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
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
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
within it or because of one work of righteouness done by it so glory in it self not in the Lord for though it were granted that faith were the gift 〈◊〉 God yet that would not sufficiently keep down pride seing such as plead for justification by good works will also grant that these good works come from the Grace of God are wrought by the Spirit yet such a justification would lay a foundation of boasting of glorying before men some would have more ground of boasting than others because of their stronger faith And justification by this way would as well be opposite to justification through Christ His Imputed righteousness by Grace as justification by good works for faith here would not be considered as bringing-in laying hold on a Righteousness without the Righteousness of Christ imputed but as a commanded duty as a piece of obedience to the Law would as well make the reward of debt ex congruo ex pacto as if justification were by works 8. It is of the same Nature to say That Paul excludeth the works of the Law but not the works of the Gospel for the same ground of pride boasting glorying should be laid that would be laid by pleading for the works of the Law because these are still works of righteousness which we do so opposite in this matter unto mercy Tit. 3 5. And Paul to exclude all boasting glorying before Men opposeth faith not considered in it Self but as laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ as carrying the Man out of himself to Christ for Righteousness unto works not Gospel-works unto works of the Law And sure we cannot say that none of Abraham's works were Gospel-works or works required in the New Covenant seing even then he was a beleever when the object of his faith or that which he laid hold on by faith in the Gospel which was preached unto him was said to be imputed unto him for righteousness And is it not plaine that if justification were upon the account of Gospel works that God should not then be said to justifie the ungodly seing he who is clothed with a Gospel righteousness cannot be called or accounted an ungodly person And yet faith looks out unto laith hold upon a God that justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. In a word the asserting of this would be the same upon the matter with asserting of justification by the works of the Law for what ever is required in the Gospel is injoined by the Law so is an act of obedience to the Law which is our perfect Rule of Righteousness all our obedience must be in conformity thereunto 9. It must also be accounted dangerous for puffing-up of Self to say That we are justified by our Inherent Righteousness for then the Man could not say that all his righteousnesses were as filthy rags Esai 64 6. Nor could that be true which is Psal. 143 3. for in they sight no man living should be justified to wit if God should enter into Iudgment with him Why should Iob have abhorred himself Chap. 42 6. if he had a righteousness within him had been justified by the Lord upon the account of that inherent righteousness And had not Paul as good ground as any to assert his justification by his personal inherent holiness righteousness Yet we hear of no such thing out of his mouth but on the contrary his accounting all things but less dung that he might gaine Christ be found in His Righteousness hath a far different import How proud might man be if he had it to say that he was justified in the sight of God by works of Righteousness which he had done or by his own inherent righteousness 10. Nor will it much help the matter to say That this Inherent Righteousness is not the price laid down but onely the Condition or Causa sine qua non or the like for still man would hereby have some thing to be proud of to glory of before men because he would have it to say that his own Inherent Holiness was as well the ground of his justification the Condition thereof as Adam's obedience would have been the ground of his justification And who knoweth not that Self can wax proud be puffed up upon a smaller occasion than is this And is it not strange that Paul never once made mention of this distinction Shall we think that Paul denied Abraham to have been justified by works because Abraham looked upon them as the meritorious cause not as the Condition only of his justification or that Abraham indeed did so or that Paul included them as the condition of his justification when he said he desired not to be found in his own Righteousness meaning not his own righteousness as a price or as the Meritorious cause of his acceptance Why should David have spoken so absolutely said Psal. 143 2. enter not into judgment with thy Servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified seing even though God should enter into judgment with His servants they should be justified as having fulfilled the condition And why should he have said Psal. 130 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities ô Lord who shall stand seing though the Lord should mark iniquities yet where the Person hath fulfilled the Condition hath a Personal Inherent Righteousness to hold up as the fulfilling of the condition required he is in case to stand in judgment to plead for his justification absolution upon the account of his performing all the condition required And would not vaine man have great ground of boasting here 11. Neither yet will it prevent this boasting to say That this Inherent Righteousness is but a Subordinat Righteousness whereby we have right unto the Merites of Christ which are the Principal Righteousness answering the demandes of the Law for if man have any thing in himself that can be called a Righteousness though but a Subordinat Righteouness yet such a Righteousness as giveth right ground to justification though that justification be also called only a subordinat justification conforme to the New Covenant the Condition thereof he will soon boast account his justification not of free grace but of due debt conforme to the covenant And though this be called only a Subordinat Righteousness yet proud Self will account it the Principal because upon it dependeth all his justification for thereby not onely hath he a right unto Christ's Merites but unto justification it self this being called the proper condition of the New Covenant wherein justification Adoption c. are promised as they say upon this condition And will not proud Man see that he hath a price in his hand a complâ—â—â— Righteousness conforme to the Covenant to presente unto God where-upon to seek expect the reward of debt according to the covenant And so much the rather should we abstaine from
Law but by the Gospel not by the Covenant of works but by the Covenant of Grace The Adversaries to Imputation alleige that we by asserting the same do establish justification by the works of the Law because the obedience of Christ was obedience to the Law and so legal Righteousness and if that be imputed to us so as we are accounted to have done what he did we must be justified by Law-righteousness consequently by the Law which is contrary to the Scriptures But in answere to this I say 1. They advert not that some of themselves do expresly call Christ's Righteousness our legal or prolegal righteousness therefore it must be a righteousness answering the Law also made ours 2. Nor do they observe that justification by the Law or by the works of the Law which the Scriptures speak so much against is not to be understood in their sense the obvious plaine and only meaning thereof being this that no man can be justified by his own personal obedience to the Law for by the Law the doers only of the Law are justified Rom. 2 13. The plaine tenor of the Law is Set down Rom. 10 5. Where Moses is mentioned as describing the Righteousness of the Law to be this that the man who doth those things shall live by them Levis 18 5. When therefore the Law saith that the man that doth these things shall live by them not the man that either doth those himself or getteth a cautioner to do them for him shall be justified it is manifest that we are not justified by the Law seing we do not these things ourselves in our oun persons but by the Gospel which only provideth this Surety proposeth justification through His Righteousness imputed received by faith Thus we see That justification through the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness doth quite annull destroy our Justification by the Law all Imputation being inconsistent with Law-justification repugnant thereunto because it is of grace what is of Grace neither is not can be of works Rom. 11 6. 3. We assert not Imputation in this sense to wit That we are accounted reputed to have done what Christ did for that cannot be God cannot judge amisse but He should judge amisse if He should judge that we did what Christ did Our meaning is this that the Beleever being now united unto Christ hath an Interest in Christ's Righteousness upon the account thereof now reckoned upon his Score by Imputation he is freed from all that the Law could charge upon him and that as fully to all ends as if he had performed that Righteousness himself 17. It is likewise here considerable That we are justified upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed and yet this Righteousness of Christ is the proper meritorious cause of our justification of all that followeth there upon Some who oppose this Imputation imagine an opposition here But mistakingly they think that the Righteousness of Christ must be made the meritorious cause of it self or of that Righteousness which is imputed whileas we only say That Christ's Rightteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification Adoption c. and that it is also imputed to us for this end that we may be thereby formally righteous juridically in Law sense and so justified c. And who seeth not that it must be so seing we can be justified by no Righteousness which is not a proper meritorious cause of our justification consequently that we cannot be justified by any other Righteousness than the Righteousness of Christ so not by our own Gospel-righteousness nor by faith as suchs a Righteousness for that cannot be a meritorious cause of our justification 18. This is also a considerable part of this mystery which carnal eyes cannot see and which men carried away with prejudice at the pure doctrine of the Grace of God in the Gospel cannot sweetly comply with to wit That our justification is Solely upon the account of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and not upon the account or because of any thing wrought in us or done by us yet our obligation to holiness conformity to the Law of God in all points is not hereby in the least weakened Paul's frequent preoccupying of this Objection in his Epistles may let us see how ready carnal hearts are to abuse the doctrine of the Grace of God revealed in the Gospel to carnal liberty and what a propensity there is in us to look for justification upon the account of our works only so that if we hear of any thing to put us of this apprehension we presently are ready to conclude that all study of and endeavour after holiness is wholly useless unnecessary and that we need not wonder much at Socinians others who do thus reasone against the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. But Paul doth cleare to us a sweet consistency betwixt free justification upon the account of Christ's Righteousness imputed and the serious study of holiness He saw no Inconsistency betwixt the study of obedience to the Law in all points and the expectation of justification by faith in Christ alone whatever men who would seem sharp-sighted zealous for the study of holiness do suppose they cannot but see And albeit men in those dayes were ready enough to except against free justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and to pretend that the asserting thereof did take away all study of holiness yet this is very remarkable the Apostle to remove that objection never giveth the least hint of the necessity of our works of obedience in order to our justification And though He doth frequently press to holiness yet he never maketh use of any argument thereunto which might so much as insinuat that we were justified by works in one measure or other Nay we will finde that He draweth arguments pressing unto holiness from the very nature of their Gospel-justification of their State by vertue thereof And experience proveth this day that the most effectual Medium to holiness is taken from free justification through faith in Christ alone and that the holiness and obedience of such as practise the orthodox doctrine concerning justification hath another heavenly lustre as it floweth from another fountaine standeth upon another ground and looketh more like true holiness universal sincere obedience than what is to be seen among such as lay most weight upon their own duties whether we speak of Papists Socinians Arminians or of others And whatever inconsistency men may imagine to be betwixt free justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and the Universal Sincere Acceptable study of holiness yet the Gospel knoweth no such thing but presseth holiness though not for this end that we may thereby be put into a state of justification or might sweat foile run work for the prize as the hire wayes of our work yet upon more Spiritual
Righteousness mentioned as the only refuge sheltering place what can this Righteousness be else than an Imputed Righteousness what can this Imputed Righteousness be if it be not the Righteousness of Christ Is there any other that will do our business 2 A Righteousness through faith in Christ is most clearly a Righteousness obtained possessed laid hold on by faith The Apostle addeth saith he by way of commendation of this Righteousness that it is the Righteousness of God i.e. a righteousness which God himself hath found out which He will owne countenance even the righteousness of God which is in faith i. which cometh acâ—rueth and is derived upon a man by faith Ans. 1 It is not only a Righteousness which God himself hath found out and which He owneth countenanceth but a Righteousness also which is in God or is in Him who is God is derived from Him to man for it is a Righteousness that is not to be found in man or in any thing he doth in conformity to the law of God all such Righteousness being already renounced by the Apostle 2 The Righteousness of God which is by or through saith cometh accrueth or is derived upon a man in by faith must needs be some thing else than faith it self even the Righteousness that is without a man is derived unto him from another viz. from Him who is God on whom faith laith hold that is Jesus Christ in whom alone the Apostle was seeking to be found Fiftly Chap. 7. pag. 88. c. He abuseth to this end all those Scriptures wherein justification is ascribed unto faith as Rom. 3 28. 5 1. As to the Interest of faith in the matter of justification we will have occasion hereafter to speak of it at some length here we are only enquiring after that Righteousness upon the account of which we are justified which our Adversary as it would appear placeth only in faith and so in stead of making faith the meane of applying bringing home the Surety-righteousness of Christ he maketh it the very formal righteousness it self upon the account of and because of which we are justified Let us hear what he saith When men say saith he that faith justifieth I demand what is it they meane by faith do they not meane their beleeving of act or faith Ans. When the Scripture â—aith That we are justified by faith faith is taken for our act of faith laying hold on Christ on His Righteousness it being the mean appointed of God for this end by interessing us in uniting us with Christ applying that Surety-righteousness of His. But this can no way prove that therefore faith it selt is that Riphteousness upon the account whereof we are declared Righteous in the sight of God in order to justification or is the formal objective Reason of our justification Though faith be said to justifie as an Instrumental cause as this Author himself afterward confesseth it will not follow that therefore it justifieth as a principal cause or as the formal objective cause The hand receiving riches doth instrumentally enrich but is not the principal cause of the mans riches The producing in face of court of the Surety's payment by the principal debtor now pursued by the creditor is not the formal ground of the debtor's absolution from the charge but the payment it self which is instructed is the only formal ground though the Instruction of that payment by the debtor in face of court be requisite in its place and a mean to the debtor's absolution He saith he conceiveth not of faith as divided or severed from its object either Christ in person or Christ in promise Ans. It is true the act cannot be conceived without its object all the consideration of the object here had by him is by vertue of the act reaching the object so the act is only considered by him no further than as a commanded duty or as any other act of the Soul which is commanded and beside this faith thus acting on Christ is but an historical faith for if he consider faith as acting on Christ according to the Gospel as it is called Justifying or Saving faith in distinction from the faith of Miracles from Historical faith he must look upon it as the soul 's fleeing out of it self to Christ for refuge and as laying hold on His Righteousness as only sufficient and as receiving embraceing leaning to and resting upon Christ and His Righteousness whence it is manifest that it cannot be conceived nor looked to nor rested upon as our Righteousness its use work being to bring-in and receive another gifted Righteousness and to rest upon that for life Justification and Salvation He â—â—ls us next That he also confesseth that saith justifieth instrumentally not otherwise that he hath neither said nor intended to say any other thing Ans. But how this can agree with what he hath said with what hereafter we shall hear him saying let men of understanding judge Did ever man before acknowledg faith to justifie instrumentally yet deny the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ as he doth and yet assert that this Instrument faith is imputed for our Righteousness for our only Righteousness and as the only formal ground of our justification as he doth Did ever man assert this Instrumentality of faith to shoulder-out the chiefe and principal Interest that the Surety-righteousness of Christ hath in the business This therefore must be looked upon as inconsistent with his only designe in this whole book and as an unwary expression overturning all or else that he must have said all this in an hid sense not yet understood To that That faith justifieth as it taketh hold of Christ's Righteousness he answereth That yet it is the act of faith that justifieth Ans. And did ever any meane otherwise when they spoke of faith as an Instrument or mean But that is not our present question we are now enquireing after that Righteousness for which upon the account of which we are justified and not after the Instrument or Mean by which we are possessed of that Righteousness upon the account of which alone we are justified by which we are put into a state of Justification So that all this waste of words is to no purpose He moveth another objection against himself thus If it be said that when we are justified by faith the meaning is we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth this is far from saying that faith is imputed for Righteousness Here I can observe nothing but confusion a jumbling together as one these two far different Questions viz. What is that Righteousness for because and upon the account of which we are justified what is that way Mean or Instrument by which we partake of Righteousness unto Justification are justified Here is a manifest confounding of the principal Meritorious cause the Instrumental
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
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
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
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
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
proper a sense as can be spoken of or applied to a Creature And even though we speak of Faith in the orthodox sense as being the gift of God yet seing it floweth nativly from the new Nature given in Regeneration is said to be mans faith his act all this difference will not exclude all occasion of boasting glorying before men more then Abraham's works would have done if he had been justified by them And yet the Gospel-way of Justification perfectly excludeth all boasting being so contrived in all points as that he who glorieth may only glory in the Lord. Argum. 5. If Faith be imputed unto us for Righteousness then are we justified by that which is Imperfect which it self needeth a Pardon seing no mans Faith is perfect in this life But there is no Justification to be looked for before God by that which is Imperfect but by that which is Perfect Therefore c. He excepteth These words then we are Iustified by that which is imperfect may either have this sense that we are justified without the concurrence of any thing that is simply perfect to our justification or that somewhat that is comparativly imperfect may some wayes concurre contribute towards our justification In the first sense the proposition is false in the later sense the assumption goeth to wreck Ans. This distinction is to no purpose for it doth not loose the difficulty in regard that the argument speaketh of a Righteousness as the formal cause or as the formal objective cause of Justification or as that upon the account of which the person is Pronunced Declared to be Righteous and Justified and so is levelled against Faith concluding that it cannot be our Righteousness or the formal Objective cause of our justification as it is said and supposed to be by such as say that it is imputed to us for Righteousness for it is made by them to be all the Righteousness that is imputed to us that because of its Weakness Imperfection He addeth in application of this distinction The truth is that the Imputation of faith for Righteousness presupposeth somewhat that absolutely perfect as absolutly necessary unto justification Had not the Lord Christ who is perfect himself made a perfect atonement for sin there had been no place for the Imputation of faith for righteousness for it is through this that either we beleeve in him or in God through him it is through the same atonement also that God justifieth us upon our beleeving that is imputes our faith unto us for righteousness Ans. This presupposal doth not helpe the matter for notwithstanding thereof Faith it self is made the only Imputed Righteousness and faith is not considered as an Instrument receiving Christ's Righteousness and the Atonement there through but as a work making the reward of the Atonement to be of debt ex pacto and not of free grace and so to have a worth a merite in it Our Adversaries will not grant that this presupposed Righteousness of Christ whereby the perfect Atonement was made is imputed unto us for this is expresly denied and beside they say that it was equally made for all and so is equally imputed to all so far as that thereby all are put into such a state as notwitstanding of the former breach made they may now upon the new termes of Faith receive the promised reward And thus it is manifest that with them this imperfect thing saith is that for upon the account of which they are justified As for example that we may hereby illustrate cleare the matter if we should suppose that Christ had by his Atonement delivered all from wrath due for the former transgression of the Covenant and had put them into the former state wherein Adam was before he fell procured that God should take a new essay of them and make promise of life unto them upon the old termes as some who plead for Universal Redemption say God might have done had he so pleased after the Atonement was made in this case might it not be said that every person that should now be Justified upon the performance of these termes were justified by the performance of the Condition as by his own Righteousness that this new Obedience were all the Righteousness he had declared to have when justified should he not be justified upon the account thereof solely And was he more obliged unto the Atonement of Christ than others who did violate of new these Conditions And seing now Faith is put in the same place and made to have the same Force Efficacy shall we not now be Justified by this one act of Obedience as we would have been in the other case by perfect Obedience And if it be so is it not manifest that we are justified by a Righteousness that is Imperfect that all the presupposal of a perfect Atonement doth not availe 2 When it is said that it is through the Atonement made by Christ that we beleeve in him or in God through him it must be granted that Christ hath purchased Faith that either to all or to some and if to all then either absolutly or upon condition if to all that absolutly then all should have faith if upon condition we desire to know what that condition is If not to all but to some only then Christ cannot be said to have died alike for all 3 as to that he faith viz. That it is through the same atonement that God imputeth our faith to us for righteousness justifieth us upon our beleeving it being the same that others say who tell us that Christ hath procured faith to be the condition termes of the new Covenant we shall say no more now than that we see no ground to asserte any such thing here after we shall give our reasons Argum. 6. If faith be imputed to us for Righteousness then God should rather receive a Righteousness from us then we from him in our Iustification But God doth not receive a righteousness from us but we from him in Iustification Therefore c. He excepteth by denying the consequence upon these reasons 1 Because God's imputing Faith for righteousness doth no wayes implye that faith is a righteousness properly so called but only that God by the meanes thereof upon the tender of it looks upon us as righteous yet not as made either meritoriously or formally righteous by it but as having performed that condition or Covenant upon the performance whereof he hath promised to make us righteous meritoriously by the death sufferings of his owne son formally with the pardon of all our sins Ans. All this can give no satisfaction for 1 If no Righteousness be imputed to us in order to Justification but Faith and if faith it self be hereby made no Righteousness then we are justified without any Righteousness at all God shall be said to pronunce them Righteous who have no Righteousness
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
of asserting justification by other works than perfect works required by the Covenant of works to wit by imperfect works which they say are required in the Gospel And therefore their meaning is we are not justified by perfect sinless obedience but by imperfect obedience to the Law This is the Evasion of the Socinians who say the Apostle speaketh of the works of the Law to shew that he speaketh of those works which are enjoined by the Law to wit of perpetual perfect obedience required by the Law And they say that by Faith he meaneth that confidence obedience which every one is able to performe and which is endeavoured after studied That this cannot be the meaning of the Apostles conclusion we suppose will be clear from these Considerations 1. This supposeth that they against whom the Apostle is here disputing were of opinion that men could yet be justified must be justified by perfect obedience to the Moral Law But it is hardly imaginable that men in their wits did ever so dreame or think that they were innocent could expect to be justified before God by their own perfection or perfect obedience to the Law in all points for this were to say they never had sinned 2. When the Apostle in the beginning of his disput in his Epistle to the Romans proveth that all have sinned are guilty before God both jew Gentile he thence inferreth that by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in God's sight Rom. 3 20. Whereby he giveth us to understand that there is no justification by the Law unless it be perfectly keeped And because no meer man did ever keep it perfectly or can so keep it therefore he concludeth that no man can be justified thereby There is no justification by works unless the works be perfect consequently that such as expect justification thereby be wholly sinless 3. If the Apostle had so disputed against justification by perfect works as to have granted or established justification by imperfect works he needed not have used any moe arguments to that end than what was mentioned cleared Rom. 1. 2. in the beginning of the 3. Chapter for his evincing that all had sinned come short of the Glory of God had been sufficient to this end without the addition of any one argument more seing it is impossible that sinners can be perfect obeyers And we must not think that all the Apostles further argueings are meerly superfluous for this would reflect upon the Spirit of God who acted Paul in this 4. How strange is it to imagine that the Apostle should disput against perfect works that he might establish imperfect works in the matter of justification to think that the Apostle is proving that we are not justified by the perfect works of the Law but by the imperfect works thereof that is we are not justified by such works as keep a conformity with the Law but by such works as are violations of the Law as all works are which are not conforme thereunto in all points 5. Imperfect works as to the ground of justification are not that Righteousness of God without the Law which is by Faith of Jesus Christ but opposite theâ—eunto and inconsistent therewith as well as perfect works for as he that perfectly keepeth the Law needeth not another Righteousness in order to his justification so neither needeth he who hath an imperfect obedience if that be made the formal objective merite cause of justification But Gospel-justification is by the Righteousness of God which is without the Law which Faith laith hold on Rom. 3 21 22. 6. Gospel justification is by Faith as the whole Gospel cleareth but faith imperfect works are not one the same Yea they are as repugnant in this affaire as faith perfect works are We are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3 28. Gal. 2 16. Living by faith living by works are opposite Gal. 3 11 12. 7. Justification by imperfect works is not free justification by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood as is manifest But this is the Gospel-justification Rom. 3 24 25. 8. Imperfect works exclude grace are as inconsistent therewith as perfect works are But Gospel-justification is by grace without works Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 2 8 9. Tit. 3 5 6 7. The Major is clear from the places cited as also from Rom. 11 6. If by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace But if it be of works then is it no more grace otherwise work is no more work Now if it be said that perfect works are here understood and not imperfect works it must be said also that Election of which the Apostle here speaketh is upon foresight of imperfect works 9. Imperfect works if made the Cause of Justification can give ground of boasting of glorying as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18. But Gospel justification removeth all ground of boasting Rom. 3 27 4 2. 10. Imperfect works can not be accounted a perfect Righteousness by the Lord whose judgment is according to truth Rom. 2 2. But there is no justification without a perfect Righteousness either inherent or imputed God will pronounce no man Righteous who is not so nor justifie any as Righteous who is not so indeed But upon the account of an imperfect Righteousness can no man be justified as Righteous 11. Even this imperfect Righteousness when made the ground of justification will make the reward of debt and not of grace As Abraham's works if he had been justified by them would have done for Abraham's works were not perfect works but imperfect works as is manifest 12. If justification were not by perfect works but by imperfect works then through faith or through Gospel justification the Law should be made void contrary to Rom. 3 31. The reason of the consequence is because hereby the Law that requireth perfect obedience is laid aside another Law that requireth imperfect obedience admitted in its place or rather the same Law is pretended but it is made void as to its requireing perfect obedience must now be satisfied with an imperfect obedience But this is not to establish the Law but to destroy it when many Jotes titles are taken away from it Mat. 5 17 18. 13. The Iewes did not imagine that they were perfect without sin but followed after the Law of Righteousness that as it were â—s by the works of the Law Rom. 9 31 32 And this of necessity must have been mixed with much imperfection And yet the Apostle plainly saith in the place cited that they did not attaine to a Righteousness nor to the Law of Righteousness because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law so that seeking after Righteousness as it
cause of the formal objective cause which some call the Formal others the Material cause and the Inferiour Meane or Instrumental cause Here also these two are confounded made one viz. We are justified by faith faith is Imputed unto Righteousness That these are far different shall be cleared hereafter But what answereth he He saith 1. If their meaning be simply so that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth they speak more truth than they are aware of But that whatsoever faith apprehendeth should justify is not true Ans. Who speaketh thus I know not yet I see little danger in it their meaning being only this in that expression we are justified by that which faith apprendeth that Christ His Righteousness which justifying faith in the act of justifying laith hold on is the formal objective cause or that upon the account of which we are justified this no way saith that our faith is that Righteousness for which we are justified Next he saith If men ascribe justification in every respect to that which faith apprehendeth they destroy the Instrumental Iustification of faith Ans. No man that I know doth or will ascribe Justification in every respect unto that which faith apprehendeth so they need not destroy the Instrumental use of faith in Justification for as to the Instrumental justification of faith I understand it not it seemeth to be a very catachrestick expression In end he addeth If faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation or account from God for righteousness because it is all that God requires of men to their justification in stead of the righteousness of the law Therefore if God shall not impute or account it to them for this righteousness it would stand them in no stead at all to their justification because there is nothing useful or available to any holy or saving purpose but only to that whereunto God hath assigned it If God in the New Covenant requires faith in Christ for our justification in stead of the righteousness of the law in the old this faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousness but his command and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it self of beleeving will both become void of none effect the intire benefite of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure purpose of God in the designation of them to their end Ans. Whatever interest or place Faith hath in the New Cov. in the matter of justification it hath it from Gods sole appointment designation it is all that which is now required of us in order to our justification entering into Covenant with God yet unless we change alter its true nature and assigne another place power to it that God hath the Crown is keeped on the head of the Mediator His Righteousness is only owned received produced by the sinner as it were in face of Court rested upon by faith in order to justification But when faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness that is when our act of beleeving is made our Righteousness said to be so accounted esteemed by God all this to shoot out the Righteousness of Christ and to take away the Imputation thereof to us as the only ground of our justification not only are the native kindly actings of justifying faith destroyed but the very nature gentus of the New Covenant is altered it is made to be the same in kinde with the first Covenant with this gradual difference that the first Covenant required full perfect obedience the second one act of obedience only viz. Faith as a Peppercorn as some speak in stead of a great rent our whole Righteousness for no other Righteousness will our adversaries grant to be really imputed to us save what they grant of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness only as to Effects and thus they make the Lord to repute for that is the meaning of imputing with them that to be a Righteousness which at best is but imperfect not every way conforme to the command of God enjoining it Whereby thus one imperfect act of obedience viz. Faith is made that whereupon the wakened sinner is to rest and lay his whole weight wherein he is to refuge himself from the wrath of God which he is to hold up as his legal defence against all accusations coming in against him and all this use is to be made of faith immediatly in stead of Christ His Surety-righteousness Whence we see that it is false to say 1 That if faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation for righteousness For it justifieth as the mean appointed of God to lay hold on an Imputed Righteousness and to carry the soul forth thereunto The reason added is vaine for though it be all that God requires of men to their justification it is not that Rightheousness which is imputed unto Justification or the ground thereof but the Mean or Instrument of a soul 's partaking of that Righteousness of Christ which is the only ground or formal objective reason 2 It is false to say That if God shall not account it to them for righteousness it shall stand them in no stead to justification For it is required as the meane whereby the Sinner is married unto Christ partaketh of His Righteousness in order to justification and is as the legal production of the righteousness of the Surety in face of court as the ground of absolution to be pleaded stood unto The reason he here addeth is of no force because faith is assigned of God to this end purpose as the Gospel cleareth only to this end that so the Mediator alone may weare the Crown beare the weight of sinners nothing in us or from us may share with Him in that glory It is false 3 to say or suppose as his following words intimate That faith in the New Covenant hath the same place force efficacy which the righteousness of the law had in the old Covenant For then Faith should be Meritorious ex pacto should give ground of glorying before men It is 4 false to say That if faith hath not this place force efficacy in the New Covenant the command for beleeving beleeving it self shall be vaine Seing it hath another use designed to it of God and it is required for another end as is said according to the gracious pleasure purpose of God Lastly Chap. 8. pag. 93. c. he argueth from Gal. 3 12. thus If the Scriptures do not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the Righteousness of Christ from one person to another then there is no Imputation of Christ's Righteousness But the former is emphatically true from this place Ergo c. Ans. This upon the matter is but what Socinus said lib. 3. cap. 3. viz.
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
Law of Innocency which we dishonoured broke by sin is perfectly fulfilled honoured by Him as a Mediator to repaire the injurie done by our breaking it Ans. The Law which the Devils dishonoured broke by sin was perfectly honoured fulfilled by the Angels who stood is therefore their Righteousness to be called the devils But he will say They obeyed not as Mediator True But then the ground of Christ Righteousness becomning ours must be some other thing than His honouring that Law by fulfilling it which we dishonoured by breaking But he saith Christ repaired the injurie done by our breaking it True yet 〈◊〉 there be no more that will not make His Righteousness ours because as is obvious ere this be we must have an Interest therein this obedience must be performed by Him a our Mediator Surety undertaking Satisfying the demands of the Law for us in our stead 2. In that saith he He suffered to satisfie justice for our sin Ans. Neither is suffering as such Righteousness Nor could He satisfie justice for our sin in by suffering if He had not done it in our stead as one Person with us in Law If Titius steal from Sempronius a 1000. Pound Maevius givius Sempronius a 1000. Pound upon some distinct account Sempronius receiveth no satisfaction for what Titius stole from him but if he come give it for Titius he be satisfied there-with then there is a Law Union oneness betwixt Titius Maevius whereby the Satisfaction given by Maevius becometh the satisfaction of Titius 3. He saith in that hereby He hath merited of God the Father all that Righteousness which we are truely the Subjects of whether it be Relative or qualitative or Active that is our right to Christ in union to the Spirit to Impunity to glory 2. the grace of the Spirit by which we are made holy fulfill the conditions of the Law of grace we are the Subjects of these he is the Meriter the Meritorius Cause of out life is well called our Righteousness by many the material Cause as our own perfect obedience would have been because it is the matter of that merite Ans. That Righteousness which he saith here Christ hath merited is not that Righteousness unto justification of life as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5 18. And which we have by the Obedience of Christ made ours by Imputation vers 19. whereof we are here speaking in respect of which Christ is said to be our Righteousness 2. Our right to Christ is not our Righteousness in order to justification nor is our Right to Impunity Glory that Righteousness but a consequent thereof 3. In respect of the Graces of the Spirit which follow justification do not preceed it Christ is called our Sanctification Mr. Baxter knoweth there is a difference betwixt Righteousness Holiness 4. The Meritorius Cause of our life is well called our Righteousness when it is Imputed to us put upon our score as the Ground of our justification Absolution upon this account only is it by many called the Material Cause 4. And also saith he Christ's jntercession with the Father still procureth all this as the fruit of His Merites Ans. Of Christ's procuring our holiness we make no Doubt but that upon this account He is called our Righteousness is denied for this is not His Obedience Righteousness whereby we become Righteous unto justification of life 5. And we are related saith he as His members though not parts of His person as such to Him that thus merited for us Ans. if we be related to Him as members in order to our partaking of His Righteousness Meritâ—s we must be parts of His legal Persons though not of His Physical Personâ— for by Members here I suppose he meaneth Members of His Mystical body or members of His Ransomed Redeemed body And head Members here make one Political body become one Political Person or one in Law-sense 6. And saith he we have the Spirit from Him as our Head Ans This is but what what was said before in the 3. place And this Spirit is given for holiness but Christ is our Righteousness as well as our Sanctification it is of His being Righteousness that we are speaking 7. And he is our Advocat saith he will justifie us as our judge Ans. His being our Advocat is the same with His Intercession spoken of in the 4. place 2. The Father will judge us justifie us by Him therefore God the Father shall be our Righteousness as well as Christ consequently shall have merited all for us by His blood Sufferings that in a more principal manner according to this Reason 8. And all this saith he is God's Righteousness designed for us thus far given us by Him Ans. But all this is not that Righteousness which God hath designed for us in through Christ in order to our justification nor that Righteousness by which we become formally Righteous in Law-sense thereupon are justified pronounced Righteous in the sight of God for this is Christ's Surety-Righteousness imputed to us none else can be it Lastly saith he And the Perfect justice holiness of God is thus glorified in us through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove that we justly owne all asserted by these Texts Ans. It remaineth to be cleared how the Perfect justice holiness of God can be said to be glorified in us through Christ if Christ's Righteousness Satisfaction be not imputed to us accounted ours Christ we be not looked upon as one Person in Law for all that is wrought in us is far from being answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God because of its Imperfection And because Mr. Baxter doth not grant the Imputing of Christ's Surety-righteousness which is only answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God unto us in all that he hath here said he cannot be said to owne all that is asserted by these Texts The 3. object is If Christ's Righteousness be ours then we are righteous by it as ours so God reputeth it but as it is But it is ours 1. by our Union with him 2. by his gift so consequently by God's Imputation To this he answereth 1. That he hath told before in what sense it is ours in what sense not Shortly here he giveth us his mind againe saying It is truely Imputed to us or reputed reckoned as ours but not in their sense that claim a strick Propriety in the same Numerical Habites Acts Sufferings Merites Satisfaction which was in Christ or done by Him as if they did become subjects of the same Accidents or as if they did by an Instrumental second cause But it is ours as being done by a Mediator in stead of what we should have done as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness
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
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
of nature if not also in order of time And if matters be thus sins are first forgiven and then Faith is imputed 2 If the supposing of a righteousness will follow to wit Remission of sins then there is no answere to the argument for the argument speaketh of a Righteousness anterior to Justification and in order there unto 3 It is againe said but was never proved that to forgive sins is to give a Righteousness And I would ask what for a Righteousness this pardon of sins is is it a Righteousness perperly so called But that cannot be for all such Righteousness consisteth in obedience to the Law therefore it must be a Righteousness improperly so called if so it cannot be called our formal righteousness as he said it was 4 When he saith we are made righteous in justification yet will not grant an Imputed Righteousness and his Remission of sins is not yet found to be a proper Righteousness the sense must either be Popish or none at all I shall not here adde other reasons against this Assertion whereby it might be made manifest how dangerous this Opinion is if it be put in practice how it tendeth to alter the Nature of the Covenant of Grace It may suffice at present that we have vindicated these few reasons against it that we have found it in the foregoing Chapter inconsistent with the doctrine of grace in the New Testament repugnant to the Nature of Justification as declared explained to us by the Apostle and that we shall finde it in the next Chapter without any footing in the Apostles discourse Rom. 4. which is the only place adduced for its confirmation CHAP. XXIV The imputation of Faith it self is not Proved from Rom. IV. THe maine if not only ground whereupon our Adversaries build their Assertion of the Imputation of our act of Beleeving is Rom. 4. where they tell us the Apostle doth frequently expresly say that Faith is imputed unto Righteousness We must therefore in order the vindication of truth vindicate this place from their corrupt glosses to this end we shall first show that that can not be the meaning of the Apostle in this place which our Adversaries contend for next we shall examine what they say to enforce their Exposition of the place That the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 4. where it is said Abraham beleeved God and it was counted unto him for righteousness afterward his faith is counted for righteousness and faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness c. is not that Abraham's act of beleeving was accounted the Righteousness whereupon he was accepted was imputed unto him as a Righteousness in order to his justification and consequently that the act of Beleeving is now imputed to Beleevers for their Righteousness as said Servetus Socinus his followers Arminius his followers Papists others that I say this is not the true meaning of the place may appear from these particulars 1. If the act of Beleeving be accounted a Righteousness it must either be accounted a Perfect Righteousness or an Imperfect Righteousness If it be accounted for an Imperfect Righteousness no man can be thereupon Justified But Paul is speaking of a righteousness that was accounted to Abraham the father of the faithful in order to Justification that behoved to be a perfect righteousness for all his works wherein was an Imperfect Righteousness were rejected It cannot be accounted for a perfect righteousness because then it should be accounted to be what it is not and this accounting being an act of God's judgment it would follow that the judgment of God were not according to truth contrare to Rom. 2 2. The reason is because our faith is not perfect in it self there being much drosse admixed many degrees wanting in it far lesse can it be a Perfect Righteousness seing a Perfect Righteousness must comprehend full Obedience to the whole Law of God 2. The Imputation whereof the Apostle speaketh is of some thing to be made the Beleevers by the Imputation of God which the Beleever had not before But this cannot be Faith or the work of Beleeving because Faith is ours before this Imputation for Abraham beleeved God then followed this Imputation and vers 24. it is said that it to wit some other thing than the act of beleeving shall be imputed to us if we beleeve therefore it is not the act of Beleeving properly taken that is imputed or accounted here 3. Faith being antecedent to this Imputation if the act of Beleeving be imputed the word impute or account here must not signifie to Bestow Grant or Reckon upon their score but simply to Esteem Judge or Repute and thus Faith or the act of beleeving shall be in a beleever and yet not be a Righteousness till God repute it to be so But when God esteemeth judgeth or reputeth any thing to be in us he doth not change it nor make it something that it was not before but judgeth it to be what it is indeed for his judgment is according to truth Rom. 2 2. 4. This sense glosse is quite opposite unto and inconsistent with the Apostles maine scope in the first part of that Epistle which is to prove that Righteousness is now revealed from faith to faith Rom. 1 17. and that we are not Justified by the works of the Law but freely by grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3 24 25. And therefore not through the Imputation of Faith the act of Beleeving or any work of Righteousness which we have done for that should not exclude boasting or glorying but through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ received by Faith 5. That which was accounted to Abraham for righteousness did exclude all works and that to the end that all ground of boasting even before men might be take away vers 2. 3. Therefore Faith as a work or the act of beleeving can not be it which is here said to be reckoned or accounted to Abraham for righteousness for this is a work and being made the Ground Formal Objective Cause of justification can not but give ground of glorving before men 6. This glosse maketh the Apostles discourse wholly incoherent for he saith vers 4 5. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned ef grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth tht ungodly his faith is counted for Righteousnese Now if Faith properly taken be imputed the reckoning shall be of just debt for to reckon a men righteous who is righteous antecedent to that act of accounting is no act of grace but of just debt but Faiths being accounted for Righteousness is an act of grace and therefore it must be the Object of Faith or the Righteousness that Faith laith hold on that is here said to be counted upon
hath ground of glorying before men in himself and not in the Lord alone for all have alike ground of glorying upon that account seing what the Lord did was common to all and this new personal Righteousness maketh the difference But it will be said That Christ's Righteousness being acknowledged to be our only legal Righteousness whereby we answere the charge of the Law the asserting of a Gospel-Righteousness whereby we come to have an interest in that legal Righteousness can do no prejudice I Ans. Beside that this maketh two distinct Righteousness as the one a meane to obtean another the one within us a price ex pacto for the other without us and all this in order to Absolution from one charge of the Law brought in against the sinner hereby as to us our personal Righteousness is really made our legal Righteousness because it is made that Righteousness whereupon this man and not the other that wants it is freed from the charge of the Law for according to this way Faith is not imployed to lay hold on Christ's Righteousness that by presenting that Surety-Righteousness unto justice the soul may escape the charge but when the charge of violation of the Law of God is brought in against the sinner his only reliefe is his Gospel-Righteousness which he presenteth whereupon he pleadeth for Pardon Absolution by vertue of the new Covenant which Christ hath purchased for should he alledge the death satisfaction of Christ that should give no reliefe because that was for all alike thereby the New Covenant was purchased where in the Gospel Righteousness whether Faith alone or Faith New Obedience was set down as the Condition and therefore it can stand him in no avail but he must refuge himself from wrath under the wings of his own Gospel-Righteousness for he hath no other and thereupon rest secure be confident of his Absolution from all that the Law could charge against him As for example if the Princes son should by a valuable price given to the Prince procure new Termes and Conditions to be proposed to a company of condemned treatours lying in prison if any one of these were challenged for the old crime threatned with the execution of the sentence past upon that account it would be of no avail to him to say the Princes son hath laid down a valuable price to buy me from death because he knew that he did that for all the rest in purchasing a New Covenant new conditions but the first sure course he would take would be to present his performance of the new conditions say the charge cannot reach me because I have performed the Conditions of the New Covenant procured by the Princes son This I suppose is plaine cleare this in our case would be found to be the only saife course that poor challenged sinners would take if they should act according to the doctrine of our Adversaries to which as I said I should not dar to advise one or other But really the Gospel-way which is opposite to this is plaine saife if we have but so much humility as to complye therewith And a difference may seem small in the debate which yet in practice may prove great of dangerous consequence CHAP. XXVI Christ did not procure by his death the New Covenant or the termes thereof WE heard what the Author of the discourse of the two Covenants what Iohn Goodwine said of this New Covenant As the foundation of their assertion of the imputation of faith properly taken they tell us that the New Covenant wherein this Righteousness is required as the condition thereof is founded wholly in the blood of Christ so that whatever is required of man by way of condition of his acceptation with God becomes accepted to that end upon account of Christ's suffering Mr. Allen p. 16. p. 53. 54. saith Nor doth this that faith accompanied with obedience is imputed for righteousness at all derogate from the obedience sufferings of Christ in reference to the ends for which they serve Because the whole Covenant all the parts termes of it both promises of benefites the Condition on which they are promised are all founded in Christ his undertaking for us and all the benefites of it accrue to us upon our beleeving obeying upon his account for his sake Mr. Baxter also telleth us in his book against D. Tully p. 66. That that which Christ did by his merites was to procure the new Covenant And elsewhere p. 181 that they were the meritorious cause of the forgiving Covenants the like he â—aith elsewhere frequently The Arminians ground the imputation of faith upon the merites obedience of Christ Apol. f. 113. And Arminius himself disp 19. thes 7. that justification is attribute to faith not because it is the very righteousness which may be proposed to God's rigide severe judgment howbeit acceptable to God but because by the judgment of mercy triumphing over judgment it obtaineth pardon of sins is graciously imputed unto righteousness the cause of which is both God righteous merciful Christ by his obedience oblation intercession And in his Epistle ad Hyppolet he tels us that the word imputing signifieth that faith is not the righteousness it self but that it is graciously accounted for righteousness whereby all worth is taken away from faith except that which is by God's gracious estimation that gracious estimation of God is not without Christ but in respect of Christ in Christ for Christ. Christ by his obedience is the impetrating cause or meritorious why God imputeth faith to us unto righteousness And againe in his Artic. perpend de justif What fault is it so say that faith by free gracious acceptation is accounted for righteousness because of Christ's obedience But with this assertion we are not satisfied for these reasons 1. The Arminians who maintaine this so confidently make it the whole of what Christ merited by his death Satisfaction saying that Christ by his death did so satisfie the offended party as he would be favourable to the offender and so say that he acquired to the father a jus a will to enter into a new Covenant with men See their Confess c. 8. § 9. collat cum Apolog. c. 8. § 9. and as the learned Voetius inferreth Select dispp p. 2. p. 233 234. it followeth hence that Christ was not in very deed our Cautioner that he died not in our room stead that he did properly obtaine acquire nothing to us that he did not sustaine the person of the elect while he suffered on the crosse 2. ... that Christ procured no more but a power or liberty unto God of prescribing new Conditions and some go so far as to say that this liberty was such only at the Lord might if he had pleased have appointed the old way of works againe for the condition So said
observable that the Apostle useth a very comprehensive terme beside saying And I count all things but losse c. Moreover thâ— jewish observances while that Law stood in force were useful good a Righteousness as well as the observation of the moral Law to which they were also reducible being enjoined by vertue of the Second Command And if these observances could be brought through mens corruption in competition with set in opposition to Christ and therefore were justly accounted as loss dung nothing in that respect why ought not also moral observances be â—o accounted seing they through mans corruption can be are too oft brought in competition with set in opposition against Christ his Righteousness If Mr. Baxter will yeeld to this he needs disput no more at this rate He addeth So if a man will conceit that his common grace will justifie without holiness or his holiness without pardon the Righteousness of Christ he must deny this Righteousness that is he must deny it to be what it is not must cast away not it but the false concâ—its of it Ans. We think them in an errour who conceit that either common grace will justifie without holiness or holiness with or without pardon the Righteousness of Christ and it is not proper for him who will not hear others saying that Faith justifieth to say that holiness justifieth And it is as improper to say that pardon justifieth Let him tell me how holiness with pardon can justifie And as for the Righteousness of Christ all men with Mr. Baxter are justified by it alike for it only purchased the New Covenant and that it did to all alike and is no other way imputed unto any whatsomever And so according to his judgment it must be denied that Christ's Righteousness becometh the beleevers through God's imputation that beleevers are there with clothed and thereupon made juridically Righteous and then justified or pronunced Righteous through that imputed Surety Righteousness of Christ this is the self-denyal that Mr. Baxter will teach us and stead of this Surety-Righteousness of Christ we must be clothed according to him with our own Gospel Righteousness Faith New Obedience and upon that ground as the only neerest formal reason or meritorious cause expect to be justified because Christ's Righteousness hath purchased this Covenant and connexion Mr. Baxter must not be offended that I mention the word Merite here remembering what he saith himself n. 194. where his friendliness to Papists his displeasure at Protestants is so remarkable in these words And those that reject the saying of some Papists who in this sence say that Christ merited that we might merite placing our Evangelical merite in a meer subordination to Christ's do but shew what prejudice partiality can do and harden those who perceive their errors Finally he saith here And so if any Libertine will say that Christ's Righteousness imputed to him will justifie him without Faith or be in stead to holiness to him he must deny imputed Righteousness thus to be what indeed it is not Ans. Though I know the Lord hath thought good to ordaine Faith as a mean whereby we may be made partaker of Christ's Surety-Righteousness and so be justified Yet I may say that Christ's Righteousness imputed as being the sole meritorious cause Ratie formaliâ— objectiva of our justification will justifie without Faith as any part of that Righteousness which we are considered as clothed with when declared pronunced Righteous And though it be not in stead of holiness as if holiness were no more required of us Yet it is must be in stead of that holiness Righteousness which was required of us in the Old Covenant by the Law in order to our being accepted justified thereupon He tels us in the margine that none deny That all that are saved have inherent Righteousness and that in tantum we are Righteous by it That a man accused as being an Insidel Atheist Impenitent Ungodly a Hypocrite c. must be justified by pleading all the contraries in himself or else perish And that this inherent Righteousness is imperfect and in us found with sin that therefore no man can be justified by it without pardon of sin nor at all against the charge of being a sinner condemnable by the Law of innocency But what is all this to the point Must we not therefore say with Paul that in the business of justification we must account our own Righteousness to be but dung and only lean to the Righteousness of Christ What would he hence conclude And what remaineth then saith he but to trouble the world with contending de nomine whether this Imperfect Righteousness shall be called Righteousness the giving of it called justifying or making us Righteous so far Ans. And who I pray more guilty of troubling the world with these contendings than he But to the matter it is no meer contending de nomine that he hath caused when in stead of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ with which the Orthodox Asserted beleevers to be clothed as the immediat ground of their justification before God and which they by Faith were to lean to and rest upon in order to justification he substituteth in its place our imperfect holiness maketh that to merite justification Salvation as a subordinat Righteousness so called though indeed in this case the principal advanced to that dignity by the merites of Christ's Righteousness and as all that Righteousness which can properly be said to be ours and to be imputed to us as the only Potestative Condition of our Justification Salvation according to the New Covenant purchased by Christ. This is something more and a great something more than a meer contest about a word or a name This toucheth the foundation of the Gospel let Mr. Baxter think as little of it as he will I need not take notice of his making these two one thing justifying making us Righteous and of his calling the giving of Righteousness or holiness a justifying of us for this is but sutable to him who would confound all This is all he speaketh to this matter in this place But thereafter Sect. 5. of merite n. 196. he tels us It is a great question whether a man may trust to his own Faith Repentance or Holiness And I should think that no orthodox man should once make a question about it but should reject the very insinuation of such a thing with detestation seing Trusting to these things is the native consequent of the Popish Socinian Arminian errour about justification or of all who speak of the Imputation of Faith c. as our Righteousness in stead of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. What answere giveth he But some men saith he will trouble the world with unexplained words where no sober men differ Ans. The words are plaine enough and need no explication every ordinary Christian
understand their meaning but against such as will seek knots in rushes and raise dust in the most clear aire for their own ends there is no remedie I am afraied the point of difference shall be found such here as that our agreement shall not be expected in â—haste unless our sobriety be such as well make us embrace inconsistences Let us hear what he saith No wise man can dream that we may trust to those for more than their proper part as that we may trust them to do anything proper to God to Christ to the Spirit to the promise c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own Faith or holiness when it soundeth absolutly or may tempt the hearers to think that they may trust them for God's part or Christ's part not only for their own is a dangerous deceiving course Ans. It is true no wise man will say that we may trust to these for more than their proper part but when we are mistaken about their proper part conceive them to have that place part which they have not and accordingly trust unto them do we not amisse And Mr. Baxter maketh it their part to be the immediat meritorious cause expacto which he otherwayes expresseth to be the Potestative Condition of Justification Salvation which we say is the part of Christ his Righteousness alone And sure who ever shall trust unto them for this part which according to the Gospel is Christ's part trust unto them for more than their proper part Neither is it any dangerous or deceiving course to speak thus when the meaning is obviously known except to such as have wit enough to darken things to be this that we must not Trust to Faith c. as the price the merite ex pacto as perfect obedience was under the first Covenant of our Justification Adoption Salvation But it is a most dangerous deceiving course to call them only Conditions or cause fine quibus non when in the meane time they are made to have the same place in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old are made our Gospel-Righteousness for which we are justified yea put in the same place that the Orthodox put Christ his Surety Righteousness that is to be the immediat ground formal cause Ratio formalis objectiva of our Justification What more But that really they may be trusted for their own part and must be so no sober person will deny for so to beleeve obey pray to God c. not to trust to them in their place that is not to think that we shall be ever the better for them is unbeleefe indeed distrusting God saying it is in vain to seeke him and what profite is it that we call upon him such diffidence despair will end all endeavours Let every man prove his own work c. This is our Rejoicing c. If we are justified by Faith we may trust to be justified by it But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture the danger of it must make us never use it without need Ans. As I said all the question is concerning what is their own part And by saying that they are not to be trusted unto we deny them to have that part or place in the matter of our Justification Salvation that others give unto them And if there were no more this is a shreud ground of presumption to us that Mr. Baxter owneth not the Orthodox doctrine in this matter viz. That he cannot with patience heare it said That we must not trust to our own Faith Repentance or Holiness but accounteth such expressions dangerous aud deceiving 2 It is but a wrong gloss put upon this expression We must not trust to our own Faith c. to make the meaning of it to be we must not think that we shall be ever the better for our Faith c. And therefore his following words are vaine and to no purpose 3 It is one thing to trust to be justified by Faith which is but beleeve God and trust in his word and a far other to trust in our Faith For this is to lay our stress lean our weight found our hopes of Justification Salvation on our weak feckless Faith in stead of trusting to relying upon Jesus Christ his Surety Righteousness as the only immediat ground as that Righteousness by upon consideration of which we are justified have a Right to Glory And if Mr. Baxter do not see a difference betwixt these two it is not because he cannot but because he will not as some may suppose 4 He talks of the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture but I would know where he findeth it used at all iu Scripture And it is well that he confesseth there is danger in it which two me thinks should be enough to make him as great an enemie to this expression as we are But the truth is according to his principles we are as much now to Trust to our Faith Repentance Holiness in order to Justification Salvation as Adam was to trust to his perfect obedience according to the Covenant of works as much as according to our doctrine we are to trust to Christ his Surety-Righteousness CHAP. IV. The Law by the works whereof Paul denyeth that we are justified is not the jewish Law WE finde the Apostle Paul directly proâ—essedly proving concluding that we are not justified by the Law nor by the works of the Law Yet such as differ from us about the interest of works in justification not being willing to yeeld submit unto the truth do seek what Evasions they can to evite the force of the Apostles a gueings peremptour Conclusions and therefore say that Paul is to be understood as speaking only of such or such a Law excludeth only such such works in which they think they may yeeld unto what the Apostle saith the same being limited restricted according to their own minde and yet do no prejudice to their own Hypothesis But yet what this Law in particular is and what are the works thereof our Adversaries are not at all agreed among themselves but some imagine one thing and some another as we shall heare Some by the Law and the works thereof which Paul excludeth from justification do mean the Ceremonial Law and the Observances thereof or as others express it the Iewish Law including their judaical Law so understanding hereby all that Law which is called Moses's Law this is owned by some Papist's as Bellarmine sheweth us De justif Lib. 1. Cap. 19. but he himself rejecteth it upon this ground that the Apostle Rom. 4. Ephes. 2. Tit. 3. doth simply exclude works making no mention of the Law of Moses The Socinians do chuse this way of interpreting the Apostle as perticularly may be seen in the Author of a book inâ—â—â—â—led Consensus