 4 He speaketh of these benefites being given us upon termes Conditions But we shew before and here-after will have occasion to do it more fully of what Nature these termes and Conditions were and that they are not such as He meaneth 5 He saith What is given by the New Covenant we have title to upon this account because it was purchased by the perfect merite sacrifice of Christ so given us by Him and by the Father Ans. According to Him the Right that is had thus is but remote common to all even to such as perish therefore can hardly be called a Right but the only Right is had is by our performance of the termes and Conditions for he saith n. 137. that Glory is given as a Reward for our beleeving and performing the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace 6 He saith we deserved punishment Christ was punished in our stead that we might be forgiven we had forfeited life by sin Christ merited life for us by His perfection Ans. And why will he not say that Christ did this last as well as the first in our stead seing hereby the freedom of the Gift can no more be weakened than pardon by the other What followeth hath been spoken to already He granteth n. 132. That not to punish to reward are different yet he saith not to have the Gift is to be punished so non-donari here is puniri materially that it is the same
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
not expresly say so and yet this he will not say seing he granteth that his obedience was an essential requisite absolutly necessary to the constitution of him our Priest and his Sacrifice propitiatory But we read of his being made under the Law to redeem these that were under the Law Gal. 4 4 5. and of his Righteousness obedience as necessary to our Righteousness justification and as having a no less direct influence into the same than Adam's offence disobedience had unto our death damnation Rom. 5 17 18 19. CHAP. II. Christ underwent the Curse of the Law MR. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God where upon to dispense with his Law to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned Ans. 1 This is directly contrary to what the Apostle saith Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree It was the Curse of the Law that we were under were to be delivered from and this Christ hath delivered us from by coming in our stead bearing it for us yea bearing it so that he is said to have been made it being made a Curse for us which is a most emphatick expression to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty threatned in the Law which cursed every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them vers 10. Deut. 27 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law he sure did suffer the very sentence or punishment threatned in the Law for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing 2 If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place room or stead No man is said to suffer in the place stead of another who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment that the other is obnoxious to and is obliged to suffer 3 Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5 21. to bear our iniquities Esai 53 6. 1. Pet. 2 24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment that was due to us because of sin 4 This is to give away the cause in a great measure unto the Socinians who will not yeeld that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice or payment of our criminal debt or a suffering the punishment of sin due to us for if Christ did not suffer the curse sentence of the Law he did not suffer the punishment which the Law threatned and justice required he did not suffer any punishment at all if he suffered not our punishment or that which was due to us he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross 5 If Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God whereupon to dispense with his Law then it is apparent that the consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law whereas the contrary is rather true to wit that the Lord's dispensing with the Law was anteriour to his sending of Christ because the Law properly knowing no mediator and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another must first in order of nature be considered as dispensed with before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved 6 If it was only a ground to God whereupon to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty then it seemeth Christ's death was no full payment or Satisfaction for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment even a full delivery there-from Let us heare his reason Because saith he the threatning Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous but against transgressours only Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Lawâ—but in sparing forbearing the transgressours who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenseth with the Law and doth not execute it Ans. All this being granted yet it will not follow that the sentence Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law as to the persons Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law as to the punishment threatned Though the Law did not require that the innocent should suffer Yet the Supream Lord Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far as to substitute an innocent person in the room place of sinners the Law required that that innocent person taking on that penalty and thereby making himself nocent as to the penalty should suffer the same that was threatned consequently bear the Curse threatned in the Law As saith he further for explication when Zaleucus the Locrian Law-giver caused one of his own eyes to be put out that one of his son's eyes might be spared who according both to the letter intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispensed with Ans. This speaks not home to our case wherein we pay not the half nor no part of the penalty But Christ payeth the whole as substitute in our room If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son suffered both his own eyes to be put out though the Law had been dispensed with as to the persons yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed the same punishment which the Law required had been exacted And so it is in our case as is manifest Yet he granteth that in some sense Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law saith he as now hanging over the head of the world ready to be executed upon all men for sin that occasioned his sufferings Ans. If this were all all the beasts senseless creatures may be as well said to have suffered the penalty Curse of the Law consequently to have suffered for man to have born mans sin in order to his Redemption as Christ for the sin penalty of sin whereunto man was liable did occasion their suffering or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8 20 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subverted the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians for if this be so Christ had not our sins laid upon him he did not beare our sins
and to all his Spiritual benefites And though these Sacraments do in a more special manner represent Christ as suffering or as dying Yet it is no good consequence hence to inferre that his dying alone shedding his blood is our Righteousness for his death is principally specially there held forth as being the last compleeting act of his Mediatory obedience in his state of humiliation unto which all his former acts of obedience had a special respect in which they did all ultimatly terminate And by what reason will it be proved that nothing done or suffered by Christ can be any part or portion of our Righteousness in him but what is distinctly expressly represented pointed forth by these seales What shall then become of his soul sufferings in the Garden on the Crosse these were not his bloud nor his broken body therefore according to him make no part of our Righteousness in Christ. But we dar not say this His Third ground is from Heb. 10 5 6 7. c. cited out of Psal. 40. And thus he argueth The obedience of Christ in the matter of our Righteousness is of no larger extent than is the will of God which he did obey by which we are sanctified But this is restrained only to the offering of Christ. Ans. The minor is here denied there being no such restraint made as is alleiged for he came to do all the will of God therefore was baptised that he might fulfill all Righteousness It was not seâ—ving to the Apostles scope to mentione any other act of obedience than his offering up of himself but his mentioning no other there will not exclude all mentioned elsewhere Sure the Adversarie will not exclude the promptitude readiness of mind that Christ had unto the offering up of himself long before the appointed time as being no part of that obedience that he performed It cannot then be said that by his once offering up of himself at the last alone we are sanctified by nothing going before in conjunction with this But he tels us that our Iustification Reconciliation c. are ever attributed unto the bloud death Crosse of Christ. Ans. Never exclusively as to his preceeding obedience Yea we are to be saved by his life Rom. 5 10. justification is upon Christ's Righteousness vers 18. And all this will as well conclude for the exclusion of his foregoing obedience from being requisite in Christ as he said above to the end he may be Righteousness to us as for excluding of it from being any part of our Righteousness as also the next thing he saith concerning Paul's respecting in his preaching only the crosse of Christ for the Apostle is not there speaking meerly of the matter of our Righteousness but of the Gospel way of Salvation through a crucified Mediator which the wisdom of this world despised And to this sure our Author will willingly acknowledge that more belongeth than his death abstractivly considered His fourth ground is from Heb. 10 18. whence it followeth saith he that iâ— nothing which is in Christ himself before his death consisteth the remission of our sins so consequently our righteousness Ans. We willingly grant that in nothing that Christ did before his death considered abstractly from his death and separatly by it self did remission of sins consist or to speak more properly was satisfaction made in order to remission Yet hence it will not follow that all his preceeding obedience was no part of his Righteousness or of that whereof we are made partakers in him more than it will follow that it was not requisite in him to the end he might become Righteousness to us If any said as he seemeth to alleige that all our iniquities both original actual were pardoned in his preceeding actual obedience which I shall be loath to say nor know I who speaketh so then his argueing were good that then Christ should be made to dye without a cause If any say as he insinuateth also pag. 104. that Christ was offered only to remove the punishment of our sin and not the sin or guilt thereof I shall not approve of it Yet I cannot assent to what he saith Ibid. That the very offering of Christ for sin secludes all things preceeding whatsoever from all vertue or efficacy of removing iniquity for then it should seclude his soul sufferings which sure were no small part of the Satisfaction made by him for sin Neither will it hence follow that all his foregoing acts of obedience made no integral part of that Surety-Righteousness which he undertook to performe He citeth for his first ground 1. Ioh. 1 7. To which we say That it is true the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin because it was the bloud of him who had fulfilled all Righteousness in his death had compleeted that Satisfaction he undertook to do He tels us againe pag. 105. from Rom. 4. That unto eternal blessedness it is sufficient to have remission of sins But he remembereth not that all such as have remission of sins there have Righteousness also imputed without works we deny that Righteousness consisteth in remission of sins alone But in all this he is disputing only against such who say that remission of sins is had by the imputation of Christ's actual obedience by his death freedome from punishment is obtained with such I have nothing to do To what he here addeth of the difference betwixt an innocent man a just man enough hath been said already elsewhere His sixt last ground pag. 108. is builded upon the Law of the Priesthood which saith he was ordained of God for this end to make expiation of our sins to bring us unto God which two were shadowed in two actions in the day of Expiation viz. in offering sacrifice c. in carrylng the names of the tribes ingraven in the stones on his shoulder brest plate And this is so far from making against us that it consirmeth rather our opinion for that carrying of the names of the Tribes on the Ephod which was upon the other holy garments together with that plate of pure gold that was upon the mitre on the forefront having engraven upon it HOLINESS TO THE LORD Exod. 28. was sufficient to typifie hold forth Christ's holy obedience Righteousnest could not typifie his death sacrifice And without a Righteousness there is no coming or approaching unto God this Righteousness is some other thing than meer remission of sins His argueing from the Priests first entry on their office at 30. Yeers of age Christ's doing the like Luk. 3 21. to inferre that no action performed by Christ before that time can be accounted the action of expiation of sin or of reconciliation of us to God is most vaine for 1 we make no limitation or restriction of his expiatory work to what he did before he was 30 yeers of age 2
decretis Publicis Politicis Ecclesiasticis fuit sancita roborata Sic ergò habent Articuli quos in Anglicum Sermonem versos exhibemus X. Of Free-will This is the condition of man after Adams fall that by his own Power and good works he cannot convert and prepare himself to Faith and calling upon God Wherefore without the grace of God which is by Christ preventing us that we may will and to operating while we will for doeing works of Pietie which are acceptable and well pleasing to God we can doe nothing XI Of Mans Justification Wee are only reputed Righteous before God for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith not for our works and merits For which cause the Doctrine of our being Iustified by Faith alone is most wholsome and full of consolation as it is explained in the Homilie about mans Iustification at more length XII Of Good Works Good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow the Iustified although they cannot expiat our sins or endure the severity of Divine Iustice Yet they are pleasing and accepted by God in Christ and necessarily flow from a true and lively Faith So that plainly by them a vive faith can be known as a tree can be judged by it's fruit XIII Of works before Justification Works which are done before the Grace of Christ and the influence of his Spirit since they do not proceed from the Faith of Iesus Christ are not at all acceptable to God neither doe they merit the grace which many call congruous Yea because they are not done according to Gods will and command we doubt not but they have the nature of sin XVII Of Predestination and Election Predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God whereby He before the setling of the foundations of the world by his Counsel hid indeed as to us Immutably decreed those whom he had chosen in Christ out of mankind should be delivered from the curse and destruction and as vessels made to honour brought to eternal Salvation by Christ. Hence those who are gifted with this notable favour of God are called in due time according to his purpose His own Spirit working they obey by Graces call are Iustified freely are Adopted to be the sons of God and made consorme to the Image of his only begotten Son Iesus Christ they walk holily in good works and in end by the mercy of God they come to eternal happiness As the pious consideration of our Predestination and Election in Christ is sweet pleasant and full of ineffable consolation to the truely Godly and to those who find in themselves the efficacie of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the deeds of the flesh and members which yet are upon the earth and by force drawing the mind to things above both because it does much establish and confirme our Faith of obtaining eternal Salvation as also because it vehemently kindles our love toward our good So it is a very destructive precipice to curious and carnal men and who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ to have alwayes the sentence of Gods Predestination proposed to their view whereby the Devil either presses them to despair or into equally pernicious security of a most impure life Thereafter the Divine Promises most be so imbraced as they are generally proposed to us in the holy Scriptures and the will of God which we have expresly revealed in Gods word is to be followed by us in our actions Atque hi quidem sunt Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Gratia Iustificatione Articuli convenientes utique cum aliarum Ecclesiarum praesertim Ecclesiae Scoticanae doctrina â—ti ex hujus Confessione Art III. VIII XII XIII manifestum est THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION Through faith cleared from Gal. 3 11. For the Iust shall live by faith CHAPT I. The Introduction the text the ground of this following discourse opened-up THe Doctrine of Iustification cannot but be acknowledged by all whose thoughts are taken up about an interest in everlasting felicity to be of great concernment debates or Controversies about the same cannot be esteemed vaine fruitless Digladiations Disputes about a thing of naught seing in this lyeth the Ground of all our Hop peace Eternal Salvation a Mistake or Errour as to the Theorie in this matter followed with an answerable corresponding practice I meane as to what toucheth the heart Substance of this Divine Mystery may yea must of necessity prove not only dangerous to Souls but even inevitably destructive Wherefore it cannot be justly accounted blame worthy that Churches particular persons who woule be faithful so accounted unto the grand-interests of Souls contend with alle earnestness for the faith once delivered to the Saints in this particular this being the true Basis of all Religion of Christianity without which there can be no access to nor Communion with God No peace with God nor true peace in owr own Consciences no life of Comfort here nor true hope of Salvation for ever here after No change of State nor saving change of liâ—e conversation in a word no life of Grace here nor of Glory hereafter And what then must follow upon the corrupting of this Truth upon Erroneous Apprehensions practices herein is aboundantly obvious to all such as have not sinned away all sense consideration in these matters Wherefore it is no wonder that Satan hath in all ages laboured by one Instrument or other upon one occasion or other and under one pretext or other to corrupt the pure streames of this wholesome Fountaine of Truth in one Measure or other in one particular or other that by such Mediums Arguments as he knew would be most taking seem most plausible at these Several times upon these Several occasions What way how far the corruption of this Truth was advanced in the Antichristian Church is yet known what ground their errour in this gave un to such as began to be enlightened in the knowledge of the Truth to separate from them to appear against them is manifest and what Effaies the Devil made about the beginning of Reformation or shortly after to darken this Truth by Questions Disputes even among such as hold the Truth fast as to the maine and what since by Several New Opinions or new Modes and Methods as they were called and given out to be vented and improven by Several Artifices to seeming different Ends he hath effectuated to the hardening of some in their Misapprehensions to the Corrupting of the Hearts Mindes of others and also the Staggering and Shaking of not a few may be called to minde with grief and sorrow Not to mention the bold attempt made by Socinians to overturne the whole Grounds of Christian Religion and to take away at once all the pillars of Gospel-justification The devil began early in the breaking up of the clear day of Christianity to darken this
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
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
sinners before He can be looked upon as a Righteous person or be dealt with as a Righteous person He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him and bestowed upon him for how can God whose judgement is according to truth look upon a person as Righteous and conferre privileges upon him due only to such as are Righteous who is not Righteous indeed Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him reckon a Righteousness upon his Score to the end He may be just and Righteous when He is the justifier of him that beleeveth Lastly He said Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive that by Righteousness in this Scripture should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith Righteousness is imputed for the man here spoken of hath not a Righteousness of his own as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters doth here take for granted And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins And whose Righteousness else can this be if it be not Christ's Is there any third competitour here imaginable must it not be the Righteousness of Him whom faith goeth out unto laith hold on in order to justification Must it not be His Righteousness who was the Mediator who laid down the price of Redemption was a propitiation as He told us in the preceeding Chapter Some men in alleiging a difference betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners and the Righteousness of Christ as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us except the Surety-righteousness of Christ as they expresly in this joine with Socinians See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565. with Papists Arminians so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel yea greater strangers than those were against whom the Apostle wrote who took it for granted that if any Righteousness from without or that was not by any thing which we do were imputed it behoved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator And this we may conceive is the reason why the Apostle doth not say in so many express words that it was the Righteousness of Christ for who could have thought of another Fourthly Rom. 5 19. a place with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose for the Apostle is not onely here confirming but also illustrating this whole matter from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity after many various and emphatick expressions used there-anent from vers 12. and forward he saith here vers 19 for as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Socinus de Servat lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us That he supposeth there is nothing written in the Scriptures that hath given us a greater occasion of erring than that comparison betwixt Adam Christ which Paul made did prosecute at length here And he would cleare to us the comparison thus That as by Adam's Sin disobedience it came to passe that all men were condemned and died so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to passe that they wero absolvod and did live for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience by vertue of the decree of God did penetrate the heavens there to reigne for ever and there he begote eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse needs not be declared seing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's designe to be to declare how what way Christ obtained power and authority to save Yet He goeth on to tell us That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death whence it came to passe that all mankind that are procreat of him after that guilt is obnoxious to death so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life whence it cometh te passe that who ever are procreat of him partake of this life But He never once taketh notice that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death their sinning in him vers 12. even such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression vers 14. yea in every verse this cause is noted or pointed at it being Notour of it self that ifall mankind did sin in Adan Adam's sin must be imputed unto them so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His inreference to their justification that with a much more Let us now see what Iohn Goodwine excepteth pag. 142. c. It is not here said He said that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience men are made formally Sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation or else sinners by propagation not Imputation Ans. This is the same upon the matter with Bellarmin's answer de justif lib. 2. cap. 9. here we have a distinction proposed without any explication to wit betwixt simply sinners and formally sinners And what can he meane by formally sinners possibly he meaneth that which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners And if so though Adam's posterity so soon as they come to have a being have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation yet that is not it which is properly said to be Imputed for that which is imputed is the guilt of Adam's sin whereby they become sinners that is guilty legally and so obnoxious to punishment death condemnation this is enough for us for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath so Beleevers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous 2 Whileas he will not grant that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation he joineth with the Socinians who turne these words vers 12. 〈◊〉 not in whom but because or whereas which the Ethiopick version doth better sense saying Because that sin is imputed unto all men even unto them who know not what is that sin And the Arabick turne thus seing all have now sinned and the Syriack word is Behi or Bhi which may as well be interpreted in whom as because And in several other places this praeposition so construed as here in the Greek hath this same import as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5 25. 11 22. Rom. 6 21. Phil. 4 10. 1. Thes. 3 7. But enough of this here seing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox writting against the Socinians and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers Againe saith He Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one Act unto or with another but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation or the Remedie to and with the
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
at which they stumbled when he said Rom. 9 31 32. But Israel which followed after the law of Righteousness hath not attained to the law of Righteousness wherefore Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law for they stumbled at that stumbling stone And againe Rom. 10 3 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righteousness going about to establish their own Righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness c. Is it not hence clear that they rejected Christ and would not owne Him as the end of the law for Righteousness that they stumbled at Him seeking after justification life by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness by seeking to establish their own righteousness How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law as performed by Christ as the jewes were who would have nothing to do with Christ but stumbled at Him while as Paul sought only to be found in Him not having his owne Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3 9. And proclamed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. Against Fit 3 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness which we have done a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned to prevent the stumbling of such as love to walk in the light he advanceth several answers pag. 62. c. As I. He never said that the active righteousness of Christ should be made a stander-by but that it hath a blessed influence into justification as it issueth into His passive obedience which together may be called a Righteousness for which but not with which we are justified except it can be proved to be either the Material or formal or instrumental cause of justification whoever attempt to do this will wholly dissolve the merite of it Ans. 1 All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand which is to show that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently what he meaneth by the works of the law which he excludeth from having any interest in justification viz. The works of the law performed by us in our own persons 2 What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness which is imputed unto us he showeth not nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice we have shown above that the personal Union did that and consequently His active obedience if it had no other influence is made a meer stander by 3. A Righteousness for which a Righteousness with which is a distinction in our case without a difference for the one doth no way oppugne or exclude the other because the meritorious cause imputed made over to and reckoned upon the score of beleevers can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified 4 Whether it may be called the Material or Formal cause of justification that any ever called it the instrumental cause is more than I know is no great matter seing it may be either as the termes shall be explained which men are at freedom to do according to their own minde when they apply them unto this matter which hath so little affinity with Effects meerly Natural unto the causes of which these termes are properly applied though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause if necessitated to use here philosophik termes 3 That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification is to overthrow the merite of it is said but not proved It is not these philosophical termes themselves but the explication of them by such as use them in this matter that is to be regarded and none shall ever show that either of these termes as explained by the orthodox doth overthrow the merite of Christ's Righteousness both doth rather establish it He saith 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing yet no wayes intimat that the works of any other should be the cause thereof If the words had gone thus not by the works of Righteousness which we our selves had done this had been some what an higher ground to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon viz. by the works of another or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose as the former for these words were here brought only to show what the Apostle meant by the works of the law which he excluded from justification viz. the works which we do and not to prove immediatly that the works of any other were understood hereby 2 It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction betwixt works which we do works which we our selves do the same word in the original which vers 5. is rendered we is rendered we our selves vers 3. What poor shifts are these which men take to support a desperat cause He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the law which we had done he had no intent to imply the works which another might do he expresseth the opposition thus according to His mercy Ans. The mistake is still continued in By these words we onely cleare what the works are which are excluded viz. our personal works or works which we do or have done whose works else are accepted other places prove expresly this by consequence unless the worke of a third could be alleiged 2 The opposition here made destroyeth not the opposition which we make for when we are justified Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ we are justified saved according to His mercy as well as we are justified freely by His grace when justified through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3 24. He saith 4. thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that wherein this Mercy of God be speaks of consisteth viz. regenerating us c. Ans. But I hope the Apostles mentioning of Regeneration doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the ground thereof nor can he suppose this unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works done after Regeneration the new birth He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable nor pertinent to the purpose because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness which he nameth from being any cause antecedaneously moving God to save us not from being the formal cause of justification and we our selves saith he will not say that the works of the law which Christ hath
done moved God to saveus Ans. 1 The Inference which he here speaketh of is his own and not ours as we have said 2 The Salvation here mentioned is comprehensive and includeth Justification Adoption as vers 7. cleareth the Mercy mentioned v. 5. comprehendeth all other subordinat causes meanes which the Lord hath appointed though the obedience of Christ be no cause moving God to decree to save yet it may be a cause of justification But then saith he pag. 65. This will only establish the merite of Christ's Righteousness in justification but overthrow the formality of it And why so Because sa it be it is unpossible that one and the self same thing in respect of one and the self same effect should put on the different habitude both of the Formal Efficient cause Ans. All this is but vaine talk a reasoning from termes of art or philosophical notions taken improperly to the same taken most properly strickly as if a Moral polititical or legal effect were every way the same with a Natural physical effect and yet in physical Effects as such meritorious causes have no proper Efficiency But as to our case we plainly say that Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification yet may be called the formal cause thereof as that terme may be adapted fitly explained according as the matter will bear or the formal objective cause which we rather incline to He speaketh against Gal. 4 4. pag. 66. saying that it is adduced to prove that Paul mentioneth the works of the law as done by Christ in the discourse of justification consequently that he had no intent to exclude the works of the law as done by Christ from having their part in justification But as was shown above there are many other places of Scripture evincing this Yet let us see what he saith 1. The law under which Christ was made is the ceremonial law as is clear vers 5. we are not redeemed from the Moral law which is of eternal obligation but from the Ceremonial law Ans. 1 That Christ was made under the Ceremonial law only no reason can evince for He was made under that law under the curse whereof we were who were to be delivered there from by Him Gal. 3 10 12. But this was not the Ceremonial law only otherwise he should have died only for the jewes Againe The law which he speaketh of was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator Gal. 3 17 19. but this was the Moral law contained in the decalogue Is the ceremonial law only that law that cannot give life vers 21. was nothing a Schoolmaster to Christ but the ceremonial part of the law vers 24. 2 To be under the law is not only to be under the lawes obligation but chiefly to be under the lawes Curse which is the same with being concluded under sin Gal. 3 22. 3 If being under the law be thus limited or restricked to a being under the obligation of the ceremonial law no more can be meaned by receiving the Adoptions of Sones there mentioned as the opposite mercy than a freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law but this I suppose will be too narrow an Interpretation 4 Though none be redeemed from obedience to the Moral law yet they may be delivered there from as the sole condition of the Covenant as the sole way of obtaining life 2. He saith hereby may be meaned His subjection to the curse of the law Ans. That this may be part of the meaning may very easily be granted what then can hence follow The expression of being under the law hath not alwayes this single and sole import as we see in that same Chapter vers 21. Secondly Chap. 4. pag. 69. He argueth from Rom. 3 21 22. thus If the Righteousness of faith which is here called the Righteousness of God consists in the Imputation of Christs Righteousness then is it not nor can it be made manifest without the law that is without the works of the law But the Righteousness of faith is sufficiently manifested without the law that is without the works or Righteousness of the law Ergo. The connexion of the Major he thus confirmeth Because to such a Righteousness the law and the works thereof are every white as necessary than faith it self for faith is made only a Meanes of the derivation of it upon men but the body substance of the Righteousness it self is nothing else but the pure law the works of it Ans. The connexion of the Major is unsound and its probation is founded upon a manifest wresting or misinterpretation of the place for the meaning of these words The Righteousness of God without the law is this The Righteousness of God which is not had by our performance of the commands of the law or doth not consist therein not the Righteousness of God which is without all obedience to the law for there be no such Righteousness all Righteousness being a conformity to the law of God if Righteousness consist not in obeying the law of God wherein shall it consist The Righteousness then of God is a Righteousness consisting indeed in full obedience to the law but yet a Righteousness consisting in obedience to the law performed by one who was God therefore also called the Righteousness of God not meerly because invented by God or because bestowed by Him upon men or because such as will only be accepted of by Him as he saith though these be also true may in part ground the denomination not by ou rselves who were properly and originally under the obligation of the law This will not satisfie him therefore he saith I. This sanctuary hath been polluted the hornes of ibis altar broken down in the demonstration of the former proof Ans. The contrary is manifest from our foregoing examination of that supposed demonstration He saith 2. There is not the least intimation given that the Apostle should have any such by or back meaning as this Ans. Nor was there any necessity for any express mention hereof not only because the party the Apostle had here mainely to deal with understood nothing else by the law but our obedience performed thereunto knowing the meaning of the law to be this he that doth these things shall live by them but also because the whole scope and manner of argueing of the Apostle his whole procedure in this debate manifest this to be the meaning for having convinced both jewes and Gentiles to be under the law as guilty before God he inferreth that therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3 20. That is by their own deeds or actions for the law to them can do nothing but convince of sin binde guilt more upon them But it did not so to Christ who yeelded perfect obedience We might also demonstrate this from the Apostles following discourse
death keep the law therefore reason requireth that what is first purchased should be first received applied Ans. I see no necessity of distinguishing after this manner the Effects of Christ's active passive obedience but judge it best to keep as conjoined what divine wisdom hath firmerly inseparably joined together But though we should thus needlesly distinguish these effects yet there is no necessity of saying That Christ's obedience because first existing should be first imputed unto justification and then His death to Remission for neither do we assigne justification to His active obedience only nor is the same order to be observed in the application of the Effects that was observed in Christ's performance of what was laid upon Him and required of Him as our Sponsor for the Nature of the thing required that Christ should first have obeyed before He died on the other hand the condition of sinners requireth that they be first justified and pardoned before they have a right to all the Effects of Christ's active obedience imputed 2. He saith If a man hath once sinned it is not any legal righteousness what so ever imputed that can justifie him Ans. This is granted But in order to justification we say That Christ's whole Surety-righteousness is imputed this comprehendeth both His active His passive obedience so usually distinguished 3. He saith If a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any further righteousness for his justification because forgiveness of sins reacheth home amounteth unto a full justification with God Ans. If justification were nothing else but forgiveness of sins there would be some colour for this but in justification there is also an accepting of the man as righteous to this a meer pardon of sins will not serve for a Righteousness is hereunto requisite pardon of sins and Righteousness are not one thing It is false then to say as he addeth That this is all the justification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgiveness of sins or acquiting from condemnation For both according to Scripture and the native import and universal usage of the word justification denoteth a constituting legally and declaring solemnely a person to be righteous or free of the accusation given in against him or a pronouncing of an accused man to be righteous therefore supposeth when the sentence is just that the person is a righteous person in our case the sentence of God being according to truth the person justified having no righteousness of his own must be clothed with the Surety-righteousness of Christ as Surety Head Husband imputed to him received by faith He addeth That righteousness which we have by Christ and where with we are said to be justified is only a negative righteousness not a positive It is nothing else but a non-Imputation of sin which I therefore call a Righteousness by Imputation as having the privileges but not the nature substance of a perfect legal righteousness Ans. A Righteousness not positive but meerly negative is no righteousness at all for a true Righteousness is a positive conformity unto the law the Rule of Righteousness and as the Righteousness is but negative and Interpretatively such so must the justification be that is founded thereupon He thinketh to prove this from Rom. 4 6 7 8. addeth a Righteousness without works must needs be a negative or privative Righteousness The Imputation of righteousness vers 6. is interpreted vers 7 8. to be a not imputing of sin Ans. The place cited as we declared above giveth no countenance unto this sense of the word justification but evinceth rather the contrary A righteousness without our works which is the Apostles meaning may be is no negative nor privative Righteousness but a positive full and compleat Righteousness being the Surety-righteousnes of Christ the Sponsor and the Text saith not That this Righteousness is nothing else than a non-Imputation of sin but inferreth rather the Imputation of Righteousness as the cause from the Non-Imputation of sin as the Effect and all this to prove that justification is not by the works of the law He tels us that we have the like description of this Righteousnes 2 Cor. 5. that which vers 19. he calls in God the not imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us vers 21. a being made the righteousness of God in Him Ans. This is a plaine perversion of the scope of the meaning of the words for vers 21. the Apostle is giving the ground reason of what was said vers 19. showing how this Reconciliation Non-Imputation of sin is founded what is the special ground thereof as appeareth by the particle for vers 21. for He hath made Him sin c. He saith This is most plaine Act. 13 38 39. where forgiveness of sins is immediatly thereafter called justification Ans. All that can be hence inferred is that in justification sins are pardoned or that such as have forgiveness of sins are justified or that these do inseparably go together But no appearance of proof here that they are both one thing or that in justification there is no more but pardon of sins He prosecuteth this purpose yet further saying This is the most usual proper signification of the word justifie not to signify the giving or bestowing of a compleat positive righteousness but only an acquiting or discharging setting a man free from guilt penalty due unto such things as were laid to his charge Ans. 1 Nor do we say that justification signifieth such a giving bestowing of a compleat positive Righteousness but that it signifieth a declaring pronouncing of a person to be righteous therefore presupposeth this giving or be stowing of a compleat Righteousness for the man whom God declareth pronounceth to be Righteous must be Righteous seing he hath no Righteousness of his own he must have his Suretie's Righteousness imputed to him 2 And so in this sense justification is an acquitting or setting a man free from the guilt penalty due to such things as were laid to his charge for he is pronounced Righteous But it is not a simple discharge of the person from the guilt and penalty upon a pardon Remission for a pardoned man is not a justified man but rather is supposed to be guilty is pardoned because guilty He proceedeth In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning Prov. 17 15. Where by justifying the wicked nothing is meart but the making of them just in the rights privileges of just men which are freedom from censure punishment c. So that by justifying the wicked nothing else is meant but the not condemning of him Rom. 8 33 34 5 19. Therefore by justifying nothing else is meant but acquitting from condemnation so to be justified live are equipollent Gal. 3 11 21. Esai 53 11. Ans. 1 That justifying is opposed to condemning is granted but this
Right to the reward as to this State whatever we shall conceive as the forme thereof it must be a Righteousness consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed for sinners can have no other Obj. 12. If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us thon the Effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also so we may be said to have merited both our own justification salvation for if I may be accounted or reputed to have wrought that Righteousness which is meritorious why may I not be conceived as well to have merited Nay further if I may be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness in Christ whereby I am justified my self I may as well be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness by which the whole world is justified Ans. This is but a meer sophisme founded upon a mistake The consequence is false the proof thereof standeth only upon this rotten bottome That to say That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us is to say that we are reputed esteemed or accounted to have done or wrought that Righteousness our selves whileas the true meaning of Imputation is this That the Righteousness of Christ is made over by grace unto Beleevers reckoned upon their score where by they are dealt with now no other wayes than if they had fulfilled all Righteousness in their own person Whence it is clear that the Effects cannot be said to be imputed to us but only that we partake of the Effects thereofs so far as our own Necessity requireth As the Ransom payed for the Redemption of so many captives is imputed to each of the captives in order to his owne Redemption to none of them as Redemption of others without this Imputation or reckoning it upon their score as the price of their Redemption no man could have right to the Effects thereof in reference to himself or could be redeemed thereby So that it is manifest that through the meritorious cause or the righteousnes of Christ imputed to us we obtaine justification Salvation but do not merite them our Redeemer Surety meriteth them for us we enjoy what He merited for our own happiness It is false then to say That by Imputation we are conceived to have wrought that righteousness in Christ whereby we are justified therefore it cannot but be most false to think That we may be conceived to have wrought that righteousness also by which others are justified for it was only our Head Husband Surety Redeemer who wrought it free grace imputed it to or reckoneth it upon the score of Beleevers Obj 13. chap. 18. pag. 165. If the active Righteousness of Christ be in the letter formality of it imputed unto me in my justification then I am reputed before God to have wrought that righteousness in Christ. But this is false c. Ans. Neither proposition is true The Major is denied unless by these word letter and formality he understand such an Imputation as we do not acknowledge his words would seem to import this for saith he in confirmation of the Major to have any thing imputed to a man in the letter of it is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him And if this be the only sense of his proposition the conclusion maketh not against us for we asserte no such Imputation as inferreth such a Reputation Nay to say That God should repute things so were to destroy all Imputation for what God whose judgment is according to truth â—eputeth us to have done we must have done it if we have really done it be reputed to have done it by the Lord it cannot be said to be imputed to us in the sense we take Imputation for Imputation with us is of that which we have not or did not which God knoweth judgeth we did not yet is by Imputation so made over to us put upon our score reckoned upon our account as that we are as really made partakers of the Effects thereof that is of justification c. As if we had done it ourselves or it had been ours without before any Imputation Hence the beleever is made the righteousness of God in Christ not reputed or esteemed to have been the righteousness of God but now through the gracious Imputation of God through faith made to be so Hence we see that the proof of his Minor goeth upon the same Mistake if saith he I be reputed before God to have wrought Righteousness in Christ in my justification then is Christ in His Sufferings reputed before God to have sinned in me Ans. We say neither the one nor the other Christ did not sinne in us nor did the Lord repute Him to have done so But he was made sin by Imputation the guilt of sin being laid upon Him or our sinnes as to their guilt being caused to meet on Him Whence it came to passe that He suffered as really the punishment of sin as if He had sinned in us whileas as to His own person He knew no sin neither was deceit found in His mouth Obj. 14. pag. 166. If the Active obedience of Christ be imputed then His Passive is imputed also Ans. And why not If the death Sufferings of Christ saith he be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died or suffered in Christ. But this cannot be because in Christ we are justified absolved from punishment therefore cannot be said to have been punished in Him Ans. This whole Argument is of a piece with the foregoing Though therefore it be upon the matter answered already Yet we shall adde this word further That though in one sense it is false to say That we are reputed to have died Suffered in Christ viz physically yet in a legal sense it may be admitted as a truth that Beleevers who now by faith are in Christ of His Body are accounted reputed to have suffered in Christ their Head Surety Publick person therefore are now dealt with as such Hence they are said to be crucified with Christ to be dead buried with Him to be risen with Him Rom. 6 4 5 6. Ephes. 2 5 6. Col. 2 12. Yet it will not follow hence that in a legal sense Christ can be said to have sinned in us for we were not His Representative or Head Though the debtor may be said in Law sense to have paid his creditor in his Suretys payment Yet the Surety cannot be said to be contracting debt in the debtor for the debtor's deed cannot affect him untill he voluntarily submit himself to be Surety where may be after the debt is already contracted by the debtor And to say in this Law sense that Beleevers Suffered in Christ doth not weaken the ground of our justification absolution Acceptation Healing as is manifested above unless we turn Socinians then upon this same ground we
of justice truth in God in reference to Christ yet as to us it is of free grace so much the more of free grace that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for that end And such as understand not this are more principled with Socinian abominations than with the doctrine of the Gospel of the grace of God Obj. 18. pag. 173. If men be formally just by God's act imputing Christ's righteousness then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin But this is not true for then an Act of God should be as the life soul of that sin which is in men Ergo Ans. As this argument concludeth nothing against the truth now asserted this conclusion being different from the question now in hand so it is but a meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical termes notions that thereby the truth may be more darkened We are not obliged by any Law of God to explaine or interpret these mysteries of Salvation according to these Notions which men explaine after their own pleasure knowing no Law constraining them to follow either one man or other in the arbitrary sense which they put upon these termes But as to the present â—rgument no answer can be given untill it be known what is the true meaning of these words formally just Possibly he will understand hereby the same that others meane by Inherently just so indeed do all the Papists And if so we can answere by saying That no orthodox man thinketh or saith that in this sense we are made formally just by God's act imputing Christ ' righteousness but by Holiness wrought in us by His Spirit And as to that righteousness which is imputed whether it be called the Formal or the Material cause of our justification it is but a nominal debate having no ground or occasion in the Word of God by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts expressions in this matter Nor do they who say we are formally just by Christ's righteousness say we are formally just by God's Act imputing that righteousness But by the righteousness it self imputed by God received by faith Nor do they say that men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin unto his posterity but by Adam's sin imputed though God's Act be the cause of this effect it is not the effect it self Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners that is guilty obnoxious to wrath so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute beleevers Righteous Obj. 19. pag. 175. If justification consists in the Imputation of Christ's righteousness partly in Remission of sins then must there be a double formal cause of justification that made up compounded of two several natures really differing the one from the other But this is impossible Ergo. Ans. 1. This Argument is founded upon another School-nicety or notion viz the Simplicity Indivisibility of Natural formes this Philosophical Notion is here adduced to darken the mystery we are treating of It were a sufficient answere then to say That the Minor though it be true in natural formes Yet will not necessarily hold in the privileges of Saints which may be single or compounded as the Lord thinketh meet to make them And can any reason evince that the Lord cannot conferre bestow in the grand privilege of justification moe particular favoures than one Can He not both pardon sins accept as declare to be Righteous Can He not both free the beleever from the condemnation of hell adjudge him to the life of glory or cannot these two be conceived as two things formally distinct though inseparable 2. But I shall not say That Imputation of Christ's righteousness is a part of justification But rather that it is the ground thereof necessarily presupposed thereunto Nor shall I say that Remission of sins is the forme or formal cause of justification a pardoned man as such not being a justified man It is true pardon of sins doth inseparably follow upon is a necessary effect of our justification a certaine consequent of God's accepting of us as righteous in His sight upon the account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith I grant also that justification may be so described or defined as to take in that Effect without making it thereby a formal part thereof when strickly considered 3. But he will have Remission of sins to be the whole of justification nothing more included therein or conferred thereby abusing to this end as we heard above Rom. 4 6 7 8. Where the Apostle is citing the words of the Psalmist is not giving us a formal definition of justification nor saying that justification is the same with Remission nor that Remission's the formal cause of justification but only is proving that justification is not by our works as the ground thereof that by this reason Because that would utterly destroy free Remission which is a necessary Effect consequent of Gospel-justification cannot be had without it in order to which justification he there asserteth expresly an Imputation of righteousness Now an Imputation of righteousness is not formally one the same thing with Remission of sins nor can Remission of sins be-called a righteousness or the Righteousness of God or of Christ yet the Man is a blessed man whose sins are covered because that man is necessarily covered with the righteousness of Christ whose sins are covered for Imputation of righteousness free pardon do inseparably attend one another Nor is it to the purpose to say That pardon is a passive righteousness though not an Active righteousness for all righteousness rightly so called is conformity to the Law that is not a passive or Negative righteousness which may be in a beast that transgresseth no Law consequenly hath no unrighteousness Obj. 20. pag. 176. If such Imputation be necessary in justification this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God or in respect of His Mercy or for the salving or advancing of some other attribute But there is no necessity in respect of any of these Ergo. Ans. 1 This same man tels us that there is a necessity for the Imputation of faith as our Righteousness not withstanding of all that Christ hath done and why may he not grant the same necessity for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ will it satisfie him that we found the necessity of Imputation of Christ's Righteoufness on the same ground 2 Though we should not be in case to assigne the real just ground of this necessity yet I judge it should satisfie us that the Lord in His wisdom Goodness hath thought fit to appointe and ordaine this methode manner of justification so far should we be from disputing against this Truth with such Arguments from rejecting of it untill we be satisfied as to
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
or Delegate The 4. is but a consequent of this and consequently saith he to repute a double formal Righteousness to result from the said habites acts passions one to Christ as the Natural Subject Agent another to us as the Moral Political or reputed Subject agent so His formal Righteousnese not to be imputed to us in it self as ours but another to result from the same matter This is too Philosophical for me to owne or follow The 5 is or else that we are reputed both the agents Subjects of the matter of His Righteousness morally also of the formal Righteousness of Christ himself All these are but the effuvia of a braine floteing swimeing in ill digested Philosophical Notions School dregs contribute nothing to the clearing of Gospel-Truth which hath little or rather no affinity with aery Philosophical Notions but tende manifestly to the darkening of the same But now when all these Philosophical Notions Relations are at an end we can proceed no further where is that Imputation which is legal plaine to every ordinary Man viz whereby the Satisfaction made to a judge Governour for a crime committed by the delinquen'ts friend or that payment Satisfaction made to the creditor for the debtor by a friend Interposing is in Law-sense accounted the delinquent's debtor's he as really effectually delivevered out of prison therefore as if he had made Satisfaction in his own proper person or had paid the summe out if his own Substance If any Philosopher after Mr. Baxter's manner here should with such Philosophical Whimseyes I call them so for they are no other in this case laboure to disprove any such Imputation say it must be in one of those five senses c. would not any countrey man smille at this But now let us see Mr. Baxter's sixt sense wherein he granteth the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Or else saith he by Imputation is meant here that Christ being truely reputed to have taken on the Nature of sinful Man become an Head for all true Beleevers in that undertaken Nature office in the person of a Mediator to have fulfilled all the Law imposed upon him by perfect Holiness obedience offering himself on the cross a sacrifice for our sins voluntarily suffering in our stead as if He had been a sinner guilty of all our sins as soon as we beleeve we are pardoned Iustified Adopted for the sake Merites of this Holiness obedience Penal Satisfaction of Christ with as full demonstration of divine Iustice at least more full Demonstration of His wisdom Mercy than if we had suffered our selves what our sinnes deserved that is been damned or had never sinned And so Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted or reputed Righteous not in relation to the Precept that is innocent or sinless but in relation to the Retribution that is such as have right to impunity Life because Christ's foresaid perfect Holiness Obedience Satisfaction meritedour pardon Adoption and the Spirit or merited the New Covenant by which as an Instrument Pardon justification Adoption are given to Beleevers and the Spirit to be given to Sanctifie them and when we beleeve we are justly reputed such as have right to all these purchased gifts As to this I shall only note a few things 1. Christ's fulfilling of the Law imposed on Him doth not hinder but that He paid our debt so came in our Law-place substitute Himself in our room to do what we should have done to suffer what we should have suffered according to the Law in all the essentials Substantials of that punishment for had He not done this He could not be said to have suffered in our stead for he only suffereth in the room stead of another who suffereth what that other should have suffered If one be condemned to suffer death another that suffereth only Imprisonment for his delivery cannot be said to suffer in this stead but onely for his cause good as the Socinians say Christ suffered for us 2. Christ not only suffered in our stead as if he had been a sinner guilty but as sinner legally juridically guilty having sins imputed to Him though He was most free of all sin inherently and knew it not the reason is manifest for otherwayes Divine justice should not have shined forth in His sufferings it being no Demonstration of justice to punish one who neither inherently nor Imputatively legally is or can be accounted reputed a sinner 3. Wee cannot with right be reputed Righteous except we be either inherently righteous or righteous by Imputation so legally juridically in Law-sense righteous by vertue of the Imputation of the Surety-righteousness of Christ our Sponsor 4. Righteousness must properly respect the Commands Prohibitions of the Law but secondarily the Retribution if not most Improperly as unrighteousness is in reference to the Law as commanding or forbidding very improperly attributed to any in reference to the punishment threatned And therefore if we be accounted Righteousness it must be in relation to the precept at least in the first place Nor can we be accounted Righteous in reference to the Retribution that is have a Right to Impunity life in the sight of God who judgeth reputeth according to equity right unless we be first accounted Righteous in reference to the precept for this is the only just legal foundation of the other 5. Upon this it doth not follow that we are Innocent or sinless inherently far less that we never transgressed but on the contrary it clearly saith that we were sinners but now are legally or juridically innocent sinless by the Imputation of the side jussorie Righteousness of Christ therefore are not obnoxious to the penalty or to punishment but have right to Impunity life 6. When he speaketh of what Christ merited he expresseth himself dubiously not being positively clear whether Christ merited our pardon c. or the New Covenant the disjunctive particle Or saith He did not merite both in his judgment but before we heard him plainly affirming that Christ merited the New Covenant consequently He did not purchase pardon Adoption the Spirit to any immediatly but only mediatly in purchasing the Covenant which promiseth these to such as performe the Conditions thereof 7. By this way Beleevers are repute such as have right to all these purchased gifts not immediatly by vertue of Christ's Merites righteousness imputed to them bestowed upon them but by vertue of their being inherently Righteous with that Gospel-righteousness faith which is the potestative Condition of the Covenant is now imputed to them accounted their Righteousness according to his judgment Speaking afterward pag. 55. of Christ as an Head Root he tels us that He was no Natural Root or Head which is undeniable Yet He
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
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
for his Right to Impunity and life it is no Righteousness beside I hope he will not say that that is given before justification of a Righteousness preceeding in order of Nature at least justification we are speaking enquireing after it What he answereth to this Objection in the first place because it only concerneth Papistes their Misapprehensions in the matter I passe But 2. he saith If any of them do as you say no wonder if they you contend If one say we are Innocent or sinless in reality the other we are so by Imputation when we are so no way at all but sinners really so reputed Ans. If by Innocent or sinless he mean such as never sinned never Man Protestant or Papist dreamed of such a thing If by these termes he meane such are now not guilty legally of the charge brought in against them this we acknowledge and must acknowledge or we know not how any shall ever be justified for God will not pronounce sinners as such really and legally to be righteous His judgment being according to truth therefore because we have no righteousness within us whereupon we can be pronounced not guilty we must have a Righteousness imputed to us even the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But Mr. Baxter it seemeth will not understand what this legal non-guiltiness is yet in matters among men it is very clear and manifest If Paul had fully Satisfied according as he undertook Philemon for the wrongs and injuries done him by Onesimus If Onesimus had been convented before a judge for these same crimes and Injuries had produced the Satisfaction made by his Surety Paul accepted by the creditor Philemon would not the judge have had ground in Law equity to pronounce Onesimus not guilty therefore not to be punished according as was libelled against him And yet though Onesimus had been pronounced Innocent that is not-guilty as to Crimes and Injuries alleiged against him in this case in a legal sense it would not follow that he had never committed these wrongs nor had the evincing of that been necessary to his Absolution and justification His Legal Innocency or Righteousness by vertue of the Satisfaction made by his Surety now judicially accounted reputed his being Sufficient These things are plaine to such as will but open their eyes but all the world cannot make them plaine to such as will understand nothing but what is cast into Aristotelian Metaphysical Mould Were it not lost laboure for any to enquire what is the Matter Forme of this legal Righteousness of Onesimus Whereof is it constitute How came Paul's righteousness to be his and so one accident to go from subject to subject whether was Paul's satisfaction the Efficient or Constitutive cause of Onesimus his Innocency or non-guiltiness and the like The 5. Object is How can God accept him as just who is really reputedly a sinner This dishonoureth His Holiness and Justice To this he saith Not so cannot God pardon sin upon a valuable Merite Satisfaction of a Mediator though He judge us not perfect now accept us not as such Yet 1. Now he judgeth us holy 2. And the members of a perfect Saviour 3. And will make us perfect and spotless and then so judge us having washed us from our sins in the bloud of the Lamb. Ans. All this giveth no satisfaction to the objection for the objection speaketh of acceptance in Justification consequently of that acceptation that preceedeth Sanctification 2. It is true God can doth pardon sins but meer pardon of sins is not justification the person must be accepted as righteous and yet by Mr. Baxter's way the man hath no righteousness to ground such a judgment and acceptation and God's judgment being alwayes according to truth the justified man must be righteous that he may be accounted accepted as Righteous in Justification Therefore either Mr. Baxter must grant that he is Righteous through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ or that he is Righteous inherently by his faith or by his fulfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant for there is not a third or that he is prononnced Righteous without a Righteousness The 6. object Thus you make the Reatus culpae not pardoned at all but only the Reatus poenae To this he saith 1. If by Reatus culprae be meaned the Relation of a sinner as he is revera peccator so to be reus is to be revera ipse qui peccavit then we must consider what you meane by Pardon for if you mean the nullifying of such a guilt or Reality it is impossible because necessitate existentiae he that hath once sinned will be still the person that sinned while he is a person the relation of one that sinned will cleave to him It will eternally be a true proposition Peter Paul did sin But if by pardon you mean the pardoning of all the penalty which for that sin is due damni vel sensus so it is pardoned this is indeed the Reatus poenae not only the penalty but the dueness of that penalty or the obligation to it is remitted and nullified Ans. The nullifying of the Reatus culpa physically or metaphysically is indeed Impossible for it will be alwayes true that such such persons did sinne but this Reatus culpae may and must be nullified legally and juridically otherwise never shall man be justified for in justification this Reatus culpae is declared to be taken away for the man is declared non reus accepted as not-guilty or Righteous not physically or Metaphyâ—ically but legally a man must be legally Righteous before he be justified according to equity he cannot be legally Righteous as long as the Reatus culpae doth legally remaine for a man legally guilty is not legally Righteous Now Mr. Baxter must yeeld to this or he shall destroy his own ground and take away all pardon as well as justification for as it will be eternally true that Peter Paul did sinne so were rei culpae so it will be eternally true that punishment was due unto them that is they were rei poenae therefore if because it will be eternally true that Peter Paul sinned therefore the Reatus culpae cannot be annulled so because it will be eternally true that Peter Paul were obnoxious liable to punishment therefore also the Reatus poenae cannot be annulled But the truth lyeth here that though neither the Reatus culpae nor poenae can be annulled physically or metaphysically that is so taken away as if they never had been yet both are taken away legally juridically and a pardoned man is legally and juridically non puniendus thus the Reatus poenae is taken away and a justified man is legally and juridically not-guilty of the offence charged against him thus the Reatus culpae is taken away As it is inconsistent with pardon to say that
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
his sin to us 3 Thus we see by asserting the cause viz. our relation to Christ he taketh away the effect viz. the Imputation of His Righteousness as being no distinct thing as if one should say we are related to Adam a sinful Head who broke the Law for us this is called Adam's sin imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours But yet Christ's fulfilling all Righteousness for us if that for us were understood in the Scripture sense and not according to the Socinian or Arminian gloss would abundantly ground the Imputation we plead for and that as a fruit of our Relation to Christ. Passing what he saith 8 as not worth the noticeing We come to see what he saith 9. lastly Proposing this objection to himself if Christ's person be given us then His personal Righteousness is given us with it He replieth thus Yes as His person is He is not given us as proprietors Lords to become our own at our dispose nor is his person made one Person with each or any of us His person is not turned into ours nor ours into his Ans. This is all to no purpose for no man in his wits either said so or dreamed so at any time As the husband saith he is not the person of the wife nor the King of each Subject but as one that hath a Great wise learned Bountiful Holy King or Husband hath also his Greatness c. as they have him that is as his perfections for their good as far as his relation bindes him but not as if his enduements were removed from him to them or falsely reputed to be in them or his person to be their persons so here as we have a Christ so we have a perfect Righteous Christ given us to be our federal head when we beleeve and the Righteousness which is not in us but in Him is ours so far as to be for our good as far as His office Covenant do oblige Him Ans. This savoureth of making Christ's dying for us to be nothing else than His dying for our good as Socinians say and if it import more as it doth in truth he cannot but see that his simile here hath nothing of a similitude in it for the objection speaketh of Christ's person given to us not as a great wise c. King is given to his Subjects but as the Surety is given to the debtor i.e. as one whose payment of the debt must be reckoned on the score of the debtor in order to his liberation out of prison He addeth So that a Righteous Christ and therefore the Righteousness of Christ are ours relatively themselves quoad jus beneficii so as that we have right to these benefites by them which we shall possess and for the merites of His Righteousness we are conditionally justified and saved before we beleeve and actually after Ans. All this jus beneficii is but remote for in the foregoing pag. he told us as we heard that this right doth not flow immediatly from what Christ did and suffered but from his Covenant of Grace and I think he should have said rather from their performance of the condition for the Covenant conveyeth no title but conditionally he knoweth and therefore can give no title or Right untill the condition be performed upon the performance of which the conditional Title becometh actual And further there is no more here said than what a Socinian will say and particularly Sclightingius pro Socino cont Meisnerum pag. 250. whose words we cited above towards the beginning of our XIII Chapter CHAP. XVII Reasons enforcing the practice of the Truth hithertill Vindicated WE have now at some length as the Lord was pleased to help essayed to vindicat this noble fundamental Truth of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in order to the obtaining of this life of justification and ere we proceed I judge it will not be amiss to press the practice of this Truth the hearty practical embracing thereof by several Arguments Considerations for it will not be enough for us to know the Theory and to be orthodox in our judgments as to these Necessary soul-concerning truthes but we must also practise them that it may appear we do beleev them in very deed and that we beleeve them with the heart this will be the best way to be kept orthodox and stedfast in the truth I shall therefore propose a few Considerations moving to the practice of this so necessary concerning a Truth As 1. This way of justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ the Mediator Surety is a way thath hath the testimony of both Law Prophets confirming it is now more clearly revealed manifest under the Gospel dispensation than it was formerly Rom. 3 21 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law the Prophets even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Christ unto all upon all them that beleeve And the same Apostle tels us Rom. 1 16 17. That he was not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the Power of God unto Salvation to every one that beleeveth c. And what is the ground reason of this for therein saith he is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by â—aith This then must be a very sure saife way being thus attested witnessed by all that are worthy of credite in this matter a way that is one the same as to its substance both before the Law under the Law now under the Gospel though it be now more clearly unfolded explained since the coming exaltation of the blessed Mediator than it was before His coming when it was darkly revealed shadowed under the Mosaical Ceremonies Observances None need to feare a Miscarrying or a disappointment in following of this way which even the Law it self or the Mosaical observances did point forth in the daily yeerly Sacrifices pointing forth the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world on which the offerers were to lay their hands before they were to be offered up in token of their devolving laying their sin guilt upon the same as the the type of that one only acceptable Sacrifice that was to come in the fuluess of time was to satisfie justice for their sinnes to shew forth declare their faith relying thereon expecting acceptance there through as we see Levit. 1 4 3 2. 16 21. And a way which also the Prophets or the Spirit of Christ which was in them did testifie and bear witness to when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1 10. c. So Peter in his Sermon to Cornelius told him Act. 10 43. that to Him i.e. to Christ gave all Prophets witness that through His Name
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
we never read that we are said to be justified by Love or by Patience or by Hope or any other but alwayes by Faith This certanely must instruct us that Faith here hath a peculiar and singular interest must be considered as looking to Christ in a different way from Hop Love which also have Christ for their object or Christ must be the object of Faith in another manner under some other consideration than he is the object of other graces 12. It is also considerable that it is simply said the just man liveth by faith or we are justified by faith and not the just man liveth or we are justified by a strong faith or by a faith continueing to the end Though it be true that a true lively Faith is of that Nature that it will continue to the end and will grow yet we may not say that only a strong Faith or a Faith as continueing to the end is the condition of the Covenant or of Justification for hence it would follow that as no man of a weak yet true and sincere Faith could be said to be Justified so no man could be said to be Justified untill his Faith had endured to the end which is contrary to Scripture speaking of beleevers while in their infancy as justified adopted as partakers of or at least as having a Right to the consequences of Justification such as Pardon Peace Glorying in Tribulation and Comfort c. The promise granteth Justification and Adoption to Faith that is of the right kinde no mention is made of that Qualification thereof He that beleeveth is passed from death to life and shall never die c. Ioh. 3 36. Ioh. 3 16 18. Ioh. 1 12. If the meaning of such as make Faith as continneing to the end the condition of the Covenant and of Justification were this That Faith as continued in to the end is the Mean of Continuance in the Covenant and in the state of Justification they should speak truth for the just liveth by faith first last as by Faith they are brought into the estate so by faith they are continued therein Faith maketh the first Union Faith continueth it But of this we shall have occasion to speak more afterward 13. This faith is not one single act of the soul nor seated in one faculty The various things spoken of it in Scripture and the various objects it acteth upon and is exercised about and the various and different necessities which beleevers stand into with the corresponding uses which faith serveth for in these necessities cleare it to be no one single act of the Soul I would rather call it the act of the whole Soul than the act of any faculty whatsomever CHAP. XXII Our act of Faith is not imputed to us a Righteousness Wproceed now to cleare at some further length several Particulars touched in the foregoing Chapt. contributing to the explication of our Justification by Faith The first great Question anent Faith is whether it be imputed unto the Beleever as his Righteousness whereupon he is justified Adversaries to the truth both Socinians Arminians do plainly assert that our faith or that grace of faith is the very thing which is imputed to the Beleever for his Righteousness They are all convinced that the sinner must be clothed with a Righteousness some way or other in some sense or other ere he can be Justified for the Lord is Righteous will not justifie the wicled that is such as have no Righteousness and being willing to yeeld to the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ they substitute in place of Christ's Righteousness Faith properly taken or our act of Beleeving as is it performed by us in obedience to the Gospel-command Socinus de Serv. lib. 4. c. 4. Cum igitur c. i.e. seing he teacheth by the example of Abraham that Righteousness is imputed when can doubt that nothing else can hereby be under stood but that we arerighteous before God because it hath seemed good to the Lord to account our faith in place of Righteousness And thereafter That faith is imputed unto righteousness is nothing else than that faith is accounted to us in place of Righteousness but not that the Righteousness of christ is imputed to us cap. 11. Themselves say that that saith justifieth not by its proper worth but because it apprehendeth Christ But that apprehension of Christ of yours is a meer humane fiction a most vaine dream And when we read that faith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness or unto Righteousness we have no reason to think that mention is there made of the Righteousness of another when it is manifest that he is speaking of his own In his dial de Justis f. 14 15. he tels us that faith is by God imputed to us for Righteousness he accounteth that in place of Righteousness faith is in very deed that whereby the Scripture witnesseth that we are justified that is accounted Righteous before God have our sinnes pardoned This faith maketh us acceptable unto God unto eternal life And in not ad dial f. 27. Nothing else was said than that faith is accounted to us of God imputed for Righteousness that that faith is truely in us who will deny seing these words are said to exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness The Arminians do homologate with the Socinians in this Arminius himself cont Perkins faith expresly that faith it self is imputed to us in Praf ad Hyppolit this faith he is my opinion about justification that faith that alone is imputed unto Righteousness that by it we are justified before God absolved from our sins and accounted righteous pronunced declared by God giving sentence from the tribunal of grace Some blaine ine for saying that the act of faith it self the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed unto Righteousness that in a proper sense not metonymically I say faith is imputed unto us unto righteousness for Christ for his righteousness sake He owneth the same decl Sent. ad Ord. f. 65. 66. in Resp. ad 31. Artic. f. 152-154 John Goodwine in his Treatise of Justification Part. 1. Ch. 2. asserteth the same most considently from Rom. 4. whose reasons hereafter shall be examied The same purpose he prosecuteth Part. 2. Ch. 6. answering the arguments of the orthodox against that imputation which shall be considered in due time Mr. Baxter in his Confess pag. 18 19. Excepteth against some words in our larger Catechisme Confession of faith to wit that it is denied that the grace of faith or any act thereof is imputed for Justification unless it be thus understood that our faith is not imputed to us as being in stead of a perfect Righteousness of Obedience to the ends as it was required by the Law of works nor is our faith the matter or the meritorious cause of the remission of our sin or of our right to
will save justifie us but his Righteousness laid hold on brought home applied by Faith that so all might see be convinced of the necessity of faith whereby the soul goeth out to Christ layeth to his Righteousness and might not satisfie themselves with a Notion of Christ his Righteousness never applied by Faith but be enduced to lay hold on him by Faith to the end they might have an interest in Christ's Righteousness the same being upon their faith bestowed upon them and reckoned upon their score The expression is most emphatick to hold forth the necessity now of faith according to the Lord 's Soveraigne appointment as if thereby Christ's Righteousness their faith were become one thing as being wholly inseparable in this affaire so that it cometh to one whether by faith we understand the Grace as acting upon connoting the Object or the Object as acted upon by the Grace of Faith as in that expression the Righteousness of faith Rom. 4 13. Faith may either be interpreted to be Christ as said hold on by faith so the meaning will be through the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on by Faith faith may be the same way explained in the following vers 14. 16. for if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void i. e. if the grand heritage come by the Law by obedience to it the Gospel holding forth Christ to be laid hold on by faith is made void as to this end and againe vers 16. therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace i. e. it is of by Christ laid hold upon by Faith that it might be by grace Or faith in all these may be interpreted to be faith as acting upon the object Christ his Righteousness the consequence force of the words will be found to be the same whether of these wayes we explaine the matter As when speaking of the Israelits stung in the wilderness it were all one to say they were healed by the brazen serpent to wit looked to or they were healed by their look to wit upon the brazen serpent for still it will be understood that all the vertue came from the brazen serpent or him rather that was typified thereby yet so as it was to be looked upon that their looking was but an Instrumental mean thereunto and when a mean thereunto must include the object looked unto We hear it sometimes said of persons miraculously cured that their Faith made them whole while as the vertue came from the object acted upon by faith as Peter fully explaineth the matter saying Act. 3 16. And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong Thus we see how this matter may be saifly must be understood when the vertue and efficacy of the Principal cause is attributed to the Instrumental cause And yet lest any should stumble at the expression pervert it as many do to day the Apostle abundantly Caveats against this by telling us so plainely so fully so frequently of the Righteousness of God which is had by faith through faith as we have seen never speaketh of a Righteousness had because of faith or for Faith nor saith he that faith is our Righteousness while treating of Justification CHAP. XXV Faith is not our Gospel-Righteousness OUr Adversaries to strengthen their Assertion of the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense to the exclusion of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ have other two Positions which they own maintaine One is that our Faith or our act of beleeving is the whole of our Gospel-Righteousness And the other is That Christ hath procured that it should be so by procuring the New Covenant whereof this faith is made the Condition To this last we shall speak something in the next Chapter of the other here How much Mr. Baxter doth contend for our Faith 's being called accounted our Gospel-Righteousness is known The forenamed Author of the discourse of the two Covenants is very plaine pag. 48 c. where he is explaining what God's counting Abraham's faith to him for Righteousness is There he tels us that he takes it to signifie thus much to wit That God in a may of special grace or by vertue of a new Law of grace favour which was established by God in Christ Gal. 3 17. that is in reference to what Christ was to do suffer in time then to come did reckon his practical faith to him for Righteousness that is that which in the eye of that new Law should passe in his estimation for righteousness subordinat to Christ's Righteousness which procured this grant or Law And thereafter pag. 40. he tels us That it is an act of God's special favour by vertue of his new Law of grace that such a faith as he hath described that is a faith taking in all Gospel Obedience as we saw above comes to be reckoned or imputed to a man for Righteousness through God's imputing it for righteousness to stand a man in the same if not in a better stead as to his eternal concerns as a perfect fulfilling of the original Law from first to last would have done Christ's Righteousness being presupposed the only Meritorious Cause of this grant or Covenant Thereafter pag. 50. he tels us there are two things which constitute make up the Righteousness of the Law of Grace first that which consisteth in the forgiveness of sins 2. the righteousness of sincere obedience And in inference to both he saith faith is imputed for righteousness be vertue of the Law of Grace for saith he faith as practical is imputed to a man for righteousness as it is that all that which is required of him himself by the Law of Grace to entitle him to the righteousness which consisteth in remission of sins And then as to the second he saith pag. 52. That faith is imputed for righteousness which is practical or productive of sincere obedience without which properâ—y it is not a fulfilling of the Law of Grace as a condition of the promised benefites consequently cannot justifie a man in the eye of that Law for as he addeth there must be repentance forgiving men their injuries faith must be such as worketh by love then he tels us that Abraham was justified by his works Jam. 2. All which abomination of doctrine perversion of the right wayes of the Lord we are not here to examine It is enough in reference to the clearing of what is now before us under consideration that we see here a plaine dâ—lmeation explication made of that Gospel which Mr. Baxter said this Treatise would lead us into the knowledge of which is the very same upon the matter with that Gospel which Socinians Arminians hold forth joyning herein with Papists as we saw in part above Chap. XVIII towards the beginning we shall at
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
words and termes be laid aside because the terme itself by which we express our Conceptions of the truth is not in so many letters syllabs to be found in Scripture if so indeed we had quickly lost a fundamental point of our Religion and yeelded the cause unto the Socinians If the Scripture may be explained we may make use of such expressions termes sentences as will according to their usual acceptation contribute to make the truthes revealed in Scripture intelligible to such as heare us And when some termes have been innocently used in Theologie for explication of truthes whether to the more learned or to the more unlearned have pâ— ssed among the orthodox without controll or contradiction beyond the ordinary time of prescriptions it cannot but give ground of suspicion for any now to remove these old Land-marks especially when it is attempted to be done by such meanes arguments as will equally enforce a rejection of many Scriptural expressions for should all the Metaphorical expressions sentences which are in â—ature be so canvassed rejected because every thing agreeing properly to them when used in their own native soile doth not quadrate with them as used in the Scriptures in things divine where should we Land If these divine mysteries had been expressed to us only in termes adequatly corresponding with suiting the matter how should we have understood the same Therefore we finde the Lord condescending in the Scriptures to our low Capacities and expressing sublime high mysteries by low borrowed expressions to the end we might be in case to understand so much thereof as may prove through the Lord's blessing saving unto us And thereby hath allowed such as would explaine these matters unto the capacity of others to use such ordinary expressions as may contribute some light understanding to them in the truthes themselves Now when the orthodox have according to their allowed liberty made use of the word Instrument in this matter and maintained that Faith was was nothing more then an Instrument in Justification it is not faire to reject it altogether because improper though fit enough to signifie what they did intend thereby because all the properties that agree to proper Physical or artificial Instruments do not agree to it and because if the same be strickly examined according to the rules of Philosophie concerning Instrumental Causes it will be found to differ from them Mr. Baxter himself writting against D. Kendal § 47. tels us that the thing which he denieth is that Faith is an Instrument in the strick logical sense that is an Instrumental efficient cause of our Iustification that he expresly disclaâ—meth contending de nomine or contradicting any that only use the word instrument in an improper large sense as Mechanicks Rhetoricians do So that the question saith he is de re Whether it efficiently cause our Iustification as an Instrument But it may be conceived to have some efficient Influence in our Justification not as that is taken simply strickly for God's act justifying but as taken largely comprehending the whole benefite as activly coming from God as Passively received by or terminated on us that as an Instrument though not in that proper sense that Logicians or Metaphysicians take Instrumental causes and explaine them in order to physical natural Effects We know that Justification is a supernatural work effect and therefore though in explaining of it in its Causes we may make use of such termes as are used about the expressing of the Causes of Natural or Artificial Works Effects yet no Law can force us to understand by these borrowed expressions the same proper Formal Efficacy Efficiency and influence which is imported by these Expressions when used about Natural Causes Effects But Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 5. tels us what great reasons he had to move him to quarrel with this calling of faith an Instrument viz. he found that many learned divines did not only assert this Instrumentality but they laid so great a stress upon it as if the maine difference betwixt us the Papists lay here And yet any might think that they had reason so to do when Papist's on the other hand laid as great stresse upon the denying of Faiths Instrumentality He tels us moreover that our divines judged Papists to erre in Justification fundamentally in these points 1. about the formal Cause which is the formal Righteousness of Christ as suffering perfectly obeying for us 2. About the way of our participation herein which as to God's act is Imputation that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith which justifieth 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in justification which is as the Instrument thereof I doubt not saith Mr. Baxter but all these four are great errors But we neither may nor can call all errors which Mr. Baxter calleth errors We have seen above how necessary truthes the two first are and have explained in part the third wherein I confesse too many yet not all of the forraigne divines have as to expression missed the explication of true Justifying faith it may be it was not their designe to describe it so as it might agree to the faith of every sincere though weak beleever but rather to shew its true nature grounds tendency when at its best yet what Papists hold on the contrare is more false absurd But as to this fourth it seemes that it hath a necessary dependance upon the foregoing and this to me seemes to be the maine reason why our Divines did owne plead for Faiths Instrumentality in the matter of Justification viz. because the Righteousness which they called the Formal or others the Material Cause thereof was not any Righteousness inherent in us as Papists said but the Surety-Righteousness of the Cautioner Christ without us And therefore they behoved to look on Faith in this matter otherwayes then Papists did and not account it a part of our Formal Righteousness but only look upon it as an hand to lay hold on bring-in the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ and therefore judged it most fit to call it only an Instrumental Cause And how ever Mr. Baxter exaggerat this matter as complying with Papist's in condemning us as to all these controversies and think it no wonder they judge the whole Protestant cause naught because we erre in these and yet make this the maine pairt of the Protestant cause yet we must not be scarred from these truthes Yea because this point hath such a connexion with the other concerning that Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be Justified in the sight of God we are called to contend also for this that so much the rather that though Papist's do utterly mistake the Nature of Justification and confound it with Sanctification yet Mr. Baxter
hath more rational apprehensions there about and yet will not have Christ's Righteousness to be that Formal Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified Yet notwithstanding we need not owne it for such an Instrument or such an Instrumental cause as Philosophers largely treate of in the Logicks Metaphysicks knowing that the Effect here wrought is no Natural Effect brought about by Natural Efficient Instrumental Causes Only we say the Scripture affirming that we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giveth us ground to call Faith if we will use such termes to expresse our mind an Instrument seing these expressions pointe forth some special interest influence that Faith hath in Justification no other Influence or Causation can be allowed to it conforme to the Scriptures but that which we express in our ordinary discourse not in a strick Philosophical sense by an Instrument And that so much the rather that hereby is pointed forth that which is the maine ground designe of using this terme viz. the Application of the Righteousness of Christ which is made by Faith as a meane or mid's laying hold upon without which we cannot be Justified according to the Gospel And though in these borrowed expressions from Causes metaphysical accuracy be not intended yet the true meaning intendment of the users of these termes being obvious it is but vanity to raise too much dust thereabout unless difference about other more Principal Questions in the matter of Justification enforce it as indeed all such as place the Formal Cause or reason of our justification before God in our own Inherent Righteousness and not in the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith must of necessity deny all interest of faith here as an Instrument or as any thing like it because having all their Righteousness within them they have no use for Faith to lay hold-on bring-in one from without There things may satisfie us as grounds of this Denomination 1. That in justification we are said to be receivers do receive something from the Lord not only the Passive justification itself expressed by our being justified but of some thing in order thereunto as of Christ himself the Abundance of Grace of the Gift of Righteousness the atonement the word of promise yea every thing that concurreth unto justification or accompanieth it we are said to receive Ioh. 1 12. Col. 2 6. Rem 5 11 17. Act. 2 41 10 43. 26 18. Heb. 9 15. 2. That the only Grace whereby we are said to receive these things is Faith receiving is explained to be beleeving Ioh. 1 12. Act. 2 41. comp with vers 44. we receive forgiveness of sins by faith Act. 26 18. 3. That the Surety-Righteousness of Christ is that only Righteousness â—pon the account of which we are justified before God not any Inherent Righteousness within ourselves hath been evinced above 4. That this Righteousness of the Surety must be imputed unto such as are to be Justified or reckoned upon their score hath also been evinced 5. That this Surety-Righteousness of Christ must be laid hold on by us in order to our justification hath been showne must be granted by all that acknowledge it to be the Righteousness upon the account of which we are Justified 6. That the Scripture saith expresly that God justifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith Rom. 3 24 25 28 30. Gal. 3 8 2 16. and that even when justification is denied to be by works So that Faith must have a far other interest in must otherwise concurre unto our Justification than any other Works or Graces and therefore must be looked upon as having some peculiarity of interest and influence here and this peculiarity of interest can not be otherwayes better expressed so as the matter shall be cleared then by calling it an Instrument Not as if it did concurre to the produceing of the effect of justification by any Physical operation as Physical Instruments do but as a medium mean required of us in order to Justification according to the free pleasure of God who disposeth the order methode of his bestowing of his Favours upon us aud the Relation Respect that one hath unto another as he seeth most for his own glory and for our good and that such a mean as concurreth therein and thereunto according to what is said in such a way as we be can best understand by calling it an Instrument for we can not allow it to be called any way meritorious or any formal disposition of the soul or Preparation unto the Introduction of an Inherent Formal Cause of Justification as Papists say nor can we allow it to be called such a proper Potestative Condition as some would have it to be as we saw in the forgoing Chapter 7. That no real inconvenience can follow upon the owning of Faith for an Instrument in justification for Justification is not here taken simply strickly for that which is properly God's act but more largely complexly including other things requisite unto Justification such as the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ which Faith as the Instrument or hand of the soul layeth hold on bringeth-in for this end that the man being clothed therewith may be acquitted before the Tribunal of God Pardoned accepted of as Righteous And howbeit it be God that justifieth as to this act of God justifying Faith hath no real interest or influence yet the Scripture saying that God justifieth by Faith and through faith we must acknowledge some interest that Faith hath in the work Effect as when the Scripture saith that He purifieth the heart by faith Act. 15 9. the purifying of the heart is God's work and yet it is said to be done by Faith which is our work It is said Heh 11 11 that through faith Sara herself received strength to conceive seed vers 33 34. that some through faith subdued Kingdomes stopped the mouthes of Lions quenched the violence of fire c. all which were the works of God yet while they are said to be done by faith faith must have had some interest influence in these effects So in working faith in the soul which is God's work alone the Lord useth the preaching of the Gospel and ministers the peoples hearkning listning to what is preached as meanes midses thereunto though preaching hearing be mens work yet God useth them for his ends and as he sendeth Preachers to preach moveth persons to hear that thereby he may according to his own will pleasure work Faith in then so he worketh Faith in souls that he may thereby Justify them Nor is it of any weight to say that if Faith be an Instrument it must work as an efficient cause because the Instrumental Cause belongeth
to the Efficient for neither do all Philosophers agree to this some holding Instruments to be a fift kinde of Cause nor are we obliged to stand to their prescriptions rules especially in these things that are no natural causes or effects no man saith that faith hath the same kind measure of Efficiency in towards the effect justification that all Instrumental causes or Instrumental causes so called have in the Effects which they concurre to the producing of what efficiency hath an examplary cause which some Philosophers reduce to the efficient viz. Keckerman But that Faith hath some Influence is manifest from the Scripture not of it self it is true but by the gracious appointment of God and that this Influence cannot be better more saifly expressed than by the name of an Instrument appeareth to us clear hereby nothing of the glory due to God or unto Jesus Christ and to his Righteousness is ascribed unto man nor is any more hereby granted unto Man than to a beggar as to the enriching of himself when it is said his hand made him rich by receiving the Purse of gold that was given unto him yea hereby is Christ his Righteousness more fixedly established in their due place because faith is considered not as a Righteousness of it self nor as a part of Righteousness but purely and simply as an Instrument of the soul laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ and pleading the same as the only Formal ground of his justification before God If it be said that it were saifer to call it a causa sine qua non We must first know what is properly signified thereby whether it will help us more to understand the just true import of the Scripture expressions about Faith in Justification for no termes ought to be used that attaine not this end or have not a direct tendency thereunto such termes however we may please our selves in the invention of their application unto the business in hand and think we are in case to defend the same against opponents yet if they do not contribute manifestly to the clearing and explaining of the matter according to the Scriptures can only darken the matter And no reason can enforce us to embrace them with the arbitrary explications limitations of the Authors and to reject or lay aside such as do more obviously explaine the matter unto all such as have orthodox apprehensions of the matter and have given offence to none nor have been excepted against by any but such as were not orthodox in the point of justification whose erroneous Principles led them to deny or except against the same And what for a cause shall we take that causa sine qua non to be which cannot be so explained in our language as that every one that heareth it shall be in case to understand what it meaneth Such as speak of it call it causa fatua and referre to it external occasions time place and such like things without which the action cannot proceed as the place wherein we stand the time wherein we do any thing which have no more interest in or relation to one action than another for all must be done by us in some time and in some place And shall we say that faith hath no other interest or influence in justification than the hour of the day when or the place wherein a minister preacheth hath into his preaching Shall we have so meane low an account of the ordinances appointments of God in reference to spiritual ends Seing the Lord hath appointed Faith in order to Justification we must not look upon it as a causa fatua or as a meer circumstance but as having some kindly influence in the effect by vertue of the appointment of God such a connexion therewith that it no sooner existeth but as soon justification followeth Faith then can not be called a meer causa sine qua non Historical faith several other antecedents may be a conditio or causa sine qua non for no man of age can be justified without it yet we may not say that we justified by it as by saving faith the same may be said of Conviction Sense of sin of some measure at least of legal Repentance and of desire of Pardon of Peace which yet may be and oft are without justification And it may also seem strange how this causa sine qua non can be called a potestative condition or how that which is said to be a proper Potestative Condition ex cujus praestatione constituitur jus actuale ad beneficium can be called a meer conditio or causa sine qua non seing it hath such a considerable moral influence in the effect But saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 27 faith cannot justifie both as a Condition as an Instrument of Iustification for either of them importeth the proximam causalem rationem of faith as to the effect it is utterly inconsistent with its nature to have two such different neerest causal interests Ans. When we speak of Faiths justifying as an Instrument we consider the physical or quasi physical way of its operation and denote only its kindly acting on Jesus Christ and on his Righteousness which it layeth hold on applyeth apprehendeth putteth on And when we say it justifieth as a condition we consider it as appointed of God unto that end as placed by Him in that state relation unto justification which now it hath And either of these can be called the proxima ratio causalis of Faith according to its different consideration if justification meaning not God's act only but the complex relative change be considered in genere Physico or quasi physico then the neerest causal interest of faith is its instrumentality but if it be considered in genere morali or legali then its neerest causal interest is that it is a condition As when a rich man bestoweth a purse of gold on a beggar requireth that he in order to the possessing of it streatch forth his hand take it considering this act of enriching him in genere physico his hand acteth herein as an Instrument apprehending the purse taking it to himself considering this in genere legali or morali the streatching forth of his hand and apprehending the purse is a condition for so the donor hath determined to give the riches after such a manner methode for his own ends according to his good pleasure Thus we see how faith can in its way produce one the same effect of justification both as an Instrument and as a Condition taking these termes in a large sense according to the matter in hand Mr. Baxter saith Confess p. 89. he denieth that Faith is an Instrument of Iustification because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficient cause of pardoning himself Ans. And he
denote one the same thing the last being explicative of the former Ezek. 18 30. Repent turn yourselves And this is imported by many Synonimous expressions in the Old Testament as Seeking the Lord Deut. 4 29. Turning to the Lord vers 30. Returning to the Lord. Hos 5 4. Seeking the face of God 2. Chron. 7 14. the like See also Revel 3 19. 4. It is sometimes expresly distinguished from Godly sorrow mentionned as a Consequent or fruite effect of it 2. Cor. 7 9 yee sorrowed to Repentance 10. for Godly sorrow worketh Repentance 5. Sometime it is expresse distinguished from Faith as Act. 20 21 Repentance toward God faith toward our Lord Iesus Christ. Heb. 6 1. not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works of faith towards God So Ier. 31 19. after I was turned that is wrought up to faith I repented 6. Sometime it signifieth nothing else upon the matter but a receiving of the Gospel a beleeving in Christ not only Mark. 1 15. repens ye beleeve the Gospel where the later is explicative of the former but also in many other places where Bapist's ministrie is spoken of the summe whereof is said to have been Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand Mat. 3 2. and his baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance Mark. 1 4 or unto Repentance Mat. 3 11. See also Luk. 3 3. Act. 13 24. Now that this preaching of Repentance Baptisme of or unto Repentance which is said to have been Iohn's ministrie work was the preaching of Faith in the Messiah Paul telleth us expreslie Act. 19 4. Then said Paul Iohn verily baptized with the baptisme of Repentance saying unto the people that they should beleeve on him which should come after him that is on Christ Iesus So that by this Commentary of Paul's we understand both what was the scope of his Baptisme of Repentance also what was the meaning of his calling on his hearers to Repent to wit to embrace Christ who came after him to beleeve in him And by this Commentary we may understand the purpart of Christ's preaching Mat. 4 17. from that time Iesus began to preach to say Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand And this is called Mark 1 14. the Gospel of the Kingdom of God As also of the preaching of the Apostles Seventy disciples when they were sent to say the Kingdom of God was come or is nigh unto you Luk. 10 9. Mat. 10 7. which is called the Gospel Luk. 9 6. and Repentance Mark. 6 12. they went out preached that men should Repent By this also we may understand the meaning of these the like passages Mat. 9 13 I am not come to call the Righteous but sinners to Repentance So Mark 2 17. Luk. 5 32. as likewise of that passage Luk. 15 7 10 joy in heaven over one person that repenteth for this is Christ's saving of the man that was lost Mat. 18 11. Luk. 15 4. 19. 10. See also Mat. 11 20. Act. 2 38. 11 18. 26 18. 20. compared together 7. Sometime it denoteth a recovery from some measure of defection into which persons are backsliden as Revel 2 5. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen Repent do shy first works So Ch. 3 3. Remember therefore how thou hast received heard hold fast Repent 8. Sometime it is distinguished from works of Obedience that follow upon it flow from it as Mat. 3 8. bring forth fruits meet for Repentance that is fruits suiting or answerable unto a Christian state or a state of beleeving in Christ which before we saw was denoted by Iohn's Baptisme So Luk. 3 8. Act. 26 10. 9. Sometime it includeth all that is required in order to Salvation upon mans part as 2 Pet. 3 9 not willing that any should pertâ—h but that all should come to Repentance So that Repentance includeth all that is requisite to escape perishing So Luk. 13 3 5 except ye Repent ye shall all likewise perish So also Act. 5 31. to give Repentance to Israel Remission of sins where as Remission of sins may comprehend all the spiritual favours and privileges which Christ bestoweth so Repentance may include all the graâ—es blessings which he bestoweth in order to the actual participating of these privileges Thus we may understand it Act. 17 30. but now commandeth all men every where to Repent that is by the preached Gospel wherever it cometh commandeth all men to relinquish their courses of vanity to embrace the Gospel of Salvation to walk accordingly So Luk. 24 47. And that Repentance Remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations which is the short summe of the Apostles Commission to wit to exhort to all Christian duties imported by Repentance hold forth all Gospel privileges as an encouragment thereunto included in Remission of sins Having premitted these things in order to the clearing of the question we would know further 1. That the Question is not whether the doctrine of Papists about Repentance in order to Justification be to be owned in whole or in part for none now appeareth in the direct owning of their Assertions who commonly are utterly ignorant of true Justification as different from Sanctification as may sufficiently appeare by the very naming of their positions for 1 They look upon Repentance as having force efficacy to expell sin as light hath to expell darkness taking Remission to be a destroying of the very being of sin expelling of Corruption by contrary gracious Qualities inherent Holiness of which they make Repentance a part 2 They make Repentance concurre as a material cause dssposing the soul for receiving a gracious Quality for the expelling of sin 3 They make Repentance to obtain pardon by way of merite and 4 by way of Satisfaction Not to mention 5 their Sacrament of Pennance All which the Reader will finde not only rejected but also shortly solidly confused by worthy judicious Mr. Durham in his Comment on the Revel in that digression on Repentance pag. 251. 2. Nor is the Question whether the Lord call for Repentance as a duty at the hands of such as either are to be Justified or are already Justified for both these we willingly grant as being divine truthes richly confirmed in the Scriptures what ever Antinomians say to the contrary 3. Nor is the Question whether Repentance be a Condition of the Covenant or not For if by a Condition of the Covenant we understand every thing that is a duty required of the Covenanters it is readily granted as was said that Repentance is a duty required of such as are really in Covenant with God but if by a Condition of the Covenant be meaned a duty required in order to the closing of the Covenant or entering into Covenant upon the performing of which the Covenant is immediatly
Righteousness to us is a consequent act after faith of God as judge and not an antecedent donation Yet it is such a consequent act of God as necessarily presupposeth God's free antecedent Donation for it is God's reckoning that Righteousness upon the beleevers score in order to the Justifying of him thereupon and because this Righteousness must be given we not having it of ourselves there must a free donation antecede and this groundeth Faiths accepting thereof and receiving of it And himself immediatly before this saith that God giving us all the effects or Salvation merited in it self properly is said also not unfitly to give us the merit or Righteousness which procured them that is as it was paid to God for us to procure them And if so why doth he inveigh so much in the foregoing pages against the orthodox doctrine of Imputation seing he cannot but know that they do not say that God doth give us the very habits of holiness as he speaketh there which were in Christ nor the transient acts which he performed nor the very sufferings which he under-went nor the Relation of Righteous Satisfactory Meritorious as it was that numerical relation which immediatly resulted from Christ's own habits acts and sufferings They dreame of no such Translation of accidents But only say that seing as Mr. Baxter here elsewhere saith this satisfactory Righteousness was paid to God for them and accepted of God as a compleat Satisfactory Righteousness they by faith coming to be united unto Christ according to the way methode which the Lord hath wisely condescended upon have an interest in that Satisfactory Righteousness as legally made over unto them and therefore have the benefites purchased thereby as when a stranger who was not under the Obligation cometh to pay the debt of a debtor lying in prison the payment must in Law sense be made and accounted the debtors or put upon his score and received upon his account ere he can therefore be relieved out of Prison But in the fore-cited place against Mr. Blake he maketh this Righteousness Remission all one thing And indeed if it were so it could not belong to the Object of Faith other wayes than as an end intended to be obtained thereby But to us Remission is a benefite purchased by this Righteousness and followeth upon our having interest therein through Faith according to the appointment of God a Pardoned man as such is not a Righteous man But he tels us there that our divines of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying Faith to be a receiving resting on Christ alone for Salvation as he is offerest in the Gospel It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying faith to be the receiving of justification or Righteousness Ans. Here we have Justification Righteousness made one and the same which with me differ as Cause Effect our divines of the Assembly give a more full definition or description of Justifying Faith in the Larger Catechisme and there tell us that thereby the convinced sinner receiveth resteth upon Christ N.B. his Righteousness therein i.e. in the Gospel held forth for pardon of sin for the accepting accounting of his person Righteous in the sight of God for Salvation And if Mr. Baxter would say so much as is here this debate would be at an end and yet I finde not this among his exceptions against that Catechisme in his Confession And when our devines mentione this Receiving Resting upon Christ's Righteousness they make not Justifying Faith to be a receiving of Justification but the one a cause of the other And he addeth a little thereafter which is considerable to our present purpose That receptio Ethica activa of justification or of Righteousness for they are both one thing with him goeth before Iustification as a small secondary part of condition it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the maine condition And we never spoke of the receiving by Faith of Christ's Righteousness as exclusive of the receiving of himself He tels us next That Christ's Satisfaction or Redemption solvendo pretium merit cannot properly be received by us for they are not in themselves given to us We grant the price was payed to God but it being payed to God for us it may be imputed to us and reckoned upon our score and we may that way receive it by faith and Lean our soul upon it to the end that the fruit of it may be given to us And likewise he granteth ibid. that justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christ's satisfaction merit as it doth our Iustification thereby procurea If he will grant that Justifying Faith respecteth Christ's Satisfaction Merite as the Cause in which we are to have an interest and under which we must refuge our selves and upon the account of which we are to be accepted of God and accounted Righteous in his sight all is granted that I desire But his following exceptions are founded upon a manifest mistake of his own taking this Righteousness whereof we speak and Justification for one and the same thing for he saith To say therefore that the justifying act of faith is only the receiving of Christ's Righteousness or of Iustification is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way even to exclude him as Satisfier from the justifying act to exclude from that act his Redemption by Bloudshed Satisfaction Merite The mistake here is palpable for we look on Righteousness which faith receiveth as the Cause and on Justification as the Effect when this Righteousness of Christ the causa procaâ—arctica of our Justification is received by faith it is impossible but Christ himself must be received as a Satisfier his Redemption Bloudshed Satisfaction Merite cannot be excluded for therein was the Righteousness which faith laith hold upon in order to Justification He addeth for confirmation for if it be only the receiving of Righteousness that is the justifying act than it is neither the receiving of Christ himself nor yet the acknowledgment of his Satisfaction Redemption by his blood But this is nothing but what was said repeated againe Neither do we say that the Justifying act of Faith as it is called is a receiving of Christ's Righteousness as distinct from himself nor is it imaginable how Christ's Righteousness can be received without the acknowledgment of his Satisfaction and of the Redemption by his blood How he can say that Christ's Righteousness our Justification are but one and the same thing I do not understand when as he saith himself Cath. Theol. of moral works Sect. 13. n. 208. that our first constitutive justification which is it whereof we are here speaking to wit that by which a soul is brought from an Unrighteous to a Righteous State as he speaketh n. 207. is in its nature a right to impunity to life or glory Now sure this Relation or Relative state is one thing and the Righteousness of
is his strong opinion that he is confident of it that no justified person shall ever lose his justification that God hath promised to cause them persevere This State then is not to be compared with other States which are losable changeable among men nor can we with such freedome speak of Conditions of not loseing that which is fully secured from all loseing as we may speak of the Conditions of keeping Not-loseing that which may be oft is lost We can not then speak of the State of Justification as we do of Marriage betwixt man woman here there may be are indeed Conditions required of each part in order to the keeping up of the Relation they may be called Conditions of not loseing that Relation or Privilege But as to justification which is not so loseable to speak of Conditions of not loseing it may occasion Apprehensions in the mindes of men of its being losable It were saifer then in my apprehension to enquire how or what way is this State Relation continued or what is required on our part in order thereunto then to enquire what are the Conditions of Not-loseing this State 3. Seing Mr. Baxter granteth Confess p. 109. that no new sin destroyeth their State of Justification nor maketh them cease to be God's reconciled Children seing they are still united unto Christ and have his Spirit and have Faith Repentance at least as to the habit pag. 129. That the habite of Faith Repentance which is ever in them qualifieth them for present Remission of ordinary sins of infirmity at least And it is undeniable that the Lord's Spirit preserveth them from such sins as are inconsistent with a State of Justification or that make an intercision in that State consequently in their Adoption Union with Christ seing I say all this is granted to what purpose is such a question as this here moved and stated anent the Conditions of Not-loseing this state 4. The terme Condition here is taken in the same sense that it was understood in when the question was about the Condition of our first entry into the State of Justification and so they must take it here for a proper legal antecedent Potestative condition for if by condition here were meaned no more than a mere Consequent Evangelick Condition the question only would be What is the Lord's Way Methode Manner how by which he preserveth his own in that State of Justification But according to their acceptation of the word condition the question really cometh to this What that is which beleevers betake themselves unto which they can may should plead with God upon for the continuance of their state that is of their Reconciliation unto Acceptance with God of the Pardon of their sins Right to glory 5. The question is not what is the Condition or what is required on our part for keeping the sense evidence of our justification in our own Consciences many things may be useful herein that yet cannot be called Conditions of the Continuance or Not-loseing of Iustification But the Iustification here spoken of is that which is before God whereby the Beleever is indeed brought into a State of Peace Reconciliation with God hath obtained a Right unto the Inheritance of Life 6. When we speak here of the continuance or Not-loseing of Iustification the Iustification spoken of must be that State or Relation where into the Beleever is already brought for that only can be said to be continued while we are living and that only can be said properly to be losed or Not-losed which a man hath These seeme then to be two distinct questions What is the Condition of our final Absolution in Iudgment what is the Condition of the continuance of our justification here which Mr. Baxter seemeth to confound Confess p. 83. as the Papists do confound their second justification with the last judgment when they are pleading for works being required as the causes thereof 7. Though as we have seen before Iustification importeth more than Remission of sins Yet in this question of the Condition of the Continuance of Justification the matter seemeth to be brought to this issue whether works of Obedience be the Condition of future Remission of sins in the justified And though these may be conceived of as distinct questions yet the clearing of the way of the Remission of future sins may serve much to cleare the present Question for if it befound that the same course is taken for Remission of future sins that was taken at first it will be manifest that justification is continued upon the same termes or in the same manner that it was at first obtained if properly we can speak at all of the Conditions of its Continuance Having premitted these things the Question is Whether faith alone or works alone or faith with works are the condition required on our part for the Continuance or not-loseing of the state of justification And I judge as faith alone was required at first in order to justification so that alone is to be called the Condition of the continuance of justification or that the Condition both of our first installing in that state of justification of the Continuance of the Privilege or of Beleevers continueing in that state is the same grace of Faith Yet these two things would be noted 1. That though the first act of Faith in Christ doth suffice to the entering of a soul into the state of justification Yet we do not meane that that one first solitarie numerical act sufficeth for all time coming albeit it sufficeth for making up of the Relation according to the appointment of God for the same Faith is to continue in its habite Yea in its actings So that we state not the Question so strickly as Mr. Baxter seemeth to do Confess p. 47. when from the Continuance of the habite of Faith from the renewing acts of that Faith required after the first act of Faith he inferreth that much more goeth to the continueing of our justification than doth at first justifie us But our question is about the addition of sincere Obedience which he there mentioneth 2. When we suppose the Continuance of Faith not only as to its habite but as to its renewed actings we do not suppose that the actings Effects or Concomitans of Faith afterward are every way the same with what they were at first so that we may also yeeld to this difference grant that some thing more may be requisite afterward Particularly in order to the Remission of some hainous sin in the acting of Faith or in the Effects or Concomitants thereof at least as to measure or outward significations to wit in Godly sorrow Humiliation Forgiving of others Restitution or the like yet it will still remaine true that justification is continued by Faith not by Works For the proof of what we conceive to be
he mindeth to Pardon he giveth also a Spirit of Repentance as both Scripture Experience proveth 3. Yet notwithstanding of this it is true that an outward Repentance where there is no inward real sanctified change wrought may hold off for a time or prorogue the inflicting of temporal strokes as we see in Aabh Nineveth others 4. It will be granted also by all the orthodox that Repentance is no proper meritorious cause of pardon not doth it make any Satisfaction to God or appease his wrath anger 4. I shall also grant that where there is true unfeigned Repentance after some sin committed there that person may saifly inferre that his sin is pardoned Repentance is a good signe of Remission because it is a good evidence that the man hath run to the fountaine to the blood of Jesus and there hath washen himself made himself cleane See Esai 1 16 17 18. 5. The Exercise of Repentance is very usefull to make sin become bitter mercy welcome to make the soul more careful watchful in time to come But the Question is whether Repentance be a proper Condition of Pardon of sins committed after Justification or not And when we speak of Repentance here we consider it by itself not as being the sensible signification expression of Faith for the Question is not whether Faith acting in through Repentance or working the soul up unto unfaigned Repentance be the Condition of Remission for that is not Repentance but Faith accompanied with acting the soul to Repentance but the Question is of Repentance considered in itself as a distinct grace from Faith And speaking of Repentance as such considered in itself I say that it is not the Condition of Remission of after sins but faith only acting in a Gospel manner on Jesus Christ his Bloud Merites And the reasons are 1. Because it is Faith not Repentance that carrieth the sinner away to the Bloud of Jesus Christ to his Merites through whom by which alone Remission is had Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. Zach. 13. 1. Heb. 9 14 22. Revel 1 5. Repentance as such layeth not hold on Christ grippeth not his Merites maketh no application of these but is wholly exercised about another object about sin 2. This would give man too great ground of boasting in himself if upon his Mourning Sorrow Repentance Pardon were to be had and would give occasion to think that there were some merite worth in that work some thing satisfying or appeasing to God for the man hereby is keeped within himself upon the account of something within himself or done by himself is he pardoned as he might suppose 3. This should be derogatorie to the Bloud Merites of Christ by which alone we have pardon first last and the Gospel is so contrived as that Christ must have all the Glory and all the methodes meanes order of the Gospel and new Covenant are in like manner framed so that man may be abased free grace exalted Christ acknowledged the only Redeemer But if our Repentance were made such a Condition there should be no application made of Christ of his bloud by the sinner No acting on him on his merites in order to the obtaining of Pardon and so no occasion of exalting free grace and Love in Christ no occasion of wondering at the wise contrivance of the Covenant of Grace in all points If it be said There is no derogating from Christ his Merites here because it is by vertue of his Merites that Repentance is made such a Condition I Ans. This is not cleared from the Scripture nor is it sutable to the frame of the Gospel-Covenant for the whole of it is so contrived as that Christ is immediatly to be made use of But this way keepeth the soul off all immediat going to applying of and resting upon Christ in order to Remission of new sinnes setteth them only upon the exercise of Sorrow Repentance within themselves 4. The Apostle Iohn pointeth out the way to beleevers of obtaining Remission-of sins 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. And if any man sin we have an Advocat with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous And he is the Propitiation for our sins Now Repentance doth not make use of Christ as an Advocat as a Propitiation but Faith doth And it is the proper work of Faith in order to Remission to make use of Christ in his Priestly office to carry the soul away to his Propitiation Intercession 5. The dayly experience of the Saints evidence this when upon conviction of sin they betake themselves to the free Mercy of God in Christ to the Bloud of sprinkling crying out for Pardon for the Lord's sake and seeking to be washen in his blood It is not their Repentance or Sorrow that they flee to as the ground of their hope of Pardon but the merites of Christ held forth in the new Covenant is that fountaine wherein they must wash be cleane See Psal. 25 11. 51 7. 6. This was sufficiently held forth under the Law when for their Errours Failings dayly Transgressions the people were to bring their Sacrifices to the Priest which were to be offered up as types of Christ they were to lay their hands upon the head of the Sacrifice in signe of their resting upon the Sacrifice typified of rolling their sins upon that only Sacrifice of expecting Acceptance Pardon through it alone See Levit 4 20 26 31 35. 5 10 13 16 18. 6 7 19 22. 7. If Repentance be the Condition then this must either be said of that part of Repentance which preceedeth the acting of faith or of that which followeth This last cannot be said for then it would follow that upon the acting of faith that preceedeth there were no Remission so faith laying hold on Christ his Merites should be utterly excluded from having any Interest in the pardon of sins Nor can the first be said for then there should be Remission before without all application made of Christ by Faith Yea the very imperfect beginnings of Repentance should be judged sufficient for Remission which cannot be said If it be said that this is meaned of compleat Repentance I Ans. Compleet Repentance cannot be without Faith it is against what is said to make Repentance considered alone by itself or as abstracted from Faith the only Condition seing this would be a manifest exclusion of Faith altogether If it be said that Repentance Faith may be considered together as joyned together called the Condition of Pardon I Ans. Seing it is manifest that both do not neither can act one the same way on Christ they cannot be considered as equally sharing in the place interest of a condition And therefore I judge it saifest to say That faith acting in by Repentance or so discovering itself to
4 When he saith that to be justified constitutively is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just he speaketh very indistinctly not only as confounding being made just being justified as if they were formally the same but also as not giving us to understand what he meaneth by these words personally thâ—mselves just Hereby he would seem to say that only by something inherent in our persons we are constituted Righteous are justified and not by any thing imputed to us And if so the ground of all Anti-evangelick boasting glorying in ourselves is laid 5 Pardon of sin as such is neither a making a just nor a justifying and the same we say of Right to Christ to Glory 6 Christ's Righteousness according to Mr. Baxter can not be called the meritorious cause of our pardon justification Right to Glory c. because it is only made by him the meritorious cause of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to Christ to Glory are promised upon New Conditions so is made the meritorious Cause of the connection betwixt the performance of these New Conditions the obtaining of Pardon that Right so that by vertue of Christ's Merites these New Conditions are made the proper immediat meritorious cause ex pacto of these favours And by this way Man can not but boast glory in himself immediatly and give Christ only some remote far-off thanks for procuring the New termes 7 Christ's Righteousness cannot be called our Material Righteousness any other way than as it hath purchased the New Covenant according to Mr. Baxter this being equally for all Christ's Righteousness shall be the Material Righteousness of the Reprobat as well as of Beleevers And how can that be called ours which is not ours nor our own nor are we by it made personally just ourselves as he spoke before 8 According to this doctrine Christ Righteousness meriteth to us another Righteousness which is our own on ourselves by this we are formally justified that is according to what went before to what followeth we are formally justified by our own personal inherent holiness for of this he is speaking only and yet that which he here mentioneth as the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is said to be pardon of sin a Right to Christ to Glory which formally is no Righteousness at all nor no where so called in Scripture is but a consequent of that which elsewhere he calleth our Gospel Righteousness and the Condition of Justification He goeth on n. 182. He that is no cause of any good work is no Christian but a damnable wretch worfe than any wicked man I know in the world And he that is a cause of it must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it Nor a Saint denied to be a Saint upon a false pretence of self-denyal Ans. Of such a cause of any good work he knoweth the objection speaketh that should have the glory praise thereof and of good works as the ground formal Cause of justification which these against whom Mr. Baxter here disputeth do deny But we may see here what Mr. Baxter accounteth good works even such as the most damnable wretch and possiblie the devil himself may do that is a work materially good though far different from the good works described to us in Scripture And thus the Justification upon good works which Mr. Baxter here meaneth must be a Justification that all Heathens damnable wretches yea devils themselves are capable of But this is not the justification we speak of of which who ever are partakers shall be glorified Rom. 8 30. We say nothing that giveth him ground to think that our thoughts are that a Saint should be denyed to be a Saint upon pretence of Self-denyal Only we say that such as are Saints indeed will be loth to rob God of his glory or take any of that to themselves which is due to him alone in so far as they act as Saints And they should not because Saints glory boast as if their justification before God were by their Sanctity good works not of meer grace through the imputation of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ. One thing I would ask Doth Mr. Baxter think that Christ's Righteousness hath merited that justification which those damnable wretches devils may partake of by any good work which they do himself told us in the foregoing n. 81. that all Righteousnuss which formally iustifieth is our own that to be made just to be justified are the same or equipollent and to be Justified constitutively is nothing else then to be made such as are personally themselves just Now when devils damnable wretches may be the causes of some good work that good work cannot but formally justifie them and they thereby become constitutively justified I would enquire whether this Justification be purchased by Christ or not And againe I would enquire whether this Justification be accompanied with pardon of sin with Right to Christ to glory or not If not how can it be called a justification if it be not a justification how can they be hereby formally justified constitutively justified He tels us next n. 183 As God is seen here in the glass of his works so he is to be loved praised as so appearing This is say I good reasonable What then Therefore saith he he that dishonoureth his work dishonoureth God hindereth his due love and praise This consequence I grant is good but what is it to the point in hand And his most lovely honourable work saith he on earth is his holy image on his Saints as Christ will come to be admired glorified in them at last so God must be seen glorified in them here in some degree Neither say I is any thing of this to the purpose in hand He addeth And to deny the glory of his image is the malignants way of injuring him that in which the worst will serve you And what then He that will praise God saith he further as Creator Redeemer must praise his works of Creation Redemption And is it the way of praising him as our Sanctifier to dispraise his work of Sanctification Ans. What maketh all this to the purpose Must all such be guilty of this malignant wickedness who tell men that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves by which they are to be justified but that it is all in Christ only or that say that God must have all the glory of what good action they do This is hard that either we must be wicked Malignants or Sacrilegious robbers of God of the Glory due unto him But I see no connexion and Mr. Baxter hath not yet demonstrated the same He must then prove the Consequence of this argueing He addeth n. 184. Those poor sinners of my acquantance who lived in the grossest sins against
those who are under the Law that every mouth may be stopped all the world become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. 8. The Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ is as much without the Law or the works of the Law done by Regenerat persons as without the Works of the Law done before Regeneration And justification by these works after Regeneration is as much inconsistent with justification by faith without the works of the Law as justification by the works of the Law done before regeneration as is manifest from the true sense of justification by faith 9. Paul excludeth all works of the Law from justification that giveth any ground of boasting and of glorying as we see Rom. 3 27. 4 2. But if justification were by works of the Law done after Faith Regeneration all boasting glorying should not be excluded Ephes. 2 9. Not of works lest any many should boast And what these works were the next Argument will shew 10. Even works are excluded unto which we are created which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them Ephes. 2 8 9 10. for by grace are ye saved through Faith that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Not of works lest any man should boast for we are his workmanship created in Christ Iesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them Now these works are works done after regeneration as is manifest 11. All works are excluded in this matter which make justification not be of mercy or of grace Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 2 8. Tit. 3 5 7. But this do works after Regeneration as well as before as Paul cleareth Ephes. 2 8 9 10. works grace cannot consist in being the ground of justification no more than in being the ground of Election Rom. 11 6. 12. Works done after regeneration belong to that Righteousness which is of the Law which Paul describeth Rom. 10 5. from Levit. 18 5. to be that the man which doth those things shall live in them But the Righteousness of the Law the Righteousness of Faith are opposite inconsistent as the Apostle cleareth there Rom. 10. 13. Works done after regeneration if made the ground of justification will made the reward of debt not of grace Rom. 4 4. as well as works done before regeneration for the Scripture holdeth forth no ground of difference in this matter 14. If works done by Faith and after Regeneration be admitted as the ground of justification God should not be said to justifie the ungodly for a Regenerat beleever working works of Righteousness is no where in Scripture called an ungodly man But the Scripture speaketh this expresly Rom. 4 5. 15. Paul tels us Rom. 4 16. that the promise was of Faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham who is the Father of ut all Now this seed which is of the Faith of Abraham are beleevers or Regenerat persons And yet as to these the Law is excluded the works thereof because if they which are of the Law be heirs Faith is made void the promise made of none effect vers 14. 16. If Justification were by the works of the Law done after Regeneration we could not upon first beleeving be justified have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ nor could we rejoice in hope of the glory of God glory in tribulation c. And yet this the Apostle expresly affirmeth Rom. 5 1 2 3. c. If justification did depend upon our after works we could not as yet have peace reconciliation or assurance or joy c. because of the uncertainty of our obedience 17. If Paul had not excluded works done after Faith Regeneration from being the Cause ground of our justification what seeming ground or occasion had there been for that objection Rom. 6 1. What shall we say then Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound What ground could any have to say We are justified by our works done after Regeneration therefore we may continue in sin that grace may abound Any might see at first how ridiculous this was 18. And if we are justified by works done after Regeneration is it not strange that in all Paul's answers unto this objection he never once sayeth nor hinteth that by these works we shall be justified no other way and yet this had been the shortest clearest solution of the objection if it been according to the doctrine of justification delivered by Paul 19. The false Apostles who were corrupting the doctrine of the Gospel of Justification did not urge works done before Faith in the Gospel as the ground of justification for they were corrupting such as had already embraced the Gospel beleeved in Christ as is clear out of the Epistle to the Galatians Therefore when Paul is confuting their errour opposing himself unto them he must deny that we are justified by works done after Faith in Christ. 20. Justification by works done after regeneration is as opposite to faith to living the life of justification by faith as justification by works done before Regeneration for the Law is never of faith so reasoneth Paul Gal. 3. 11 12. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident For the just shall live by Faith And the Law is not of Faith 21. All the works of the Law are excluded But works wrought after beleeving after Regeneration are works of the Law being required thereby Psal. 119 35. Rom. 7 22. Therefore even these works are excluded 22. When the Apostle excludeth works from being causes of justification he must meane good works for no man was ever so mad as to imagine that he could be justified by bad works But no works can be called good works but such as flow from faith from the Spirit of grace granted in Regeneration Therefore while good works are excluded these done after Regeneration are excluded What is said by Bellarmine in confirmation of his sense of these works of the Law which are excluded from justification is abundantly answered by all that write against him therefore we need not take any notice thereof There is another Evasion found out by our Adversaries in this matter another glosse put upon these works By the works of the Law there shall no flesh be justified For some say that hereby the Apostle only excludeth those works that are perfect which were required by the Law in Innocency This Evasion granteth that the Law here spoken of is not the Ceremonial Law for that was not required in Innocency but the Moral Law The end why they invent this Evasion is not to exclude works in the matter of justification but to establish their own fancie
were by the works of the Law is opposite to a seeking of it by Faith And againe Rom. 10 3. they went about to establish their own Righteousness and did not submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God which two are opposite inconsistent And this their own Righteousness was but an imperfect Righteousness which they were labouring to cause stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. We cannot imagine that when the Apostle did exclude his own Righteousness and desired not to be found therein he only excluded that which was not desired not to be found in that which he had not and which he knew he had not to wit a perfect sinless obedience Rom. 7 24. 1. Tim. 1 13 15. He confessed he had been a blasphemer and the chiefe of sinners and so was far from imagineing that his obedience was perfect sinless This then could not be the Righteousness whereof he speaketh Phil. 3 9. but his imperfect Righteousness being that only which he could call his owne is that only which he desired not to be found in in the day of his appearing before his judge in order to his justification 15. If Paul had disputed only against perfect obedience had yeelded justification by imperfect obedience What ground was there for that objection Rom. 6 1. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound seing justification by imperfect obedience doth of it self engadge to all endeavoure after obedience against the allowance of sin 16. And the Apostles answere to this objection may fournish us with another Argument against this for if Paul had allowed of or pleaded for justification by our imperfect works he had used this aâ— least as one argument to perswade unto an absteaning from sin by saying there is no justification but by endeavouring after obedience But we hear of no such think in all the Apostles Arguments whereby he presseth unto holiness obedience whether there or elsewhere 17. We are not justified by works done after Faith Regeneration as was proved before Therefore we are not justified by imperfect works for works after faith are imperfect againe they cannot but be so as presupposing sin guilt going before There is yet another Evasion wherewith some satisfie themselves for they say that when Paul saith we are not justified by the works of the Law by these works he meaneth only outward works of the Law performed without an inward Principle of Grace of faith or fear or Love of God But we need not insist in the discovery of the vanity of this Evasion having before at large proved that the works whereof Paul speaketh are not works done before Faith Regeneration For all these works that are done before Faith Regeneration are done without any inward Principle of Grace are only outward works such as Heathens may performe a few reasons will serve heâ—e as 1. When Paul denieth justification to be by the Law or by the works thereof he must mean such works as are enjoined commanded by the Law But the Law commandeth other works than those outward works for it condemneth all works that flow not from a principle of grace because the Law is holy spiritual the first chiefe command thereof is that we Love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soul with all our strength c. Rom. 7 12 14. Mat. 22 37. Mark 12 30. Luk. 10 27. Deut 13 3. 30 6. If then Paul exclude only such works as flow not from a principle of grace he shall not exclude the works of the Law but works prohibited by the Law his meaning should be we are not justified by works which the Law commandeth not but we are justified by works which the Law commandeth which is contradictory to the whole scope designe of the Apostle 2. The Apostle doth manifestly exclude the works of Abraham Rom. 4 1 2. But the works of Abraham were other than such servile works or such outward works performed from no principle of grace or Love to God Therefore such cannot be here understood 3. Outward works done without any principle of grace could with no face or shew of a pretence lay a ground or be any occasion of boasting or of glorying because they were no other but manifest sins being prohibited condemned by the Law not commanded or approven But the Apostle excludeth such works as could do this Therefore he excludeth good works which were done in conformitie to the Law not such outward lifeless works only as were meer servile works no better 4. Such lifeless servile outward works could give no shew of a ground of making the reward of debt But Paul excludeth such works as would make the reward of debt Rom. 4 4. 5. If Paul had meaned here only such outward servile works which are not conforme to the Law what occasion had there been for Paul's proposeing of that objection Rom. 3 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith for to lay aside these works which are not conforme to the Law giveth no probable ground of supposal that thereby the Law is made void 6. Israel could not have been said to have followed after the Law of Righteousness by doing of works meerly ourward lifeless And yet this is said of them it is also said that by all their following of the Law of Righteousness they could not be justified Rom. 9 31 32. 7. Meer performance of outward servile works cannot be called a Righteousness But the jewes went about to establish their own Righteousness therefore missed justification Rom. 10 4. 8. There was never any life had by these outward servile works alone But by the works which Paul excludeth there was life to be had if they had been perfect The man which doth those things shall live by them Rom. 2 13. 10 5. Levit. 18 5. Gal. 3 12. 9. These outward servile works are not good works but even good works are here excluded Ephes. 2 9 10. 10. Paul did not meane such works only when he excluded his own Righteousness Phil. 3 9. Nor can such works be called works of Righteousness which yet are expresly excluded in this matter Tit. 3 5. CHAP. VI. By works which Paul excludeth is not meant the Merite of Works THere is one other Evasion thought upon to shift by all the Apostles argueings yet to maintaine the Interest of Works as the Cause ground of justification before God to wit That Paul only disputs against a groundless conceite of merite in works not against the works themselves but against a Pharisaical sense of merite worth in their works whereby they conceived conceited that thereby they could satisfie for their sins buy purchase to themselves Justification Salvation But against this Evasion we have these things to say 1. By merite here must either be understood that which is called meritum ex condigno that is that merite
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
which our case called for was to be made over to us in order to our receiving the grand benefites of pardon life Now it was necessary for us to have a Righteousness consisting in perfect obedience to the Law because of that Constitution Do this live Suffering as such is no obedience to the Law He addeth Their opinion is hard who deny that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us unto Righteousness that it is the cause of the reward or of life eternal How could Christ's blood purge us from all sin if it were not the Cause of our Righteousness how should he give his flesh for the life of the world if life were not restored to us thereby hoâ— should we be healed by his stripes if we were not sanctified by him how should Christ's death be our life if we gote not life thereby betwixt freedone from the Curse of the Law right to the everlasting inheritaâ—ce there is no middle state Ans. 1 We deny only that Christ's passive obedience alone is imputed to us unto Righteousness for alone considered being only the paying of the penalty it is not the Righteousness required in the Law 2 The paying of a penalty though it may deliver from punishment yet cannot procure a right to the reward promised to keeping of the Law as is manifest therefore Christ's passive obedience considered alone cannot procure a right to that reward of life that was promised to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience 3 Christ's blood being the blood of one that fulfilled also the Law and conjunct with that obedience both purgeth from sin meriteth life And so we say of the rest following only I cannot see how pertinently in the last sanctification is mentioned for we are speaking of right to life eternal 4 It is true as to us now there is no midd'le state betwixt freedom from the Curse of the Law Right to the Inheritance â— because Christ's whole obedience both active passive is imputed as a compleat Satisfaction Righteousness whereby we come to obtaine both a freedome from the Curse a right to the Inheritance But in Adam before he fell there was a middle state for so long as he stood he was free of the Curse yet was to finish his course of obedience in order to obtaining the right to the promised reward unless it be said that no more was promised than the continuance of what he possessed It was excpted That the Law is not fulfilled by suffering the punishment for the Law the command is one but punishment fulfilleth not the commandement it only satisfieth the threatning Therefore the suffering of the punishment can not be the cause of the reward He ans by denying the Antec saying that by suffering of the punishment the Law is fulfilled by the Mediator partly formally in that he suffered the punishment due to us by the Law partly efficiently in that by his sufferings he not only took away the Curse but acquired a holiness to us with holiness life eternal Ans. This answere is no way satisfying for suffering of the punishment as such is no obedience to the Law and of the fulfilling of the Law by obedience to the commands thereof did the Exception only speak no man will say that such as are now suffering the punishment in hell are any way fulfilling the Law Neither is that holiness procured by Christ's death any fulfilling of the Law according to the Old Covenant such a fulfilling is required in order to the obtaining of a right to the reward of life promised in that Covenant He answereth againe that when the threatning of the Law is satisfied that is done which the Law commandeth to be done so in part the Law is fulfilled Ans. Suffering as such is no commanded thing the Law constituting a penalty maketh only suffering to be due but doth not enjoine any suffering So that though the Law be satisfied with a Satisfaction laid down by another so far as that the other is not to suffer Yet by this paying of the penalty the Lawes commands are not fulfilled in whole nor in part And the Law as to the commands must be fulfilled ere a right to the reward promised to obedienceâ— be obtained Arg. 6. is taken from passages of Scripture mentioning the active obedience of Christ such as Dan. 9 24. Ier. 23 6. 1. Cor. 1 30. Rom. 5 19. Phil. 2 8. He Ans. 1. That these places do not prove that Christ's active obedience is imputed so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law Ans. These passages sufficiently prove that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness Satisfaction which is imputed unto us the fruites of the Righteousness of Christ imputed are here as well ascribed to his active as to his passive obedience of the places in particular we have said enough elsewhere our disput here is not about imputation but about that which is imputed or that which is reckoned to us as our Righteousness this we say cannot be pure suffering of the penalty for that as such is no Righteousness nor no where is it so called He Ans. 2. That it only followeth that the reforming of our corrupt nature could not be had from Christ by Christ without his active obedience Ans. The same may as well be said of the passive obedience so the cause shall be yeelded unto the Socinians But the matter is clear That Christ is our compleat Righteousness not effectivly for he worketh no compleat legal Righteousness in us that is a Righteousness according as was required in the Old Covenant And beside the expiation of sin he brought in a Righteousness which is called everlasting Dan. 9 24. which can not be understood of our imperfect sanctification And beside that he is our Sanctification he is our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1 30. therefore must be our Righteousness another way than by working it in us for so is he our Sanctification And Rom. 5. our justification life is directly ascribed to his Obedience Righteousness To that Phil. 2 8. he saith The meaning is that Christ from his birth to his death did so accommodate himself to his Fathers will that he suffered all most patiently that was to suffer even the cursed death of the crosse Ans. It was a suffering of what he was to suffer even to come under the Law for that was a part of his humiliation the text saith he humbled himself became obedient and there is no ground to restrick the word Obedient to his suffering only Arg. 7. Christ was made under the Law for us Gal. 4 4 5. He Ans. He was made under the Law for our good that he might be a fit Mediator Ans. Why may not we as well admit the same sense of Christ's being said to be made a curse for us to wit that it was only for our good and so give up the Cause
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
manifest that Christ must Intercede for such as he did Offer up himself for or he shall not be a Perfect Compleet High Priest or not faithfull to performe all the Offices of the High Priest neither of which can be said 2. The ground of his Intercession is held forth to be his Oblation as the High Priest went into the holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifices which he had offered so Christ entered into the holy place having first obtained by the sacrifice of himself an Eternal Redemption Heb. 9 12. So he is an Advocate with the Father being first a Propitiation for sinnes 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. 3. Both his Death Intercession make up one Compleet Medium are intended designed as one Medium for the end designed viz. the bringing of many sones unto glory saving to the uttermost all that come to God through him c. 4. How unreasonable is it to think that Christ would refuise to Pray for such whom he loved so dearly as to lay down his life for yet he saith expresly that he prayeth not for the world but for others distinguished from the world Ioh. 17 9. 5. As His Death was for such as the Father had given him is we saw above so his Intercession Prayer is restricted to such Ioh. 17 9. I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given me for they are thine 6. Christ's end in coming into the world was to save his people Hence he gote that name Iesus but he should not be able to save them Perfectly Compleetly to the Utermost if he did not joyne his Intercession with his Oblation Yea upon this account he continueth ever a Priest having an unchangable Priesthood Heb. 2 24 25. But this man because he continueth ever hath an unchangable Priesthood wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seing he ever liveth to make intercession for them 7. The Apostle so joyneth them together Rom. 8 34. that they must do manifest violence to the Apostles reasoning who would pull them asunder separate the one from the other It is sais he Christ that died yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us 8. Yea they are so joyned together here that his death alone considered could not yeeld that ground of triumph boasting nor security from Accusations Yea rather that is risen againe c. 9. So that the separating taking of these asunder is greatly prejudicial to the consolation of his people for though they should attaine to some apprehensions of Christ's dying for them as an Advocate with the Father upon new sinnes 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. Though Christ died yet they might be condemned for he must also Interceed and if he do not Intercede for them their Hopes Comforts are gone And so there should be no force in that who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dieâ—â— Rom. 8 34. And a poor soul might be hal saved but not to the uttermust contrare to Heb. 2 25. 10. And that place Rom. 8 33. restricteth both equally unto the Elect who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect 11. When Christ laid down his life a Ransome for sinners he could not but know that by that Ransome none should be actually saved without his Intercession it being accorded betwixt Father Son that the mediator should mediate both by Price by Prayer And he could not but know for whom he purposed intended to Interceed how shall we then suppose that he would lay down his life for those for whom he was purposed not to Pray Or that he would do the most for them For whom he would not do the least 12. Christ's intercession is really a presenting unto God the Oblation made Therefore sayes the Apostle Heb. 9 24. that Christ is entered into heaven it self to appear in the presence of God for us And so by appearing he Interceedeth his appearing is in his owne blood whereby he obtained Eternal Redemption Heb. 9 12. so his Intercession must be for all for whom the Oblation was the eternal Redemption was obtained 13. Yea both these are so joyned together by Esaias Chap. 53 12. as that they are made one ground procureing cause of God's divideing him a portion with the great of Christs own divideing the spoile with the strong Because he hath poured out his soul unto death and he bare the sin of many and made â—ntercession for the transgressours 14. This is further clear from the reasons we gave to confirme that fast connexion betwixt Christ's Impetration Application in the foregoing paragraph for the Actual Application of the benefite fruit of his oblation is attributed to his Intercession 15. Nay that whole Chapter Ioh. 17. confirmeth this for there Christ is both Offering himself or sanctifying himself thereunto vers 19. and Interceding and these are so lincked together both in themselves as to the persons for whom that it must argue at least much incogitancy to imagine a divulsion separation of these two acts of his Priesthood 16. If Christ Intercede not for the same persons for whom he died we ask for whom he Intercedeth Is it for actuall beleevers Then we ask a Scripture ground for this restriction And then it is manifest hence that Christ Intercedeth not for the working of faith in any And yet Esaias tels us that he maketh Intercession for transgressours And we see Ioh. 17 20. that he prayeth not only for those who were already beleevers but for such also as were not yet beleevers He told us Himself also that he would pray the Father for the Spirit Ioh. 14 vers 16. And among other things this is one work of the Spirit to cause a sinner beleeve 2. Cor. 4 13. Ephes. 1 17 18 19. The point we are upon will be further cleare if we consider 22. That Christ's death was a Redemption we are said to be Redeemed thereby Gal. 4 5. 3 13. Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. â— Pet. 1 8. Revel 5 9. Tit. 2 14. And therefore all such as he laid down this Redemption or Redemptionmoney for must of necessity be redeemed saved consequently he died not for all seing all are not redeemed saved His Ransome or Price of Redemption which he laid down viz. his blood which he shed is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome Mat. 20 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 2 6. That all such for whom this Redemption-money was payed this Ransome was given must be saved is cleare for 1. Other wayes it were no Redemption a Ransome given for Captives doth say that these Captives in Law Justice ought to be set at liberty 2. This Redemption is the same with as to the effect or hath attending it forgiveness of sins Col. 1 14. Ephes.
expresly said to be the free gift of God 18. Then all that Paul meaned when he desired to be found of his judge not having his own Righteousness which is of the Law was that he desired not to be found puft up with a pharisaical conceite of the perfection meritoriousness of his works as meriteing his justification life ex condigno by their intrinsick value worth But no such thing appeareth Phil. 3. 9. where he utterly renunceth his own Righteousness which is of the Law that is a Righteousness consisting in his obedience conformity to the Law for in opposition to this he desireth to be found in that Righteousness which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith this is some other thing than his own works performed without that pharisaical opinion 19. We are saved by grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast Ephes. 2 8 9. consequently not of any works seing all works give ground of boasting And he meaneth such works unto which we are created in Christ Jesus as his workmanship and which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them vers 10. Now these works are certainly works done without any vaine conceite of merite and yet we see that by these works we are not brought into a state of Salvation 20. The Apostle excludeth works of Righteousness which we have done as opposed to Mercy grace Tit. 3 5 7. Now grace standeth in opposition to all works even to works performed without this conceite of merite as we see Rom. 11 6. else we must say that the Apostle there granteth Election to be for foreseen works performed without a conceite of merite and nothing must be called works but what is done with a Pharisaical conceite of merite intrinsick worth in them which is absurd CHAP. VII James 2 14. c. cleared Vindicated ALI who have been of old and are this day Adversaries to the way of justification before God which the Orthodox owne from the Scriptures have thought to shelter themselves under the wings of of some expressions of the Apostle Iames have therefore laboured so to explaine streatch forth the same expressions as they with their corrupt Notions about justification may seem at least to have some countenance therefrom yea and warrandise to hold fast the same And for this cause they have laboured so much and do still laboure so to expound the words of Paul as that they may carry no seeming difference unto the words of Iames for it is received as a known truth and it is willingly granted that there is no real Contradiction betwixt the two Apostles but what ever apparent or seeming disagreement there be betwixt their words yet all that difficulty is removable their words how contradictory soever they seem to be are yet capable of such an interpretation as shall manifest their harmonious agreement in the truth so that Iames saying Ch. 2 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified not by faith only dot not contradict the Apostle Paul who saith concludeth that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3 28. But a question is here made whether we should interpret Iames's words by Paul's or Paul's by Iames's Our Adversaries are much for this later to wit that we must interpret Paul's words by the words of Iames because as they alledge Paul is obscure in his doctrine many were beginning to misinterpret pervert the same that therefore Iames was necessitate to clear up that doctrine of justification so as Paul's words might be better understood But how unreasonable this is the leamed D. Owen hath lately manifested his grounds are indeed irrefragable for 1 It is a received way of interpreting Scriptures that when two places seem to be repugnant unto other that place which treateth of the matter directly designedly expresly largely is to regulate our interpretation of the other place where the matter is only touched obiter on the bye and upon some other occasion and in order to some other ends And that therefore accordingly we must interpret Iames by Paul and not Paul by Iames seing it is undenible that Paul wrote of this Subject of Justification directly on purpose to cleare up the same and that with all expresness fulness on severall occasions disputing the same in a clear formal manner with all sorts of Arguments Artificial Inartificial and answereth objections that might be moved against the same at large and with a special accuracie But on the other hand it is as certaine that Iames hath not this for his scope to open up the Nature of Justification but only toucheth there-upon in order to the other end which he was prosecuting 2 There is no ground to suppose that it was the designe of Iames to explaine the meaning of Paul no footstep of any such purpose appeareth For then his maine business should be to explaine clear up the doctrine of justification which neither is apparent from this part of the Epistle nor from any part of it at all his designe being quite another thing as is obvious 3 Nor was there any necessitie for Iames to Vindicate the doctrine of Paul from such corrupt inferences as Adversaries suppose were made therefrom for as to any such as might be made to wit as if he had given any countenance unto such as were willing to lay aside good works he himself did fully sufficiently Vindicate his owne doctrine by showing on all occasions the necessity of good works and particularly when he is speaking of Justification not only in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians where he largly professedly treateth of that matter but even when he is but mentioning the same on other occasions as we see Ephes. 2 8 9 10. Phil. 3 9 10 11 c. Tit. 3 5 6 7 8. So that to imagine that Iames asserteth another interest of works in our justification than Paul doth and that to explaine Paul's meaning is not to reconcile these Apostles but to set them at further varience enmity And it cannot comport with sobriety to think or say that Iames to cleare the Apostle Paul's doctrine and to vindicate it from objections should speak to the same objections which Paul himself had spoken to fully removed and that Iames should give such answers unto these objections as Paul would not give but rather rejected And yet this must be said by our Adversaries here It will be of great use to us here to understand aright what is the plaine scope drift of the Apostle Iames for as for the designe scope of Paul in his discourses of justification it is so obviously manifest unto all that read the same that no doubt can be made thereof to wit To cleare up fully plainely the Nature Causes of this great privilege of
justification which is the hinge ground work as it were of his doctrine of the Gospel and to shew how poor sinners standing under the Curse for sin come to be justified before God as in his Epistle to the Romans And to Vindicate the same doctrine of the Gospel from the corrupt pervesions of false teachers as in his Epistle to the Galatians as also to commend the free grace of God in that noble contrivance both in the places mentioned and Ephes. 2. Phil. 3. Tit. 3. and elsewhere when he mentioneth the same Now as to the scope of the Apostle Iames there is nothing to declare unto us that it was his Intent or designe to explaine make known the way how poor convinced sinners standing under the sentence of the Law come to be justified before God and to receive pardon of their sins No such question proposeth he to be discussed No such point of truth doth he lay down to be cleared or Vindicated But his whole scope drift is to press the reall study of holiness in several points particularly spoken to through the Epistle And in that second Chapt. from vers 14. forward as will appear more fully in the explication vindication of the several verses in particular he is particularly obviating that grosse mistake of some who thought that a bare outward profession of the Gospel Faith or of Christian Religion was sufficient to save them and evidence them to be in a justified state and that therefore they needed not trouble themselves with any study of holiness And therefore sheweth that all such hopes of Salvation were built on the sand for they had no ground to suppose that they were truely justified so were in any faire way unto salvation so long as all their faith was no other than a general assent unto the doctrine of the Gospel to truthes revealed not that true lively faith hold forth in the Gospel whereby sinners become justified before God Mr. Baxter tels Cath. Theol. part 2. n. 364. that St. James having to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity that faith was a meer assent to the Truth that to beleeve that the Gospel is true trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without Holiness fruitful Lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification so that they thus beleeved perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken that when God spake of justification by faith without the works of the Law he never meaned a faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve nor that is separate from actual obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Insidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent or hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Ans. 1 It is true for it is manifest and undeniable that Iames had to do with some who thought that the bare profession of Christianity was enough that an assent unto the truth was that faith that would prove justifying saving But 2 it is not so manifest that Iames had to do with such as thought that to trust to be justified by Christ was enough to justification without holiness fruitful lives that their sin barrenness hindered not their justification for whatever Mr. Baxter imagine we finde not in Scripture that justification followeth lives that is that there is no justification before this fruitfulness of life appear And himself useth to say that in order to the first justification this holiness of life is not requisite And beside this which he calleth the first we know no other unless he mean glorification But then 3 as to glorification final Salvation we grant that Iames hath to do with such as thought a meer assent to the truth without holiness was sufficient hereunto but that their beleeving thus could flow from their misunderstanding of Paul's Epistles is not any way probable seing Paul in all his Epistles even where he speaks most of justification by Faith without the deeds of the Law presseth the necessity of holiness in order to Salvation so as no imaginable ground hereof can with the least of shewes be pretended 4 That when Paul said justification was by Faith without the works of the Law he meant a true lively faith which only is to be found in that soul in which the seed of grace is sown and which is made partaker of the holy Ghost and of the divine Nature is true but yet justifying faith doth not formally containe in it a resolution to obey him in whom we beleeve as was shown elsewhere 5 Then we see that the faith whereof Iames speaketh is not the same with that Faith whereby Paul said we are justâ—fied And seing both do not speak of the same Faith there can be no appearance of discrepance 6 When he saith we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being infidels I would know what he meaneth by this charge of infidelity If he meane the charge of not beleeving the Gospel he knoweth that a meer assent to the truth will â—ustifie from that Charge If he meane the charge of not receiving resting upon Christ according to the Gospel even that will be but a particular justification from that particular charge and is not that justification from the sentence of the Law whereof Paul speaketh 7 That we must be justified as he saith by our Gospel personal holiness sincere obedience against the charge that we are unholy wicked or impenitent hypocrites is true but what can all this say for a justification from the sentence of the Law under which we are all lying by Nature and of which the Apostle Paul speaketh And if Iames speak of justification by works in reference to this accusation he speaketh of no other kind of justification than that which the most wicked wreatch yea the devils are capable of when to wit they are falsely accused of having done some evil which they have not done And how can Mr. Baxter inferre from what Iames saith if he speak of no other kind of justification that works are required unto our justification as to state or unto our general justification from the sentence of the Law adjudging us to death because of transgression 8 But he addeth or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God Then the Justification that Iames speaketh of that Mr. Baxter meaneth is final Salvation And we willingly grant that there must be personal holiness sincere obedience before this and that no wicked or impenitent person or hypocrite shall be adjudged to Salvation But the justification which Paul treateth of is different from