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-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
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-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
cause of the formal objective cause which some call the Formal others the Material cause and the Inferiour Meane or Instrumental cause Here also these two are confounded made one viz. We are justified by faith faith is Imputed unto Righteousness That these are far different shall be cleared hereafter But what answereth he He saith 1. If their meaning be simply so that we are justified by that which faith apprehendeth they speak more truth than they are aware of But that whatsoever faith apprehendeth should justify is not true Ans. Who speaketh thus I know not yet I see little danger in it their meaning being only this in that expression we are justified by that which faith apprendeth that Christ His Righteousness which justifying faith in the act of justifying laith hold on is the formal objective cause or that upon the account of which we are justified this no way saith that our faith is that Righteousness for which we are justified Next he saith If men ascribe justification in every respect to that which faith apprehendeth they destroy the Instrumental Iustification of faith Ans. No man that I know doth or will ascribe Justification in every respect unto that which faith apprehendeth so they need not destroy the Instrumental use of faith in Justification for as to the Instrumental justification of faith I understand it not it seemeth to be a very catachrestick expression In end he addeth If faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation or account from God for righteousness because it is all that God requires of men to their justification in stead of the righteousness of the law Therefore if God shall not impute or account it to them for this righteousness it would stand them in no stead at all to their justification because there is nothing useful or available to any holy or saving purpose but only to that whereunto God hath assigned it If God in the New Covenant requires faith in Christ for our justification in stead of the righteousness of the law in the old this faith will not passe in account with him for such righteousness but his command and Covenant for beleeving and the obedience it self of beleeving will both become void of none effect the intire benefite of them being suspended upon the gracious pleasure purpose of God in the designation of them to their end Ans. Whatever interest or place Faith hath in the New Cov. in the matter of justification it hath it from Gods sole appointment designation it is all that which is now required of us in order to our justification entering into Covenant with God yet unless we change alter its true nature and assigne another place power to it that God hath the Crown is keeped on the head of the Mediator His Righteousness is only owned received produced by the sinner as it were in face of Court rested upon by faith in order to justification But when faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness that is when our act of beleeving is made our Righteousness said to be so accounted esteemed by God all this to shoot out the Righteousness of Christ and to take away the Imputation thereof to us as the only ground of our justification not only are the native kindly actings of justifying faith destroyed but the very nature gentus of the New Covenant is altered it is made to be the same in kinde with the first Covenant with this gradual difference that the first Covenant required full perfect obedience the second one act of obedience only viz. Faith as a Peppercorn as some speak in stead of a great rent our whole Righteousness for no other Righteousness will our adversaries grant to be really imputed to us save what they grant of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness only as to Effects and thus they make the Lord to repute for that is the meaning of imputing with them that to be a Righteousness which at best is but imperfect not every way conforme to the command of God enjoining it Whereby thus one imperfect act of obedience viz. Faith is made that whereupon the wakened sinner is to rest and lay his whole weight wherein he is to refuge himself from the wrath of God which he is to hold up as his legal defence against all accusations coming in against him and all this use is to be made of faith immediatly in stead of Christ His Surety-righteousness Whence we see that it is false to say 1 That if faith justifieth any way it must of necessity be by Imputation for righteousness For it justifieth as the mean appointed of God to lay hold on an Imputed Righteousness and to carry the soul forth thereunto The reason added is vaine for though it be all that God requires of men to their justification it is not that Rightheousness which is imputed unto Justification or the ground thereof but the Mean or Instrument of a soul 's partaking of that Righteousness of Christ which is the only ground or formal objective reason 2 It is false to say That if God shall not account it to them for righteousness it shall stand them in no stead to justification For it is required as the meane whereby the Sinner is married unto Christ partaketh of His Righteousness in order to justification and is as the legal production of the righteousness of the Surety in face of court as the ground of absolution to be pleaded stood unto The reason he here addeth is of no force because faith is assigned of God to this end purpose as the Gospel cleareth only to this end that so the Mediator alone may weare the Crown beare the weight of sinners nothing in us or from us may share with Him in that glory It is false 3 to say or suppose as his following words intimate That faith in the New Covenant hath the same place force efficacy which the righteousness of the law had in the old Covenant For then Faith should be Meritorious ex pacto should give ground of glorying before men It is 4 false to say That if faith hath not this place force efficacy in the New Covenant the command for beleeving beleeving it self shall be vaine Seing it hath another use designed to it of God and it is required for another end as is said according to the gracious pleasure purpose of God Lastly Chap. 8. pag. 93. c. he argueth from Gal. 3 12. thus If the Scriptures do not only no where establish but in any place absolutely deny a possibility of the translation or removing of the Righteousness of Christ from one person to another then there is no Imputation of Christ's Righteousness But the former is emphatically true from this place Ergo c. Ans. This upon the matter is but what Socinus said lib. 3. cap. 3. viz.
the most remarkable piece thereof expressive of His love and condescension and terminating point of Surety-obedience for He said it was finished when He offered up Himself gave up the Ghost He addeth So where it is said againe Chap. 5. vers 16. that the gift viz. of Righteousness by Christ is of many offences unto justification If the gift of many offences i.e. the forgiveness of Mans Sinnes will not amount to a justification without the Imputation of a legal Righteousness we must give a check to Paul's pen. Ans. This is but vanity we need give no check unto the Apostle's pen for though He said not in this verse expresly that there was a gift of Righteousness also imputed yet he said it expresly vers 17. 18. 1. And shall we think that in such a continued discourse as this is wherein the Apostle is explaining the whole mystery by its parts he should mention all things in one verse He proceeds to prove that Remission of sins is the whole of justification pag. 131. Because the end saith he for which this Imputed Righteovsness of Christ is thus brought in to the business of justification viz. to be the Right to the Inheritance is supplied in a way more evangelical of more sweetness dearness to the Children of God to wit by the grace of Adoption Ans. To this we have said enough above will have occasion to speak againe to it in the next objection He addeth further 4. That if we thus separat and divide the benefite of Christ's Active and passive Obedience in Iustification we take a course to lose destroy both Ans. Not to transcribe his tedious discourse on this accout I only say That it is wholly founded upon a mistake as if our showing the necessity of the Imputation of both were a separating or dividing of the benefite of both whileas the whole Effect floweth from the whole cause both Christ's Active His passive obedience making up one compleat surety-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-Surety-righteousness of Christ so the Effect is one compleat Effect though both Cause and Effect may be considered as consisting of several Integral parts There is no ground here to say That one and the same formal part of a thing is compounded of diverse or opposite things Obj. 4. Chap. 12. Pag. 136. c. That which dissolveth and taketh away the necessity use of that sweet evangelical grace of Adoption cannot hold a streight course with the thruth of the Gospel But this is done by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Ergo. The Minor which is only here to be denied he laboureth to prove because we say The Righteousness of Christ must be imputed in order to our obtaining Right and Title to Life that by Remission of Sins a man is only delivered from death but receiveth no Right to the Kingdom of heaven But what can he hence inferre for confirmation of the Minor Now saith he this being the direct proper end use office purpose intent of Adoption to invest a beleever with a capacity with heaven it followes that whosoever shall attempt to set any thing else upon this throne seeks to dissolve Adoption Ans. The Consequence is null The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will no more take away Adoption than justification for it is the ground and Cause of both He might as well say That because in and by justification we have Remission of Sins to assert the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings for this end is to dissolve justification But the truth is clear as was explained above Myst. 14. He thinks both cannot stand together because either of them is a compleat entire Title within itself perfect Righteousness is a perfect title alone so is Adoption or Sonship Ans. 1. This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings as against justification for either of these is a compleat Title according to our Adversary to Immunity from death perfect Satisfaction is a perfect title alone to this Immunity as well as perfect Righteousness is a perfect title to the Inheritance Justification or Remission of Sins which are one with him is also a perfect Right to this as well as Adoption is a perfect Right to that 2 But as Justification is founded upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ so is Adoption As Christ's death and Satisfaction is not formall pardon or Right to Impunity but is when Imputed the ground and cause of justification wherein the Beleever is solemnely brought into a state of freedome from death So Christ's Obedience and Fulfilling of the Law is not a formal Right unto the inheritance but when Imputed and received by faith the ground and cause of Adoption whereby the Beleever is as it were solemnely infeoffed of the Inheritance Here then is nothing in vaine but all things so ordered as may most commend the riches of the wisdom Grace of God may most ensure life and all to the â—eleever So that his following discourse is meer froath and vanity for as God may appoint moe meanes for the same end as He pleaseth as His promises oath Sacraments to confirme the faith of beleevers so there can be no reason given why it may not be so here yet to speak properly Adoption is no mean or Cause of the Right and Title to Glory being the solemne Collation of that Right to the beleever or the solemne stating of
Gospel-way of justification as being a way to bring us back againe to the old Covenant of works with a meer pretext of some ease as to the Conditions or Termes Yet he would prove that the two Covenants are made one by us thus where the parties Covenanting are the same the things covenanted for are the same and the Conditions or agreement the same there the Covenants are every way the same But if the Righteousness of the Law imputed to us be the agreement or Condition of the New Covenant all the three persons things Conditions are the same Ans. 1 It may be questioned if either the persons Covenanting or the things Covenanted for in both Covenants be the same every way but to speak of this is not our present purpose 2 The Covenants do not agree as to their Conditions for the condition required in the Covenant of works was a proper antecedent condition which is a cause of the thing promised but the Condition of the New Covenant is only a consequent condition denoting nothing else than a connexion or order betwixt the thing promised the condition required 3 The Righteousness of the Law imputed to us is no condition required of us in the New Covenant but it is required of us that by faith we close with Christ thereby come to have an Interest in Christ in all His Righteousness to all ends and purposes which our case and necessity calleth for 4 This Righteousness of the Law was called for from us in our own persons in the old Covenant but in the New Covenant the righteousness is Imputed to us when we beleeve in Him And this as is said is enough to distinguish these Covenants But he thinks The Righteousness of the Law imputed from another wrought by ourselves do not much differ the substance being the same Ans. Yet this difference may make a substantial difference in the two Covenants for when the Covenant of Works did not admit of the performance of the Conditions by a Surety as himself proved by foure Arguments pag. 155. And the Covenant of Grace holdeth forth justification only through the Righteousness of another imputed to us received by faith Though the Righteousness mentioned in both consist in conformity to the same Law yet the Covenants cannot but substantially differ as is obvious to every one Beside that the righteousness imputed consisteth in more than in Obedience to the Law for it comprehendeth his whole Surety-righteousness that took in His Sufferings also The following objection which he preoccupieth is purely his owne so I leave it Obj. 10. Chap. 17. pag. 158. c. That for which Righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve cannot be imputed to them for righteousness But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which righteousness is imputed to those that beleeve Ergo. The Assumption he thinks none will deny but such as deny the righteousness to be the Meritorious Cause of that Righteousness or justification which is conferred upon men The Major he thus proveth If it be Impossible that the thing merited should be the same thing with that which is the Meritorious Cause thereof then it is not only not true but impossible that the Righteousness of Christ should be the Righteousness of a beleever But the former is true Ergo c. Aus This is nothing but a pure fallacy founded upon a palpable mistake viz of confounding righteousness justification as if they were one the same To discover this let us put Iustification for Righteousness in the first Argument thus That for which beleevers are justified cannot be imputed to them for righteousness But the Righteousness of Christ is that for which beleevers are justified Therefore c. Who seeth not now how false the Major propositions is how impertinent ridiculous the probation thereof is justification which is the Effect or the thing merited is not the same thing with the Righteousness of Christ the Meritorious cause thereof Obj. 11. pag. 160. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to a beleever for righteousness in his justification then the meritorious cause of his justification is imputed But that cannot be imputed Ergo c. He proveth the Minor which is denied thus Because the Meritorious cause being a kind of Efficient can not be either the matter or the forme of that whereof it is Efficient It is an Inviolable Law amongs the foure kindes of causes Material Formal Final Efficient that the two former do only ingredi composition or effectum are partes rei constitutae that the two latter are alwayes extrinsecal stand without Ans. All which is but vaine argueing grounded upon this palpable mistake that justification is a physical Effect like the whiteing of a wall which is the example whereby he illustrats the matter therefore he thinketh that these termes are used in this matter in as proper a sense as when they are applied to physical causes Effects whileas the matter is quite otherwise many of these termes are here used but in a metaphorical sense But to the matter whether Imputed Righteousness be called the Material cause with some or the formal cause with others of justification is no great matter seing every one hath liberty to explaine in what sense he useth these termes in this matter I should rather choose to use the terme if such like termes must be used of the formal objective cause or Reason This is enough to us That it is that whereby they become juridically righteous that upon the consideration whereof now imputed to them they are pronounced Righteous justified so is the meritorious cause of their justification that Righteousness which covereth them upon the account of which they are declared pronounced Righteous as the payment of the Surety is as the meritorious cause in Law of the absolution of the debtor the ground upon which he is absolved being accounted his payment because the debtor Surety are one person in Law As in a juridical sentence of Absolution of an accused debtor there is no proper formal or material cause so neither in the matter of justification which is God's juridical Act Sentence Yet I cannot acquiesce to what he addeth saying That only remission of sins or absolution from punishment is as the forme applied unto or put upon the matter the matter or subject it self where unto this forme is applied Not only because according to his own argueing one thing cannot be both matter forme of the same thing but because Remission of sins in hereby made the whole of justification whereas to speak properly it is but an Effect or consequent or at most a part thereof the person justified is properly absolved from the accusation declared to be Righteous so is legally constituted or put into a state of Righteousness or of Righteous persons whereupon followeth freedom from guilt or punishment a
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-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
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
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
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-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
of asserting justification by other works than perfect works required by the Covenant of works to wit by imperfect works which they say are required in the Gospel And therefore their meaning is we are not justified by perfect sinless obedience but by imperfect obedience to the Law This is the Evasion of the Socinians who say the Apostle speaketh of the works of the Law to shew that he speaketh of those works which are enjoined by the Law to wit of perpetual perfect obedience required by the Law And they say that by Faith he meaneth that confidence obedience which every one is able to performe and which is endeavoured after studied That this cannot be the meaning of the Apostles conclusion we suppose will be clear from these Considerations 1. This supposeth that they against whom the Apostle is here disputing were of opinion that men could yet be justified must be justified by perfect obedience to the Moral Law But it is hardly imaginable that men in their wits did ever so dreame or think that they were innocent could expect to be justified before God by their own perfection or perfect obedience to the Law in all points for this were to say they never had sinned 2. When the Apostle in the beginning of his disput in his Epistle to the Romans proveth that all have sinned are guilty before God both jew Gentile he thence inferreth that by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in God's sight Rom. 3 20. Whereby he giveth us to understand that there is no justification by the Law unless it be perfectly keeped And because no meer man did ever keep it perfectly or can so keep it therefore he concludeth that no man can be justified thereby There is no justification by works unless the works be perfect consequently that such as expect justification thereby be wholly sinless 3. If the Apostle had so disputed against justification by perfect works as to have granted or established justification by imperfect works he needed not have used any moe arguments to that end than what was mentioned cleared Rom. 1. 2. in the beginning of the 3. Chapter for his evincing that all had sinned come short of the Glory of God had been sufficient to this end without the addition of any one argument more seing it is impossible that sinners can be perfect obeyers And we must not think that all the Apostles further argueings are meerly superfluous for this would reflect upon the Spirit of God who acted Paul in this 4. How strange is it to imagine that the Apostle should disput against perfect works that he might establish imperfect works in the matter of justification to think that the Apostle is proving that we are not justified by the perfect works of the Law but by the imperfect works thereof that is we are not justified by such works as keep a conformity with the Law but by such works as are violations of the Law as all works are which are not conforme thereunto in all points 5. Imperfect works as to the ground of justification are not that Righteousness of God without the Law which is by Faith of Jesus Christ but opposite theâ—eunto and inconsistent therewith as well as perfect works for as he that perfectly keepeth the Law needeth not another Righteousness in order to his justification so neither needeth he who hath an imperfect obedience if that be made the formal objective merite cause of justification But gospel-Gospel-justification is by the Righteousness of God which is without the Law which Faith laith hold on Rom. 3 21 22. 6. Gospel justification is by Faith as the whole Gospel cleareth but faith imperfect works are not one the same Yea they are as repugnant in this affaire as faith perfect works are We are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3 28. Gal. 2 16. Living by faith living by works are opposite Gal. 3 11 12. 7. Justification by imperfect works is not free justification by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood as is manifest But this is the Gospel-justification Rom. 3 24 25. 8. Imperfect works exclude grace are as inconsistent therewith as perfect works are But Gospel-justification is by grace without works Rom. 3 24. Ephes. 2 8 9. Tit. 3 5 6 7. The Major is clear from the places cited as also from Rom. 11 6. If by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace But if it be of works then is it no more grace otherwise work is no more work Now if it be said that perfect works are here understood and not imperfect works it must be said also that Election of which the Apostle here speaketh is upon foresight of imperfect works 9. Imperfect works if made the Cause of Justification can give ground of boasting of glorying as we see in the Pharisee Luk. 18. But Gospel justification removeth all ground of boasting Rom. 3 27 4 2. 10. Imperfect works can not be accounted a perfect Righteousness by the Lord whose judgment is according to truth Rom. 2 2. But there is no justification without a perfect Righteousness either inherent or imputed God will pronounce no man Righteous who is not so nor justifie any as Righteous who is not so indeed But upon the account of an imperfect Righteousness can no man be justified as Righteous 11. Even this imperfect Righteousness when made the ground of justification will make the reward of debt and not of grace As Abraham's works if he had been justified by them would have done for Abraham's works were not perfect works but imperfect works as is manifest 12. If justification were not by perfect works but by imperfect works then through faith or through Gospel justification the Law should be made void contrary to Rom. 3 31. The reason of the consequence is because hereby the Law that requireth perfect obedience is laid aside another Law that requireth imperfect obedience admitted in its place or rather the same Law is pretended but it is made void as to its requireing perfect obedience must now be satisfied with an imperfect obedience But this is not to establish the Law but to destroy it when many Jotes titles are taken away from it Mat. 5 17 18. 13. The Iewes did not imagine that they were perfect without sin but followed after the Law of Righteousness that as it were â—s by the works of the Law Rom. 9 31 32 And this of necessity must have been mixed with much imperfection And yet the Apostle plainly saith in the place cited that they did not attaine to a Righteousness nor to the Law of Righteousness because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law so that seeking after Righteousness as it
it may look more conforme to their works when their works are no way conforme to it So likewise they are ignorant of god of His Holiness Righteousness because they see that if He be Such as the Orthodox say He is according to His Word they cannot stand before His justice therefore they deny His justice altogether as do Socinians or Imagine Him to be all Mercy c. so imagine Him to be altogether such an one as themselves therefore are not very zealous for any other righteousness than what may come most readily to hand they themselves can make up with their own diligence care never remembering that the justice of God must be satisfied therefore deny all Satisfaction as do Socinians or suppose Christ hath satisfied for all procured a New Covenant or way to life wherein we may bring what we have it will be accepted there is no more to do Nor remembering that we must have an Interest in Christ by faith ere we have any Interest in His Merites Satisfaction that the whole of our Salvation is so contrived as Man may be abased Christ only exalted III. A vaine conceite that all things in Religion must be just as we apprehend them to be our blinde corrupt byassed Reason Understanding must be the Supream judge Determiner of all these Mysteries Hence the Socinians down-right say that 〈◊〉 the Scripture say what it will how oft it will they are to beleeve to receive nothing but according to their Reason so that what their blinded Reason cannot comprehend they may will reject And others who possibly will not so plainely lay down this ground Yet in stead of conforming their judgments and Apprehensions to the word of being led by it do frame a conception of the Matters of God in their own heads then cause the Scriptures comply with their Apprehensions by Interpreting them accordingly So that following a corrupt guide here they cannot but incline to that way which suiteth most with that corrupt Principle be most averse from compliance with the Mystery of God which is most opposite there-unto IV. Natural corrupt self love is another evil Principle concurring to this effect by its malignant Influence We love to cry-up ourselves to have something of our owne to boast of to glory of before men and hence we cannot naturally comply so sweetly with that way which taketh away all boasting leaveth no ground for man to glory in any thing save in the Lord such is the way of faith of Gospel-justification Rom. 3 27 4 2. V. A vaine groundless high conceite that people have of themselves of what they do as if there were worth excellency in it to oblige God to bestow upon them what reward they think meet not knowing that when they have done all they can they are but unprofitable that they have nothing but what they have received that for any good they do they are more beholden to God than God is beholden to them that the best of their actions are so defiled that they could not answere for one of them nor stand if God should enter into judgment with them strickly mark iniquity Psal. 130 3 143 2. VI. Pride of heart is another malignant cause of this Aversation Unwillingness to comply with God's way of this strong Inclination to the way of justification by Works This was it which led the jewes away from Christ the end of the Law for righteousness they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God Rom. 10 3. because they would not bow themselves to take on this Righteousness therefore they were at so much paines labour to establish their own to cause it stand Proud man would work enjoy the reward of his laboures will not willingly hearken to any other way he will not be beholden to free Grace nor ascribe glory to the Lord Mediator but will still be at the old way of the first Covenant at work wages that he may have it to say he hath erned purchased the crown of life with his own hands industrie Therefore from this we should all take warning to look about us to guard against this strong violent torrent that is ready to carry us headlong to our ruine to be jealous of our treacherous hearts Hence also we may see whence it cometh that the Gospel getteth so little footing among many how nothing less than the mighty power of God will be able to prevail with a Natural Soul cause it comply with the Gospel-way of justification submit it self unto the Righteousness of God hold on Christ by faith Further We need not wonder to see so many riseing-up in all ages against the Gospel of the Grace of God corrupting the Gospel-Doctrine of justification seing blinded unmortified Man is not in case to be cast in its mould nor willing to embrace it untill he be broken broken over againe CHAP. III. The Doctrine of justification should be keeped pure with all diligence what dangerous expressions should be shunned WE come next to speak a word unto the Second particular mentioned to wit That all who would be found faithful Ambassadours be accepted of the Lord should endeavoure both in practice in Doctrine to keep this doctrine of the Grace of God pure unmixed particularly guard against the giving ground or occasion to proud Nature to cry-up Self in the matter of justification by any expression used in the explication thereof We see here elsewhere how careful Paul is in this Matter using such expressions as may most emphatically exclude man all his paines set free grace on high that God alone may be exalted for here elsewhere he debaseth man excludeth all his works even the works of the best of men even his works who was the father of the faithful he crieth up Christ as all free grace as beginning carrying on all consonant to what the Prophet Esaias said Esai 45 24 25. Surely shall one say in the Lord have I righteousness strength or as it is in the Margine Surely he shall say of me in the Lord is all righteousness strength Even to him shall men come In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified shall glory So that such as look to Him as it is vers 22. come to Him as it is vers 24. have all their righteousnesses in the Lord from Him and in Him alone are they shall they be justified shall glory not at all in themselves So Ieremiah Chap. 23 6. expresseth the matter very emphatically holding it forth as one of Christ's glorious comfortable Titles of honour that He shall be called the Lord our Righteousness thereby Importing that all the Saints their righteousness in order
within it or because of one work of righteouness done by it so glory in it self not in the Lord for though it were granted that faith were the gift 〈◊〉 God yet that would not sufficiently keep down pride seing such as plead for justification by good works will also grant that these good works come from the Grace of God are wrought by the Spirit yet such a justification would lay a foundation of boasting of glorying before men some would have more ground of boasting than others because of their stronger faith And justification by this way would as well be opposite to justification through Christ His Imputed righteousness by Grace as justification by good works for faith here would not be considered as bringing-in laying hold on a Righteousness without the Righteousness of Christ imputed but as a commanded duty as a piece of obedience to the Law would as well make the reward of debt ex congruo ex pacto as if justification were by works 8. It is of the same Nature to say That Paul excludeth the works of the Law but not the works of the Gospel for the same ground of pride boasting glorying should be laid that would be laid by pleading for the works of the Law because these are still works of righteousness which we do so opposite in this matter unto mercy Tit. 3 5. And Paul to exclude all boasting glorying before Men opposeth faith not considered in it Self but as laying hold on the Righteousness of Christ as carrying the Man out of himself to Christ for Righteousness unto works not Gospel-works unto works of the Law And sure we cannot say that none of Abraham's works were Gospel-works or works required in the New Covenant seing even then he was a beleever when the object of his faith or that which he laid hold on by faith in the Gospel which was preached unto him was said to be imputed unto him for righteousness And is it not plaine that if justification were upon the account of Gospel works that God should not then be said to justifie the ungodly seing he who is clothed with a Gospel righteousness cannot be called or accounted an ungodly person And yet faith looks out unto laith hold upon a God that justifieth the ungodly Rom. 4 5. In a word the asserting of this would be the same upon the matter with asserting of justification by the works of the Law for what ever is required in the Gospel is injoined by the Law so is an act of obedience to the Law which is our perfect Rule of Righteousness all our obedience must be in conformity thereunto 9. It must also be accounted dangerous for puffing-up of Self to say That we are justified by our Inherent Righteousness for then the Man could not say that all his righteousnesses were as filthy rags Esai 64 6. Nor could that be true which is Psal. 143 3. for in they sight no man living should be justified to wit if God should enter into Iudgment with him Why should Iob have abhorred himself Chap. 42 6. if he had a righteousness within him had been justified by the Lord upon the account of that inherent righteousness And had not Paul as good ground as any to assert his justification by his personal inherent holiness righteousness Yet we hear of no such thing out of his mouth but on the contrary his accounting all things but less dung that he might gaine Christ be found in His Righteousness hath a far different import How proud might man be if he had it to say that he was justified in the sight of God by works of Righteousness which he had done or by his own inherent righteousness 10. Nor will it much help the matter to say That this Inherent Righteousness is not the price laid down but onely the Condition or Causa sine qua non or the like for still man would hereby have some thing to be proud of to glory of before men because he would have it to say that his own Inherent Holiness was as well the ground of his justification the Condition thereof as Adam's obedience would have been the ground of his justification And who knoweth not that Self can wax proud be puffed up upon a smaller occasion than is this And is it not strange that Paul never once made mention of this distinction Shall we think that Paul denied Abraham to have been justified by works because Abraham looked upon them as the meritorious cause not as the Condition only of his justification or that Abraham indeed did so or that Paul included them as the condition of his justification when he said he desired not to be found in his own Righteousness meaning not his own righteousness as a price or as the Meritorious cause of his acceptance Why should David have spoken so absolutely said Psal. 143 2. enter not into judgment with thy Servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified seing even though God should enter into judgment with His servants they should be justified as having fulfilled the condition And why should he have said Psal. 130 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities ô Lord who shall stand seing though the Lord should mark iniquities yet where the Person hath fulfilled the Condition hath a Personal Inherent Righteousness to hold up as the fulfilling of the condition required he is in case to stand in judgment to plead for his justification absolution upon the account of his performing all the condition required And would not vaine man have great ground of boasting here 11. Neither yet will it prevent this boasting to say That this Inherent Righteousness is but a Subordinat Righteousness whereby we have right unto the Merites of Christ which are the Principal Righteousness answering the demandes of the Law for if man have any thing in himself that can be called a Righteousness though but a Subordinat Righteouness yet such a Righteousness as giveth right ground to justification though that justification be also called only a subordinat justification conforme to the New Covenant the Condition thereof he will soon boast account his justification not of free grace but of due debt conforme to the covenant And though this be called only a Subordinat Righteousness yet proud Self will account it the Principal because upon it dependeth all his justification for thereby not onely hath he a right unto Christ's Merites but unto justification it self this being called the proper condition of the New Covenant wherein justification Adoption c. are promised as they say upon this condition And will not proud Man see that he hath a price in his hand a complâ—â—â— Righteousness conforme to the Covenant to presente unto God where-upon to seek expect the reward of debt according to the covenant And so much the rather should we abstaine from
such expressions in this matter that we finde no mention made of two fold Righteousness of a twofold Justification the one subordinat the other Principal in the Scriptures but all expressions in this matter framed designedly to abase man make all appear to be of free grace that he who glorieth may glory in the Lord. And as Self will be ready in this to make that which is called a Subordinat Righteousness a Prinpal Righteousness so it will have this faire plausible ground to do so to wit That upon our own Righteousness we are Immediatly accepted of God as Righteous especially when the Merits of Christ are made subservient unto our personal Righteousness as procuring the New covenant that therein our Personal Righteousness shall be accepted accounted perfect compleet though it be not so in it self we thereupon immediatly justified accepted of God as Righteous as they love to speak who assert these things 12. Though faith be indeed the mean of our justification that is the onely thing required of us in order to our Interest in Christ actual participation of the benefites of His Redemption of justification in the first place according to the Gospel methode Yet it is too favourable to proud Self to call it such a Condition as hath a far more dangerous Import That is 1. To call it a Condition withall deny that it is an instrumental Cause or that it is to be considered in the matter of justification as it laith hold on Christ His Righteousness 2. To say that the very act of faith or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed for Righteousness that Paul is to be so understood Rom. 4. as speaking properly not metonymically 3. To say that this is the Righteousness which is imputed to us in order to justification not the Righteousness of Christ except as to its Effects in respect of some whereof Yea the chiefe only immediat it is equally Imputed to all Reprobat as well as Elect. 4. To say that this faith is our Gospel-Righteousness because a Righteousness is perfect adequate to the Rule of the New Covenant 5. To say that this faith hath the same place consideration consequently the same force efficacy in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant with Adam 6. To say that Christ hath purchased the New Covenant that this shall be the condition of persons partaking of the benefites thereo◠withall 7 To say that Christ hath died for all by his death made Satisfaction to justice for the breach of the Law so purchased freedom from the Curse of the Law to all equally at least conditionally whereby it is apparent that all are put in statu quo prius in the state they were once in that equally now have new conditions proposed unto them which if they performe they are righteous upon that performance are freed from the Curse made heirs of Glory and thus the New Covenant is of the same Nature kinde with the Old only its Conditions are a little altered made more easie their Performance of the condition must-have a 〈◊〉 with it at least ex pacto though not ex condigno as neither Adam's Perfect obedience could have had And the performers of this condition in this case may reflect upon their own deed lay their weight on it it being their Righteousness may plead upon it as their immediat ground of right before God unto justification Acceptance Let any man now consider these things see whether or not the asserting of faiths being such a condition as this be not a plaine gratification of proud Self the laing down a ground for vaine man to boast of glorying though not-before God yet before others And whether this be not an ascribing more to faith than is done by such as yeelding it to be a condition of the mean appointed of God required of us in order to justification say with all that it is to be considered not in it self nor as an act of our obedience but as an Instrument or mean laying hold upon the Righteousness of Christ without us that it may be ours our onely Righteousness where upon we may expert according to the Gospel justification absolution c. 13. It tendeth too much to blow up proud Self to say That if works of Obedience be not the Condition of our first justification yet they may be called the Condition of our Second justification or of the Continuance of our justification for as the Scripture speaketh nothing of a Second justification so to assert our works to be the Condition thereof is to crosse the argueings of the Apostle manifestly to lay a foundation of glorying for Man for if even Abraham had been justified by works a considerable time after he was first justified and first a beleever he should have had whereof to glory though not before God as saith the Apostle Rom. 4 2. And vers 3. he proveth that he was justified by faith that after he had been a beleever for that passage Abraham beleeved God it was imputed to him for righteousness was not spoken of at his first beleeving so cannot be properly meaned of his First justification onely but some yeers there after therefore must be true of his Second justification if there were any such Yea the just liveth by faith a passage that the Apostle useth as wee have seen to prove justification by faith both here in our Text Rom. 1 17. all alongs both first last so that the beginning continuance of this life of justification is by faith not by works 14. It is also dangerous to say That the work of the Law convining of sin with the Effects Consequences thereof Sorrow griefe Anxiety Legal Repentance c. are either Dispositions Preparations or Conditions of justification or Meritorious thereof by way of Congruity as if there were a certaine constituted connexion betwixt these the blessing of justification made by any Law or promise of God as if none could be justified that had not these sensible affecting Effects going before Sure the asserting of this cannot but contribute much to stirre up foster pride in Man give occasion to think that man himself hath done or suffered something that calleth for procureth in congruity at least meriteth justification CHAP. IV. Justification is so contrived in the Gospel as man may be abased have no ground of boasting THirdly we come to speak to the third thing mentioned above to wit That justification is so contrived begun carried on that man hath no real or apparent ground of glorying before men or of boasting in himself A few particulars will sufficiently cleare this I. The Lord 's ordinary usual Method in bringing His Chosen ones into a justified State is
receive the Adoption of Sones and the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3 13 14. 4 4 5. As it is one thing to finish the Transgression to make an end of sin to make Reconciliation for iniquity another thing to bring-in Everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9 24. Yea the redemption from the Law and from its curse is mentioned as preceeding the other as the finishing of transgression is also mentioned before the bringing-in of Righteousness in the passages cited And thus as these Effects are distinguished though inseparable so is the Cause By the Imputation of Christs Satisfaction we have pardon of sin being redeemed from the curse of the Law by His being made a curse for us by the Imputation of His Rigteousness and obedience we are looked upon as Righteous so have a right to the promise and Inheritance Though we need not thus distinctly consider both save only to demonstrat the necessity of the Imputation of both for Christ by His death did also purchase the Inheritance for us and by His obedience made Satisfaction for sin it being a piece of His Humiliation So that both in the deep wisdom of God make up one cause of that one Effect which comprehendeth all Blessedness that is both pardon of sinnes and Right to the Inheritance c. By the Imputation of both or of this compleat surety-Surety-righteousness of Christ including both beleevers are pardoned and adjudged unto life Hence our pardon and justification are often ascribed unto Christs death not as distinctly considered or as excluding His Righteousness obedience but among other reasons because that was the compleating Act of His obedience and to which all the rest preceeding had a respect as to that which should compleat the whole Meritorious part of His Mediation And hereby His obedience can no more be excluded than His foregoing soul-sufferings Nay His death did presuppose and include His obedience for it was the death of one who had perfectly obeyed the Law which death obedience being His Mediatory work in the state of His Humiliation was a compleat Righteousness for the blessedness advantage of all those for whom He appeared whose debt He undertook to pay 5. That the obedience of Christ must also be imputed to sinners is manifest from this That otherwise they should have no Righteousness at all imputed to them that properly can be called a Righteousness for if nothing but that which is commonly called Christs passive obedience or His Sufferings be imputed there can no Righteousness be said to be imputed for dying and suffering the penalty as such are no righteousness being no obedience to the commands of the Law in conformity to which consisteth proper Righteousness as when one dieth for his crime of Murther he cannot be said to be thereby a righteous man or to have obeyed the Law forbidding Murther nor can we be said properly to have obeyed the Law when Christ in our room did suffer the penalty of death due to us for the breach of it They who are in hell suffering the vengeance of eternal fire cannot be said to be obeying the Law It is true Christ in dying did obey a command Imposed upon Him by the Father but that was no command of the Moral Law prescribed unto man thereafter in dying Suffering He gave no obedience to that Law under the obligation to which we were standing no more than He can be said to have Suffered the penalty while He was obeying the Law these two being so manifestly different So that it is clear that if Christs obedience be not imputed to us no proper Righteousness is or can be said to be imputed to us Yea 6 If Christs obedience be not imputed to us that Law which saith do this and live is not fulfilled but rather abrogated quite abolished and it must be said that not withstanding of that constitution of Gods we live though we neither do this nor is our Cautioners doing of it imputed to us And so we have a right to the Reward get it at lenght without the Righteousness required in order thereunto Let us therefore admire the harmonious perfection of this Effect Work of infinite wisdom I know several things are objected against this Truth as there are many other grounds Reasons adduced for the same but these I shall speak to at more length afterward 7. This is also a mysterie here to be noticed That a Righteousness that is not ours inherently but Christs should be made ours made over to us reckoned upon our score or we become clothed therewith there upon justified as Righteous as really effectually as if we had wrought it our selves and it had been properly inherent in us Socinians Papists Arminians others who will not subject their reason unto this mystery and give credite to Revelation will acknowledge no such imputation of Righteousness but at most do grant but an improper imputation that is an imputation as to Effects so that with them Christ neither Suffered nor obeyed in our stead room but only for our good advantage that too conditionally only in case we beleeve and performe the Gospel-condition But this imputation as to Effects only is no imputation at all there being no thing thereby Imputed not the Righteousness of Christ it self for this they expresly deny nor yet the Effects themselves for we no where read of Imputed Justification Adoption Pardon c. which are the Effects Yea it is not enough to them to deny this Imputed Righteousness but in contempt scorne they call that which we name an Imputed Righteousness a putative Righteousness as if it were a meer imaginary thing But whatever such in decision think or say the Gospel holdeth forth to us a Righteousness imputed or the Righteousness of Christ graciously bestowed upon made over to belevers or freely given unto them so that they are dealt with by God as Righteous Juridically legally or as possessours of such a compleat perfect Righteousness that as really to all Effects as if it had been their own inherently performed by them so had been theirs without any such Imputation And because this as the cause is imputed to them made theirs therefore all the Effects thereof shall really certainely be bestowed upon them in God's appointed time methode This is the Truth which the Gospel holdeth forth to the solide peace joy comfort of Beleevers the full clearing vindicating of which would require a just Treatise I shall therefore here propose but a few clear manifest Grounds of this refreshful comfortable truth leaving the further prosecution vindication of them of other arguments that are used in this matter with the examination of what is objected on the contrary till afterward First therefore we say as Christ who knew no sin was made sin that is had the sinnes of His people laid upon Him imputed to Him so
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-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
sinners before He can be looked upon as a Righteous person or be dealt with as a Righteous person He must first have a Righteousness imputed to him and bestowed upon him for how can God whose judgement is according to truth look upon a person as Righteous and conferre privileges upon him due only to such as are Righteous who is not Righteous indeed Must He not first bestow a Righteousness upon him reckon a Righteousness upon his Score to the end He may be just and Righteous when He is the justifier of him that beleeveth Lastly He said Here is neither peer nor peep of the least ground or reason to perceive that by Righteousness in this Scripture should be meant the Righteousness of Christ. Ans. It is enough that the Text saith Righteousness is imputed for the man here spoken of hath not a Righteousness of his own as the Apostle hath proved in the preceeding Chapters doth here take for granted And therefore this Imputed Righteousness must be the Righteousness of another and it must be such a Righteousness of another as can found free Remission of Sins And whose Righteousness else can this be if it be not Christ's Is there any third competitour here imaginable must it not be the Righteousness of Him whom faith goeth out unto laith hold on in order to justification Must it not be His Righteousness who was the Mediator who laid down the price of Redemption was a propitiation as He told us in the preceeding Chapter Some men in alleiging a difference betwixt a Righteousness imputed to us Sinners and the Righteousness of Christ as if there could be any other Righteousness imputable to us except the Surety-righteousness of Christ as they expresly in this joine with Socinians See Volkel de vera Relig. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 565. with Papists Arminians so they declare themselves utter strangers to the Gospel yea greater strangers than those were against whom the Apostle wrote who took it for granted that if any Righteousness from without or that was not by any thing which we do were imputed it behoved to be the Righteousness of the Mediator And this we may conceive is the reason why the Apostle doth not say in so many express words that it was the Righteousness of Christ for who could have thought of another Fourthly Rom. 5 19. a place with its whole contexture pregnant for our purpose for the Apostle is not onely here confirming but also illustrating this whole matter from the Imputation of Adam's Sin unto his posterity after many various and emphatick expressions used there-anent from vers 12. and forward he saith here vers 19 for as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Socinus de Servat lib. 4. cap. 6. is so bold as to tell us That he supposeth there is nothing written in the Scriptures that hath given us a greater occasion of erring than that comparison betwixt Adam Christ which Paul made did prosecute at length here And he would cleare to us the comparison thus That as by Adam's Sin disobedience it came to passe that all men were condemned and died so by Christ's righteousness and obedience it came to passe that they wero absolvod and did live for Christ by His own Righteousness and Obedience by vertue of the decree of God did penetrate the heavens there to reigne for ever and there he begote eternal life and everlasting blessedness both to Himself and to His. How aliene this is from the whole of the Apostle's discourse needs not be declared seing there is not one word giving the least hint of the Apostle's designe to be to declare how what way Christ obtained power and authority to save Yet He goeth on to tell us That as Adam's fault made him guilty of death whence it came to passe that all mankind that are procreat of him after that guilt is obnoxious to death so Christ by His Righteousness purchased to Himself eternal life whence it cometh te passe that who ever are procreat of him partake of this life But He never once taketh notice that Paul giveth for the ground of all mankind's becoming guilty of death their sinning in him vers 12. even such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression vers 14. yea in every verse this cause is noted or pointed at it being Notour of it self that ifall mankind did sin in Adan Adam's sin must be imputed unto them so Christ's Righteousness must be imputed unto all His inreference to their justification that with a much more Let us now see what Iohn Goodwine excepteth pag. 142. c. It is not here said He said that by the Imputation of Adam's disobedience men are made formally Sinners but simply sinners that is either obnoxious to death and condemnation or else sinners by propagation not Imputation Ans. This is the same upon the matter with Bellarmin's answer de justif lib. 2. cap. 9. here we have a distinction proposed without any explication to wit betwixt simply sinners and formally sinners And what can he meane by formally sinners possibly he meaneth that which otherwise is expressed by inherently sinners And if so though Adam's posterity so soon as they come to have a being have an universal corruption of Nature convoyed by propagation yet that is not it which is properly said to be Imputed for that which is imputed is the guilt of Adam's sin whereby they become sinners that is guilty legally and so obnoxious to punishment death condemnation this is enough for us for as the posterity of Adam have the sin of Adam so imputed to them that they become guilty and obnoxious to wrath so Beleevers have the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and they thereupon are accounted legally righteous 2 Whileas he will not grant that Adam's posterity are sinners by imputation he joineth with the Socinians who turne these words vers 12. 〈◊〉 not in whom but because or whereas which the Ethiopick version doth better sense saying Because that sin is imputed unto all men even unto them who know not what is that sin And the Arabick turne thus seing all have now sinned and the Syriack word is Behi or Bhi which may as well be interpreted in whom as because And in several other places this praeposition so construed as here in the Greek hath this same import as Mark 2. 4. Luk 5 25. 11 22. Rom. 6 21. Phil. 4 10. 1. Thes. 3 7. But enough of this here seing that matter is sufficiently cleared by the orthodox writting against the Socinians and we have also spoken of it against the Quakers Againe saith He Neither doth the Apostle here oppose unto or compare the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as one Act unto or with another but as Satisfaction to and with the provocation or the Remedie to and with the
this satisfie But the matter is plaine Their fault was that they sought after a righteousness by their owne obedience to the law neglected that righteousness which the Gentils attained by faith viz. the Righteousness of Christ at whom they stumbled vers 32. 33. And the Righteousness of God of which they were wholly ignorant Rom. 10 3. This was not a simple endeavour of keeping the law as he hinteth in the following words where he would preoccupy this objection and then tell us that this study could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness as Christians are never further off from justification by keeping the commands of God but a proposeing of that designe of attaining a Righteousness by their own works whereby alone they might be justified And when Christians endeavour after holiness but not from Gospel-principles nor upon Gospel-grounds but to the end they may attaine unto a Righteousness of their owne by their works of obedience they prejudge themselves of justification for thus they do not lay hold on Christ but reject Him and stumble at that stumbling stone that is at Christ who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. 2. He faith neither Calvine nor any other restaine the law to the Moral law Ans. Nor do we so restraine it to that law strikly so taken but comprehend thereby all that God prescribed for a righteousness and this is the Moral law in its full sense the ceremonial judicial being parts thereof appendices thereto 3. He saith There is no reason to limite this to the Moral law only for the jewes sought righteousness by the Ceremonial also Ans. This is but the same with the former and we have told him that the Ceremonial law was then enjoined by the Moral law so the Moral law did comprehend it so long as the Ceremonial law was unrepealed And whatever law it was their seeking of righteousness by it and their refusing of Christ and his Righteousness went together and they so pursued after it that they sought Righteousness by their obedience to it and did not seek by faith after Christs Righteousness nor would they submit thereunto 4. He saith The righteousness of the Moral law alone suppose they should have attained to it by beleeving could have stood them in no stead they being bound also to the observation of the Ceremonial law Ans. This hath been answered before Christ fulfilled all righteousness and satisfied that law of righteousness which was an Universal Rule of righteousness so comprehended the ceremonial lawes so long as they were in force so that if they had forsaken their own righteousness and embraced by faith the righteousness of Christ they had been certainely saved the Imputation of this Righteousness had made them up Lastly he saith The clear sense is that the law of righteousness is justification it self or righteousness simply and indefinitely taken which the jewes seeking to attaine to by the works of the law that is by themselves the merites of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christs lost Gods favour and perished in their sinnes Ans. 1 That the jewes sought after justification by the merites of their own works otherwise than merites are included in all works is not manifest in this place 2 Otherwayes this may passe for part of the sense for by faith he understands the act of faith it self as our righteousness not the Righteousness of Christ which faith laith hold on or faith as laying hold on receiving a Surety-righteousness which is here imported when the contrary is expressed of the jewes of them it is said that they stumbled at that stumbling stone in the next chapter it is said they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God What he addeth as a confirmation of this interpretation is to no purpose for he speaketh nothing to cleare the maine thing in doubt but all is to prove that by the law of righteousness Righteousness is meaned which is not denied withall he taketh for granted what is not proved hath been denied viz. That Righteousness and Justification are one the same thing Seventhly Rom. 10 3 4. A passage cleat pregnant for our purpose where the Apostle is but prosecuting the same purpose as to the jewes and shewing whence their disappointement missing of that came which they so earnestly endeavoured after viz. A righteousnss by which they might be justified before God for saith the Apostle they being ignorant of Gods Righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth There is a Righteousness here called Gods Righteousness which is opposite to inconsistent with mens owne righteousness that is all that is done by them in conformity to the law of God as a righteousness whereupon to be justified yea so great is this opposition that who ever laboures most to establish set on foot his own Righteousness or to seek after a Righteousness by his own performances is furthest from the Righteousness of God as being both ignorant thereof and in pride refuising to submit thereunto This Righteousness of God is explained vers 4. to be the end of the law that is the full righteousness which the law in its primitive institution called for which is the accomplishment of the lawes designe as proposed to be a Rule of Righteousness and the condition of life promised upon the performance thereof And Christ is said to be this end of the law for righteousness He by yeelding perfect obedience hath brought forth a righteousness in which the law hath its End And Christ is this to every one that beleeveth the righteousness being made over unto them who beleeve and by faith lay hold on him which because the Gentiles did they therefore attained to this righteousness Rom. 9 30. Mr. Goodwine pag. 137. c. excepteth several wayes 1 There is saith he no coloure of Reason that by the law here should be meaned precisely determinatly the Moral law because the jewes never dreamed of justification by this law only but chiefly by the Ceremonial law Besides vers 5. he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousness of the law not out of any passage of the Moral law but out of the heart as is were of the ceremonial law Lev. 18 5. Ans. The first part of this Exception hath been often answered we take not the Moral law so precisely determinatly as not to include as parts or appendices all other lawes given by God And the last part of this Exception will say nothing unless he think this law is precisely determinatly to be understood of the Ceremonial law excluding all others especially the Moral law taken as distinct from judicial and ceremonial But why doth he say that this description
of the righteousness of the law is taken out of the heart of Ceremonials seing in the place cited both before and after the words morals are mentioned yea that whole Chapt. is taken up in rehearsing morals Except 2. Neiter is it any wayes agreable to truth that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to beleevers should be called the end of the moral Law for no Law considered simply as such is any cause or meanes of justifing a person than by the observation of it self consequently justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of the moral Law for nothing can properly be said to be the intent or end of a thing but that which in likelyhood may be obtained by it Now it is impossible that justification by Christ should be procured by the moral Law It may be said with a for more favourable aspect to truth that Christ is the end of the Ceremonial Law yet not simply considered as a Law but as comprehending in it such such usages rites typifying Christ. Ans. 1. This whole Exception looketh with a very ill favoured aspect both to truth modesty For its scope drift is not so much against the truth which we maintaine as against the Apostle Paul himself against the language of the Spirit of Lord for it faith this in effect that either the Apostle spoke not truth or spoke not good sense when he said that Christ was the end of the Law for to use Mr. Goodwin's reason as nothing can be properly said to be the Intent or end of a thing but that which in likelihood may be obtained by it so nothing can be said to be the Intent end of a Law but what in likelihood may be obtained by it But how can any think that Christ can be in any likelihood obtained by the Law 2. But we say not that justification by Christ is had by the moral Law yet why the righteousness of Christ consisting in perfect obedience to the Law in full answering of the same in all its demands may not be called the end or fulfulling of the Law I see not especially seing the Apostle saith expresly that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness The question being moved about a Righteousness required by the Law this not being to be found in Man's obedience but in Christ's who was the end of the Law for righteousness the Law hath its full accomplissement in him also when He suffered satisfied the Sanction of the Law the Law had satisfaction or the Law-giver rather the Law its end accomplishement Now this Righteousness of Christ being imputed to beleevers they are thereupon justified the Law is satisfied And though the Law because it was weak throuw the flesh could not bring about this righteousness this end in us yet Christ having answered all the demands of the Law given full Satisfaction both in point of obedience in point of Suffering the Law hath its full accomplishment in Him that End which is here meaned 3 We do not say that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to beleeleevers is or is called the end of the moral Law but that Christ came was made under the Law that He might answer all the demands thereof both satisfie for its violation yeeld perfect obedience unto its commands so fulfill it in all points So that it had its end accomplishment in through Him what He did suffered that He submitted Himself hereunto that He might make up a righteousness wherewith the Law should be satisfied for the justification of Believers 4. Though the Moral Law nor no Law considered in it self can be any cause or meanes of justifying a person otherwise than by the observation of it self though justification by Christ cannot be conceived to be the end of moral Law yet in Christ's obedience Suffering the Law may be said to have received its Accomplishment and Satisfaction thereby a compleat Righteousness may be said to be obtained for all Believers Except 3. The Greek Expositors make Christ in this sense to be called the end of the law for righteousness because he performed or exhibited unto them that which the law propounded to it self as its end would have performed but could not to wit their justification Ans. Seing the law ptopounded their justification as its end only by the perfect observation of it self or by a full perfect conformity unto it Christ cannot be called the end or accomplishment of the law unless He had performed all that which the law required nor could He be called the end of the law for righteousness unless He had fully satisfied the law and thereby made up a Righteousness in the behalfe for the behove of Believers to whom it being Imputed they might be accepted justified upon the account thereof And this righteousness where with the law was satisfied wherin it had its full accomplishment is I grant exhibited in the Gospel to the end that all who would be justified may lay hold on it receive it rest upon it as the only righteousness in and through which they desire to be accepted and to stand before God the righteous judge Except 4. Some conceive that Christ is said to be the end of the law c. Because the law by convinceing men of sin and exacting of them a Righteousness which it doth not enable them to performe againe by threatning condemning them for the want of it it doth as good as lead them by hand to Christ by whom they are freely justified But neither doth this seem to be the meaning of the place Ans. Seing he himself is not satisfied with this interpretation he might have forborne to have added it But as for the interpretation it self I judge the thing said to be true and that it hath a subordinat aspect unto what we have said holdeth forth part of the truth though it be not a plaine and full exposition of the place for there is mention made here of a Righteousness of God which the jewes neither understood not would submit unto but in opposition to this they went about to establish their own righteousness that is to seek after a righteousness by their own works or by their own obedience to the law therefore did misse their end for this righteousness which they were seeking after which they could not attaine unto by all their own acts of obedience that is a righteousness that was a perfect obedience conformity to the law withall a Sufficient compensation Satisfaction for the breaches of the law already committed was only to be found in Christ who is the end of the law for righteousness that is made full Satisfaction for the breaches committed and performed compleat and perfect obedience which the law did principally require what ever other accidental ends it might have had or the law-giver in promulgating
speak of this matter as if Righteousness Sanctification were one the same thing so give us here a most needless Tautologie And others who will not yeeld to imputed Righteousness yet will grant a difference betwixt Righteousness Sanctification must tell us distinctly how He is the one how He is the other to His chosen ones 3. Wisdom Sanctification are of a different Nature from Righteousness for Righteousness cannot be here taken for Inherent Grace Holiness for then it should be the same with Sanctification so there must needs be here a Tautology withall no perfect enumeration of the several great things we stand in need of Christ is made to be unto us of God seing they are different there is ground to say that He is not to us Righteousness the same way that He is Sanctification Sanctification is wrought in us by His Spirit but so is not Righteousness for if we had a Righteousnes wrought in us we should be justified by vertue thereof upon the account thereof if we be justified by a Righteousness within us we are justified by our own works by the law contrary to all the Apostles disput contrary to what preceedeth followeth the words under consideration for then he who glorieth might glory in himself not in the Lord alone 4. Al these particulars here mentioned we must have or finde in Christ as the Aeâ—â—â—opik version hath it each according to its Nature And withall we must be made partakers posâ—essors of them all according as the Nature of the benefite will admit therefore as Christ is forthcoming to His chosen ones for Wisdom so as they may really become wise for Sanctification that they may become holy for Redemption that they may be redeemed so is He forthcoming to His own for Righteousness that they may be justified for though Righteousness justified be not one the same as our Excepter often alleigeth yet they have constant respect to other and are inseparable in our case If then we finde a Righteousness in Christ for justification that Righteousness must be made ours this being a Righteousness that is not our own before it be made our own it must be imputed to us that we may be there by justified He addeth Suppose Christ were made Righteousness unto us by Imputation yet this special manner of his being righteousness to us must be made out by other Scriptures than this as because a rich man hath silver gold jewels in possession it will not follow that he hath silver in one chest and gold in another jewels in a third Ans. Christs being made Righteousness to us who have no Righteousness of our own in order to our justification saith that the Righteousness we have from Him can be no otherwayes ours than by Imputation for it cannot be wrought in us else it should be the same with Holiness Sanctification And therefore the similitude of gold silver jewels is not worth a straw in this case because the dissimilitude is obvious Except 2. The meaning only is this That Christ is made ordained of God to be the author or sole meanes by way of merite of our justification Ans. 1 According to his former exception it will follow hence that He worketh not Holiness Wisdom in us by His Word and Spirit but only is the meanes thereof by way of merite for he will have Christ to be all these particulars to us one the same way 2 This differeth little from the answere of Schlightingius cont Meisnerum p. 250. who saith It is enough that Christs righteousness be the cause of our justification Christ may be said to be made righteousness to us because his righteousness redoundeth to our good and justification 3 It is not said that Christ is made justification to us but it is said He is made Righteousness to us though it is true that He hath merited our justification yet when He is said to be made of God Righteousness to us it is apparent that He bestoweth a Righteousness upon us in order to justification or He must be Righteousness to us ere we be justified how shall we partake of His Righteousness if not by Imputation 4 Christ can not be the Author or sole meanes by way of merite of our justification till we have a Righteousness that is He must be the sole Author Meanes of a Righteousness for we must not say That He hath merited that we shall be justified without a Righteousness it being an abomination to the Lord that even a terrene judge should justifie one that hath no Righteousness If then He hath merited that we shall be justified by having a Righteousness that Righteousness must be within us or without us if within us then He hath merited that we shall be justified by the works of righteousness which we do by the law by the works of the law contrary to the whole Gospel If without us then it must either be Christs own Righteousness or the Righteousness of some other It cannot be the Righteousness of any other as will easily be granted and if it be Christs Righteousness it must be imputed to us to the end it may be ours and we justified thereby and this is the thing we press He addeth to confirme this sense That Righteousness is very frequently used for justification Ans. Thus he gaineth nothing for 1 That will not prove that it is so used here 2 And though it did Import justification here yet seing there is no justification before God without a Righteousness it would say That Christ were our Righteousness too or that He merited a Righteousness for us and what is that Righteousness that He hath procured that we shall have in order to our justification Is it the Righteousness of our own works Then He hath merited that our works shall merite justification why not also glorification Is not this to overturne th◠〈◊〉 Gospel He addeth 2. Righteousness or justification which Beleevers have in or by Christ is still attributed unto His death Sufferings never to His active obedience Ans. But he hath forgetten what is said Rom. 4 25. Who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification Sure His Resurrection was neither His death nor His Sufferings He hath forgotten also what is said Rom. 5 19. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous And to be Righteous and to be justified is all one with him as we have oft-times heard Except 3. This will not say That Christs active obedience only is imputed or that he only by his active obedience is made righteousness to us Ans. I plead not for the sole Imputation of Christs active obedience but for the Imputation of Christs whole Surety Righteousness that is His compleet obedience Suffering or of what He did suffered in answering all the demands of the law
as a cause so is our Righteousness Justification inseparable as the full Effect CHAP. IX Other passages of the N. T. briefly mentioned which plead for this Imputation of Christs Righteousness THere are other passages of Scripture beside these mentioned in the preceeding chapter and against which I finde no Exceptions made by Mr. Goodwine in the forecited Book which yet do with no small clearness and fulness of evidence plead for the truth which we owne to wit The Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto Beleevers in order to their Justification These we shall not insist upon but only mentione in short seing the full insisting upon them will not be necessary after what is said in the Explication Vindication of foregoing passages 1 Rom. 1 17. For therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith The Apostle is here giving a reason proving the Gospel whereof he was not ashamed to be a preacher of to be the power of God unto Salvation that to every one that beleeveth be he jew or be he Gentile viz. Because there is a Righteousness revealed therein which sinners only stand in need of that Righteousness of God that is not only a Righteousness which is devised by God and is accepted in His sight but an excellent Righteousness even the Righteousness of one who is God and a Righteousness revealed for faith to lay hold on receive that which faith leaneth to first and last when it is weakest and when it is strongest that thereby the poor sinner who formerly was dead by law may live as one reconciled to God So that hence we see Sinners have need of a Righteousness and this Righteousness is the Righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel that it may be received by faith and so Imputed made over to the poor sinner in order to his Justification and acceptance with God 2 Rom. 4 11. And he i. e. Abraham received the signe of circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also Here is a Righteousness and a Righteousness called the Righteousness of faith because received applied only by faith and a Righteousness whereof circumsion was appointed a seal granted to Abraham as such and a Righteousness which was imputed to Abraham that he might be the Father of all them that beleeve for it is added that Righteousness might be Imputed to them also And this must be the same Righteousness that was Imputed to Abraham the same way Imputed the same way received that there migt be no essential difference betwixt the way of justification of Father and Children The Aethiopick Version may serve for a commentary and he had circumsion a signe of his righteousness which He gave him and the signe thereof that this might be made known unto him that God justified Abraham by faith when he was not at that time circumcised that they may know that they also are justified by faith 3. Rom. 4 24 25. But for us also to whom it shall be Imputed if we beleeve on Him who raised up tesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences was raised againe for our justification Here is some thing said to be Imputed this must be in order to justification And this that is Imputed cannot be faith it self or our act of beleeving for what is said to be Imputed is promised to be Imputed upon condition of faith or our beleeving on Him who raised up Iesus our Lord. So that it must be the Righteousness of Christ consisting in His Mediatory work which He undertook performed for His owne for it is added that He was delivered for their offences that is He was delivered unto the death to make satisfaction for their sinnes He rose againe that He might declare He had given full Satisfaction that He might apply this Surety-righteousness of His to the end they might be justified Socinus doth not understand this therefore de Servat part 4. p. 333 saith It is most certaine that the Apostle doth not speak of any Imputation of the righteousness of Christ but assert that the faith or credite we give God because He hath called Iesus Christ our Head from death to eternal life shall be accounted unto us in the place of righteousness just as faith whereby Abraham gave credite to the words of God was Imputed to him for righteousness But the Text hereby is manifestly perverted for it saith that some thing shall be imputed if we beleeve which can not be faith but something distinct from faith which is to be Imputed upon condition of faith And what can this be else than the Surety-righteousness of Christ who is here mentioned as dying riseing in the place and for 〈◊〉 good of His people that they might be justified And further if it were faith it self that were here said to be Imputed in order to justification the justified man should not be one that is in himself ungodly because he hath a Righteousness in himself and he who hath a Righteousness in himself is not ungodly yet it is said Rom. 4 5. That God justifieth the ungodly Againe That which is Imputed must be a Righteousness without works vers 6. but if faith it self be Imputed a work is Imputed and not a Righteousness without works and this would also lay down a ground of boasting make the reward of debt not of grace v. 14. 4. Rom. 10 10. For with the heart man beleeveth unto Righteousness with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation The Apostle had been before vers 4. telling us That Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth thereafter he discriminateth the way of justification by the law and by the Gospel under the Notion of a Righteousness which is of the law and a Righteousness which is of faith then more particularly he describeth the Righteousness of faith or a Righteousness is had unto Salvation in through faith vers 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus shalt beleeve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved which he proveth in the 10. vers now cited therein sheweth how by this beleeving that God hath raised the Lord Jesus from the dead Salvation is brought about viz. That by beleeving with the heart a Righteousness is obtained received and this righteousness must be Christs even His Surety-righteousness for faith looketh on Him as raised from the dead that by God as having now received full Satisfaction from Him thereupon bringing Him as it were out of prison And in the Text cited we see that by faith a Righteousness is received or faith is the way unto the possession of a Righteousness as Confession is the
way unto Salvation or as the actual possession of Salvation is had by Confession And as Confession it self is not Salvation but the way thereto and the mean thereof so faith it self is not the Righteousness but the way thereunto and the meane or medium thereof 5. Gal. 2 21. I do not frustrat the grace of God for if Righteousness come by the law Christ is dead in vaine Whence we see that a Righteousness must be had and that this cannot be had by the law or by our obedience to the law but by Christ to deny this is in plaine termes to frustrat the grace of God to say that Christ is dead in vaine And if we look back to vers 16. forward we shall see that the Apostle is speaking of justification by faith in opposition to the works of the law that is by faith in Jesus Christ receiving a Righteousness which He hath wrought in His estate of Humiliation 6. Gal. 3 21 22. For if there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Iesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Whence we see that Righteousness is required unto life viz. the life of justification and by whatever way life is had by the same is Righteousness had and that neither life nor Righteousness is had by the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ and both are held forth in a free promise given to the Beleever in Christ. 7. Gal. 4 4 5. But when the fulness of the time was come God sent forth His Son made of a Woman made under the law to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the Adoption of sones Christ we see was made under the law that to redeem such as were under the law that they might be freed from what they were liable to by the law and by being under the law and withall receive the Adoption of sones which necessarily taketh in His Obedience as the Aethiopik Version explaineth it saying He was begotten of a Woman was a doer of the command in the law And that His Sufferings are here included is plaine from the one end assigned that he might redeem them who were under the law or under the lawes curse The end therefore here being twofold viz. Deliverance from under the law and receiving the Adoption of sones the Cause must have a subtableness thereunto and say That this compleat Righteousness comprehending both must be Imputed unto us for the ends mentioned 8. Gal. 5 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of Righteousness by faith Whether we take here the hope of Righteousness for justification as the Aethiopick Version doth translating the words thus and we in the Holy Spirit and in faith hope to be justified to which also the scope may give some countenance or for the Recompence of glory which is the thing hoped for that which we intend will be equally confirmed for if Justification be immediatly here spoken of it is manifest that hereunto a Righteousness is requisite and that this Righteousness is had by faith and so is not in our selves and therefore must be the Righteousness of Christs unto whom faith carrieth forth the soul of whom he spoke vers 4. Saying Christ is become of none effect unto you who soever of you are justified by the law If glory be here immediatly intended we may see that the Apostle to perswade the Galatians not to seek after a Righteousness by the law tels them what he others did and were resolved to do to wit how they ventured their whole Salvation on the truth he delivered for they waited and looked for heaven and happiness which is here called hop by a Metonymy not by the works of the law for heaven with them was not the hop of the law or of the works of the law but by the Righteousness of faith that is by through that Righteousness which is by faith therefore it is called the hope of Righteousness by faith that is that which they hope for through the help of the Spirit and expect in through the Righteousness of Christ which Righteousness is had by faith in Christ that this Righteousness is none else but the Righteousness of Christ the following verse cleareth where he saith for in Iesus Christ c. 9. Philipp 3 8 9. That I may win Christ be found in Him not having mine own Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith This place is so clear and full that by speaking much of it we may rather darken it than explaine it We see what was the maine thing Paul designed in opposition to what he once intended and sought after what he did formerly look upon as gaine and was hote in the pursuite of he now had no better account of than of as much loss dung yea he had no better esteem of all things beside Christ in this judgment he persisted accounting all but dung that he might win Christ have Him for all his gaine And what would he make of Christ He would be found in Him hid in Him covered with Him and united to Him In opposition to this he desireth not to be found in or having on his own righteousness which is of the law thereby showing us That it was the Righteousness of Christ he desired to be clothed with and found in therefore addeth but that i. e. that Righteousness which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith The he was seeking is the Righteousness of God and which is of God by faith and is had through the faith of Christ and all this was said in opposition to the way that the dogs the evil workers the concision mentioned vers 2. were crying up and following viz. the observation of the law in order to justification 10. Hebr. 11 7. By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Where there is a Metonymy the Cause puth for the Effect Righteousness put for that life which is had by this righteousness which sheweth â—hat a righteousness is necessarily required unto the life of acceptance with God and unto Salvation and that this righteousness is not in or of our selves but in and from another for it is had by faith and therefore is called the Righteousness which is by faith and faith layeth hold on no Righteousness but on that which is Christs These and other passages which might be mentioned are evident proofs of the Truth we are asserting with all such as are unprejudiced in the point beside all those passages which prove justification not to be by the works of the law but by faith for they also confirme this truth That in order to our justification and
if it were necessary but we said enough of this in answere to the foregoing objection He saith 3. The works of the law are never the less the works of the law because performed by Christ. Ans. Yet when performed by Christ they are not the works of the law done by us who did lye under the obligation and by the Imputation of such an obedience as was performed by Christ we have no ground of boasting or of glorying either before God or Man and it is against such an obedience to the law as the ground of justification as doth not exclude glorying or boasting and such as consisteth in works of Righteousness which we have done is exclusive offree grace that the Apostle disputeth He saith 4. This righteousness is said to receive testimony from the law that is from that part of Scripture which is often called the law and from the Propheâ—â— Now neither of these give any testimony to such a Righteousness but to a Righteousness procured or derived upon a man by faith Gen. 15 6. Hab. 2 4. Ans. It is true this Righteousness receiveth testimony from the law and from the writtings of the Prophets we plead for no other Righteousness but such as is so testified of hath the concurrent consent both of the O. and of the N. Testament Both law Prophets that spoke of the seed of the Woman of the Messiah of His being the Lord our Righteousness or spoke of the peoples duty in reference to Him as such did bear witness to this Truth 2 What is that Righteousness which is here said to be procured or derived upon a Man by faith Is it the Righteousness of Christ Then the cause is yeelded Is it the Righteousness of men themselves Then justification by works is established the whole Gospel is overthrown And how I pray can this besaid to be procured or derived upon a man by faith The places cited speak of no such thing but have a far contrary Import as may hereafter appear He saith 5. This Righteousness of God is said to be unto all upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through faith by way of opposition to the works of the law Now between Faith the works of the law there is a constant opposition but between the law and the works of righteousness of Christ there is no opposition Ans. 1 If this Righteousness be unto and upon all by or through faith it must of necessity be the Righteousness of another in bringing home and applying of which faith is an Instrument to this way of bringing in the Righteousness of God by faith from without is the seeking of Righteousness by our own works or by our own acts of obedience to the law manifestly opposite irreconcilable this is the opposition which the Scripture alwayes maketh betwixt justification by the law by faith as the very Scriptures cited by himself make manifest to wit Rom. 3 27 28. 4 13 14. 9 32. 10 5 6. Gal. 2 16. 3 5 11 12. c. 2 This argument all the steps of its prosecution make against himself who will have our act of faith to be the Righteousness of God though it be no where so called cannot be that which is by or through faith for faith is not by or through faith nor doth faith become a Righteousness by or through faith nor is faith as our act against the law otherwise it should be no act of obedience but a piece of willworship and consequently no righteousness at all but an unrighteousness a plaine disobedience or a work of Supererogation nor do the law or Prophets any where testify to this as our Righteousness Thirdly Chap. 5. pag. 73. He reasoneth from Rom. 5 16 17. thus The gift of righteousness as it is called vers 17. which is by Christ in the Gospel is said vers 16. to be a free gift of many offences unto justification that is the forgiveness of many offences cannot be a perfect legal righteousnes imputed unto vs or made ours by Imputation but the righteousness which is by Christ in the Gospel is the gift of many offences Ergo c. The Major he thus confirmeth That righteousness which extends unto a mans justification by the forginess of sins can be no perfect legal righteousness imputed But the righteousness of Christ in the Gospel by which we are justified extendeth unto a mans justification by the forgiveness of sins Ergo c. The Major of this he thus proveth Because a legal or perfect righteousness doth not proceed to justifie a mans person by way of forgiveness of sinnes but is of it self intrinsecally essenâ—ially a man's justification â—t yea such a justification with which forgiveness of sins is not competible for what need hath he that is legally righteous or hath a legal righteousness imputed to him of forgiveness of sins when as such a rightousness excluded all sin all guilt of sin from his person To all which I ans 1 The Major propos of the two Syllogisâ—es is true only of a perfect righteousness wrought by our selves in conformity to the law and not of the Righteousness of another imputed to us which though it may be called legal as to Christ as consisting in perfect obedience conformity to the law yet is rather to be called Evangelical as to us upon the account of its discovery and revelation and manner of communication unto us 2 The confirmation of the Major is likewise only true of a righteousness performed by our selves for that indeed excludeth all Remission and therefore if our faith be accounted our righteousness as he faith it must be our justification so inconsistent with free forgiveness 3 As to the Scripture where upon all this founded I say The text saith not that our righteousness is only free forgiveness but that in reference to pardon free forgiveness there is a gift bestowed that this gift by grace which aboundeth unto many is attended with free forgiveness as a necessary consequent It is the free gift that cometh upon all men unto justification vers 18. that by which many are made righteous vers 19. therefore is called the gift of righteousness vers 17. He objecteth against himself thus A man's sins are first forgiven him and then this perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed unto him and so he is justified But this is not the thing we would say but on the contrary That first the perfect Righteousness of Christ is imputed whereupon the beleever is justified pardoned Let us hear his answer 1. He saith If we will needs distinguish the effects of the active passive obedience of Christ so as from the active part to fetch a perfect righteousness for Imputation from the passive remission of sins yet whether it be any wayes reasonable to invert the order I leave to sober consideration Christ did not first die after
death keep the law therefore reason requireth that what is first purchased should be first received applied Ans. I see no necessity of distinguishing after this manner the Effects of Christ's active passive obedience but judge it best to keep as conjoined what divine wisdom hath firmerly inseparably joined together But though we should thus needlesly distinguish these effects yet there is no necessity of saying That Christ's obedience because first existing should be first imputed unto justification and then His death to Remission for neither do we assigne justification to His active obedience only nor is the same order to be observed in the application of the Effects that was observed in Christ's performance of what was laid upon Him and required of Him as our Sponsor for the Nature of the thing required that Christ should first have obeyed before He died on the other hand the condition of sinners requireth that they be first justified and pardoned before they have a right to all the Effects of Christ's active obedience imputed 2. He saith If a man hath once sinned it is not any legal righteousness what so ever imputed that can justifie him Ans. This is granted But in order to justification we say That Christ's whole Surety-righteousness is imputed this comprehendeth both His active His passive obedience so usually distinguished 3. He saith If a mans sins be once forgiven him he hath no need of any further righteousness for his justification because forgiveness of sins reacheth home amounteth unto a full justification with God Ans. If justification were nothing else but forgiveness of sins there would be some colour for this but in justification there is also an accepting of the man as righteous to this a meer pardon of sins will not serve for a Righteousness is hereunto requisite pardon of sins and Righteousness are not one thing It is false then to say as he addeth That this is all the justification the Scripture knowes or speaks of the forgiveness of sins or acquiting from condemnation For both according to Scripture and the native import and universal usage of the word justification denoteth a constituting legally and declaring solemnely a person to be righteous or free of the accusation given in against him or a pronouncing of an accused man to be righteous therefore supposeth when the sentence is just that the person is a righteous person in our case the sentence of God being according to truth the person justified having no righteousness of his own must be clothed with the Surety-righteousness of Christ as Surety Head Husband imputed to him received by faith He addeth That righteousness which we have by Christ and where with we are said to be justified is only a negative righteousness not a positive It is nothing else but a non-Imputation of sin which I therefore call a Righteousness by Imputation as having the privileges but not the nature substance of a perfect legal righteousness Ans. A Righteousness not positive but meerly negative is no righteousness at all for a true Righteousness is a positive conformity unto the law the Rule of Righteousness and as the Righteousness is but negative and Interpretatively such so must the justification be that is founded thereupon He thinketh to prove this from Rom. 4 6 7 8. addeth a Righteousness without works must needs be a negative or privative Righteousness The Imputation of righteousness vers 6. is interpreted vers 7 8. to be a not imputing of sin Ans. The place cited as we declared above giveth no countenance unto this sense of the word justification but evinceth rather the contrary A righteousness without our works which is the Apostles meaning may be is no negative nor privative Righteousness but a positive full and compleat Righteousness being the Surety-righteousnes of Christ the Sponsor and the Text saith not That this Righteousness is nothing else than a non-Imputation of sin but inferreth rather the Imputation of Righteousness as the cause from the Non-Imputation of sin as the Effect and all this to prove that justification is not by the works of the law He tels us that we have the like description of this Righteousnes 2 Cor. 5. that which vers 19. he calls in God the not imputing of our sins unto us he calls in us vers 21. a being made the righteousness of God in Him Ans. This is a plaine perversion of the scope of the meaning of the words for vers 21. the Apostle is giving the ground reason of what was said vers 19. showing how this Reconciliation Non-Imputation of sin is founded what is the special ground thereof as appeareth by the particle for vers 21. for He hath made Him sin c. He saith This is most plaine Act. 13 38 39. where forgiveness of sins is immediatly thereafter called justification Ans. All that can be hence inferred is that in justification sins are pardoned or that such as have forgiveness of sins are justified or that these do inseparably go together But no appearance of proof here that they are both one thing or that in justification there is no more but pardon of sins He prosecuteth this purpose yet further saying This is the most usual proper signification of the word justifie not to signify the giving or bestowing of a compleat positive righteousness but only an acquiting or discharging setting a man free from guilt penalty due unto such things as were laid to his charge Ans. 1 Nor do we say that justification signifieth such a giving bestowing of a compleat positive Righteousness but that it signifieth a declaring pronouncing of a person to be righteous therefore presupposeth this giving or be stowing of a compleat Righteousness for the man whom God declareth pronounceth to be Righteous must be Righteous seing he hath no Righteousness of his own he must have his Suretie's Righteousness imputed to him 2 And so in this sense justification is an acquitting or setting a man free from the guilt penalty due to such things as were laid to his charge for he is pronounced Righteous But it is not a simple discharge of the person from the guilt and penalty upon a pardon Remission for a pardoned man is not a justified man but rather is supposed to be guilty is pardoned because guilty He proceedeth In the Scripture it is usually opposed to condemning Prov. 17 15. Where by justifying the wicked nothing is meart but the making of them just in the rights privileges of just men which are freedom from censure punishment c. So that by justifying the wicked nothing else is meant but the not condemning of him Rom. 8 33 34 5 19. Therefore by justifying nothing else is meant but acquitting from condemnation so to be justified live are equipollent Gal. 3 11 21. Esai 53 11. Ans. 1 That justifying is opposed to condemning is granted but this
Right to the reward as to this State whatever we shall conceive as the forme thereof it must be a Righteousness consequently the Righteousness of Christ imputed for sinners can have no other Obj. 12. If the meritorious cause of our justification be imputed unto us thon the Effects themselves of this cause may be imputed to us also so we may be said to have merited both our own justification salvation for if I may be accounted or reputed to have wrought that Righteousness which is meritorious why may I not be conceived as well to have merited Nay further if I may be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness in Christ whereby I am justified my self I may as well be conceived to have wrought that Righteousness by which the whole world is justified Ans. This is but a meer sophisme founded upon a mistake The consequence is false the proof thereof standeth only upon this rotten bottome That to say That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us is to say that we are reputed esteemed or accounted to have done or wrought that Righteousness our selves whileas the true meaning of Imputation is this That the Righteousness of Christ is made over by grace unto Beleevers reckoned upon their score where by they are dealt with now no other wayes than if they had fulfilled all Righteousness in their own person Whence it is clear that the Effects cannot be said to be imputed to us but only that we partake of the Effects thereofs so far as our own Necessity requireth As the Ransom payed for the Redemption of so many captives is imputed to each of the captives in order to his owne Redemption to none of them as Redemption of others without this Imputation or reckoning it upon their score as the price of their Redemption no man could have right to the Effects thereof in reference to himself or could be redeemed thereby So that it is manifest that through the meritorious cause or the righteousnes of Christ imputed to us we obtaine justification Salvation but do not merite them our Redeemer Surety meriteth them for us we enjoy what He merited for our own happiness It is false then to say That by Imputation we are conceived to have wrought that righteousness in Christ whereby we are justified therefore it cannot but be most false to think That we may be conceived to have wrought that righteousness also by which others are justified for it was only our Head Husband Surety Redeemer who wrought it free grace imputed it to or reckoneth it upon the score of Beleevers Obj 13. chap. 18. pag. 165. If the active Righteousness of Christ be in the letter formality of it imputed unto me in my justification then I am reputed before God to have wrought that righteousness in Christ. But this is false c. Ans. Neither proposition is true The Major is denied unless by these word letter and formality he understand such an Imputation as we do not acknowledge his words would seem to import this for saith he in confirmation of the Major to have any thing imputed to a man in the letter of it is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him And if this be the only sense of his proposition the conclusion maketh not against us for we asserte no such Imputation as inferreth such a Reputation Nay to say That God should repute things so were to destroy all Imputation for what God whose judgment is according to truth â—eputeth us to have done we must have done it if we have really done it be reputed to have done it by the Lord it cannot be said to be imputed to us in the sense we take Imputation for Imputation with us is of that which we have not or did not which God knoweth judgeth we did not yet is by Imputation so made over to us put upon our score reckoned upon our account as that we are as really made partakers of the Effects thereof that is of justification c. As if we had done it ourselves or it had been ours without before any Imputation Hence the beleever is made the righteousness of God in Christ not reputed or esteemed to have been the righteousness of God but now through the gracious Imputation of God through faith made to be so Hence we see that the proof of his Minor goeth upon the same Mistake if saith he I be reputed before God to have wrought Righteousness in Christ in my justification then is Christ in His Sufferings reputed before God to have sinned in me Ans. We say neither the one nor the other Christ did not sinne in us nor did the Lord repute Him to have done so But he was made sin by Imputation the guilt of sin being laid upon Him or our sinnes as to their guilt being caused to meet on Him Whence it came to passe that He suffered as really the punishment of sin as if He had sinned in us whileas as to His own person He knew no sin neither was deceit found in His mouth Obj. 14. pag. 166. If the Active obedience of Christ be imputed then His Passive is imputed also Ans. And why not If the death Sufferings of Christ saith he be imputed unto me then may I be accounted or reputed to have died or suffered in Christ. But this cannot be because in Christ we are justified absolved from punishment therefore cannot be said to have been punished in Him Ans. This whole Argument is of a piece with the foregoing Though therefore it be upon the matter answered already Yet we shall adde this word further That though in one sense it is false to say That we are reputed to have died Suffered in Christ viz physically yet in a legal sense it may be admitted as a truth that Beleevers who now by faith are in Christ of His Body are accounted reputed to have suffered in Christ their Head Surety Publick person therefore are now dealt with as such Hence they are said to be crucified with Christ to be dead buried with Him to be risen with Him Rom. 6 4 5 6. Ephes. 2 5 6. Col. 2 12. Yet it will not follow hence that in a legal sense Christ can be said to have sinned in us for we were not His Representative or Head Though the debtor may be said in Law sense to have paid his creditor in his Suretys payment Yet the Surety cannot be said to be contracting debt in the debtor for the debtor's deed cannot affect him untill he voluntarily submit himself to be Surety where may be after the debt is already contracted by the debtor And to say in this Law sense that Beleevers Suffered in Christ doth not weaken the ground of our justification absolution Acceptation Healing as is manifested above unless we turn Socinians then upon this same ground we
posterity after him into the same condemnation And how could they be punished for that same guilt if it was not some way theirs by the just righteous Judge Governour of the world The posterity can no more be justly punished for the great hainous sins of their progenitors than for their lesser sinnes if they have no interest in these sinnes nor partake of the guilt thereof But as to Original sin the Scripture giveth the Sin as the ground of the punishment maketh the one to reach all as well as the other telling us Rom. 5 12. that by one Man sin â—ntered in to the world death by sin so death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned or in whom all have sinned See vers 19. 2. The Narrownese or scantisness of Adam's Person who could not beat that fulness of punishment which God might require for that great sin we cannot think that God should sit down with loss Ans. This is his second pillar But neither is it sufficient for God could have punished Adam condingly for his sin but when the posterity is punished for that sin also that sin must be theirs Though for great crimes as Treason the like the Posterity suffeâ—eth when the guilty is forfeited I yet the posterity are not properly punished for that sin nor can be said to be so as we are punished for Original sin because it is ours we sinned in Adam 3. His 3d. maine pillar is the peculir near relation of the posterity of Adam to his person for then they were in it as it were a part or some what of it so that Adam was us all we were all that one Adam as Augustine speaketh the whole generation of mankind is but Adam or Adam's person expounded at large Ans. This is sufficient for us for it will hold forth the Covenant relation wherein Adam stood as representing all his posterity so they were as well in him a part of him in his sin as in his punishment which is all we desire for hence it appeareth that all sinned in that one Adam as well as they were all punished in him Then he tels us that all these three are jointly intimat Râ—â— 5 12. Where first there is the demerito Imported when death is said to enter the scantiness of Adam's person when it is said to have passed upon all men the relation of his posterity to him in that all are said to have sinned in him Ans. But the maine thing which he denieth is there also imported when it is said that all men sinned in him or became guilty of his sin for thereby it is manifest that only they had an interest in his person but that they had such an Interest in relation to his person as so stated as standing in a Covenant-relation to God that they sinned in him or became guilty of his sin therefore suffered with him the demerite thereof Whence it is evident howbeit he seemeth confident of the contrary pag. 207. That the Imputation of Adam's sin or of his sinful Act as sinful or as it was a sin not of the act as such for that himself faith once againe was directly efficiently from God himself therefore was good is the ground or cause of punishment that cometh on his posterity But he saith pag. 208. If any Imputation be in this case it is of every mans own sin in Adam for is was Adam alone that sinned but all sinned in him It is not said that Adam's sin is Imputed to his posterity but rather that his posterity themselves sinned in Adam Ans. If he wil stand to this we need not contend with him about the word Impute this expression of Scripture comprehending plainely holding forth all that we would say And if he will grant as much in reference to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as is here said of Adam who was the type of him that was to come he must I judge retract all that he hath said against the same What followeth in that Chapter being but founded upon what is already mentioned examined needeth not here againe be repeated or expressed considered Thus we have taken notice of all which this voluminous Adversary hath said upon this matter both against the Truth for his own Errour no doubt he hath scraped together all that he could finde giving any seeming contribution unto the Notion which he hugged hath laboured after his usual manner to set of with a more than ordinary measure of confidence with an affected pedantrie of language supplying with bombast expressions the want of reality of truth solidity of reasoning What remaineth in that book concerning the Imputation of faith in opposition to the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ shall be examined when we come to the second part of our Text to speak of the matter of justification And as for other things we may take notice of them elsewhere CHAP. XIII M. Baxter's opinion Concerning Imputation examined THere being so frequent mention made in Scripture of Imputation of Righteousness or of Righteousness Imputed of Christ's being our Righteousness or of our being Righteousness or Righteous in Him the like many that even plead much against the Doctrine of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ maintained by the orthodox must yet yeeld to it in some sense or other at least in such a sense as may in their apprehensions not cross their other Hypotheses Dogmes Yea sometimes grant this Imputation in that sense at least in words which overthroweth or weakeneth all their Disputations to the contrary Schlightingius in defence of Socinus against Meisnerus pag. 250. will grant That Christ's Righteousness may be called accounted ours in so far as it redoundeth to our good righteousness is the cause of our justification And Bellarmin will also say de just lib. 2. cap. 10. That Christ is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the father for us so giveth communicateth that Satisfaction to us when He justifieth us that it may be said to be our Satisfaction Righteousness Mr. Baxter though he seemeth not satisfied with what is commonly hold by the Orthodox anent the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ yet will not professe himself an Enemie to all Imputation but on the contrary saith he owneth it in a right sense And it is true men have their own liberty in expressing their sense meaning of Truths where there seemeth to be some considerable difference as to words expressions yet there may be little or none upon the matter And it is not good I confess to make real differences of these that are but verbal nor is it good to be so tenacious of our own expressions as to exaggerat the expressions of others whose meaning may be good because not complying with our own in all points Let us
therefore enquire after Mr. Baxter's sense see wherein he really differeth from us in this matter In his late Treatise of justifying Righteousness against D. Tully The first part as the Title page sheweth is of Imputed Righteousness opening defending the true Sense confuting the false Here then belike we shall finde his meaning as to this question In his preface to this book he giveth us his sense in these words That Righteousness is imputed to us that is we are accounted Righteous because for the merites of Christ's total fulfulling the conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father by His Habitual Holiness His Actual perfect Obedience His Sacrifice or Satiâ—factory Suffering for our sins in our stead freely without any merite or conditional act of mans God hath made an act of oblivion Deed of Gift pardoning all sin justifying Adopting giving Right to the Spirit Life eternally to every one that beleevingh accepteth Christ the gifts with by from Him when we accept them they are all ours by vertue of this purchased Covenant-gift But this I Judge cannot give satisfaction for upon the grant of the Act of Oblivion as he calleth it which in his judgment is extended to all Mankind no man in particular can be called or accounted Righteous or have Righteousness imputed to him more than another so upon this account all are equally Righteous have equally Christ's Righteousness imputed to them that is no man hath it As for these Effects pardon justification Adoption Right to the Spirit to Life they cannot be called the Righteousness of Christ no more than the Effect can be called the cause And though they become ours when we accept them or rather when we accept of Christ yet upon that account meerly it can not be said that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us no otherwayes for that is nothing but the Socinian Concession formerly mentioned it cannot Satisfie the orthodox The questin is about the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the Answer given is concerning the Effects thereof given to us But these Effects are not the Righteousness of Christ nor are they to be called a Righteousness nor are they in Scripture so called unless we say with Ioh. Goodwin that Righteousness Imputed is nothing but free justification Yea these Effects must presuppose a Righteousness in the persons receiving them either Inherently or by way of Impuâ—ation for God will justifie no man or declare no man to be Righteous who is not Righteous And concerning this Righteousness is our question And Mr. Baxter giveth us nothing here for this unless it be our beleeving this is that which Servetus Socinians Arminians say In opposition to this which he calleth a short plaine explication of Christianity he setteth down what others say as necessary to go in to our Christianity so tels us that according to them we must say That Christ was habitually actually perfectly Holy obedient imputatively in our particular persons thath each one of us did perfectly fulfill that Law which requireth perfect habites act in and by Christ imputatively and yet did also in by him suffer ourselves imputatively for not fulfilling it imputatively did ourselves both satisfie God's justice and merite heaven and that we have ourselves imputatively a Righteousness of Perfect holiness obedience as sinless must be justified by the Law of Innocency or works as having ourselves imputatively fulfilled it in Christ. And that this is our sole-righteousness that faith it self is not imputed to us for Righteousness no not a meer particular subordinat Righteousness answering the conditional part of the new justifying Covenant as necessary to our participation of Christ His freely given Righteousness As touching the latter part of this discourse about the Imputation of Faith its being called our particular subordinat Righteousness it is true Several of the Orthodox have appeared against it we shall also speak our judgment of it hereafter But as to the former part which is only pertinent to our purpose now in hand I know not if ever any Orthodox person uttered his minde after this manner Yea I wote not if Antinomians themselves have at any time expressed themselves in all points as is here set down But be it so that they have thus expressed their meaning that these expressions here set down are not meer Consequences Inferences drawn by Mr. Baxter himself from their opinions assertions yet Mr. Baxter cannot but know that the Orthodox are against them in these assertions as well as he to me it appeareth no faire to set down these words as containing that opinion which all must hold who cannot fully embrace Mr. Baxter's owne judgment as if there were no Medium betwixt the Socinian or Arminian judgment on the one hand the Antinomian opinion on the other hand whileas he cannot but know the contrary Nether is this a â—â—t sure way to cleare up the true sense of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness at least that sense which we owne In the Book pag. 24. he againe setteth down his own judgment or sense of Imputation which he taketh to be the true healing middle way Part whereof is as followeth That as Christ suffered in our stead that we might not suffer and obeyed in our Nature that perfection of obedience might not be necessary to our justification and this in the person of a Mediator and Sponsor for us sinners but not so in our persons as that we truely in a moral or civil sence did all this in and by him Even so God reputeth the thing to be as it is and so far Imputeth Christ's Righteousness and Merites and Satisfaction to us as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious Cause of our justification that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace in which he freely giveth Christ pardon and life to all that accept the gift as it is so that the Accepters are by this Covenant and Gift as surely justified and Saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had obeyed and satisfied themselves Not that Christ meriteth that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves and stand before God in a Righteousness of our own which will answere the Law of works and justify us but that the Conditions of the GÃft in the Covenant of Grace being performed by every penitent Beleever that Covenant doth pardon all their sins as God's Instrument and giveth them a Right to life eternal for Christ's merites As to this though it may seem faire a far advancement yet I shall crave leave to say these few things against it 1. When he saith That Christ suffered in our stead I would know in whose stead it was Whether it was in the stead of some select persons or in stead of all If in the stead of some select persons only then these select persons must
to be in another manner in Him than any others whatever 9. He addeth so far imputeth Christ's Righteousness as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious cause of our justification But it was reputed and estimate so to be before this Imputation for it was accepted as such therefore Imputation must denote something more than this Reputation even a reckoning of it as it were now upon their Scoce and accounting it theirs or them to have a full special and actual Interest therein in order to their justification and absolution from the charge of guilt and death brought in against them whereby they are accounted and reckoned to be Righteous because of that Imputation therefor pronounced such in justification so that now it is the objectum formalâ— or the ratio formales objectiva of our justification 10. When he addeth that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace if those words mean that in this also Christ's Righteousness is said to be imputed then it seemeth it is equally imputed unto all Adam's posteâ—ity for with him all are comprehended within this Covenant But this were as much as to say it is imputed to none in particular Moreover it may be thought that this is explicative of what went immediatly before so Christ's righteousness shall be repute the true Meritorius Cause of our justification in that it was the Meritorious cause of the Covenant of Grace now hereby the immediat ground of justification will be the gospel-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
contrary to the manifest scope of the place He tels us n. 36. pag. 61. It is an errour contrary to the scope of the Gospel to say that the Law of Works or of Innocency doth justifie us as performed either by our selves or by Christ for that Law condemneth curseth us we are not efficiently justified by it but from or against it Ans. I shall not say that we are justified by the Law of works efficiently yet I hope Mr. Baxter will not say that upon the fall that Law or Covenant was quite abolished annulled if it was only dispâ—nsed with in order to the admitting of a Surety which it did not provide or give place to in its primitive Institution we may saifly say That it must be satisfied both as to the commands as to the penalty ere we can escape wrath obtaine Life for this Law said as himself confesseth pag. 63. Obey Perfectly Live sinne dye And though it condemne curse us sinners Yet it hath nothing to say against our Surety nor against any clothed with His Surety-righteousness whereby all the demands of this Law and Covenant were Satisfied Hence he inferreth n. 37. Therefore we have no Righteousness in Reality or Reputation formally ours which consisteth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the Law of Innocency we are not reputed Innocent But only a Righteousness which consisteth in Pardon of all sin right to Life with sincere performance of the condition of the Covenant of Grace that is true faith Ans. If by formally ours he mean Inherently ours I grant what he here saith but I deny it if by formally ours he meane that by which we may be denominated formally Righteous for by Imputation we have a Righteousness whereby we are formally righteous legally Juridically this Righteousness must needs consist in conformity to the Lawes commands It is true we are not repute inherently Innocent Yet we are repute non-sinners legally hence cometh our Pardon Right to Life which of it self is no Righteousness but the Result of a Righteousness So that with him Beleevers have no Righteousness in order to justification but faith the Gospel Righteousness as was said above this he saith here in effect yet more plainely fully pag. 64. He addeth n. 38. pag. 62. our Pardon puts not away our guilt of fact or fault but our guilt of and obligation to punishment God doth not repute us such as neversinned or such as by our Innocency merited heaven but such as are not to be damned but to beglorified because pardoned Adopted through the Satisfaction merites of Christ. Ans. Though pardon as pardon will do no more than he here granteth Yet Righteousness justification presupposing Righteousness will take away the Reatum culpae not as if it would make us such as never sinned for that is Impossible but because by Righteousness imputed we are now reputed sinless Legally that is not guilty of the fact in order to punishment this must be that we may not only not be damned but may be glorifeed according to the Constitution that said Obey perfectly live And though now every pardoned man shall be glorified Yet that is not meerly and formally upon the account of Pardon but because no man is pardoned till he have the compleet Righteousness of Christ consisting in obedience and iâ— Suffering imputed to him whereby beside pardon he obtaineth a right to glory He cometh to cleare the matter of Imputation of Christ's Righteouss by the Imputation of Adam's sin which is a good Medium the Apostle going before us herein Rom. 5. And though he saith somethings n. 41. p. 65. wherewith I am not Satisfied yet I passe because not much to our present purpose come to n. 42. p. 66. where he saith As Adam was an head by Nature therefore conveyed guilt by Natural Generation so Christ is a Head not by nature but by Sacred contract therefore conveyeth right to pardon Adoption and Salvation not by Generation but by Contract or Donation So that what was to be Naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personally in existence even that it is in order to our benefite by Him to be in Christ by contract or the New Covenant virtually though not in personal existence when the Covenant was made Ans. As Adam was an Head by Nature so was he by Covenant and as Christ is an head by Covenant so is He an Head by supernatural Influences and conveyeth His blessings by Regeneration as well as by Covenant And therefore what was to be Naturally in Adam seminally and virtually though not personally in existence that is to be in Christ by supernatural Regeneration virtually And as his Effects of Adam's fall are conveyed by Natural generation so that we are made partakers thereof actually by actual partaking of our Natural being so the Effects of Christ's Righteousness are conveyed by Spiritual Regeneration we are actually made partakers thereof when we partake of this Spiritual being He proceedeth n. 43 They therefore that look upon justification or Righteousness as coming to us immediatly by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us without the Instrumental Intervention and conveyance or Collation by this deed of Gift or Covenant do confound themselves by confounding and overlooking the causes of justification That which Christ did by His merites was to procure the New Covenant Ans. Though the Instrumental Intervention of a Covenant be acknowledged Yet Righteousness must come to us immediatly by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness For His Righteousness imputed is our Righteousness and is only that Righteousness whereby we become formally Righteous in order to justification The difference lyeth here betwixt us Mr. Baxter thinketh thaâ— Christ's Righteousness is imputed in that it purchased the New Covenant and consequently is euqlly imputed to all for the Covenant with him is equally made with all and in and through the new Covenant which conveyeth pardon and life to such as performe the conditions thereof i.e. beleeve so are inherently Righteous these benefites are bestowed so Christ's Righteousness is not the immediat ground of our justification and Right to Glory but our own Personal Righteousness Faith called our Gospel-righteousness Christ's Righteousness is only the immediat ground of the Covenant being the Meritorious cause thereof the immediat ground whereupon our faith is so far advanced But our judgment is that though Christ convey the blessings purchased covenant-wayes yet the Covenant it self is not purchased by His Merites the way of conveyance is this that He first by His Spirit worketh the soul up to faith in Christ then communicateth Christ His Righteousness unto the beleever upon that immediat ground of Christ's Imputed Surety-righteousness whereupon they become Righteous in the sight of God they are justified pardoned receive a right to the Crown And though the difference here may appear to be but small yet to
Law of Innocency which we dishonoured broke by sin is perfectly fulfilled honoured by Him as a Mediator to repaire the injurie done by our breaking it Ans. The Law which the Devils dishonoured broke by sin was perfectly honoured fulfilled by the Angels who stood is therefore their Righteousness to be called the devils But he will say They obeyed not as Mediator True But then the ground of Christ Righteousness becomning ours must be some other thing than His honouring that Law by fulfilling it which we dishonoured by breaking But he saith Christ repaired the injurie done by our breaking it True yet 〈◊〉 there be no more that will not make His Righteousness ours because as is obvious ere this be we must have an Interest therein this obedience must be performed by Him a our Mediator Surety undertaking Satisfying the demands of the Law for us in our stead 2. In that saith he He suffered to satisfie justice for our sin Ans. Neither is suffering as such Righteousness Nor could He satisfie justice for our sin in by suffering if He had not done it in our stead as one Person with us in Law If Titius steal from Sempronius a 1000. Pound Maevius givius Sempronius a 1000. Pound upon some distinct account Sempronius receiveth no satisfaction for what Titius stole from him but if he come give it for Titius he be satisfied there-with then there is a Law Union oneness betwixt Titius Maevius whereby the Satisfaction given by Maevius becometh the satisfaction of Titius 3. He saith in that hereby He hath merited of God the Father all that Righteousness which we are truely the Subjects of whether it be Relative or qualitative or Active that is our right to Christ in union to the Spirit to Impunity to glory 2. the grace of the Spirit by which we are made holy fulfill the conditions of the Law of grace we are the Subjects of these he is the Meriter the Meritorius Cause of out life is well called our Righteousness by many the material Cause as our own perfect obedience would have been because it is the matter of that merite Ans. That Righteousness which he saith here Christ hath merited is not that Righteousness unto justification of life as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5 18. And which we have by the Obedience of Christ made ours by Imputation vers 19. whereof we are here speaking in respect of which Christ is said to be our Righteousness 2. Our right to Christ is not our Righteousness in order to justification nor is our Right to Impunity Glory that Righteousness but a consequent thereof 3. In respect of the Graces of the Spirit which follow justification do not preceed it Christ is called our Sanctification Mr. Baxter knoweth there is a difference betwixt Righteousness Holiness 4. The Meritorius Cause of our life is well called our Righteousness when it is Imputed to us put upon our score as the Ground of our justification Absolution upon this account only is it by many called the Material Cause 4. And also saith he Christ's jntercession with the Father still procureth all this as the fruit of His Merites Ans. Of Christ's procuring our holiness we make no Doubt but that upon this account He is called our Righteousness is denied for this is not His Obedience Righteousness whereby we become Righteous unto justification of life 5. And we are related saith he as His members though not parts of His person as such to Him that thus merited for us Ans. if we be related to Him as members in order to our partaking of His Righteousness Meritâ—s we must be parts of His legal Persons though not of His Physical Personâ— for by Members here I suppose he meaneth Members of His Mystical body or members of His Ransomed Redeemed body And head Members here make one Political body become one Political Person or one in Law-sense 6. And saith he we have the Spirit from Him as our Head Ans This is but what what was said before in the 3. place And this Spirit is given for holiness but Christ is our Righteousness as well as our Sanctification it is of His being Righteousness that we are speaking 7. And he is our Advocat saith he will justifie us as our judge Ans. His being our Advocat is the same with His Intercession spoken of in the 4. place 2. The Father will judge us justifie us by Him therefore God the Father shall be our Righteousness as well as Christ consequently shall have merited all for us by His blood Sufferings that in a more principal manner according to this Reason 8. And all this saith he is God's Righteousness designed for us thus far given us by Him Ans. But all this is not that Righteousness which God hath designed for us in through Christ in order to our justification nor that Righteousness by which we become formally Righteous in Law-sense thereupon are justified pronounced Righteous in the sight of God for this is Christ's Surety-Righteousness imputed to us none else can be it Lastly saith he And the Perfect justice holiness of God is thus glorified in us through Christ. And are not all these set together enough to prove that we justly owne all asserted by these Texts Ans. It remaineth to be cleared how the Perfect justice holiness of God can be said to be glorified in us through Christ if Christ's Righteousness Satisfaction be not imputed to us accounted ours Christ we be not looked upon as one Person in Law for all that is wrought in us is far from being answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God because of its Imperfection And because Mr. Baxter doth not grant the Imputing of Christ's Surety-righteousness which is only answerable to the Perfect justice holiness of God unto us in all that he hath here said he cannot be said to owne all that is asserted by these Texts The 3. object is If Christ's Righteousness be ours then we are righteous by it as ours so God reputeth it but as it is But it is ours 1. by our Union with him 2. by his gift so consequently by God's Imputation To this he answereth 1. That he hath told before in what sense it is ours in what sense not Shortly here he giveth us his mind againe saying It is truely Imputed to us or reputed reckoned as ours but not in their sense that claim a strick Propriety in the same Numerical Habites Acts Sufferings Merites Satisfaction which was in Christ or done by Him as if they did become subjects of the same Accidents or as if they did by an Instrumental second cause But it is ours as being done by a Mediator in stead of what we should have done as the Meritorious Cause of all our Righteousness
Bonefites which are freely given us for the sake thereof Ans. This is but what we heard when he was clearing the state of the question there Chap. XIII we shewed that his sense was not satisfying for in his judgment as we found there is no Righteousness truely ours in order to justification but our Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness which by Christ's Merites is advanced to this dignity of being the potestative Condition of the New Covenant wherein pardon Right to life is promised upon Condition of Faith so faith is our Immediat Righteousness in order to the obtaining of these favoures Christ's Merites have only procured them remotely in procuring this Covenant But we hear no mention made by him of any such Imputation as whereby Christ's fide jussory or Surety-righteousness is really made over and Imputed to Beleevers that they thereby may become formally Righteous in the sight of God and be justified as such so pardoned and have right to life immediatly upon the account of this Surety-righteousness made theirs Nor hear we any clear ground laid down by him whereupon Christ's Righteousness can be called Ours we thereupon be reputed of God legally Righteous dealt with as such We hear of Benefites bestowed because of His Merites But we hear not that Pardon and Right to Glory are made the Immediat result and effect of Christ's Merites Righteousness but only mediat by the Interveening of the New Covenant whereby our Faith the condition thereof called our Gospel Personal Righteousness is made the Immediat cause of our possessing these benefites whereby he giveth occasion at least to judge that he maketh our faith the Immediat procuring Meritorius Cause of Pardon and Right to life However between his way that which he here rejecteth which we also reject neither asserting that Christ was our Instrumental Second cause nor claiming a strick propriety in the same Numerical Habites c. which were in Christ as if we became Subjects of the same Accidents speaking of what Christ did suffered in a Physical sense we know owne a Midway whereby Christ's Obedience Suffering considered not Physically but legally juridically are transferred communicated unto us not as Physical accidents from one Physical subject to another but in a Law juridical sense And though this Imputing communicating of Christ's Surety-righteousness cannot be explained by nor appear consistent with Logical or Metaphysical Notions applicable only to Physical Entities as considered as such to wich Mr. Baxter in all his Explications of this matter doth so frequenily laboure to restrick us contrary to all Reason Yea and to Common sense Yet we must owne it for a truth knowing that these fundamental truthes recorded in Scripture and held forth to us only by divine Revelation stand in no need of Aristotle's learning in order to their being Savingly understood practified And that Law-termes are more fit to help us to some understanding in this matter which is hold forth in Scripture as a juridical act than Metaphysical termes and yet we see no ground to say that this matter whereof we treat must in all points keep even a resemblance unto Iustinian's modes knowing that it is a divine Mystery and unparallelable He saith 2. He that is made Righteousness unto us i◠also made wisdom Sanctification Redemption to us but that sub genere causae Efficientis non autem constitutivae We are not the Subjects of the same Numerical wisdom and Holiness which 〈◊〉 Christ plainly the Question is whether Christ or His Righteousness Holiness Merites and Satisfaction be our Righteousness constitutivly or only efficiently The matter and forme of Christ's personal Righteousness is ours as an efficient cause but it is neither the neerest matter nor the forme of that Righteousness which is Ours as the subjects of it that is it is not a Constitutive cause nexly material or formal of it Ans. 1. It is true He who is made Righteousness to us is also made Sanctification c. and that He is made Sanctification by being an Efficient cause but it will not follow that He must be also the Efficient cause and no other of our Righteousness which is of a far other Nature and is no Inherent inwrought thing as is Sanctification 2. It is true we are not the Subjects of the same numerical Wisdom and Holiness which is in Christ neither can we be if they be considered Physically but yet we can be Subjects of the same Numerical Righteousness Legally and juridically considered thus we are to consider it here not Physically however Mr. Baxter ad nauseam usque inculcat this for we consider it and must consider it as a Surety-righteousness we know that that same Individuat payment and Satisfaction made by the Surety is in Law-sense the Debtor's and imputed to him as the ground of his liberation from trouble and distress at the hands of the Creditor 3. Hence we see that Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience and Sufferings is that whereby we are constituted Righteous in the sight of God in a legal sense and need not enquire whether it be the neerest matter or forme or both of our Righteousness for these Metaphysical termes have no place here though Mr. Baxter can never hold of them We are made Righteous in a Law-sense not Physically by Christ's Imputed Righteousness and upon this account it is ours legally it is folly to enquire for Physical matter and forme or Constitutive causes of Moral or juridical Beings or Effects as Phylosophers do when speaking of Physical or of Metaphysical beings He saith 3. If our Union with Christ were Personal making us the same person then doubtless the accidents of his person would be the accidents of ours so not only Christ ' Righteousness but every Christians would be each of ours But that is not so nor is it so given us by him Ans. We acknowledge no Union with Christ making us the same person with Him Physically it seemeth Mr. Baxter will understand it no otherwayes But we acknowledge an Union legal Political foederal whereby we become one person juridical in Law-sense and as to this Mr. Baxter's accidents have no substantial place or Consideration The 4. Object is you do seem to suppose that we have none of that kind of Righteousness at all which consisteth in Perfect Obedience Holiness but only a Right to Impunity and Life with an Imperfect Inherent Righteousness in our selves The Papists are forced to confess that a Righteousness we must have which consisteth in a Conformity to the preceptive part of the Law not only the Retributive part But they say it is in our selves and we say It is Christ's Imputed to us Thus he proposeth it but if I were forming the objection I would say That Mr. Baxter Supposeth we have no Righteousness at all in order to justification beside our Act of Faith for as
a bare may be of forgiveness by a New Covenant offering the same upon new termes What next Expositors saith he commonly say that to be made sin for us is but to be made a Sacrifice for sin so that Christ took upon Him neither our numerical guilt of sin it self nor any of the same species but only our Reatum poenae or debt of punishment or left the wranglers make a verbal quarrel of it our Reatum culpae non quâ talem in se sed quatenus est fundamentum Reatus poenae Ans. Yet some Expositors will say more and that in full consonancy with the Scriptures as Esai 53 6. And however all we say is hereby sufficiently confirmed for if He be made a sacrifice for our sins our sins must necessarily be imputed to him as the sins of the people were typically laid upon the Sacrifices and therefore Christ must have taken on Him not physically but legally our very numerical guilt without which he could not be accounted reus poenoe or obnoxious to our punishment What he meaneth by the reatus culpae qua talis in se he would do well to explaine If his meaning be that Christ was not legally accounted guilty this is denied for then he could not have been a Sacrifice for our sins to have died in our stead Wrangling is not good Yet Turpe'est Doctori c. He addeth And so His Righteousness is ours not numerically the same Relation that he was the subject of made that Relation to us nor yet a Righteousness of the same species as Christ's is given to us at all Ans. Though Christ's numerical Righteousness be not ours physically yet that same is made over to us legally as it is one the same Individual payment that is made by the Surety and made over in Law unto the debtor And therefore what he addeth is to no purpose But saith he His Righteousness is the Meritorious cause reason of another Righteousness or justification distinct from His freely given us by the Father Himself by His Covenant Ans. Righteousness and justification are not one and the same more than the cause is the same with the Effect As Christ's Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification so it must be legally made ours in order to our Justification otherwayes we cannot be accounted Righteous and legally free of the Charge brought in against us And this is not granted us by a Covenant with new Conditions in Mr. Baxter's sense as hath been evinced already Therefore he is in a great mistake when he concludeth that they that will not blaspheme Christ by making guilt of sin it self in its formal relation to be His own so Christ to be formally as great a sinner as all the Redeemed set together they that will not overthrow the Gospel by making us formally as Righteous as Christ in kind measure must needs be agreed with us in this part of the controversie For we have shown how far we are from Blasphemy how groundless his Insinuation is founded only on his Physical or Metaphysical acceptation of things here which we understand only legally and juridically according to all right and reason And as for subverting of the Gospel it is one of our choise grounds of Reason against his way because by it the Gospel is indeed changed and the true and native Gospel-way of Salvation is indeed removed and a Sociniano-Armintan Gospel substitute in its room which is daily more and more confirmed by books coming out wherein Mr. Baxter's grounds are owned and more Socinianisme Arminianisme vented than Mr. Baxter himself hath yet had the confidence to express in his own books witness Mr. Allens discourse of the two Covenants ushered in with Mr. Baxter's preface and others of that kind much commended and cryed up by Mr. Baxter 9. Object When you Inferre that if we are reckoned to have perfectly obeyed in and by Christ we cannot be againe bound to obey ourselves afterward nor be guilty of any sin you must know that it is true that we cannot be bound to obey to the same ends as Christ did which is to redeem us or to fulfill the Law of works but yet we must obey to other ends viz. in gratitude and in love to God and to do good and the like Though I think the objection is not so favourably proposed as it might be seing that end to Redeem should not here be mentioned for though it was the end of Christ's coming in to our Law-place yet it cannot be said to be properly the end of that Obedience he performed while he was in our Law-place proximely Let us see how ever what he saith to it 1. Hence saith he it clearly followeth that Christ obeyed not in each of our persons legally but in the person of a Mediator seing His due obedience ours have so different ends and a different formal-relation His being a conformity proximatly to the Law given Him as Mediator that they are not so much as of the same species much less numerically the same Ans. I think rather that hence it clearly followeth that Christ did indeed obey the Law as it was the Condition of the Covenant of works in each of the Elect's person legally for though His Obedience and ours now after faith have far different ends yet His Obedience as Obedience to the Law of works had the same end that our Obedience should have had by that Law viz. the fulfilling of the same in order to the obtaining of a Right to Life and if not to lose all The Law given Him as Mediator taken in its latitude is not the Law whereof the objection speaketh for it speaketh of the Law of works under which Adam was and all his posterity in him and under the breach of which we lay And Christ's obeying in the person of a mediator doth not hinder His representing His own legally for He was such a Mediator as was a Sponsor and Surety and came in our Law-place and undertook our debt Therefore though Christ's Obedience to the special Law given to Him as Mediator was not of the the same kind with the obedience required of us yet the obedience He performed to the Moral Law in our place stead and as our Surety and Sponsor was the very same debt we were oweing He saith 2. Either this Obedience of Gratitude is a duty or not if not it is not truely obedience nor the omission sin If yea then that duty was made a duty by some Law And if by a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude or for what ends so ever either we do all that we are so bound to do or not if we do it or any of it then to say that we did it twice once by Christ once by ourselves is to say that we were bound to do it twice then Christ did not all that we were bound to but half Ans. We distinguish betwixt the Law
granted as the Immediat fruites of His merites but He only merited the New Covenant wherein these favours are offered upon new Conditions 7 Thus Christ is made only a far off Mediating person procureing new and easier termes which yet are as Impossible to us till we be renewed by grace as the old but no Redeemer or Surety suffering and obeying in the room and stead of any 8 Thus are we justified by our own works of Evangelical Obedience 9 God is made hereby to repute a Right to Pardon Glory our Imperfect Evangelical Obedience to be an acceptable Righteousness the all of our Righteousness all which are against the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed to us in the Scriptures as hath partly been discovered already will further appear by what will hereafter come to be spoken unto CHAP. XVI Mr. Baxter's Further opposition to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness examined WHat Mr. Baxter's opinion is about the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in order to our justification we have hitherto been enquireing though in his book against D. Tully while he is giving an historical relation of the Controversie he plainely enough declareth that he is of the judgment as to the maine with Iohn Goodwine yet he there as we have heard so stateth the question against which he disputeth as the Orthodox will not owne it wherein he dealeth not so ingenuously with us as Mr. Goodwine did He will not deny that there is a midway betwixt the Socinians Papists Arminians on the one hand the Antinomians on the other though the Middle way which he hath seâ— down in his Confess pag. 152 153. c. seemeth to me not be the just orthodox way but to incline more unto the Socinians c. for all the Imputation which he seemeth to owne is nothing else than what Papists Socinians Arminians will subscribe unto for beside what we have seen examined above Chap. XIII XIV in his book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 179. he hath these words I have still acknowledged the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness sanosensu And what found sense is he tels us in a parenthesis that is saith he 1. per Donationem ejus fructus and 2. per adjudicationem justitiae nobis inde promeritae that is to say by giving us the fruits thereof 2. by adjudging to us Righteousness thereby purchased which two seem to me to be but one the last being comprehended in the first so all the Imputation by him granted is only in respect of the fruits thereof which are given And will not Papists Socinians Arminians yeeld unto this Imputation Nay doth not Bellarmine come a further length in the words formerly cited Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. part 2. of Moral morks giveth us here there while speaking of other things without any apparent Connexion choosing this way rather than to give us his whole sense of that matter in one place together which might have been some ' ease to such as were desirous to know the same but I know he is at liberty to follow his own wayes methods some hints of his mind and that rather of his dissatisfaction with the orthodox and their manner of expressing their Thoughts Conceptions in this matter than any full positive declaration of his own Thoughts about the question We shall having seen examined his own judgment shortly here examine what he is pleased to say in one place or other of that Book so far as we can finde may be done without repetition against our doctrine Only we shall premit some few of his own words in the Appendix to the Premonition p. 2. whereby we may see how small the difference would appear to be how little cause he had to write so much against the Orthodox as he doth He there saith 14. No man is saved or justified but by the Proper Merite of Christ's perfect obedience Yea and His habitual holiness Satisfactory Sufferings advanced in dignity by His Divine Perfection 15. This Merite as related to us supposeth that Christ as a Sponsor was the Second Adam the Root of the justified the Reconciling Mediator who obeyed perfectly with that Intent that by His obedience we might be justified who suffered for our sins in our room and stead so was in tantum our Vicarius poenae as some phrase it or Substitute was made a curse for us that we might be healed by his stripes as He was Obedient that His Righteousness might be the reason as a Meritorious Cause of our justification which Supposeth the relation of an Undertaking Redeemer in our Nature doing this in our stead so far forth as that therefore perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by ourselves And Righteousness therefore is Imputed to us that is we are truely reputed Righteous because we as beleeving members of Christ have right to Impunity life as merited by His righteousness freely given to all penitent beleevers And Christ's own Righteousness may be said so far to be Imputed to us as to be reckoned reputed the Meritorious cause of our Right justification as aforesaid One might think the difference now to be little or none but all this is but Sutable to what is already examined and what might here further be animadverted upon will occurre hereafter He beginneth Sect. 8. n. 119. to speak against the Doctrine of Imputation taught by the Orthodox I shall yeeld to him that Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane Habitual active or Passive is not given to us or made ours truely and properly in a Physical sense as if the same were transfused in upon us Yet the same being imputed to us is made ours more than in the meer Effects for according to the Gospel methode beleevers being by Faith interesâ—ed in Him have an Interest in His Surety-righteousness as to its vertue force and efficacy or as the cause and that morally and legally so that Christ and beleevers are one person in Law Noâ— do we hereby say That Christ's Merite Satisfaction are reputâ—d by God to be inherent in us or done by us in our own proper persons or that in a sence Natural we did all these things ourselves or that God judgeth us so to have done or that all the Benefites of Christ's Righteousness shall as fully and Immediatly be ours as if we bad been done Suffered merited and Satisfied in and by Christ. But we say that Christ being a Surety putting himself in our Law-place putting as it were His name in our Obligation being thereunto Substitute by and accepted of the Father His Satisfaction obedience being performed by Him in our Law-place as a Surety voluntarily taking on the obligation is accounted in Law and justice to be ours who beleeve in Him to all ends and uses that is in order to justification pardon and Right to Glory and that as
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
at all or Justification must be some other thing than a pronunceing or declaring of a man Righteous 2 Why have we heard so much above said for Faiths being Righteousness why have there been so many passages of Scripture adduced to confirme this particuiarly such as mention the Righteousness of faith or the Righteousness of God by faith But it may be this salvo is added a Righteousness properly so called Yet then it will follow that it must be at least a Righteousness improperly so called and that must be an improper speach faith is imputed for righteousness and if that be an improper speech why is there so much noise made about the impropriety of the speech when we take Faith for the object of faith in that sentence faith imputed unto righteousness All that great clamoure must now recurre upon the excepter and his followers 3 If this which he hath given be the meaning of these words faith imputed unto righteousness let any judge whether our sense of them or this be most genuine freest of trops figures which of the two is apparently farthest fetched 4 Faith then it seemeth is tendered unto God faith being but a Righteousness improperly so called we tender unto God in our Justification a Righteousness only that is improper thereupon are declared Righteous whether properly or improperly I know not 5 If upon the tender of Faith God look upon us as Righteous then we mâ—st be righteous for we must be what he seeth acknowledgeth us to be And then I ask whether doth he look upon us as properly Righteous or as improperly Righteous 6 If God look upon us as having fulfilled the condition of the Covenant as Righteous upon that account then he must look upon us as properly righteous faith must be a proper righteousness or he must say that Christ hath purchased that an improper Righteousness shall be the Condition of the Covenant for we heard he said that Christ had purchased that Faith should be the condition But the performance of the Condition of God's Covenant must be hold for a proper Righteousness as perfect obedience was under the first Covenant And we heard lately that Faith was truely properly called a Righteousness that it might be so called with truth in sufficient propriety of speech in his answere to the first argument 7 If we be righteous by faith be looked upon as such by God having performed the condition of the Covenant it is not imaginable how we shall not be if not meritoriously yet at least formally Righteous seing as Adam by Perfect Obedience would have performed the Condition of that Covenant under which he was and thereby had been both Meritoriously formally Righteous so must it be now in respect of faith which is made to have the same place force efficacy in the new Covenant and that through the procurment of Christ that Perfect Obedience had in the old Covenant 8 He saith we are made meritoriously righteous by Christ's sufferings But what is the meaning of this Is this the meaning thereof that Christ's sufferings hath merited a Righteousness to us Then hereby nothing is spoken to the point for we are not now speaking of Christ's Righteousness but of ours And againe I would enquire what Righteousness hath it merited unto us Whether a meritorious Righseousness or a formal Righteousness as he distinguishad or both Or is the meaning this That through Christ's merites sufferings we have a Righteousness which is meritorious If so I enquire what is that Righteousness Whether is it Christ's Righteousness imputed to us made ours or is it our Faith that becometh meritorious If this last be said that is granted which was denied Faith must be accounted our meritorious Righteousness If the former be said imputation of Christ's Righteousness will be granted more than we dar say 9 He saith we are made formally righteous with the pardon of sins But this is never proved and it hath been often asserted And how will he make this a Formal Righteousness Righteousness properly so called Is this any conformity to a Law in whole or in part Did not himself insinuat in his answere to the first Argum. that nothing can with truth and in sufficient propriety of speech be called a Righteousness but what is a conformity to the Law of God And sure I am Pardon of sins is not any such conformitie 10 The summe of this answere is this Faith is not imputed as a Righteousness but it is said to be imputed unto Righteousness because it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant whereby we come to be made Righteous meritoriously by Christ's death Righteous formally with the pardon of sins And what a wiredrawn untelligible self-contradictory sense this is let every one judge He denieth the consequence 2. Because suppose that this inference lay in the bowels of what we hold that faith were a proper righteousness yet neither would this argue that therefore God should receive a righteousness from us in our justification for we rather receive our faith from God for our justification shen God from us in our justification though I grant that in a sense a far off with much adoe it may haply be made a truth that God receives our faith from us in our justification Ans. But sure though Adam's obedience was originally from God efficiently he being the First Cause yet had Adam been justified according to that Old Covenant he had been justified by his own works not by the Righteousness of another bestowed on him by God so he had been said to have presented his own Righteousness unto God in order to his justification and God might have been said to have received it from him in his justification or rather in order thereunto Now just so is it here as to Faith for faith is our work we come with it to God he taketh it from us thereupon justifieth us according to our Adversaries opinion not in a sense a far off or made with much ado as he supposeth but in a sense most plaine obvious He saith lastly That that imputation of faith for righteousness which he protecteth supposeth a righteousness given unto received by men because it could not be truely said that God doth impute faith for righteousness unto any man except he should make him righteous upon his beleeving Now as it is impossible that a man should be made righteous without a righteousness in one kinde or other so is it impossible also that that righteousness wherewith a man is made righteous in justification should be derived upon him from any other but from God alone for this righteousness can be none other but forgiveness of sins Ans. 1 How can the Imputation of Faith suppose a Righteousness given unless the Righteousness be given before Faith be imputed seing what is supposed is alwayes first in order
hath ground of glorying before men in himself and not in the Lord alone for all have alike ground of glorying upon that account seing what the Lord did was common to all and this new personal Righteousness maketh the difference But it will be said That Christ's Righteousness being acknowledged to be our only legal Righteousness whereby we answere the charge of the Law the asserting of a Gospel-Righteousness whereby we come to have an interest in that legal Righteousness can do no prejudice I Ans. Beside that this maketh two distinct Righteousness as the one a meane to obtean another the one within us a price ex pacto for the other without us and all this in order to Absolution from one charge of the Law brought in against the sinner hereby as to us our personal Righteousness is really made our legal Righteousness because it is made that Righteousness whereupon this man and not the other that wants it is freed from the charge of the Law for according to this way Faith is not imployed to lay hold on Christ's Righteousness that by presenting that Surety-Righteousness unto justice the soul may escape the charge but when the charge of violation of the Law of God is brought in against the sinner his only reliefe is his Gospel-Righteousness which he presenteth whereupon he pleadeth for Pardon Absolution by vertue of the new Covenant which Christ hath purchased for should he alledge the death satisfaction of Christ that should give no reliefe because that was for all alike thereby the New Covenant was purchased where in the Gospel Righteousness whether Faith alone or Faith New Obedience was set down as the Condition and therefore it can stand him in no avail but he must refuge himself from wrath under the wings of his own Gospel-Righteousness for he hath no other and thereupon rest secure be confident of his Absolution from all that the Law could charge against him As for example if the Princes son should by a valuable price given to the Prince procure new Termes and Conditions to be proposed to a company of condemned treatours lying in prison if any one of these were challenged for the old crime threatned with the execution of the sentence past upon that account it would be of no avail to him to say the Princes son hath laid down a valuable price to buy me from death because he knew that he did that for all the rest in purchasing a New Covenant new conditions but the first sure course he would take would be to present his performance of the new conditions say the charge cannot reach me because I have performed the Conditions of the New Covenant procured by the Princes son This I suppose is plaine cleare this in our case would be found to be the only saife course that poor challenged sinners would take if they should act according to the doctrine of our Adversaries to which as I said I should not dar to advise one or other But really the Gospel-way which is opposite to this is plaine saife if we have but so much humility as to complye therewith And a difference may seem small in the debate which yet in practice may prove great of dangerous consequence CHAP. XXVI Christ did not procure by his death the New Covenant or the termes thereof WE heard what the Author of the discourse of the two Covenants what Iohn Goodwine said of this New Covenant As the foundation of their assertion of the imputation of faith properly taken they tell us that the New Covenant wherein this Righteousness is required as the condition thereof is founded wholly in the blood of Christ so that whatever is required of man by way of condition of his acceptation with God becomes accepted to that end upon account of Christ's suffering Mr. Allen p. 16. p. 53. 54. saith Nor doth this that faith accompanied with obedience is imputed for righteousness at all derogate from the obedience sufferings of Christ in reference to the ends for which they serve Because the whole Covenant all the parts termes of it both promises of benefites the Condition on which they are promised are all founded in Christ his undertaking for us and all the benefites of it accrue to us upon our beleeving obeying upon his account for his sake Mr. Baxter also telleth us in his book against D. Tully p. 66. That that which Christ did by his merites was to procure the new Covenant And elsewhere p. 181 that they were the meritorious cause of the forgiving Covenants the like he â—aith elsewhere frequently The Arminians ground the imputation of faith upon the merites obedience of Christ Apol. f. 113. And Arminius himself disp 19. thes 7. that justification is attribute to faith not because it is the very righteousness which may be proposed to God's rigide severe judgment howbeit acceptable to God but because by the judgment of mercy triumphing over judgment it obtaineth pardon of sins is graciously imputed unto righteousness the cause of which is both God righteous merciful Christ by his obedience oblation intercession And in his Epistle ad Hyppolet he tels us that the word imputing signifieth that faith is not the righteousness it self but that it is graciously accounted for righteousness whereby all worth is taken away from faith except that which is by God's gracious estimation that gracious estimation of God is not without Christ but in respect of Christ in Christ for Christ. Christ by his obedience is the impetrating cause or meritorious why God imputeth faith to us unto righteousness And againe in his Artic. perpend de justif What fault is it so say that faith by free gracious acceptation is accounted for righteousness because of Christ's obedience But with this assertion we are not satisfied for these reasons 1. The Arminians who maintaine this so confidently make it the whole of what Christ merited by his death Satisfaction saying that Christ by his death did so satisfie the offended party as he would be favourable to the offender and so say that he acquired to the father a jus a will to enter into a new Covenant with men See their Confess c. 8. § 9. collat cum Apolog. c. 8. § 9. and as the learned Voetius inferreth Select dispp p. 2. p. 233 234. it followeth hence that Christ was not in very deed our Cautioner that he died not in our room stead that he did properly obtaine acquire nothing to us that he did not sustaine the person of the elect while he suffered on the crosse 2. ... that Christ procured no more but a power or liberty unto God of prescribing new Conditions and some go so far as to say that this liberty was such only at the Lord might if he had pleased have appointed the old way of works againe for the condition So said
through his blood the forgivness of sins c. Ephes. 1 4 5 6 7. the chosen ones are predestinated both to the end to the meanes leading to the endâ— But this matter is not consistent with their Assertion who say that Christ by his death hath purchased Faith New Obedience to be the Condition of the Covenant because by their Universal Redemption they leave all at an uncertainty especially when also they will not grant that Christ hath purchased Faith itself to any person 12. It must be said ... that Christ purchased the termes of the new Covenant ... and purchased that God should abolish the Law quite and not require a conformitie thereunto as our Righteousness by vertue of the new Covenant nor exact full Obedience to the Law from any in our name consequently it must be said that Christ hath purchased that the Law giver should wholly passe from that established Constitution do live without any real accomplishment thereof or requiring the accomplishment thereof from any on their behalf to the end the Lord might be just when he is the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus 13. This assertion also stricketh against Christ's being the Surety of the New Covenant for it is not the work of a Surety as such to purchase the Making Constitution of a Covenant but to confirme ratifie the same to engage for the party for whom he is a Surety that he shall performe the conditions accorded to in the Covenant so to establish the Covenant or contract already agreed unto constituted 14. Thus it should be said that Christ died rather for graces than for persons to wit That Faith new obedience may be elevated beyond their ordinare sphere exalted to be the Condition of the New Covenant But the whole Scriptures speak otherwise of Christ's death 15. If this were the thing that Christ procured he could not be said to have Redeemed any not so have died in the room stand of any but only for our good as say the Sociniant To purchase a new Covenant is not to be a Propiltation an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to â—ear our sins to Reconcile any unto God 16. Mr. Baxter himself against Mr. Cartwright p. 91. hath these words And therefore the Performer the Accepter did themselveâ— NB. choose on what termes it i.e. Christ's Righteousness should be applied to us or be made ours quoad fructus And the termes resolved on were the New Covenants conditions which are now required of us to our participation hereof These words import some other rise unto this Covenant than the purchase of Christ. CHAP. XXVII How Faith is and may be called a Condition of the new Covenant and of Justification how not IT may be of some use ... to enquire in what way faith is and may be called a Condition ... The orthodox never denied that it may be called a Condition ... yet with all we must alwayes look upon Faith as an Instrument or Instrumental Meane in Justification because of its being as the hand of the soul to receive bring-in grip-to lay hold on the Righteousness of Christ as the Righteousness of a Cautioner of a publick person to the end they might be Justified Absolved from the sentence of the Law Accounted pronunced Righteous in the sight of God Upon the other hand Socinians Arminians who cast the whole Gospel in a new mould of their own deny Faith to be an Instrument assert that it is only a Condition or a cause sine qua non as they speak And this they do that their doctrine about Justification which is wholly corrupt may appeare to hang the better together We heard how they denied the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness now they must of necessitie also deny Faith to be considered here as an Instrument â— for they know that it was called an Instrument meerly upon 〈◊〉 account of the Surety-Righteousness of Christ which it was to apply to receive to put on They affirmed that Faith properly taken was imputed unto Righteousness by vertue of Christ's merites was accepted of God for a Righteousness was so accounted now consequentially they must say that Faith together with new Obedience which they also 〈◊〉 conjoine as making up one Righteousness is to be looked upon us a Condition or causa sine qua non Socinus de Iustis tels us that though that obedience which 〈◊〉 performe unto Christ be neither the different nor Meritorious cause of our Iustification eternal Salvation yet it is the causâ— sine quation as they say The same he saith Synops justis 2. p. 14. So doth Volkelius do vera Relig. lib. 4 c 3. Smalc Coner Frantz disp 4. p. 103. So the Remonstrants in their Apologief 112. Faith say they if we consider the matter aright cannot properly be called an Instrument of Iustification nor can the act of beleeving be an Instrumental action far less can it as an Instrument be opposed to faith as an action Corvin cont Tilen Faith carrieth that respect unto the gift of adoption that it is an obedience required of God upon condition of which the gift of adoption is decerned unto the sinner for a reward faith is not a meanes or instrument but a condition ordained of God for obtaining of life Simon Episcop disp 22. faith in this matter cometh to be considered not as an instrument apprehending Christ's Righteousness imputed but as apprehending Christ Iesus by whom that Righteousness is obtained It cannot be called properly an instrument but a condition prescribed by required in the Gospel-Covenant without which God will not pardon sin impute Righteousness Lawyers as may be seen in Spigely Calvinilexic â—urid tell us of various sorts of Conditions Some Possible Some impossible Some certaine some uncertaine Some ... Voluntarie conditions say they do suspend the whole obligation untill they be performed Casual also necessary conditions do only prorogue the effect of the obligation the obligation itself its force is instantly perfected A condition thus taken they usually define Suspensio cujus de futuro effectus vel confirmatio pendet or futurus eventus pendet or leâ—â— adposita hominum actionibus eas suspendens or Modus qui suspendit actum donec ca existente confirmetur or Modus vel causa que suspendit id quod agitur donec ex post facto confirmetur They tell us with all that the word Conditio is some time in the Law taken pro Modo though in many things these two differ much and that it is the same with ratio lex pactio pactum fortuna status locus jus causa so that it admitteth of various significations and in which of these significations here definitly to take it the Scripture giveth no determination for it is no scripture-expression in this matter And if it be said that the termes used in Scripture in this matter such as these beleeve
and too metaphysical apprehensions notions in this matter cannot but be displeasing And too much Philophical accuracy in the clearing up of these mysteries is not the most edifying saife way of explication 2. We are not against the use of the terme Condition in this matter knowing that faith may well be called a condition but the question is in what sense we must take the word condition And to say that it is taken as commonly used for the condition of a free gift will not satisfie in our case because though the gift which we expect by faith is to us indeed free yet it is a purchased free gift such a free gift as these who get it have all the legal title Right thereunto through the Caâ—tioners purchase payment only come to the possession of it through Faith according to the wise methode Connexion made by the Soveraigne Lord. Adam's perfect obedience might have been called the condition of a free gift and we cannot give the same place power to Faith in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old for Adam if he had perfectly obeyed had gote his reward without any intervention of a Price by a Mediator purchasing it but we must hold all our reward solely of Christ that he may have the glory of all 3 as if can denote a Condition so by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can denote an instrumental cause Himself tels us som-where in his Confut of Ludom Colvinus alià s Ludov Molinaeus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth an efficient cause we read that we are Iustified by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And further though these passages which he citeth and the conditional if and the conditional forme of the promise do indeed express a Condition yet they do not say or prove that the terme Condition is the only one terme that properly expresseth the nearest formal interest of faith in Justification or that the terme of an Instrument is no way fit to express this neer formal interest of faith in justification seing to be justified by faith or through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which the Scripture useth is as expressive of an Instrumental interest as if thou beleeve c. is expressive of a condition He saith ibid. p. 89. Conclus 10. That the difference betwixt him others is not that he giveth any more to works than they but that they give more to faith than he consequently to man if he be guilty of equalling faith obedience too much it is not by bringing up works too high to be Instruments of Iustification as they make Faith but in taking down Faith too much consequently in too much abaseing all acts of man Ans. If he bring up works to Faith in our Justification give a like interest to both he giveth more to works than the orthodox will do And when we call faith an Instrument in justification we give not so much to it as they do who call it conditio potestativa and give it the same place in the New Covenant that perfect obedience had in the old as was seen above And who ever say this are so far from debasing man his actions that they give him as much ground of glorying boasting as ever Adam would have had if he had fulfilled the condition given full perfect Obedience And he cannot but know that that terme Instrument was of purpose applied to Faith in this matter to depresse man to keep the crown upon the head of Christ as it is apt enough to do if it be but candidely understood taken as it is applied and no further nor vexed with metaphysical niceties a way that might render every borrowed terme whether from arts or sciences how expressive so ever of our meaning explicative of the matter intended utterly useless It is true when he calleth faith only a causa sine qua non he seemeth to giveless to Faith than we do if that terme be taken in its strick sense as it is by Philosophers taken who will not have it called a Cause at all but rather conditio sine qua non But thus he depresseth it below that place interest which is due to all the institutions appointments of God as such for none of them can rightly be called conditio sine qua non and no more in reference to that effect end for which they are appointed of him and far less can Faith be said to be only conditio sine qua non in reference to justification seing by the unalterable appointment of the Soveraigne Lord justification so dependeth upon is connected with Faith that who ever beleeveth to wit savingly or with that Faith which here we only understand whensoever he beleeveth doth immediatly passe from death unte life and is justified But no man will say that the effect doth so much depend upon or is connected with that which is but a conditio sine qua non as was before shewn in several Instances And where is then his Conditio Potestativa is that but a causa fatua But ibid. Conclus 9. he tels us that one maine reason which constrained him to deny that Faith is an Instrument in justification is because he dar not give so much of Christ's honour to man or any act of mans as to be an efficiont cause of pardoning himself Ans. When we make Faith an Instrument in justification we make it not an Instrument of the act of pardoning which is solely the Lords act but taking justification largly as including the Righteousness of Christ the only ground thereof we say that in reference to Christ this Surety-Righteousness of his which is imputed in order to the Lord 's justifying Pardoning of us faith acteth as an Instrument apprehending Christ his Righteousness upon that account is to be considered as an Instrument in the matter of justification And himself Concl. 11. ibid. saith that he ever held that it is only faith that is the receiving of Christ that faith being the only receiving grace wherein no meer moral duty or grace doth participate of its honour or nature it was therefore by God peculiarly destinated or appointed to the office of justifying as fittest to the glorying of free grace of God Redeemer therein And if this be the all as to the substance of what we say or the most of that which we meane when we call faith an Instrument what ground was there of differing from his brethren or what ground was there to feare that Christ's honour should have been wronged thereby Sure while Faith is called an Instrument as receiving Christ his Righteousness in order to justification Christ is more honoured in that affaire than when our Faith is made our Gospel-Righteousness called a perfect Righteousness so our whole Righteousness as some a chiefe part of it as others upon the account of which we are
Righteousness to us is a consequent act after faith of God as judge and not an antecedent donation Yet it is such a consequent act of God as necessarily presupposeth God's free antecedent Donation for it is God's reckoning that Righteousness upon the beleevers score in order to the Justifying of him thereupon and because this Righteousness must be given we not having it of ourselves there must a free donation antecede and this groundeth Faiths accepting thereof and receiving of it And himself immediatly before this saith that God giving us all the effects or Salvation merited in it self properly is said also not unfitly to give us the merit or Righteousness which procured them that is as it was paid to God for us to procure them And if so why doth he inveigh so much in the foregoing pages against the orthodox doctrine of Imputation seing he cannot but know that they do not say that God doth give us the very habits of holiness as he speaketh there which were in Christ nor the transient acts which he performed nor the very sufferings which he under-went nor the Relation of Righteous Satisfactory Meritorious as it was that numerical relation which immediatly resulted from Christ's own habits acts and sufferings They dreame of no such Translation of accidents But only say that seing as Mr. Baxter here elsewhere saith this satisfactory Righteousness was paid to God for them and accepted of God as a compleat Satisfactory Righteousness they by faith coming to be united unto Christ according to the way methode which the Lord hath wisely condescended upon have an interest in that Satisfactory Righteousness as legally made over unto them and therefore have the benefites purchased thereby as when a stranger who was not under the Obligation cometh to pay the debt of a debtor lying in prison the payment must in Law sense be made and accounted the debtors or put upon his score and received upon his account ere he can therefore be relieved out of Prison But in the fore-cited place against Mr. Blake he maketh this Righteousness Remission all one thing And indeed if it were so it could not belong to the Object of Faith other wayes than as an end intended to be obtained thereby But to us Remission is a benefite purchased by this Righteousness and followeth upon our having interest therein through Faith according to the appointment of God a Pardoned man as such is not a Righteous man But he tels us there that our divines of the Assembly do perfectly define justifying Faith to be a receiving resting on Christ alone for Salvation as he is offerest in the Gospel It is of dangerous consequence to define justifying faith to be the receiving of justification or Righteousness Ans. Here we have Justification Righteousness made one and the same which with me differ as Cause Effect our divines of the Assembly give a more full definition or description of Justifying Faith in the Larger Catechisme and there tell us that thereby the convinced sinner receiveth resteth upon Christ N.B. his Righteousness therein i.e. in the Gospel held forth for pardon of sin for the accepting accounting of his person Righteous in the sight of God for Salvation And if Mr. Baxter would say so much as is here this debate would be at an end and yet I finde not this among his exceptions against that Catechisme in his Confession And when our devines mentione this Receiving Resting upon Christ's Righteousness they make not Justifying Faith to be a receiving of Justification but the one a cause of the other And he addeth a little thereafter which is considerable to our present purpose That receptio Ethica activa of justification or of Righteousness for they are both one thing with him goeth before Iustification as a small secondary part of condition it being the accepting of Christ himself that is the maine condition And we never spoke of the receiving by Faith of Christ's Righteousness as exclusive of the receiving of himself He tels us next That Christ's Satisfaction or Redemption solvendo pretium merit cannot properly be received by us for they are not in themselves given to us We grant the price was payed to God but it being payed to God for us it may be imputed to us and reckoned upon our score and we may that way receive it by faith and Lean our soul upon it to the end that the fruit of it may be given to us And likewise he granteth ibid. that justifying faith doth as necessarily respect Christ's satisfaction merit as it doth our Iustification thereby procurea If he will grant that Justifying Faith respecteth Christ's Satisfaction Merite as the Cause in which we are to have an interest and under which we must refuge our selves and upon the account of which we are to be accepted of God and accounted Righteous in his sight all is granted that I desire But his following exceptions are founded upon a manifest mistake of his own taking this Righteousness whereof we speak and Justification for one and the same thing for he saith To say therefore that the justifying act of faith is only the receiving of Christ's Righteousness or of Iustification is to exclude the receiving of Christ himself any way even to exclude him as Satisfier from the justifying act to exclude from that act his Redemption by Bloudshed Satisfaction Merite The mistake here is palpable for we look on Righteousness which faith receiveth as the Cause and on Justification as the Effect when this Righteousness of Christ the causa procaâ—arctica of our Justification is received by faith it is impossible but Christ himself must be received as a Satisfier his Redemption Bloudshed Satisfaction Merite cannot be excluded for therein was the Righteousness which faith laith hold upon in order to Justification He addeth for confirmation for if it be only the receiving of Righteousness that is the justifying act than it is neither the receiving of Christ himself nor yet the acknowledgment of his Satisfaction Redemption by his blood But this is nothing but what was said repeated againe Neither do we say that the Justifying act of Faith as it is called is a receiving of Christ's Righteousness as distinct from himself nor is it imaginable how Christ's Righteousness can be received without the acknowledgment of his Satisfaction and of the Redemption by his blood How he can say that Christ's Righteousness our Justification are but one and the same thing I do not understand when as he saith himself Cath. Theol. of moral works Sect. 13. n. 208. that our first constitutive justification which is it whereof we are here speaking to wit that by which a soul is brought from an Unrighteous to a Righteous State as he speaketh n. 207. is in its nature a right to impunity to life or glory Now sure this Relation or Relative state is one thing and the Righteousness of
Christ the ground meritorious cause thereof is a far other thing And when he saith Apologie ag Mr. Eyre § 4. that he is well content to call Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction the matter of ours and that the imputation of Christ's Righteousness taken for Donation is the forme of Constitutive Iustification that sentential adjudication of Christ's Righteousness to us is the forme of our sentential Iustification That Faith in order to Justification doth in a special manner eye the Righteousness of Christ is clear from Esai 45 24 25 Surely shall one say in the Lord have I Righteousness then followeth In the Lord shall alâ— the seed of Israel be justified This truth is also clearly held forth when faith in the matter of Justification is called faith in Christ's blood Rom. 3 25. for when faith laith hold on the bloud of Christ it cannot but lay hold on his Surety-Righteousness whom God set forth to be a Propitiation and in through whom there was a Redemption wrought vers 24. for this hlood was the Redemption-money the price payed in order to Redemption 1. Pet. 1 18 19. And the blessedness of Justification is through the Imputation of Righteousness without our works Rom. 4 6. and therefore faith in order to the obtaining of this blessedness must eye and relye upon this Righteousness which is the Righteousness of him who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our Justification vers 25. where we may also observe a manifest difference betwixt this Righteousness which consisteth in his being delivered for our offences and our Justification the one being the Cause as was said the other the Effect Moreover this same truth is clear from Râ—m 5 17. where we read of the receiving of the gift of righteousness which is by faith and that in order to a reigning in life by one Jesus Christ where also we see a difference put betwixt this gift of Righteousness Reigning in life which is also more cleare in the following vers 18. Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto Iustification of life this righteousness of one to wit one Jesus Christ is the Cause and the Iustification of life is the Effect And further this difference is againe held forth vers 19 20 21. Our being made Righteous is different from the obedience of one Christ Jesus and by the Imputation of this Obedience to us do we become Righteous as our being made sinners is different from Adam's act of Disobedience and we are made sinners by the Imputation of it to us And as sin death are different when it is said that sin hath reigned unto death so Eternal life is different from Righteousness when it is said so might grace reigne through righteousness unto eternal life We need say no more of this seing it clearly followeth from what was formerly at length confirmed to wit That justification is by the Righteousness of Christ imputed CHAP. XXXIV Faith in Justification respecteth not in a special manner Christ as a King but as a Priest MR. Baxter did long ago in his Aphorismes tell us That the Accpting of Christ for Lord is as essential a part of Iustifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour that is as he explained himself That faith as it accepteth Christ for Lord King doth justifie And this was asserted by him to the end he might cleare confirme how Sincere Obedience cometh in with Affiance to make up the Condition of Justification for his Thesis LXXII did run thus As the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts Subjection is as essential a part of Justifying Faith as the accepting of him for our Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath at much to do in justifying us before God as Affiance which is the fruit of the later Hence the question arose and was by some proposed thus Whether faith in Christ qua Lord be the justifying act or whether the Acceptation of Christ as a Lord and not only as a Priest doth justifie And Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 35. § 13. saith that it is not only without any ground in God's word but fully against it to say that faith justifieth only as it apprehendeth Christ as a Ransome or Satisfier of justice or Meriter of our Iustification or his Righteousness as ours not as it receiveth him as King or as a Saviour from the staine tyranny of sin I have shewed before that the moving of this question is of little use in reference to that end for which it seemeth it was first intended to wit to prove that Sincere Obedience hath as much to do in Justification as faith or Affiance hath where I did shew the inconsequence of that consequence That because Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as King Therefore Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification yea or therefore a Purpose or a promise of Obedience is a part of the Condition of Justification So that in order to the disproving of that Assertion that maketh obedience or a Purpose or a promise of obedience an essential part of the Condition of Justification we need not trouble ourselves with this question Yet in regaird that the speaking to this may contribute to the clearing of the way of Justification by faith which is our great designe we shall speak our judgment there anent And in order thereunto several things must be premitted As 1. The question is not whether Christ as a King belongeth to the compleet adequate object of that faith which is the true justifying faith for this is granted as was shown above this faith being the same faith whether it be called True Faith or Saving Faith or Uniting Covenanting faith or Justifying faith it must have one the same adequate Object 2. Nor is the Question whether Faith in order to Justification doth so act on Christ as a Priest as to exclude either virtually or expresly the consideration of any other of his offices or of Christ under any other of his offices for under whatever office Christ be considered when faith acteth upon him whole Christ is received and nothing in Christ is or can be excludeth So that there is no virtual exclusion nor can there be any express exclusion of any of his offices when he under any other of his offices is looked to a right received for such an exclusion would be an open rejection of Christ and no receiving of him 3. When we speak here of receiving of Christ as a Priest or in respect of his Sacerdotal Office it is all one as if we named his Sacerdotal work or what he did in the discharge of that office offering up himself a Satisfactory Sacrifice and giving his blood and life for that end and suffering inwardly outwardly what was laid upon him by the Father in order to the making of full Satisfaction to justice
truth we lay down these grounds both from Scripture Reason as 1. The words of the Text whereupon we are do evince this for it is said the just liveth by Faith And as was cleared at the beginning of our discourse the words as used by the Prophet Habbakuk from whom they are cited are spoken of such as were already Beleevers Justified and pointed out the way how they were to have a life in an evil time and how they were to continue or be keeped in that State of Favoure with God whereinto they were brought to wit by Faith for the just shall live by his Faith and accordingly the same words are cited by the Apostle Heb. 10 38 39. Now the just shall live by faith but if any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve to the saving of the soul. Where living by Faith is opposed to drawing back to wit through unbeleefe and as drawing back is unto perdition so beleeving is to the saving of the soul therefore the Continuation of this life of justification unto the end even unto the final Salvation of the soul is by Faith This life of justification as it is begun by Faith as the Apostle evinceth Rom. 1 17. and in our present Text citing in both places these same words for that end so it is continued by Faith as the only condition thereof And to say that the particle only is not here added therefore other Works of Obedience must be or may be adjoyned here in this matter notwithstanding it be said the just liveth by Faith were in effect to destroy the Apostles Argument in our Text where he useth this same expression without the addition of only to prove that we are not justified by the works of the Law Therefore as this assertion that the just liveth by faith proveth justification by faith without the works of the Law so the same proveth the Continuation of Justification without the works of the Law as the Condition thereof 2. The Grounds Causes of Justification mentioned by the Apostle Rom. 3 22 24 25 26. hold good al 's well in the Continuation as in the first beginning of justification for there as well as here the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve for there is no difference Justification first lastly is free by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set fort to be a Propitiation through faith in his blood And there is not the least hint given that the matter is altered in the Continuation of justification 3. As the beginning of justification is so contrived as all boasting is taken away so must the Continnance thereof be conceived to be But if works be admitted as Conditions of the Continuance of Instification though they be denied to be the Condition of the Beginning thereof all boasting shall not be excluded contrary to Rom. 3 27. for if a sinner after that he is Iustified by the merite of Christ at first should have it to say that for the Continuance of his justification he were beholden to his own Works he should surely have matter of boasting in himself in so far at least Papists think to evite this Argument against their Second Iustification by works by saving that all these good works are not of themselves but of the Father of Lights But this shift will not help for all these works are not the Righteousness of Christ but are works of Righteousness which we do are excluded in this matter as occasioning boasting or giving ground thereunto as the next Argument will more fully cleare 4. Abraham is said to have Righteousness imputed unto him Faith imputed unto Righteousness and so to be justified by faith not only when he was first justified but many yeers after even when he offered up Isaac his son Rom. 4. Iam. 2 21 23. So was he justified first last as to have no ground of glorying and therefore not by works Rom. 4 1 3 4. But it will be said that the Apostle Iames saith expresly in the place cited that our father Abraham was justified by works when he had offered his Son Isaac on the Altar I Ans. Not to engage in the whole explication vindication of that Passage of Scripture here which is of late to good purpose most satisfyingly done by the learned Doctor Owen I only say that Abraham's being justified by works was such as thereby the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness c. vers 23. Now if Abraham had been justified by works properly so taken the Scripture had not been fulfilled which said he was justified by Faith but the contrary had been made good to wit that works were imputed to him he was justified by them as by his Righteousness But the meaning is that Abraham was justified by faith a true faith that proved itself such in time of a trial by works of obedience particularly by obedience to that command whereby the Lord tried or tempted him Gen. 22 1 2. and by such a Faith as wrought with his works was perfected or discovered manifested to be real after the trial of the fire Iam. 2 22. It is a good direction that the learned Camero giveth here Op. fol. pag. 83. That we should hóld fast the scope of the Apostle Iames to this end that we should take notice of the Apostles Proposition and of the Conclusion thereof The Proposition is set down vers 14. What doth it profite my brethren though a man say he hath faith have not works can faith or that faith save him Whereby we see that the Apostles scope is to prove that that Faith which the man supposeth he hath who hath no works is not that Faith by which we are Justified saved that because it is unprofitable to poor indigent brethren in necessity vers 15. 16. is dead vers 17. 20 it can not be shown by works vers 18. it is a Faith that devils have vers 19. All which what followeth is cleared from the Conclusion vers 26. for as the body without the Spirit is dead so faith with works is dead also 5. It will alwayes hold true that God is he who justifieth the ungodly so justifieth him that worketh not but him to whom saith is counted for Righteousness Rom. 4 5. But if the Continuance of Justification were by works works were counted for Righteoulness in order to the continuance of justification God should not continue to be the justifier of the ungodly but should justifie the ungodly at first thereafter justifie the Godly whereof the Text giveth not the least hint 6. The Instance of David cleareth this also
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
Merites of a Mediator he argueth against justification by the Law the works thereof And according to the Apostle's Methode do we argue 3 To cover Justification by our own inherent Righteousness having the same place in the New Covenant which inherent Righteousness Obedience had in the old by these fine words Faith a Practical beleef of the Gift acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts is not such ingenuous dealing as the Importance of the matter requireth But this will be clearer by what followeth But saith he the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians that is with such a penitent thankful accepting practical beleefe or affiance to beleeve in God as the giver of Salvation in Christ as the Redeemer his Spirit as our life Sanctifier and to accept Christ and all his procured Benefites Iustification Life as purchased by his Sacrifice Meritorious Righteousness given in the New Covenant on this Condition and so to give up ourselves to his whole saving work as to the Physician of our souls only Mediator with God This is the summe of Paul's doctrine on this point Ans. Not to speak of this matter here which is elsewhere done I shall only say that we are not enquiring after the true way of Righteousness but after the true way of Justification before God And enquire where the Apostle teacheth that all the Righteousness required unto justification must be within us none at all imputed as this Summe holdeth forth Where he teacheth that this faith including works all obedience is the only meane of justification Where he teacheth that this inherent imperfect Righteousness of ours is the immediat ground and meritorious Cause ex pacto of our justification Salvation Where he teacheth that Christ's Righteousness is no otherwise ours than as purchasing the New Covenant wherein our own personal Righteousness is made the Potestative Condition of our Justification Salvation And yet these and several other Particulars of this alloy doth Mr. Baxter hold forth as taught in Scripture as hath been seen elsewhere CHAP. V. Works excluded in Justification are not works only done before Faith nor perfect works required in the Law of Innocency nor outward works only THe other Evasion which such as plead for the Interest of Works in Justification fall upon to evite the dint of the Apostle's argueing concludings against Works is That by the works of the Law which Paul excludeth from justification works are meant which are done before Conversion Faith by the strength of Nature not the works of grace done after This is the Evasion of Bellarmine others But against this we have these Reasons to propose 1. When the Scripture saith we are justified by faith the meaning is that so soon as a soul beleeveth in Christ by a true Faith he is justified before God But this opinion saith That a man is not justified when he beleeveth in Christ No not untill he performe Works of Righteousness after he hath beleeved And thus we may conceive a man to be a beleever yet not to be justified which is contrary to the Gospel 2. If we were justified by the Works of Regenerat persons we should be justified by works that are imperfect and consequently by an imperfect Righteousness for these works being made our Righteousness if we be justified by them as our Righteousness we must be justified by an imperfect Righteousness for they are not perfect neither as to parts nor as to degrees Esai 64 5. 1. Ioh. 1 8 10. 1. King 8 46. 2. Chron. 6 36. Eceles 7 20. 3. Regenerat persons have renunced their own Righteousness in the matter of justification before God therefore they judged that they were not justified thereby And this is registrate in the word for our Instruction example that we may learne also to renunce our own works in this business The Antecedent is clear from these Instances 1 David saying Psal. 130 3. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquity o Lord who shall stand And in opposition to this he betakes himself to free Remission saying vers 4. But there is forgiveness with thoe So Psal. 143 2. And enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified So that if God should enter in judgment with the best even with his servants they could not expect to be justified by their works even by their best works So when he saith Psal. 32 1 2. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sin is covered c. he renunceth all justification by the best of his works for Paul Rom. 4 6 7. giveth the meaning hereof to be that David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works 2 Paul also renunceth his Righteousness in this matter that several times for he saith 1. Cor. 4 4. for I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified And he speaketh of himself while in the State of Regeneration So Gal. 2 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ even we have beleeved in Iesus Christ that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ not by the works of the Law And Phil. 3 9. he desired to be found in Christ not having his own Righteousness which is of the Law No man can think that by his own Righteousness here he meaneth only works done before he was regenerate 4. The Instances whereby Paul proveth Justification by Faith without the works of the Law confirmeth this that works after regeneration are excluded as well as works before for 1 Abraham was a regenerat man when his saith was said to be imputed to him Rom. 4 1 2 3. compared with Gen. 15. for before this time Gen. 12 1. he obeyed the call of God by faith Heb. 11 8. See also Rom. 4 9 10 11. 2 David another Instance of Justification by Faith was also regenerat when he was justified as Paul cleareth Rom. 4 6 7. by the imputation of a Righteousness without the works of the Law 5. The Apostle excludeth simply the works of the Law from being the Righteousness of any in point of justification And we have no warrant to except or distinguish where the Law excepteth not nor distinguisheth The works of Regenerat persons are works works of the Law as well as any other And Paul doth absolutely simply exclude works the works of the Law from being the ground of justification 6. By what reason can it be evinced that the Law or the Works of the Law signifie works before Regeneration or works done before faith more than other works Do these words carry this sense where ever they are used Or can it be demonstrated that they carry this express sense any where 7. Are only regenerat persons said to be under the Law Now the Apostle speaketh of all the works of
THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION OPENED Or A Treatise grounded upon Gal. 2. 11. Wherein the Orthodox Doctrine of Justification by Faith Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is clearly expounded solidly confirmed learnedly vindicated from the various Objections of its Adversaries Whereunto are subjoined some Arguments against Universal Redemption By that Faithful and Learned Servant of Iesus Christ Mr. JOHN BROUN sometimes Minister of the Gospel at Wamfrey in Scotland JER 23. 6. In His dayes JUDAH shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely and this is His name whereby He shall be called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS Iustificatio est Articulus stantis cadentis Ecclesiae LUTH Printed in the Year M.DC.XCV THE PREFACE TO THE READER IT is the true wisdome of a Christian to understand aright and with a spiritual eye to discern the great difference between the Law and the Gospel the Covenant of Works and that of Grace the Legal and Euangelical Justification the ignorance whereof is the great Cause of most errours this day among professed Christians When our blessed Saviour came into the world he found flowing out of this bad fountain a multitude of Heresies in the Jewish Church deceived by the Pharisees blind Leaders of a blind People erecting establishing their our Righteousness before the throne of God And it is certain that our Lord Jesus Christ was rejected of the Jews because they could not believe their own unrighteousness miserie condemnation by the Law nor be made to seek in the Messiah his Sufferings Satisfaction the true expiation of sins and a compleat Righteousness sufficient to eternal happiness Certainly they understood not the promises of the Prophets especially that of Isaiah Chap. LIII neither looked they to the end of the Ceremonial oeconomie Law which was to be abolished 2 Cor. 3. 13. Of this Judaical errour we have a clear example in the Apostle Paul before his conversion a Pharisee by his great Masters well instructed in the letter of the Law For he looking upon himself and not understanding the nature of the Law in its Spiritual meaning was in his own eyes no sinner but a just man living and having a right to pretend a sentence of Justification before God upon the account of his works according to the Law But when it pleased God to reveal his Son to his soul he could count all things but lâ—ss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ and desire only to be found in him not having his own 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. 8 9. And so became a great example of all true Converts Believers his Conversion a Demonstration of this Euangelical Doctrine that no man is Justified by his works but by the Righteousness of Christ imputed by Faith received applyed No doubt Christian Reader but this doctrine is the whole scope of the same Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans Galatians For having proved both Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin supposing consequently that by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God he sheweth that all elected sinners coming short of the glorie of God must be justified freely by his grace through the Redemption which is in Jesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be our Propitiation through faith in his blood so that all boasting may be excluded which cannot be if a man could be justified by his works Yea the Apostle Chap. 4. gives a Demonstration of this doctrine out of the examples of Abraham David to whom after conversion Righteousness is imputed sin pardoned by faith in the promise In his Epistle to the Galatians he likewise presseth this Doctrine against the heresie of judaizing Ministers who would have mingled the Law with the Gospel and rejects their sentence as another Gospel worthy to be Anathematized with every one who teacheth it though even an Angel from Heaven since he saith upon the matter that Christ is dead in vain as we see Chap. 1. 8 11. Chap. 11. 21. How happy were the Church in these dayes if the Doctrine of Gospel-Justification did continue pure could be propagated transmitted to the following ages But it is too manifest that the Christian Church by Heathenish Jewish errours upon the one hand by Pelagian infusions on the other hath lost a great deal of her primitive sinceritie puritie Certainly the Roman Superstitions tending only to the establishing of humane Righteousness in Gods sight are clear demonstrations of a corrupted doctrine yea of that Apostacie of the latter times so oft soretold by the Apostle Paul For we see that Popery is wholly erected upon a Judaical Pelagian Righteousness proceeding from the bitter root of the Heathenish Free-will whereby the corruption of Nature is denyed sin excused the faculties of Nature as sufficient to all good works asserted especially when they are sustained by a sufficient grace given to all men for obtaining eternal happiness But this great errour worthy of the Apostles Anathema was abominable in the eyes of our Protestant Fathers and therefore the Doctrine of a contrary Gospel-Justification was the greatest reason of separation especially when they heard the trumpet from Heaven sounding and crying come out of Babel my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues And herein we must admire the wonderful providence of God that the Protestants did aggree in this point of Justification even when their minds were distracted about the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper and it is known how careful the Lutherians are even to this day in following the Doctrine of their Master in this great Article But alas it is a sad lamentable thing that Arminians being fomented by the Kings of France Spain as the immediate way to introduce Popery saith Wilson in his Historie of Great Britain pag. 119. when they adopted the Pelagian grounds did forsake the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ because they could not join this great mystery of the Gospel with the opinions of Universal Grace Redemption as appears in the writings of Episcopius Curcellaeus Limburgh and others filled not only with Arminian but also with wicked Socinian errours against the Divinity Satisfaction of our Saviour Jesus Christ. And how could it be thought that those books should have been accepted approved by Reformed Divines Churches as we see they are in our neighbouring Kingdom of England O what errours in that Nation are observed complained of before by Honorius Reggius in his book de Statu Ecclesiae Britannicae errours tending even to the ruine of the Protestant Cause And what shall we say of the latter books written by Bull Parker Sherlock and others against the principles of Reformation expressed hitherto with great agreement in all the Confessions of Reformed Churches Yea
Reliefe may prove more deadly than was their Distemper Disquiet As therefore I Judge this concerning Truth cannot be made plaine enough so I think the less use be made of Philosophick or Scholastick termes which none but such as are well versed in these dry Nations can competently understand which though never so handsomely set off will prove very unsatisfying to awakened Consciences it will be so much the better seing let men please themselves in them as they will as they are not the language the Spirit of the Lord hath thought good to use in this matter so they darken rather than cleare the matter at least to me The Apostle that we may in short cleare the words upon which we are to ground our Discourse in this vers 11. after other Arguments formerly adduced to prove the Thesis which he laid down Chap. 2. vers 16. to wit That a man is not Iustified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ he bringeth another Argument from Scripture after he hath againe repeated the one halfe of the grand Thesis by which the other is suffificiently understood more emphatically included in the probation or Testimony of Scripture adduced saying Gal. 3 11. But that no man is Justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by faith HE doth not explaine what is meaned by that word Iustified but presupposeth that there was no doubt concerning the true meaning thereof among those with whom he had to do in this Disput as Indeed none that consider what is the constant use thereof in the Old Testament well known to the Jewish Teachers yea in the New Testament also can doubt of its true Import how ever Papists do quite mistake its true Nature Import supposing that it signifieth an Inward Renovation or Infusion of Holiness so make it the same with Sanctification But as no man acquainted with the Scriptures with what is said of justification in them can be ignorant of its right meaning so every man exercised with the sense of his own natural condition of the curse of the Law under which he feeleth himself lying according to what is here said in the foregoing verse readily understandeth what it is to be justified freed from that curse Sentence of Condemnation so made free from the wrath that he is liable unto because of the broken Law of God So that we need say no more of it here He saith No man is Iustified by the Law so maketh no exception of any what somever no not of the holiest meer Man that ever existed since the fall this is of the same import with that expression Chap. 2 16. No flesh for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified So he hath the same expression Rom. 3 20. It is here said by the Law in the original it is in the Law but the sense is the same with that expression Chap. 2 16. thrice repeated by the works of the Law The Ethiopike Version here is rather a short Commentary for there it is They are not justified doing the command of the Law It is observable That the Apostle useth variety of expressions in this matter all tending to cleare this one thing That there is no justification by the works of the Law so as no coloure or shew of evasion might be left unto any Rom. 3. 20. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or out of the works of the Law as also Gal. 2 16. And Rom. 3 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the works of the Law they having no consideration therein Rom. 4 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or out of works So that there is no justification by the Law nor by works nor by the works of the Law all which expressions are used to signifie one the same thing And in the following verse he taketh the Law doing of them that is the commands of the Law for one the same thing Those that were looking to the Law for justification he saith of them vers 10. That they are of the works of the Law and chap. 4 21. Ye that desire to be under the Law This elsewhere viz Phil. 3 9. he calleth his own righteousness which it of the Law Tit. 3 5. works of righteousnoss which we have done Rom. 10 3. their own righteousness Rom. 9 31. the Law of righteousness But what Law is this by which he denieth that any can be justified The forementioned Expressions do Sufficiently cleare what Law he meaneth even all that Law that was the Rule of Righteousness was prescribed of God as such not the Ceremonial Law only that Law by the works whereof he denied Rom. 4 1 2. that Abraham the father of the faithful was justified That Law in obedience to which consisted that righteousness which the jewes laboured to cause stand that righteousness which himself desired not to be found in That Law which was called the Law of righteouness That Law which the Gospel establisheth Rom. 3 31. In a word it is that Law whereof he speaketh in the preceeding verse that is that Law the transgression of which in the least particular bringeth the sinner under the curse according to that saying Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are contained in the book of the Law to do them Deut. 27 26. And here also we see the Law the book of the Law are one sure this book of the Law contained more than the Ceremonial Law even all the Moral Commandments in respect of which not in respect of the Ceremonial Law the Gentiles amongst the rest these Galatians at least so many of them as had not yet Judaized were of the Law so under the curse It is obvious how useless all the Disput of the Apostle here in his Epistle to the Romanes is rendered by asserting That Paul's Disput runneth only upon the observation of the Ceremonial Law seing now the very Subject of the debate is taken away from us And if matters be so I would faine know why the Apostle should have used any other Argument in all his Dispute beside this one That by the Gospel the subject of the question is wholly removed the Ceremonial Law being utterly abrogated by the Gospel Sure this would have Sufficiently put an end to that debate But this Supposal is I confess a short cutt to answere all the otherwise unanswerable Arguments of the Apostle against Justification by works but yet it is such as cannot yeeld satisfaction He addeth in the sight of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same upon the matter with that expression Rom. 3 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in His sight whereby we understand what justification this is whereof the Apostle speaketh even justification before Gods Tribunal in His Court who is the Supream Righteous judge as it
it accompanying it with other things as to the Nation of the jewes because for this end was the law as a law given by the law-giver that Subjects might walk according to the same and that they might become thereby righteous and have a right to the reward promised by fulfilling this condition of the Covenant Now when these ends or this end putting these together as one were onely attained by what Christ did and suffered the jewes who stumbled at this stumbling stone rejected this righteousness of God could never be justified by all their own acts of obedience to the law how zealously so ever they should have sougt after a rigteousness thereby Except 6. The 5. we passe because he laith no weight on it him self The plaine direct meaning is that the law that is the whole Mosaical dispensation was for that end given by God to the jewes that whilst it did continue it might instruct and teach them concerning the Messiah who was yet to come and by his death to make atonement for their sinnes that so they might beleeve in Him accordingly and be justified and further that in time that Nation might be trained up prepared for the Messiah himself and that Oeconomy perfection of worship service which He should bring with him establish in the world at his coming Ans. What was said to the two foregoing Exceptions may serve for an answere to this for what ever truth may be in this yet it is no true sense exposition of the place because Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth so to the Gentiles as well as to the jewes whereas this gloss limiteth restricketh all to the jewes 2 There is nothing here keeping correspondence with what is said vers 3. touching their going about to establish their own righteousness and refuising to submit unto the righteousness of God 3. The righteousness of the law described by Moses here cited vers 5. hath no interest in the Mosaical Oeconomy as given for the mentioned end to the jewes 4 If Christ made an atonement for sins was to be beleâ—ved in accordingly by such as would be justified then that atonement was to be made over unto them reckoned upon their score to the end they might be justified upon the account thereof 5 The Text saith that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness so was to bring in everlasting Righteousness as well as to make atonement for sins Dan. 9 24. 6 The perfection of that service worship which Christ was to establish at His coming was a clearer manifestation of the Gospel of the Grace of God whereby the Righteousness of God or the Surety-righteousness of Christ was imputed unto Beleevers received by faith in order to justification as the whole Gospel declareth He laboureth to confirme this gloss with two reasons 1. Because the jewes sought Righteousness self justification as well from the observation of the Ceremonial as of the Moral law 2. Because Christ is held forth as the end of this dispensation 2 Cor. 3 13. Gal. 3 24. Ans. As to the first of the reasons we have often replied to it already And the second will not prove that there is no other interpretation of this passage that can have place And beside That whole Oeconomy did pointe out and lead them to the Messiah that in Him they might find that which they were seeking after by their own works all in vaine even the Righteousness of God which will sufficiently cloth all beleevers and both keep them from wrath due for sin give them a right to glory So that even this sense if rightly understood doth rather strengthen than hurt imputed Righteousness Eightly 1 Cor. 1 30. Is excepted against by him pag. 162. c. To which we may adde vers 29. 31. Which will help to cleare the matter That no flesh should glory in His presence but of Him are ye in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification Redemption That according at it is written he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. All the work of God in and about His chosen ones is so contrived that no flesh should have ground to glory in the presence of God but that he who glorieth should glory in the Lord and therefore He hath made Christ to be all things to them that they stand in need of in order to their everlasting enjoyment of Himself and particulary Christ is said to be made of God to us among other things which our necessity calleth for Righteousness answering His Name the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS Ier. 23 6. And a Righteousness he cannot be made unto us any other way than by clothing us who are naked and have no righteousness of our own with a Righteousness that is by Imputing to us His Righteousness that we may thereby become Righteous be looked upon as such and so be accepted of God justified Except 1. Christ is no other way said to be made righteousness then He is said to be made Wisdom c. Therefore we may as well plead for the Imputation of His Wisdom or His Sanctification there is no more intimation made of the Imputation of the one then of the other Ans. This is but the old exception of Socinus part 4. de Servant Cap. 5. And of Volkel De vera Relig. Cap. 21. p. 566. And it standeth upon this onely ground That Christ is made all these particulars to us here mentioned after one the same manner and what that manner is should be declared of necessity it must be a very general one otherwise it shall not agree to all these particulars Therefore Socinus hath devised a very general manner of way saying in the place cited That all this signifieth nothing else than that we have attained to that by Gods providence through Christ that we are become wise holy redeemed before Gods that therefore Christ is said to be righteousness to us because through the providence of God by Christ we have attained to be just before God But this general way maketh us not one white wiser Volkelius in the place cited giveth us no relief but only tels us That Christ is said to be made all these to us because he was the cause of all these because God by his meanes made us wise holy will at length redeem us Bellarm. condescendeth to tell us that He is said to be our Righâ—eousness because He is the efficient cause thereof But how that is he doth not explaine But Bellarm. next answere is to some better purpose Christ saith he is said to be our Righteousness because He satisfied the Father for us and doth so give and communicat that Satisfaction to us when he justifieth us that it may be called our Satisfaction Righteousness 2 Such as oppose us here do must necessarily so do
him in that Right as justification properly is no Meane to or Cause of pardon and Acceptation of Sinners but rather the solemne bringing of them into or placeing of them in that state of peace Pardon and Reconciliation who beleeve in Jesus and lay hold on His Righteousness What he speaketh of the opposition betwixt the Law and the promise in giving of life from Gal. 3 21. is most Impertinent so also is that which he saith from Gal. 2 21. for though it be an abrogating and making void of the ordinances of God when another thing that is contrary expresly excluded by the Lord from that office work is set up with it to bring the same end to passe or to serve in the same place and office yet is there not the least coloure of ground to say That if our Right Title to heaven be by Imputation of Christ's Righteousness then doth God give the grace of Adoption in vaine for the Righteousness of Christ is the Meritorious procuring Cause of this Right and Title to heaven and when this is Imputed made over to the beleever he receiveth the Effect and Fruit of that purchase viz. an Actual Right to glory is solemnely infeofed as it were thereof What ignorance folly would it discover in a man to say That the legal installing of a man by publick seasing Infeofment in the legal Right to possession of such a Land or House is that which giveth the man Right and therefore the price he hath laid down to purchase that Land or house hath no Interest or Consideration in that purchase for these two cannot consist the one must necessarily render the other useless if he hath made a purchase of the Land house by his money he needeth no Charter or Infeofment thereof or if his Charter Infeofment giveth him Right to possesse the same the price laid down is of no use would not every one smile at such Non-sense And yet so reasoneth this learned Adversary who will have the Righteousness of Christ laid by which is the only price and purchasing Merite of our Right to Heaven or the Grace of Adoption whereby the beleever becometh legally as it were infeofed of the Inheritance It is vaine if he should think to escape by saying That he acknowledgeth the price of Christ's Righteousness but speaketh of the Imputation of that Righteousness in order to this Right For the Imputation of this Righteousness is but the Interessing of the beleever in that price as the price of such a purchase to the end he may receive the legal infeofment of the Inheritance purchased in Adoption Obj. 5. Chap. 13. pag. 145. He that hath a perfect compleat Righteousness of the Law imputed to him standeth in need of no Repentance Ans. This Consequence is utterly false as was shewed above Chap. 6. Mystery 13. Repentance is not prescribed in the Gospel for any such use or end for which the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is called for If Adam saith he had kept the Law he had needed no Repentance more than Christ himself needed those that kept the Law in him as exactly perfectly as he did what more neâ—d of Repentance have they than he had Ans Adam it is true had needed no Repentance if he had kept the Law But the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness obedience to us though thereby we come to enjoy the Effects purchase thereof as really as if we had Fulfilled the Law ourselves yet it maketh us not to have been no sinners nor doth it exeem us from the Law in time coming nor put us out of case of sinning any more and consequently prejudgeth not the true lively exercise of that grace of Repentance He addeth He that is as righteous as Christ is which those must needs be who are righteous with His righteousness needeth no more Repentance than He needed Ans. We do not love to say that beleevers through this Imputation are as Righteous as Christ was for that expression might import that thereby they become as Righteous inherently as He was which is false But that thereby they are legally accounted Righteous to all ends purposes as if they themselves in their own persons had Fulfilled the Law And therefore though thereby they become in Law-sense Righteous yet they are inherently ungodly unrighteous till sanctifying grace make a change here therefore stand in need of Repentance To that That Beleevers need Repentance for their daily personal failings he saith But they that have an entire perfect Law-righteousness Imputed to them have no such need in any respect because in the Imputation of a perfect Righteousness there is an universal non-Imputation of sin apparently included Besides if God doth Impute a perfect Law-righteousness it must be supposed that the rights privileges belonging to such righteousness do accompany it in the Imputation Now one maine privilege hereof is to invest with a full entire right unto life out of its own intrinsecal inherent dignity worth which is a privilege wholly inconsistent with the least tincture of sin in the person that stands possessed of it Ans. Where there is an Imputation of a perfect Righteousness there there is an universal Non-Imputation of sin in reference to actual condemnation or to the prejudging of the person partaker of this Imputation of the reward of life but as this Imputation of Righteousness maketh not a sinner to have been no sinner so neither doth it make their future sinnes to be no sinnes or them to be no sinners in time coming because it is imputed for no such end 2 It is true the Rights privileges belonging to this Righteousness do accompany the Imputation thereof that thereby beleevers become invested with a full entire Right to life because of its intrinsecal inherent dignity but it is utterly false to say That this full entire Right to life is inconsistent with the least tincture of sin in the person possessed of it hereby he must say one of these two either that there is no full Right had to life while persons are in this life or that there is a full and sinless perfection attainable and had by all beleevers so that they sinne no more Both which are most false But what will he say of Faith which he will have imputed for Righteousness seing this must bring alongs with it the same privileges so exclude Repentance too To this he saith The meaning is not as if God either Imputed or accepted or accounted faith for the self same thing which the Righteousness of the Law is intrinsecally formally or as if God in this Imputation either gave or accounted unto faith any power or privilege to justifie out of any inherent worth of it But the meaning only is that God upon Man's faith will as fully justify him as if he had perfectly fulfilled the Lawâ— He that fulfilled the Law thereby
the grounds of necessity requiring this that we should receive it close with it and embrace it with all thankfulness as a Mystery of Love free Grace wisdom that Angels may wonder at 3 Yet accrding to the Scriptures we may say that the Truth Justice of God require this for His judgment is alwayes according to truth Rom. 2 2. and it would be an abomination in His eyes to justifie one every way wicked Therefore if He pronounce a person righteous in His sight which He doth when He justifieth a person that person must be a Righteous person but when no man can be justified or pronounced Righteous as being inherently Righteous Psal. 130 3. 143 2. all who are justified must be clothed with an Imputed Righteousness for God must be just even when he justifieth him which beleeveth in Jesus Rom. 3 26. In reference to the justice of God he saith That there is nothing at all necessary to be done either by God himself or by man about justification of a sinner by way of Satisfaction to the justice of God since that one offering of Christ of himself upon the cross Ans. We plead not for Imputation upon any such account nor do we see the least ground to think that this should derogat any thing from the full compleat Satisfaction of Christ made to justice or from the price laid down by Him as if this Imputation were required to supply some thing wanting there Yea our doctrine of Imputation doth rather confirme establish the same it being an application of the Sponsor's Surety-righteousness or payment Satisfaction unto the debtors in order to their Absolution freedome from the sentence Though the Surety hath paid the creditor yet the Law may require that when the debtor is charged or challenged for the debt the payment of his Surety be instructed made manifest unto the judges And yet it will not hence follow thaâ— the Satisfaction or payment made by the Surety was defective and insufficient He further saith That God can as well and as truely pronounce that Man righteous that wants a literal or legal Righteousness especially supposing he hath another Righteousness holding any Analogy or proportion thereto as he may account any Mans uncircumcision circumcision Rom. 2 26. Ans. That the Lord may deal with one uncircumcised that keepeth the Law no less than if he were circumcised and so thereby declare that He valueth not outward circumcision so much as the jewes were ready to dream who questieneth But what is this to the business in hand shall we therefore think that the Lord whose judgment is according to truth shall account any Righteous who have no righteousness Shall we think that the Righteous judge shall pronounce declare him to be Righteous who is not so 2. He may think to warde this of by his parenthesis But I pray what is that other righteousness that holds any analogy or proportion to the righteousness required by the Law of God Is that the single Act of faith Sure that must hold a very unproportionable proportion a poor analogy unto Obedience to all commands of God! I need not take notice of that word legall righteousness literally so called for he hath many such of little other use than to amuse the Reader darken the matter 3. If by this proportionable righteousness he mean the righteousness of Christ which may be said to hold an analogy to the righteousness of the Law which man was obliged to performe which possibly he understandeth by a legal righteousness literally properly so called he speaketh truth yeeldeth the cause for that is it we contend for But afterward he seemeth to tell us what he meaneth by analogical righteousness saying So may God with as much righteousness truth pronounce call or account a man righteous that is not strickly properly or literally such if he hath any qualification upon him that any way answereth or holdeth proportion in any point with such a Righteousness as he should do in case this man had this legal righteousness upon him in the absolutest perfection of the letter Ans. And who may not see the folly of this Reddition to inferre this from the Lord's calling Iohn Baptist Elias the like Will he make the Lord 's pronouncing sentence in judgment as a righteous judge as He doth in the matter of justification to be such a figurative speach as when Iohn Baptist was called Elias because he had some resemblance to Elias when he came in his Spirit power Will he be accounted a righteous judge upon earth who in judgment should pronounce that man righteous who in stead of the righteousness he should have had hath only one poor qualification upon him that some way or other holdeth proportion with it in any point If so it will be a great question if ever any wicked man can be condemned seing it will be rare to finde one that hath never all his dayes done some thing that answereth to the Law in some poor way or measure as to same one point or other Yea if we might drive this further it might be made probable that hence it would follow that all the world should be justified even in the sight of God But enough of this which is too too gross Yet wo heare not what that qualification is He saith when God pronounceth a man righteous it is sufficient to beare out the justice truth of God if his person be under any such relation condition as belongeth to a legal righteousness or which a legal righteousness would cast upon him Ans. What before was called a Qualification is here called a Relation or condition these seem not to be one the same thing But what if that Relation or condition have no foundation how shall the Lord upon that account pronounce such a person righteous or though it be not founded upon a legal righteousness performed by the mans self in his own person yet may it not be founded upon a Surety-righteousness imputed But what is this He addeth Now one special privilege or benefite belonging to a perfect legal righteousness is to free the person in whom it is found from death condemnation he that hath his sins forgiven him is partaker with him in the fulness of this privilege is as free of condemnation as he Ans. But he hath not yet proved that any man is pardoned without the Imputed righteousness of Christ beside righteousness bringeth with it as a special privilege or benefite right to the promised Inheritance of Glory But a pardoned man as such hath not this Right nor yet can challenge it as was showne above Moreover if God pronounce a Man righteous because he is pardoned then the man must be pardoned before he be justified for in justification he is declared pronounced Righteous not made such if he be pardoned before he be justified pardon is not the forme of justification nor
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-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
as the Condition of the Covenant of works and as a Rule of Obedience A duty may be duty now as required by the Law still in force as to its commanding regulating power and yet not be a part of the Condition of the Covenant of works wherein we had failed which Christ fulfilled by giving perfect obedience to that Law as the Condition of Life to which we neither did nor could give perfect Obedience and all our Obedience now though commanded by the same Law is no fulfilling in whole or in part of the Condition of the Covenant of works and therefore can not be said thus to be done twice but once and that by Christ alone He addeth But what man is he that sinneth not Therefore seing it is certaine that no man doth all that he is bound to do by the Gospel in the time measure of his faith hope love fruitfulness c. it followeth that he is a sinner and that he is not supposed to have done all that by Christ which he failed in both because he was bound to do it himself because he is a sinner for not doing of it Ans. As there is a difference betwixt obedience to the Law and the performing the Condition of the Covenant of works so there is difference betwixt sin or failing in Obedience and Violation of the Condition of the Covenant of works as our Obedience now is not the performance so our sinning is not the Violation of the Conditions of the old Couenant Beleevers performed the Conditions of the Covenant only in Christ which they could not do in themselves and therefore their sins now though transgressions of the Law are not counted Violations of the conditions of the Covenant of works under which they are not He saith 3. Yea the Gospel bindes us to that which Christ could not do for us as to beleeve in a Saviour c. Ans. And what then were these part of the Conditions of the Covenant of works If they were Christ hath performed them for He gave perfect Obedience and thereby hath freed us from that obligation If they were not neither can they now be required as part of that Condition He saith 4. The truth which this Objection intimateth we all agree in viz. That the Mediator perfectly kept the Law of Innocency that the keeping of that Law might not be necessary to our Salvation and so such Righteousness necessary in ourselves but that we might be pardoned for want of perfect Innocency be saved upon our sincere keeping of the Law of Grace because the Law of Innocency was kept by our Mediator and thereby the grace of the New Covenant merited and by it Christ Pardon Spirit Life by Him freely given to beleevers Ans. The truth expressed in the Objection is very far different from this Sociniano-Arminian Scheme of the Gospel which we have had often times proposed to us by Mr. Baxter but never yet confirmed nor do we expect ever so see it confirmed We have also at several occasions given our reasons against it and need not therefore here repeat or insist upon it Last object The same person may be really a sinner in himself and yet perfectly Innocent in Christ and by Imputation How or upon what occasion this objection is used Mr. Baxter doth not show and therefore we cannot certainely know the true meaning and Import thereof In one sense it may be very true and yet in another sense it cannot be admitted It is true in this sense The same person may be Inherently a sinner and yet legally Innocent through the Imputation of the Surety-righteousness of Christ. But it cannot be admitted in this sense The same person is legally Innocent in Christ by Imputation for this were a Contradiction What saith Mr. Baxtor to it Remember saith he that you suppose here the person Subject to be the same Man then that the two contrary relations of perfect Innocency or guiltlesness guilt of any yea much sin can be consistent in him is a gross contradiction Ans. There is no contradiction unless the matter be ad idem here it is not so for he may be guilty Inherently as to himself and yet innocent legally as to his Surety But if both be understood of a person legally considered I grant it is a Contradiction for he that is legally Innocent cannot be legally guilty in so far as he is legally Innocent whether the Charge be particular for one sin that is brought in against him or for moe or for all He saith 2. But if you meane that God reputeth us to be perfectly Innocent when we are not because that Christ was so it is to Impute error to God Ans. This cannot be their meaning for they know that God reputeth no man to be other-wayes than he is But yet it must be said that God reputeth Beleevers who have the Righteousness of Christ imputed to them Innocent as to the Violation of the Covenant of works I mean legally Innocent and so not guilty of the charge of sin death upon that account brought in against them for they are so being justified therefore there is now no condemnation to such Rom 8 1. none can lay any thing of that Nature to their Charge vers 33. He addeth But He i. e. God doth indeed first give then Impute a Righteousness evangelical to us in stead of perfect Innocency which shall as certainely bring us to glory Ans. That God doth indeed Impute that is give put upon our score an Evangelical Righteousness that is the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ revealed in the Gospel in stead of our perfect personal Innocency which we neither had nor could attaine to which shall certainely bring us to glory being the Meritorious Cause thereof But Mr. Baxter's sense hereof is a manifest Perversion of the Gospel for thus he senseth it And that is He giveth us both the Renovation of His Spirit to Evangelical obedience a Right by free gift to pardon glory for the Righteousness of Christ that merited it this thus given us he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteousness in us Ans. Now that this is a clear perversion of the Gospel is manifest from these particulars beside several others else where touched 1 Hereby the Covenant of Grace is changed into a Covenant of works only with a Mitigation of the Conditions 2 Christ's Surety-righteousness is not Imputed to us neither as our legal Righteousness nor yet as our Evangelick-righteousness for at most it is only granted to be Imputed as to its Effects 3. We have no other Righteousness hereby properly imputed to us but our own Inherent Righteousness 4 Christ is hereby made of God unto us Righteousness by being made of God Sanctification to us 5 Hereby the immediat ground of our Pardon Right to Glory is not Christ's Surety-righteousness but our own Inherent righteousness 6 Christ hereby meâ—ited neither Pardon nor Glory to be
his sin to us 3 Thus we see by asserting the cause viz. our relation to Christ he taketh away the effect viz. the Imputation of His Righteousness as being no distinct thing as if one should say we are related to Adam a sinful Head who broke the Law for us this is called Adam's sin imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours But yet Christ's fulfilling all Righteousness for us if that for us were understood in the Scripture sense and not according to the Socinian or Arminian gloss would abundantly ground the Imputation we plead for and that as a fruit of our Relation to Christ. Passing what he saith 8 as not worth the noticeing We come to see what he saith 9. lastly Proposing this objection to himself if Christ's person be given us then His personal Righteousness is given us with it He replieth thus Yes as His person is He is not given us as proprietors Lords to become our own at our dispose nor is his person made one Person with each or any of us His person is not turned into ours nor ours into his Ans. This is all to no purpose for no man in his wits either said so or dreamed so at any time As the husband saith he is not the person of the wife nor the King of each Subject but as one that hath a Great wise learned Bountiful Holy King or Husband hath also his Greatness c. as they have him that is as his perfections for their good as far as his relation bindes him but not as if his enduements were removed from him to them or falsely reputed to be in them or his person to be their persons so here as we have a Christ so we have a perfect Righteous Christ given us to be our federal head when we beleeve and the Righteousness which is not in us but in Him is ours so far as to be for our good as far as His office Covenant do oblige Him Ans. This savoureth of making Christ's dying for us to be nothing else than His dying for our good as Socinians say and if it import more as it doth in truth he cannot but see that his simile here hath nothing of a similitude in it for the objection speaketh of Christ's person given to us not as a great wise c. King is given to his Subjects but as the Surety is given to the debtor i.e. as one whose payment of the debt must be reckoned on the score of the debtor in order to his liberation out of prison He addeth So that a Righteous Christ and therefore the Righteousness of Christ are ours relatively themselves quoad jus beneficii so as that we have right to these benefites by them which we shall possess and for the merites of His Righteousness we are conditionally justified and saved before we beleeve and actually after Ans. All this jus beneficii is but remote for in the foregoing pag. he told us as we heard that this right doth not flow immediatly from what Christ did and suffered but from his Covenant of Grace and I think he should have said rather from their performance of the condition for the Covenant conveyeth no title but conditionally he knoweth and therefore can give no title or Right untill the condition be performed upon the performance of which the conditional Title becometh actual And further there is no more here said than what a Socinian will say and particularly Sclightingius pro Socino cont Meisnerum pag. 250. whose words we cited above towards the beginning of our XIII Chapter CHAP. XVII Reasons enforcing the practice of the Truth hithertill Vindicated WE have now at some length as the Lord was pleased to help essayed to vindicat this noble fundamental Truth of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in order to the obtaining of this life of justification and ere we proceed I judge it will not be amiss to press the practice of this Truth the hearty practical embracing thereof by several Arguments Considerations for it will not be enough for us to know the Theory and to be orthodox in our judgments as to these Necessary soul-concerning truthes but we must also practise them that it may appear we do beleev them in very deed and that we beleeve them with the heart this will be the best way to be kept orthodox and stedfast in the truth I shall therefore propose a few Considerations moving to the practice of this so necessary concerning a Truth As 1. This way of justification through the Imputed Righteousness of Christ the Mediator Surety is a way thath hath the testimony of both Law Prophets confirming it is now more clearly revealed manifest under the Gospel dispensation than it was formerly Rom. 3 21 22. But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested being witnessed by the Law the Prophets even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Christ unto all upon all them that beleeve And the same Apostle tels us Rom. 1 16 17. That he was not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the Power of God unto Salvation to every one that beleeveth c. And what is the ground reason of this for therein saith he is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by â—aith This then must be a very sure saife way being thus attested witnessed by all that are worthy of credite in this matter a way that is one the same as to its substance both before the Law under the Law now under the Gospel though it be now more clearly unfolded explained since the coming exaltation of the blessed Mediator than it was before His coming when it was darkly revealed shadowed under the Mosaical Ceremonies Observances None need to feare a Miscarrying or a disappointment in following of this way which even the Law it self or the Mosaical observances did point forth in the daily yeerly Sacrifices pointing forth the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world on which the offerers were to lay their hands before they were to be offered up in token of their devolving laying their sin guilt upon the same as the the type of that one only acceptable Sacrifice that was to come in the fuluess of time was to satisfie justice for their sinnes to shew forth declare their faith relying thereon expecting acceptance there through as we see Levit. 1 4 3 2. 16 21. And a way which also the Prophets or the Spirit of Christ which was in them did testifie and bear witness to when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1 10. c. So Peter in his Sermon to Cornelius told him Act. 10 43. that to Him i.e. to Christ gave all Prophets witness that through His Name
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
will save justifie us but his Righteousness laid hold on brought home applied by Faith that so all might see be convinced of the necessity of faith whereby the soul goeth out to Christ layeth to his Righteousness and might not satisfie themselves with a Notion of Christ his Righteousness never applied by Faith but be enduced to lay hold on him by Faith to the end they might have an interest in Christ's Righteousness the same being upon their faith bestowed upon them and reckoned upon their score The expression is most emphatick to hold forth the necessity now of faith according to the Lord 's Soveraigne appointment as if thereby Christ's Righteousness their faith were become one thing as being wholly inseparable in this affaire so that it cometh to one whether by faith we understand the Grace as acting upon connoting the Object or the Object as acted upon by the Grace of Faith as in that expression the Righteousness of faith Rom. 4 13. Faith may either be interpreted to be Christ as said hold on by faith so the meaning will be through the Righteousness of Christ laid hold on by Faith faith may be the same way explained in the following vers 14. 16. for if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void i. e. if the grand heritage come by the Law by obedience to it the Gospel holding forth Christ to be laid hold on by faith is made void as to this end and againe vers 16. therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace i. e. it is of by Christ laid hold upon by Faith that it might be by grace Or faith in all these may be interpreted to be faith as acting upon the object Christ his Righteousness the consequence force of the words will be found to be the same whether of these wayes we explaine the matter As when speaking of the Israelits stung in the wilderness it were all one to say they were healed by the brazen serpent to wit looked to or they were healed by their look to wit upon the brazen serpent for still it will be understood that all the vertue came from the brazen serpent or him rather that was typified thereby yet so as it was to be looked upon that their looking was but an Instrumental mean thereunto and when a mean thereunto must include the object looked unto We hear it sometimes said of persons miraculously cured that their Faith made them whole while as the vertue came from the object acted upon by faith as Peter fully explaineth the matter saying Act. 3 16. And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong Thus we see how this matter may be saifly must be understood when the vertue and efficacy of the Principal cause is attributed to the Instrumental cause And yet lest any should stumble at the expression pervert it as many do to day the Apostle abundantly Caveats against this by telling us so plainely so fully so frequently of the Righteousness of God which is had by faith through faith as we have seen never speaketh of a Righteousness had because of faith or for Faith nor saith he that faith is our Righteousness while treating of Justification CHAP. XXV Faith is not our Gospel-Righteousness OUr Adversaries to strengthen their Assertion of the Imputation of Faith in a proper sense to the exclusion of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ have other two Positions which they own maintaine One is that our Faith or our act of beleeving is the whole of our Gospel-Righteousness And the other is That Christ hath procured that it should be so by procuring the New Covenant whereof this faith is made the Condition To this last we shall speak something in the next Chapter of the other here How much Mr. Baxter doth contend for our Faith 's being called accounted our Gospel-Righteousness is known The forenamed Author of the discourse of the two Covenants is very plaine pag. 48 c. where he is explaining what God's counting Abraham's faith to him for Righteousness is There he tels us that he takes it to signifie thus much to wit That God in a may of special grace or by vertue of a new Law of grace favour which was established by God in Christ Gal. 3 17. that is in reference to what Christ was to do suffer in time then to come did reckon his practical faith to him for Righteousness that is that which in the eye of that new Law should passe in his estimation for righteousness subordinat to Christ's Righteousness which procured this grant or Law And thereafter pag. 40. he tels us That it is an act of God's special favour by vertue of his new Law of grace that such a faith as he hath described that is a faith taking in all Gospel Obedience as we saw above comes to be reckoned or imputed to a man for Righteousness through God's imputing it for righteousness to stand a man in the same if not in a better stead as to his eternal concerns as a perfect fulfilling of the original Law from first to last would have done Christ's Righteousness being presupposed the only Meritorious Cause of this grant or Covenant Thereafter pag. 50. he tels us there are two things which constitute make up the Righteousness of the Law of Grace first that which consisteth in the forgiveness of sins 2. the righteousness of sincere obedience And in inference to both he saith faith is imputed for righteousness be vertue of the Law of Grace for saith he faith as practical is imputed to a man for righteousness as it is that all that which is required of him himself by the Law of Grace to entitle him to the righteousness which consisteth in remission of sins And then as to the second he saith pag. 52. That faith is imputed for righteousness which is practical or productive of sincere obedience without which properâ—y it is not a fulfilling of the Law of Grace as a condition of the promised benefites consequently cannot justifie a man in the eye of that Law for as he addeth there must be repentance forgiving men their injuries faith must be such as worketh by love then he tels us that Abraham was justified by his works Jam. 2. All which abomination of doctrine perversion of the right wayes of the Lord we are not here to examine It is enough in reference to the clearing of what is now before us under consideration that we see here a plaine dâ—lmeation explication made of that Gospel which Mr. Baxter said this Treatise would lead us into the knowledge of which is the very same upon the matter with that Gospel which Socinians Arminians hold forth joyning herein with Papists as we saw in part above Chap. XVIII towards the beginning we shall at
was requisite the perfect observation of the Law Now perfect observation of the Law saith there was no transgression but remission saith supposeth that the Law was not perfectly observed So the imputation of the Law fulfilled either saith the Law was not broken or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof therefore the person unto whom this imputation is made hath a right unto the reward which this imputation doth directly immediatly respect as such But in our case both these go together perfect remission the imputation of the Law fulfilled because freedom from the obligation to punishment right to the reward go also together inseparably For how can he be said saith he to have all his sins fully forgiven who is yet looked upon or intended to be dealt with all as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven may well be looked upon as one that hath transgressed either by omission or by commission or by both because he must be so looked upon for pardon presupposeth sin no man can be pardoned but a sinner and no man can think or dreame of a remission but withall he must suppose that the person pardoned hath sinned But it is true he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven cannot be intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punishment but doth not so destroy sin as to cause that it never was for that is impossible What more And he that is looked upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law must needs be conceived or looked upon as one that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law Ans. This is very true But what then Which is nothing else saith he but to have a perfect Righteousness or which is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him Ans. This is also true taking this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law to be to one who never broke the Law by sin but it is not true in our case who are transgressours all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners Yet he inferreth So that besides that perfect remission of sins which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ there is no need of indeed no place for the imputation of any Righteousness performed by Christ unto the Law Ans. The inconsequence of this is manifest from what is said But he addeth a reason Because saith he in that very act of remission of sins there is included an imputation of a perfect Righteousness Ans. This is but the same thing which was said is manifestly false Remission regairdeth only the punishment or the obligation thereunto dissolveth it but as such giveth no right to the reward which was promised only to obedience to the Law But then he tels us more properly with Scripture-exactness as he saith that that act of God whereby heremitteth pardoneth sin is interpretativly nothing else but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law compare Rom. 4 6 with vers 7. 11. Ans. This is but the same thing needeth no new answere for it is denied that that act of God whereby he pardoneth sin considered in itself as such is interpretativly an imputation of perfect Righteousness But it is true in our case it may be called so interpretativly in this respect that there is such an in dissoluble connexion betwixt the two that the one inferreth the other necessitate consequentis And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4 6 7 11. He addeth Even as the act of the Physician by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness may withfull propriety of speach be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health Ans. The Physician purging away the humors the causes of the distemper is the cause of health by being the causa removens prohibens because ex natura rei health followeth upon the removal of that which caused the distemper but the connexion of pardon of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei but ex libera Dei constitutione connecting the causes of both together His next similitude of the sun dispelling darkness filling the aire with light is as little to the purpose because here is a natural necessary consequence light necessarily expelling darkness which is denied in our case Hence there is no ground for what he addeth when he saith In like manner God doth not heal sin that is forgive sin by one act restore the life of righteousness that is impute righteousness by another act at all differing from it but in by one the same punctual precise act he doth the one the other For we are not here enquiring after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a Philosophical manner God can do many things by one Physical act but we are enquireing concerning the Effects whether they be one precise thing flowing from one moral cause or so diverse as to require diverse moral causes grounds or whether the one doth naturally essentially include the other as being both but one thing His following words would seem to speak to this when he saith forgiveness of sins imputation of Righteousness are but two different names expressions or considerations of one the same thing one the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins sometimes an imputing of Righteousness the forgivness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness to shew signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness or Iustification but the forgivness of his sins And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgivness of sins to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner but that which standeth in forgiveness of sins Ans. This is but gratis dictum nothing at all is proved These two pardon of sins imputation of Righteousness are two distinct parts of one compleet favour and blessing granted of God in order to one compleet blessedness consisting likewise in two parts to wit in freedome from punishment which was deserved in right to the promised inheritance which was lost And because these two both in the cause and in the effect are inseparable conjoined by the Lord therefore the mentioning of the one may doth import signifie both by a Synecdoche And hence no man with reason can inferre that they are both one the same precise thing flowing from one the same precise cause and import only the different names expressioâ—s or considerations of one the same thing Christ's obedience to the Law and his suffering for sin were not one the same thing under various considerations or names but distinct parts of one compleet surety-Surety-Righteousness no more can the effects that
flow therefrom be accounted one the same thing but two distinct parts of one compleet effect And therefore the mentioning of the one in stead of the whole proveth no confusion or sameness but rather an inseparablness which is yeelded He move â—in an objection against himself â— 5. thus How can God be said to impute a Righteousness to a man which never was nor ever had a being no Righteousness at least of that kind whereof we now speak having ever been but that perfect obedience which Christ performed to the Law This indeed is a very rational question for our Author talketh much of an imputed Righteousness and never doth nor yet can tell us what that is that can deserve the name of a Righteousness Let us heare what he answereth 1. saith he There is as express compleet a Righteousness in the Law as ever Christ himself performed Ans. But what Righteousness is or can be in a Law but what is there by way of prescription And who doubts 〈◊〉 the perfection of this that acknowledgeth the perfection of the Law This is utterly impertinent to the purpose in hand where the question is of a Righteousness consisting in conformity to the Law and which must be attribute to man to whom the Law is given And what if it be said saith he that God in remission of sins through Christ from out of the Law imputeth to every man that beleeveth such a Righteousness as is proper to him Ans. To say this is to speak plaine non-sense for what is that to furnish a man with a Righteousness out of the Law Can a man be changed into a Law or can a man have any Righteousness prescribed by a Law but by thoughts words deeds bearing a conformity to the commands of the Law And how can 〈◊〉 pardon cause this transformation can the pardon of murther or of any prohibited act make that act conforme to the Law Pardon thus should be a self destroyer for an act that is no transgression of a Law can need no pardon and thus pardon should make itself no pardon What he subjoineth hath bin spoken to elsewhere He giveth a 2. answere saying To say God cannot impute a Righteousness which never had a being i.e. which never was really actually performed by any man is to deny that he hath power to forgive sinâ— Ans. This hath been is full denied it never hath been nor never shall be proved that forgivness of sin is the imputation of a Righteousness Though he addeth from Rom. 4 6. 3 28. c. that it is the imputation of such a Righteousness as consisteth not noâ—es made up of any works performed to the Law by any man which is but a Righteousness that never had a being Ans. This is but a plaine perverting of the Scriptures which speak only of works in that exclusion done performed by us as the whole scope and all the circumstances of the passages demonstrate to any man who will not willingly put out his owne eyes and it were a meer imposing upon the Understandings of the most ordinary Reader and a miserable mispending of time to goe about the evincing of this which is so obvious But what desperat shifts will not a wrong cause put men to use who will not be truths captives His 5. Conclusion cometh here also to be considered It is this He that is fully discharged from his sins needeth no other Râ—ghteousness to give him-Right 〈◊〉 unto life This is as false as the rest for the Law is do this live and pardon for transgressions is not the same with doing of the Law What is his reason death is the wages of sin is of sin only being due to no creature in any other respect nor upon any other terme whatsomever But what then Now he that it free of death no wayes obnoxious thereunto cannot but be conceived to have a right unto life there being neither any middle condition between death life wherein it is possible for a reasonable creature to subsist nor againe any capacity of life but by some right â—itle thereunto Ans. Though this be true as to us now that he who is no wayes obnoxious unto death hath a right unto life Yet the consequence that he would draw from it is not good to wit that that only which taketh away the obnoxiousness unto death giveth also a right to life because God hath inseparably joined these effects together as also their distinct causes together and giveth them inseparably so that he who is pardoned hath also a right to life not meerly upon the account that he is pardoned but because together with the imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ whence floweth pardon he imputeth also Christ's Righteousness upon which followeth the right to life And howbeit now as to us there is no middle state betwixt these two Yet in Adam there was for while he stood he was not obnoxious unto death and yet he had not right unto life but was to work out perfect his rask to that end But he tels us That while Adam stood he was already in possession fruition of life else he could not be threatned with death Ans. This is not the life whereof we are speaking we are speaking of the life promised by that Covenant unto perfect obedience But it seemeth that he joyneth with the 〈◊〉 in this granting no life promised to Adam but a Continuance of what he was already in possession of He enquireth If he had not a right unto life by his freedome from sin but was to purchase this right by an ctlual fulfilling of the Law it would be known what quantitâ—eâ— of obedience to the Law he must have paid before he had made this purchase how long he must have obeyed keept the Law Ans. There is no necessity of any exact knowledge of these things our maine question doth not â—â—and or â—all with the knowledge or ignorance of them Yet we may say and that is sufficient that that Law or Covenant requiring perfect obedience and perpetual without the least omission or commission he must have paid all that obedience which the Law required of him to the day of his transâ—â—â—gration or change to glory before the 〈◊〉 had been made He addeth for had he lived a two yeers in his integrity uprightness without the least touch of any transgression he hâ—d still but a debtor of obedience to the Law upon the same termes that he was at the beginning the least interruption or breach in the course of his obedience had even now been the forfeiture of that life he enjoyed Ans. How long Adam should have lived upon earth before his translation to glory we know not nor is it of use for us to enquire it is sufficient to know that he was to finish his course to persevere in obedience to the end if he would not both forfeit the life he had and the expectation of
of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith The question is not whether Christ be made Sanctification to us but whether that Sanctification be any part of that Righteousness which Christ is made of God to be unto us What more He addeth It is God who honoureth these that honour him praiseth his Saints as the excellent on the Earth his Jewels peculiar Treasure adorneth with his own lovely image partakers of the divine Nature and members of Christ as his own flesh And it is Satan wicked men that vilifie dishonour them Ans. This is but a Continuance of the same cheat for it is no part of the question whether the Saints should be vilified or honoured But the question is whether the Saints should rob God of his glory and ascribe that unto themselves which is due unto him be it in less or in more We know the Saints are God's excellent ones his Jewels his peculiar treasure but all this is through the free underserved grace of God making them beautiful lovely with his own graces and partakers of his divine Nature And therefore we say that for all that they ought to be humble knowing what their birth â—ativity was and whence all this is come and who ought to have the glory of all this and notwithstanding of this what is the sole ground of their justification before God and what is that Righteousness upon the account whereof they are justified in the sight of God And I have oft lamented it saith he furder that these very men that hold this kind of doctrine of self-abosement as having no part of Righteousness nor share at all in any good work are yet too oft so proudly conceited of their own goodness even for holding that they have none for which they are praise worthie as that their pride is no small trouble to the Churches all about them Ans. I shall not plead for pride or proud conceits in any but whether such as lay down doctrinal grounds of pride and teach men to be proud or such as lay down contrary grounds but do not practise accordingly be most blame worthie I leave Mr. Baxter to judge One thing I would ask How Mr. Baxter came to know that such as he opposeth here were proudly conceited of their own goodness Pride a proud conceit lyeth most within is not obvious to the view of every one especially being upon such a ground I hope Mr. Baxter will not take upon him to judge of hearts And if it be by their contendings for that which they conceive to be truth If this be an infallible mark no man can be judged more proud than is Mr. Baxter none having in this matter contended by so many so great volumnes as he hath since his Aphorismes come abroad that indeed to the no small trouble of the Churches And further some might think that if Mr. Baxter did aright lament that any were proudly conceited of their own goodness he should not have laid doctrinal grounds for fomenting of this pride nor moved such an objection against himself as he doth here for no man can rightly lament at the practice of that doctrine which himself embraceth teacheth He proceedeth â— 177. Whatever is of God is good whatever is good is laâ—dable or praise-worthie meriteth to be esteemed as it is Ans. True therefore God who is the Author thereof should have the glory it should be esteemed as it is to the glory of God not to puff us up with proud conceits or to be the ground we leane to in order to be justified accepted of God He addeth n. 178. All the Sanctified are inherently righteous but with an imperfect Righteousness which will no further justifie them in judgment save only against this Accusation that they are unholy Ans. Mr. Baxter then is much to blame who will have this Imperfect Righteousness to be a perfect Righteousness as being our Gospel Righteousness and the Poâ—estative condition of our Justification absolution at judgment and so the immediat sole formal ground of our Justification before God But this answere is also impertinent for these he here writteth against speak not of a particular justification from this or that false Accusation but of that justification before God whereof Paul treateth in his Epistles to the Romans Galatians which is a justification of the ungodly Rom. 4 5. He addeth n. 179. There is no Righteousness which will not justifie him that hath it in tantum so far as he is Righteous for the contrary is a contradiction for to be just is to be justifiable Ans. This is sick of the same impertinency with what went before for the question is not concerning a particular Righteousness a particular justification upon that account but of a general justification as to our state that from the just accusation of Law justice under which we stand by Nature in reference to which all our inherent Righteoâ—sness how great so ever it be is no ground nor part of the merite or formalis ratio of that Paul had no small share of this Righteousness when he said he knew nothing by himself And yet he addeth Yet am I not hereby justified 1. Cor. 4 4. and we would say the same speak after this manner if Mr. Baxter would suffer us Next n. 181. for 180. he saith All the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is our own or on ourselves where it justifieth us for to be made just or justified in the first sense constitutivly is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just Pardon of sin is made our own Right to Christ glory is made our own though Christ's Righteousness was the only meritorious cause of all this which therefore is may be called our Material Righteousness as that which meriteth it is the matter Ans. There seemeth to be nothing here but confusion for 1 he speaketh ambiguously when he saith that all that Righteousness which formally justifieth us is our own or on ourselves for this may be true whether by that Righteousness he mean the Surety-Righteousness of Christ which he doth not meane for he is too much against the imputation of that as we have seen beeause we say that is made ours by imputation in order to our justification upon the account thereof or whether he mean our own inherent Righteousness but then if this be his meaning it is false that we are hereby formally justified unless he mean as before only a particular justification which is nothing to the point as was said 2 To be made just to be justified are not formally the same but to such only who Love confusion 3 He who is made just is but constituted justifiable is not eo ipso constitutive justified But Mr. Baxter loveth his own Expressions Explications of them
were by the works of the Law is opposite to a seeking of it by Faith And againe Rom. 10 3. they went about to establish their own Righteousness and did not submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God which two are opposite inconsistent And this their own Righteousness was but an imperfect Righteousness which they were labouring to cause stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 14. We cannot imagine that when the Apostle did exclude his own Righteousness and desired not to be found therein he only excluded that which was not desired not to be found in that which he had not and which he knew he had not to wit a perfect sinless obedience Rom. 7 24. 1. Tim. 1 13 15. He confessed he had been a blasphemer and the chiefe of sinners and so was far from imagineing that his obedience was perfect sinless This then could not be the Righteousness whereof he speaketh Phil. 3 9. but his imperfect Righteousness being that only which he could call his owne is that only which he desired not to be found in in the day of his appearing before his judge in order to his justification 15. If Paul had disputed only against perfect obedience had yeelded justification by imperfect obedience What ground was there for that objection Rom. 6 1. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound seing justification by imperfect obedience doth of it self engadge to all endeavoure after obedience against the allowance of sin 16. And the Apostles answere to this objection may fournish us with another Argument against this for if Paul had allowed of or pleaded for justification by our imperfect works he had used this aâ— least as one argument to perswade unto an absteaning from sin by saying there is no justification but by endeavouring after obedience But we hear of no such think in all the Apostles Arguments whereby he presseth unto holiness obedience whether there or elsewhere 17. We are not justified by works done after Faith Regeneration as was proved before Therefore we are not justified by imperfect works for works after faith are imperfect againe they cannot but be so as presupposing sin guilt going before There is yet another Evasion wherewith some satisfie themselves for they say that when Paul saith we are not justified by the works of the Law by these works he meaneth only outward works of the Law performed without an inward Principle of Grace of faith or fear or Love of God But we need not insist in the discovery of the vanity of this Evasion having before at large proved that the works whereof Paul speaketh are not works done before Faith Regeneration For all these works that are done before Faith Regeneration are done without any inward Principle of Grace are only outward works such as Heathens may performe a few reasons will serve heâ—e as 1. When Paul denieth justification to be by the Law or by the works thereof he must mean such works as are enjoined commanded by the Law But the Law commandeth other works than those outward works for it condemneth all works that flow not from a principle of grace because the Law is holy spiritual the first chiefe command thereof is that we Love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soul with all our strength c. Rom. 7 12 14. Mat. 22 37. Mark 12 30. Luk. 10 27. Deut 13 3. 30 6. If then Paul exclude only such works as flow not from a principle of grace he shall not exclude the works of the Law but works prohibited by the Law his meaning should be we are not justified by works which the Law commandeth not but we are justified by works which the Law commandeth which is contradictory to the whole scope designe of the Apostle 2. The Apostle doth manifestly exclude the works of Abraham Rom. 4 1 2. But the works of Abraham were other than such servile works or such outward works performed from no principle of grace or Love to God Therefore such cannot be here understood 3. Outward works done without any principle of grace could with no face or shew of a pretence lay a ground or be any occasion of boasting or of glorying because they were no other but manifest sins being prohibited condemned by the Law not commanded or approven But the Apostle excludeth such works as could do this Therefore he excludeth good works which were done in conformitie to the Law not such outward lifeless works only as were meer servile works no better 4. Such lifeless servile outward works could give no shew of a ground of making the reward of debt But Paul excludeth such works as would make the reward of debt Rom. 4 4. 5. If Paul had meaned here only such outward servile works which are not conforme to the Law what occasion had there been for Paul's proposeing of that objection Rom. 3 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith for to lay aside these works which are not conforme to the Law giveth no probable ground of supposal that thereby the Law is made void 6. Israel could not have been said to have followed after the Law of Righteousness by doing of works meerly ourward lifeless And yet this is said of them it is also said that by all their following of the Law of Righteousness they could not be justified Rom. 9 31 32. 7. Meer performance of outward servile works cannot be called a Righteousness But the jewes went about to establish their own Righteousness therefore missed justification Rom. 10 4. 8. There was never any life had by these outward servile works alone But by the works which Paul excludeth there was life to be had if they had been perfect The man which doth those things shall live by them Rom. 2 13. 10 5. Levit. 18 5. Gal. 3 12. 9. These outward servile works are not good works but even good works are here excluded Ephes. 2 9 10. 10. Paul did not meane such works only when he excluded his own Righteousness Phil. 3 9. Nor can such works be called works of Righteousness which yet are expresly excluded in this matter Tit. 3 5. CHAP. VI. By works which Paul excludeth is not meant the Merite of Works THere is one other Evasion thought upon to shift by all the Apostles argueings yet to maintaine the Interest of Works as the Cause ground of justification before God to wit That Paul only disputs against a groundless conceite of merite in works not against the works themselves but against a Pharisaical sense of merite worth in their works whereby they conceived conceited that thereby they could satisfie for their sins buy purchase to themselves Justification Salvation But against this Evasion we have these things to say 1. By merite here must either be understood that which is called meritum ex condigno that is that merite
will not do it but works of Faith or Faith proving it self lively by works 2 The very Instance of Abraham which he adduceth cleareth this for he saith vers 21. Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered his Son upon the altar Now twentie five yeers or as some compute Thirtie yeers or thereby before this time the Scriptures say that Abraham beleeved God it was reckoned to him unto Righteousness Gen. 15. hence Paul proveth Rom. 4. that he was justified by Faith Therefore if now he was justified when he offered his Son he must have been twice justified that in the same sense with the same kind of justification which can not be said Nor will it avail to say That Gen. 15. he was justified by the first justification which was by Faith of which Paul speaketh Rom. 4. But Gen. 22. he was justified with the second justification which is by works of this Iames speaketh for this distinction of justification into First Second is but a meer device of the Papist's having no ground in nor countenance from the Scriptures and beside it would follow that a meer historical dead Faith is sufficient unto the first justification and that Paul understandeth such a faith only when he said Rom. 4. that Abraham beleeved God it was counted to him unto Righteousness the contrary whereof is manifest Nor will it serve here to say that Paul speaketh of justification as begun but Iames speaketh of justification as continued for then it would follow that justification at first or as begun is by a dead faith and by such a kind of faith as devils may have consequently that of such a faith as this Paul speaketh because of such a faith Iames speaketh as we have seen But this cannot be said for it was a true lively faith that Abraham had when he beleeved the promise of the Messiah a dead faith is not the faith that justifieth first or last Yea because Iames maketh an opposition betwixt faith works in reference to justification in the sense wherein he speaketh of it it will follow that faith should not be requisite unto the Continuance of justification 3 Iames said vers 20. that Faith without works was dead and to confirme this he addeth vers 21. was not Abraham our Father justified by works c. As if he had said The faith by which Abraham was brought into an estate of justification life was a lively faith having works of obedience attending it and his obedience declared that his faith was lively and that he was truely justified by faith Ergo a faith that is lifeless and wholly without works of obedience is but dead can give no ground to conclude one justified in the way to life So that what mention he maketh of justification by works is but to prove the reality of lively faith by works true justification by faith is evidenced demonstrated not by a bare idle vaine fruitless profession 4 When Abraham was justified by his works the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God it was imputed unto him for Righteousness as is manifest from vers 22 23. Now by this mentioned of Abraham in the Scripture Gen. 15 6. Paul proveth Rom. 4. that he was justified by faith But if Iames were here speaking of the way of our becoming justified before God as Paul doth there could be no connexion here yea the proof should contradict the thing to be proved for to say that Abraham was justified by faith will not prove that he was justified by works nor could his being justified by works be a fulfilling a clearing confirming of that truth that faith he was justified by faith for faith works in the matter of justification are inconsistent perfectly opposite as Paul teacheth us as here Iames also teacheth us But taking justification here for its declaration manifestation it can be by works and a declaration of justification by works can be is a very signal confirmation clearing of that Testimony which saith that Abraham was justified by faith 5 By that work of offering up his son at a the command of God Abraham declared that he was no hypocrite but a true beleever and thus was he justified as Mr. Baxter will have it as we heard lately from any such accusation But a Justification from this accusation is but a justification of the truth sinceritie of faith so a confirmation evidence of justification or justification as evidenced declared and not justification as produced by its causes 6 When Iames saith vers 23. That the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham beleeved God it was imputed to him unto Righteousness when he was justified by offering up his son vers 21. this fulfilling of the Scripture-testimony was either because at that time when he offered up his Son Righteousness was imputed unto him he was justified or because it was then manifest to be a truth that he was justified indeed But the former can not be said because Righteousness was imputed unto him and he was justified long before this Therefore it can be only understood as to its manifestation 7 This is also clear from what the Lord spoke at that time Gen. 22 12. Now I know that thou fearest God seing thou hast not witheld thy Son thine only Son from me No word here of imputing Righteousness unto him or of his being brought into a justified state but only God's solemne declaration that he was a true fearer of God so one that had true faith was really justified 8 Vers. 22. he saith Seest thou how faith wrought with his works by works was faith made perfect But how could this follow upon what he had said vers 21 Justification by works if justification be taken absolutely here not for its declaration manifestation will not prove faith's working with works But if justification be here taken for justification declared manifested the sense is plaine for such works as do evidence declare that a person is justified will manifestly prove that faith is working with these works because justification presupposeth alwayes a true lively faith that will work with works of obedience 9 Far less could it follow from justification taken absolutly by works that faith was made perfect by works but from such a work as will evidence a man to be justified it is manifest to every one that that work is a clear evidence of a true lively faith by it faith is perfected that is declared evidenced demonstrated to be faith indeed as the word perfected is used 2. Cor. 12 9. for my strength is made perfect in weakness 10 That other Inference vers 24. ye see then how that by works a man is justified not by Faith only will not follow from what went before if justification be here taken absolutely for the command so Abraham
can it be supposed that he looketh on such whose proud conceits he was here depressing as already justified as to the beginning of justification seing a dead faith which was all the faith they had is no Condition of justification at all And as to consummation of justification as he speaketh Abraham's saith was not yet perfected neither could be before his death He addeth finally That obedience perfecteth faith as it is part of that necessary matter not necessary at the first moment of beleeving but necessary afterward when he is called to it whereby he is to be justified against the charge of non-performance of the New Covenants Condition even against the Accusation of being an unbeleever or hypocrite Ans. If obedience perfect faith thus it is only as evidenceing proving the man a true beleever no hypocrite or one that hath only a meer profession which is the thing we say if it be looked on as the Condition of the Covenant so as the ground of justifying the man from the charge of non-performance of that Condition it standeth only for itself for its own part cannot not be said upon that account to perfect faith as when both abstaining from murther and from stealing is called for the absteaning from stealing cannot be said to perfect the other though it ground a Mans justification from the charge of stealing And therefor by this assertion faith can as well be said to perfect works as works be said to perfect faith Mr. Baxter giveth this ground of Agreement betwixt Paul Iames that Paul is about this question What is the Righteousness which we must pload against the Accusation of the Law or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of that Law And this he well concludeth is neither works nor faith But the Righteousness which is by faith that is Christ's Righteousness Ans. Paul speaketh to this question how sinners come to be justified before God therefore cleareth up the matter of justification in all its causes and not only sheweth what that Righteousness is which must be pleaded against the accusation of the Law but also what way we come to be partakers of that Righteousness in order to our being justified before God to wit by faith without the deeds of the Law If faith be not that Righteousness why did Mr. Baxter say that Rom. 4. where it is said that faith is imputed unto Righteousness faith is taken for our act not for the object of faith or Christ's Righteousness laid hold on by faith But now what question handleth Iames His question is saith he What is the Condition of our â—ustification by this Righteousness of Christ whether faith only or works also Ans. And doth not Paul also speak to this question when he saith We are justified by faith Will not Mr. Baxter grant that faith is the Condition of our justification by this Righteousness If Iames then handle this question there shall be no agreement betwixt him Paul but a manifest contradiction for Paul saith that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law that is upon Condition of Faith as Mr. Baxter will grant Iames saith that we are justified not by faith only but by works as the Condition here is a perfect contradiction both speaking ad idem the one saying we are justified by faith without works the other saying by faith works What the true question is whereof Iames speaketh we have shown above the â—eby manifested a cleare harmonie betwixt the Apostles left no ground of suspicion of any contradiction He saith next that Paul doth either in express words or in the sense scope of his speach exclude only the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law ourselves But never the fulfilling of the Gospel Conditions that we may have part in Christ. Ans. Whether the works of the Law which Paul excludeth be so to be understood or not we have seen above only I say now that both speak of the same Law that is the Moral Law both consequently speak of the same obedience that is obedience to the same Law And nothing can be alledged to prove that Paul meaneth works as taken for the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law ourselves Iames meaneth the same works as taken for the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gospel ourselves And further the faith that Iames speaketh so much of is none of the Gospel Conditions of justification for it is but a dead carcass an unprofitable thing But his following words saying Indeed if a man should obey the commands of the Gospel with a legal intent that obedience should be but legal shew that by the works of the Law he meaneth some thing in opposition to the commands of the Gospel wherein he joineth with Socinians But we owne no commands of the Gospel but such as are enjoined by the Law of God even the Moral Law of which Iames speaketh expresly vers 10 11. He tels us 3. for clearing of this agreement That Paul doth by the word Faith especially direct our thoughts to Christ beleeved in for to be justified by Christ to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one Ans. This is all very true sure he must also say that to be justified by Christ to be justified by works is not all one for all obedience or works is not receiving of Christ. But now what doth Iames direct us to by the word Faith which he mentioneth doth he not direct our thoughts to Christ beleeved in If not it cannot be justifying Faith he speaketh of as Mr. Baxter supposeth If yea why doth he adde works more than Paul doth Shall Paul's directing our thoughts to Christ beleeved in exclude works and Iames's directing our thoughts the same way include them Where is then the agreement But 4. he addeth that when Paul doth mentione Faith as the Condition he alwayes implieth obedience to Christ. Ans. It is denied that he implieth obedience as the Condition of Justification And Mr. Baxter himself will grant this I suppose as to justification begun or as to our fiâ—st justification as he speaketh in replying to Mr. Cartwright which is enough for us for we know no second justification distinct from the first whereof either of the Apostles do speak And I like not that which he addeth saying He i.e. Paul implieth obedience in requiring Faith as truely as he that subjecteth himself to a Prince doth imply future obedience in his engagement to obey for this maketh justifying faith a plaine engagment to obey And thus to be justified by faith is to be justified by a formal engagment to obey a formal engagment to obey is a receiving of Christ for to be justified by faith to be justified by receiving Christ is all one Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. part 2. n. 365. giveth us five particulars of justification by works
which our case called for was to be made over to us in order to our receiving the grand benefites of pardon life Now it was necessary for us to have a Righteousness consisting in perfect obedience to the Law because of that Constitution Do this live Suffering as such is no obedience to the Law He addeth Their opinion is hard who deny that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us unto Righteousness that it is the cause of the reward or of life eternal How could Christ's blood purge us from all sin if it were not the Cause of our Righteousness how should he give his flesh for the life of the world if life were not restored to us thereby hoâ— should we be healed by his stripes if we were not sanctified by him how should Christ's death be our life if we gote not life thereby betwixt freedone from the Curse of the Law right to the everlasting inheritaâ—ce there is no middle state Ans. 1 We deny only that Christ's passive obedience alone is imputed to us unto Righteousness for alone considered being only the paying of the penalty it is not the Righteousness required in the Law 2 The paying of a penalty though it may deliver from punishment yet cannot procure a right to the reward promised to keeping of the Law as is manifest therefore Christ's passive obedience considered alone cannot procure a right to that reward of life that was promised to the fulfilling of the Law by obedience 3 Christ's blood being the blood of one that fulfilled also the Law and conjunct with that obedience both purgeth from sin meriteth life And so we say of the rest following only I cannot see how pertinently in the last sanctification is mentioned for we are speaking of right to life eternal 4 It is true as to us now there is no midd'le state betwixt freedom from the Curse of the Law Right to the Inheritance â— because Christ's whole obedience both active passive is imputed as a compleat Satisfaction Righteousness whereby we come to obtaine both a freedome from the Curse a right to the Inheritance But in Adam before he fell there was a middle state for so long as he stood he was free of the Curse yet was to finish his course of obedience in order to obtaining the right to the promised reward unless it be said that no more was promised than the continuance of what he possessed It was excpted That the Law is not fulfilled by suffering the punishment for the Law the command is one but punishment fulfilleth not the commandement it only satisfieth the threatning Therefore the suffering of the punishment can not be the cause of the reward He ans by denying the Antec saying that by suffering of the punishment the Law is fulfilled by the Mediator partly formally in that he suffered the punishment due to us by the Law partly efficiently in that by his sufferings he not only took away the Curse but acquired a holiness to us with holiness life eternal Ans. This answere is no way satisfying for suffering of the punishment as such is no obedience to the Law and of the fulfilling of the Law by obedience to the commands thereof did the Exception only speak no man will say that such as are now suffering the punishment in hell are any way fulfilling the Law Neither is that holiness procured by Christ's death any fulfilling of the Law according to the Old Covenant such a fulfilling is required in order to the obtaining of a right to the reward of life promised in that Covenant He answereth againe that when the threatning of the Law is satisfied that is done which the Law commandeth to be done so in part the Law is fulfilled Ans. Suffering as such is no commanded thing the Law constituting a penalty maketh only suffering to be due but doth not enjoine any suffering So that though the Law be satisfied with a Satisfaction laid down by another so far as that the other is not to suffer Yet by this paying of the penalty the Lawes commands are not fulfilled in whole nor in part And the Law as to the commands must be fulfilled ere a right to the reward promised to obedienceâ— be obtained Arg. 6. is taken from passages of Scripture mentioning the active obedience of Christ such as Dan. 9 24. Ier. 23 6. 1. Cor. 1 30. Rom. 5 19. Phil. 2 8. He Ans. 1. That these places do not prove that Christ's active obedience is imputed so as by it we are accounted observers of the Law Ans. These passages sufficiently prove that his active obedience belongeth to that Righteousness Satisfaction which is imputed unto us the fruites of the Righteousness of Christ imputed are here as well ascribed to his active as to his passive obedience of the places in particular we have said enough elsewhere our disput here is not about imputation but about that which is imputed or that which is reckoned to us as our Righteousness this we say cannot be pure suffering of the penalty for that as such is no Righteousness nor no where is it so called He Ans. 2. That it only followeth that the reforming of our corrupt nature could not be had from Christ by Christ without his active obedience Ans. The same may as well be said of the passive obedience so the cause shall be yeelded unto the Socinians But the matter is clear That Christ is our compleat Righteousness not effectivly for he worketh no compleat legal Righteousness in us that is a Righteousness according as was required in the Old Covenant And beside the expiation of sin he brought in a Righteousness which is called everlasting Dan. 9 24. which can not be understood of our imperfect sanctification And beside that he is our Sanctification he is our Righteousness 1. Cor. 1 30. therefore must be our Righteousness another way than by working it in us for so is he our Sanctification And Rom. 5. our justification life is directly ascribed to his Obedience Righteousness To that Phil. 2 8. he saith The meaning is that Christ from his birth to his death did so accommodate himself to his Fathers will that he suffered all most patiently that was to suffer even the cursed death of the crosse Ans. It was a suffering of what he was to suffer even to come under the Law for that was a part of his humiliation the text saith he humbled himself became obedient and there is no ground to restrick the word Obedient to his suffering only Arg. 7. Christ was made under the Law for us Gal. 4 4 5. He Ans. He was made under the Law for our good that he might be a fit Mediator Ans. Why may not we as well admit the same sense of Christ's being said to be made a curse for us to wit that it was only for our good and so give up the Cause
quidem pro nobis Patrem in quem peccaveramus nostram inobedientiam Consolatus nobis autem donans eam quae est ad Factorem nostrum Conversationem Subjectionem i. e. The Lord brought us into friend shipe by his Incarnation being made a Mediator betwixt God Man Propitiating the Father for us against whom we sinned comforting us over our disobedience but freely giving us that Conversation Subjection which is to our Maker Athanasius Tom. 2. p. 270. Necessarium est maximeque necessarium â—reâ—dere Scripturis Sanctis confiteri ex nostro genere primitias celebrare singularemâ— assumentis in genus humanum amorem obstu pescere magnâ oeconomiae atque dispo sitionis miraculum non timere execrationem legis Christus enim nos a maledictione legis liberavit impletionem legis a primitiis factam toti massae asscribere imputare in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. It is necessary yea most necessary to beleeve the holy Scriptures to confesse the first fruits i. e. Christ of our kind to celebrat that singular love of him that assumed viz. Mans Nature unto mankind to be astonished at that miracle of the great Oeconomie disposition not to feare the Curse of the Law for Christ hath delivered us from the Curse of the Law ascribe or impute the fulfilling of the Law done by the first fruits unto the whole masse The same Author de Incarn Verbi contra Samosat Tom. 1. p. 461. Impossibile est puritatem innoeentiam in humana natura exhiberi nisi Deus credatur in carne esse qui justitiam omni peccato liberam in mundum introduxit cujus quia participes redditi sumus vivemus salvabimur Illud enim non est justus in terra qui bonum faciat non peccet in commune ad omnes homines pertinet unde ex coelo descendit qui immaculatam ex se justitiam daturus erat i. e. It is impossible that purity innocency shall be exhibited in mans nature unless we beleeve that God is in the flesh who hath brought into the world a Righteousness free of all sin of which because we are made partakers we shall live be saved for that there is not a just man upon earth who doth good sinneth not doth appertaine to all men in common wherefore he descended from heaven who was to give a pure Righteousness of himself Chrysost. When a Cavilling jew shall object how can the world be saved by the Rectitude or Obedience of one Christ Answere him againe by asking how came the world to be condemned by the disobedience of one Adam Greg. Nyssen Orat. 2. iu Cantic Christus in se transtatis peccatorum meorum sordibus puritatem suam mecum communicavit meque pulchritudinis ejus quae in ipso est participem fecit i. e. Christ having translated the filth of my fins upon himself did communicat unto me his own purity made me a partaker of that beauty which is in him By these we may see that even before Augustins dayes this Truth was asserted though Mr. Baxter in his book against D. Tully Ch. 1. § 3. intimate the contrary Cyrillus Alexandr in Ioan. lib. 11. c. 25. Quemadmodum praevaricatione primihominis ut in primitiis generis nostri morti addicti sumus eodem modo per obedientâ—am justitiam Christi in 〈◊〉 seipsum legi subjecâ— quamvis legis Author esset benedictio atque vivificatio quae per Spiritum est ad totam nostram penetravit naturam i. e. As by the transgression of the first man as in the first fruits of our kind we are adjudged unto death so the same way by the Obedience Righteousness of Christ in as much as he subjected himself to the Law though he was the Author of the Law the blessing Vivification which is by the Spirit did reach to our whole Nature Leo Epist. 72. ad Iuvenalem Ut autem repararet omnium vitam recepit omnium causam vim veteris chirographi pro omnibus solvendo vacuavit ut sicut per unius reatum omnes facti fâ—erant peccatores ita per unius innocentiam omnes fierent innocentes inde in homines manante justitia ubi est humana suscepta Natura i. e. But that he might repaire the life of all he undertook the cause of all paying for all made void the force of the Old obligation to the end that as by one mans guilt all were made sinners so by one mans innocency all might become innocent Righteousness coming unto men thence where the humane Nature is taken on August ad Laurent Cap. 41. Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei sumus nee in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum similitudine peccati in qua crucifixus est demonstravit i. e. He was sin as we were Righteousness not our own but of God not in ourselves but in him as he did demonstrat himself to be sin not his own but ours not in himself but in us by the similitude of sinfull flesh in which he was crucified Idem in Psal. 30. Cone 1. in tua justitia erue me exime me quia non invenisti in me justitiam meam erue me in tua hoc est illud quod me eruit quod me justificat quod ex impio pium facit quod ex iniquo justum i. e. Deliver me in thy Righteousness Because thou didst not finde my Righteousness in me deliver me in thine that is it which delivereth me which justifieth me that maketh me of ungodly godly of unrighteous Righteous Id. in Psal. 70. Erue me in justitia tua non in mea sed in tua si enim in mea erâ— exillis de quibus ille ait ignorantes Dei justitiam suam volentes constituere justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti i. e. Deliver me in thy Righteousness Not in mine but in thine for if in mine I should be of them of whom he saith being ignorant of God's Righteousness willing to establish their own they did not subject themselves unto the Righteousness of God Id. Tom. 9. Tract 3. in Ioan. Omnes qui ex Adamo cum peccato peccatores omnes qui per Christum justificati justi non in se sed in illo nam in se si interroges Adam sunt in illo si interroges Christi sunt i. e. All that are of Adam with sin are sinners all who are justified by Christ are Righteous not in themselves but in him for if you ask what they are in themselves they are Adam's if you ask what they are in him they are Christ's Bernard Serm. 61. in Cantic Nunquid justitias meas Domine memorabor justitiae tuae solius Ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es mihi tu justitia a Deo Nunquid verendum ne non una duobus
that denote Beleevers Union with Him as the ground of their Interest in His Righteousness should not be asserted to Import this Imputation yet this words that we might be made the Righteousness of God will be a rock whereupon Imputation may stand for they hold this forth unto us That as God made Christ sin by Imputation so He maketh us righteous yea the Righteousness of God by Imputation Except 5. The clear meaning is this that God for that end made Christ sin that is an offering or Sacrifice for sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in Him that is that we might be justified or made a Society or Remnant of Righteous ones after that peculiar manner of justification which God hath established through that Sacrifice of His Son Ans. When Christ was made an offering for sin the guilt of sin was laid upon Him even the guilt of our sin And if we be justified or made a Society of justified ones we must be made a Society of righteous ones and if we be made a Society of Righteous ones we must first have a Righteousness seing we have not a Righteousness of our own we must have a Righteousness made over to us and seing we have this Righteousness made over to us as being in Christ it must be the Righteousness of God So that though this Interpretation be very far fetched and hath no countenance from the words and destroyeth the cohesion of these words with the former as also the reason that is contained in them adduced for confirmation of what was said vers 19. yet it cannot destroy the doctrine of Imputation but must contribute to its support though a little more remotely He laboureth to give strength to this his Interpretation by alleiging 1. That it is a frequent Scripture expression to call the sin-offering or the Sacrifice for sin by the name of sin simply as Exod. 29 14. and 30 10. Levit. 5 6 16 18 19 7 1 2 7 9 7. Ezek. 44 27. 45 19. 23. Hos. 4 8. Ans. Though it be true that the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do sometimes signify sin sometimes an offering for sin yet the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth alwayes signify sin in the New Test. and the 70 do not use this Greek word in the places cited except Exod. 29 14. there in the version that is in the Biblia Polyglot Lond. It is in the Genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sin the chald-paraph calleth it an Expiation Targ. Ionath Hierof say it is a sin so doth the persik version the Samaritan Version turneth it that is for sin the Arabik an Expiation But further though it were granted to be so taken here yet our cause would hereby suffer no prejudice but be rather confirmed as was lately shown And when the same word used to express a Sacrifice for sin which signifieth sin it self we may hence be confirmed in this that that Sacrifice for sin hath guilt laid upon it before it can be Sacrifice for sin it must be sin in respect of this before it be a due Sacrifice or oblation for sin And therefore Christ must have been sin in law by Imputation or have the guilt of sin laid upon Him before He could be a fit Sacrifice for sin He alleigeth 2. To express a Number of justified or righteous persons by the abstract terme of Righteousness is very agreable to the Scripture dialect in other places as poverty for poor captivity for captives Ans. 1 Yet no one instance can be given where the word Righteousness hath this Import 2 But how ever as was said these justified or righteous persons must be righteous else they cannot make up such a company as captivity can never signify a company of men that are not captives nor poverty a company of persons that are not poor So that this company of righteous ones must needs be righteous and that in order to justification seing they have no Righteousness of their own for in themselves they are ungodly they must have a Righteousness by Imputation 3 Why should they be called the Righteousness of God according to this Interpretation And how is the opposition here observed betwixt Christs being made sin their being made the Righteousness of God in Him But this man by this Interpretation transgresseth all lines of Correspondence He alleigeth 3. That addition of God imports that that righteousness or justification which beleevers obtaine by the Sacrifice of Christ is not only Righteousness of Gods free donation but of His special procurement and contrivement for them Ans. 1 Righteousness and justification are not one the same how oft so ever he name them as Synonymous 2 We grant that the Righteousness the Iustification which Beleevers obtaine are both Gods free gift His contrivement But notwithstanding hereof yea so much the rather is there a Righteousness imputed to them the Righteousness of Christ who is God and a Righteousness which will be accepted of God whose judgment is according to truth as a sufficient ground whereupon to pronounce such as in themselves are ungodly to be Righteous so to justifie them He alleigeth 4. That by the grammatical construction dependance of the latter clause our being made the Righteousness of God in Christ upon the former it is evident that in the latter such an Effect must of necessity be signified which may answere that cause to wit the death of Christ for us this is deliverance from the guilt punishment of sin not the Imputation of His active obedience Ans. As Christs death could not be separated from His Obedience which is thereby presupposed His death being the Sacrifice of one who is made under the law and was obedient thereunto unto death that in the room stead of His own So the Imputation of Righteousness to us should not be separated from the Imputation of His Sufferings both being necessarily required unto sinners who had sinned yet remained under the obligation of the law in order to their acceptance with God and Justification He alleigeth 5. The Scriptures when they speak of the Sufferings of Christ as a cause inrespect of justification never ascribe any other effect unto them but only either the Remission of sins deliverance from wrath Redemption or the like Ans. As the Scriptures making so frequent mention of the Sufferings of Christ do not exclude His Obedience so neither do they exclude the Imputation of His Obedience in order to our justification and receiving a Right to glory yea they make our being constitute Righteous an Effect of His Obedience Righteousness or Righteous-making is accompanied with Justification So that though the Scriptures speak sometimes more expresly of the Sufferings sometimes more expresly of the obedience of Christ according to the exigence of the cause handled yet both are inseparable
to be Ans. Christ could not be made a Sacrific for sin till He had the guilt of sin laid upon Him by Imputation as the Sacrifices of old had typically His being reputed such handled as such by man is of no consideration here And by God He could not be used as a sinner or as sinners are deserve to be unless our sins had been first caused to meet upon Him imputed to Him to the end He might properly be said to Suffer become a Sacrifice for sin We say with him n. 23. that God did not suppose or repute Christ to have committed all or any of the sins which we all committed Nor to have had all the wickedness in His Nature which was in ours nor to have deserved what we did deserve nor did in this proper sense impute our sins to Christ. For indeed this had not been in a prope sense to impute our sins to Him but plainly to confound His Physical person with ours to speak thus I should account to be horrid blasphemy Yet it may be must be said that Christ being made sin for us made to suffer for sin in the room of sinners had their sins laid upon Him so was a sinner not Inherently but legally by Imputation that is had the guilt of our sins in order to punishment imputed to Him He put to suffer for that guilt or because a sinner by Imputation And when the Scripture saith that God made Christ sin for us 2 Cor. 5 21. Laid on Him the iniquity of us all Esai 55 6. It is as emphatick to me more as to say God did impute our sin to Christ which he some-way excepteth against n. 23. pag. 57. He addeth n. 26. pag. 58. Though Christ suffered in our stead and in a large sence to certaine uses and in some respects as the Representer or in the persons of Sinners yet did He not so far represent their persons in His habitual Holiness and actual obedience no not in the obedience of His Suffering as He did in the Suffering it self He obeyed not in the person of a sinner much less of millions of sinners which were to say in the person of sinners he never sinned He suffered to save us from suffering but He obeyed not to save us from obeying but to bring us to obedience yet His perfection of obedience had this end that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification and Salvation Ans. Seing Christ was appointed Mediator Sponsor to take on mans debt and come in his Law-place what reason can be given why He should not as well be said to represent them in the paying of the one part of that debt as in the paying of the other We were under the Law and obliged to performe perfect obedience in order to the obtaining of the reward promised and because of sin we were under the Curse Now when the Surety come to pay our whole debt He did as much and as well represent us in paying of and in performing obedience as in Suffering And why may we not say that He obeyed in the juridical and Law person of a sinner as well as that He suffered Though I should not use such improper and unusual expressions as Mr. Baxter here doth yet I must tell him That Christ's obeying in the person of a sinner saith no more than that He being the person representing sinners His obeying was and is repute in Law-sense their obeying He Suffered it is true to save us from suffering of the Curse of the Law But Mr. Baxter will not say that He suffered to save us from all Suffering He obeyed it is true to bring us to obedience as He died also for that end that we might haue the Sanctifying Spirit bestowed upon us yet notwithstanding He obeyed to save us from obeying viz. after that manner that we were obliged to obey under the old Covenant that is to obey perfectly or never enjoy the crown and to obey for that end that we might enjoy the crown as the legal reward of and due debt for our labour And seing Mr. Baxter granteth in the following words that Christ's perfect obedience had this end that perfect obedience might not be necessary in us to our justification why may he not say that to certaine uses and in some respects Christ obeyed to save us from obeying Or why will he not say that He obeyed for us that we who could not obey of our selves might be repute to have obeyed perfectly in Him This is all we desire He saith next n. 27. It was not we our selves who did perfectly obey or were perfectly holy or suffered for sin in the person of Christ or by Him nor did me naturally or morally merite our own Salvation by obeying in Christ nor did we satisfie God's justice for our sins nor purchase pardon or Salvation to ourselves by our suffering in and by Christ. Ans. However Christ doing all this for us as our Sponsor and Surety we are so taken-in in a Law-sense that the same is imputed unto us and we enjoy the fruits thereof pardon and Salvation no less than if we had done and suffered all in our own physical persons As to what he saith n. 29 30. it is nothing to the purpose and therefore I shall not set down his words for we are not here speaking of Relations and Accidents physically or metaphysicall rather considered which cannot pass from one Subject to another nor do we speak of Christ while speaking of the Imputation of His Righteousness physically considered but politically legally as a Sponsor and Surety some way representing us I assent to him that the meaning of this Imputation is not That we ourselves in person truely had the habites which Christ had and did all that Christ did and suffered all that he suffered as by an Instrument or legal Representer of our persons in all this meaning that we in our physical persons should have done all this by Him as our physical Instrument But why He addeth here or legal Representer unless he meane thereby that which elsewhere he hath expressed to be as our delegat or Servant I know not And however it seemeth not to me appositely here annexed if ingenuous and plaine dealing be designed But there is another sense in which he will yeeld to Imputation he thinks there cannot be a third Let us hear what this other sense is That Christ's Satisfaction saith he Righteousness and the Habites Acts Sufferings in which it lay are imputed to us made ours not rigidly in the very thing it self but in the effects and benefites Ans. But if he shall yeeld to no other Imputation than this he shall grant no Imputation for that Imputation as to effects is no Imputation at all unless the meritorious cause be imputed in order to the receiving of these Effects there is nothing imputed for they Effects are never said to be imputed There