not expresly say so and yet this he will not say seing he granteth that his obedience was an essential requisite absolutly necessary to the constitution of him our Priest and his Sacrifice propitiatory But we read of his being made under the Law to redeem these that were under the Law Gal. 4 4 5. and of his Righteousness obedience as necessary to our Righteousness justification and as having a no less direct influence into the same than Adam's offence disobedience had unto our death damnation Rom. 5 17 18 19. CHAP. II. Christ underwent the Curse of the Law MR. Goodwine tels us in his 14. Conclusion That the sentence or Curse of the Law was not properly executed upon Christ in his death But this death of Christ was a ground or consideration to God where upon to dispense with his Law to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty or curse therein threatned Ans. 1 This is directly contrary to what the Apostle saith Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us for it is written cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree It was the Curse of the Law that we were under were to be delivered from and this Christ hath delivered us from by coming in our stead bearing it for us yea bearing it so that he is said to have been made it being made a Curse for us which is a most emphatick expression to hold forth Christ's bearing the very penalty threatned in the Law which cursed every one that continued not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them vers 10. Deut. 27 26. If Christ underwent the Curse of the Law he sure did suffer the very sentence or punishment threatned in the Law for the Curse of the Law can import no other thing 2 If Christ did not bear the sentence or Curse of the Law how could he be said to have died or suffered in our place room or stead No man is said to suffer in the place stead of another who doth not suffer that same particular kind of punishment that the other is obnoxious to and is obliged to suffer 3 Why was Christ said to be made sin for us 2. Cor. 5 21. to bear our iniquities Esai 53 6. 1. Pet. 2 24. If he did not undergoe the very punishment that was due to us because of sin 4 This is to give away the cause in a great measure unto the Socinians who will not yeeld that Christ's death was any satisfaction to the justice or payment of our criminal debt or a suffering the punishment of sin due to us for if Christ did not suffer the curse sentence of the Law he did not suffer the punishment which the Law threatned and justice required he did not suffer any punishment at all if he suffered not our punishment or that which was due to us he did not stand in our Law-place to answere all the demands of justice according to what we were liable unto by the Law nor did he bear our sins in his own body on the cross 5 If Christ's death was a ground or consideration to God whereupon to dispense with his Law then it is apparent that the consideration of Christ's death was anterior to the dispensing with the Law whereas the contrary is rather true to wit that the Lord's dispensing with the Law was anteriour to his sending of Christ because the Law properly knowing no mediator and requiring none to suffer the penalty for another must first in order of nature be considered as dispensed with before Christ be substituted in the room of sinners to undergo what they deserved 6 If it was only a ground to God whereupon to let fall or suspend the execution of the penalty then it seemeth Christ's death was no full payment or Satisfaction for a full Satisfaction requireth more than a suspension of the execution of the punishment even a full delivery there-from Let us heare his reason Because saith he the threatning Curse of the Law was not at all bent or intended against the innocent or Righteous but against transgressours only Therefore God in inflicting death upon Christ being innocent and Righteous did not follow the purport or intent of the Lawâ—but in sparing forbearing the transgressours who according to the 〈◊〉 of the Law should have bin punished manifestly dispenseth with the Law and doth not execute it Ans. All this being granted yet it will not follow that the sentence Curse of the Law was not executed upon Christ in his death for notwithstanding of this dispensing with the Law as to the persons Yet was there no Relaxation of the Law as to the punishment threatned Though the Law did not require that the innocent should suffer Yet the Supream Lord Ruler dispensing with his own Law so far as to substitute an innocent person in the room place of sinners the Law required that that innocent person taking on that penalty and thereby making himself nocent as to the penalty should suffer the same that was threatned consequently bear the Curse threatned in the Law As saith he further for explication when Zaleucus the Locrian Law-giver caused one of his own eyes to be put out that one of his son's eyes might be spared who according both to the letter intent of the Law should have lost both he did not precisely execute the Law but gave a sufficient account or consideration why it should for that time be dispensed with Ans. This speaks not home to our case wherein we pay not the half nor no part of the penalty But Christ payeth the whole as substitute in our room If Zaleucus had substituted himself in the room of his son suffered both his own eyes to be put out though the Law had been dispensed with as to the persons yet the penalty of the loss of both eyes had been payed the same punishment which the Law required had been exacted And so it is in our case as is manifest Yet he granteth that in some sense Christ may be said to have suffered the penalty or Curse of the Law as 1. It was the Curse or penalty of the Law saith he as now hanging over the head of the world ready to be executed upon all men for sin that occasioned his sufferings Ans. If this were all all the beasts senseless creatures may be as well said to have suffered the penalty Curse of the Law consequently to have suffered for man to have born mans sin in order to his Redemption as Christ for the sin penalty of sin whereunto man was liable did occasion their suffering or being subjected to vanity Rom. 8 20 21. Thus our whole Redemption is subverted the cause yeelded unto the wicked Socinians for if this be so Christ had not our sins laid upon him he did not beare our sins
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
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 in another manner in Him than any others whatever 9. He addeth so far imputeth Christ's Righteousness as that it is reputed by Him the true Meritorious cause of our justification But it was reputed and estimate so to be before this Imputation for it was accepted as such therefore Imputation must denote something more than this Reputation even a reckoning of it as it were now upon their Scoce and accounting it theirs or them to have a full special and actual Interest therein in order to their justification and absolution from the charge of guilt and death brought in against them whereby they are accounted and reckoned to be Righteous because of that Imputation therefor pronounced such in justification so that now it is the objectum formalâ— or the ratio formales objectiva of our justification 10. When he addeth that for it God maketh a Covenant of Grace if those words mean that in this also Christ's Righteousness is said to be imputed then it seemeth it is equally imputed unto all Adam's posteâ—ity for with him all are comprehended within this Covenant But this were as much as to say it is imputed to none in particular Moreover it may be thought that this is explicative of what went immediatly before so Christ's righteousness shall be repute the true Meritorius Cause of our justification in that it was the Meritorious cause of the Covenant of Grace now hereby the immediat ground of justification will be the Gospel-righteousness he speaketh of that is our performance of the conditions of the New Covenant of Grace Christ's Merites Satisfaction Righteousness shall be only a remote ground But we shall show hereafter how groundless it to say That Christ procured the New Covenant by His Merites Satisfaction 11. He saith in which i.e. Covenant of Grace He freely giveth Christ pardon Life to all that accept the gift as it is That all these are hold-forth in the Covenant that such as receive Christ receive pardon and Life is true But what is that to accept the gift as it is what is meaned by this gift 12. He addeth so that the accepters are by this Covenant Gift as surely justified and saved by Christ's Righteousness as if they had obeyed Satisfied themselves But this is not by vertue of any immediat of that Righteousness unto them whereby they are looked upon as Righteous in the sight of God but by vertue of faith whereby the gift is accepted that is offered in the Covenant which faith is indeed immediatly imputed to them according to him reputed their Gospel-righteousness they thereupon are reputed Righteous so justified as such for the Righteousness of Christ is only imputed in that it is reputed the meritorious cause of the New Covenant 13. Though Christ hath not merited that we shall have grace to fulfill the Law ourselves c. Yet he will say that Christ hath merited that faith shall be the Condition of the New Covenant consequently that we may stand before God even as the great Law giver so before His Law also in that Gospel-righteousness as he calleth it of our own which will justifie us 14. In end when he saith the Covenant of grace doth pardon give right to Life for Christ's Merites I suppose because of what is already observed it is only upon the account that Christ's Meâ—ites have purchased this Covenant not because they become our Immediat Righteousness whereupon we are justified have pardon he should rather say conforme to what went before that this Covenant doth Pardon give Right to Life for faith our Gospel-righteousness the condition thereof These are my Exceptions against this supposed healing middle way the grounds why I cannot acquiesce therein as the right way He tels us againe pag. 45. Note 3. That it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the same sence as our sins are said to be imputed to Him And to this I also heartily acquiesce hence inferie That as Christ was made sin by that Imputation so we are made righteous by vertue of this Imputation as our sins were laid on Him as the sins of the people were laid on the scape goat the type so His Righteousness is put on us as He came in our Law-place so we come in His As our sins imputed to Him were the immediat procuring cause of His stripes punishment or suffering so His Righteousness imputed to us is the Immediat procuring cause of our justification c. As Christ was repute legally or juridically though not inherently a sinner because of this Imputation of our sins to Him therefore dealt with punished chastened as if He had been a real sinner because He stood in our Law-place to His Righteousness being imputed to us we are repute legally juridically though not inherently Righteous thereupon are dealt with justified accepted c. as if we had been really Righreous because now standing in His Law-place So that if Mr. Baxter will stand to this that ordinarily protestants agree unto I am fully Satisfied had he done so from the beginning many of his discourses would have been forborne And whether he or others who owne what protestants agree unto be to be reckoned among the self conceited wranglers as he speaketh in the following page indifferent men may judge I conceive if he would yet stand to this he should alter that which he gave us in the fore-mentioned words as the only healing middle way For that middle way as he calleth it giveth us a far other sheme than can be drawn out of this wherein protestants are commonly agreed as is obvious He tels us Chap. 2. where he cometh to state the question pag. 51. that we must distinguish of Imputation giveth us six senses thereof five whereof are such as I know not if even Antinomians did owne them They are these 1. To repute us personally to have been the Agents of Christ't Acts the Subjects of His Habites passion in a physical sense I know not who in their wits would affirme this to me it is not a fit way to end or clear controversies to raise so much dust needlesly imagine senses out of our owne heads as if they were owned maintained by some what is the 2 Or to repute the same formal relation of Righteousness which was in Christ's Person to be in ours as the Subject But this is only a consequent of the foregoing 3. saith he or to repute us to have been the very Subjects of Christ's Habites passion the Agents of His Acts in a Political or Moral sence not a physical as a man payeth a debt by a Servant or attornay ordelegate If this be the only meaning of his Political Moral sense I suppose no man will owne it either for no man will say That Christ was our Servant Attornay
is therefore a Third sense wherein neither Christ's Righteousness that is His Habites Acts Sufferings are said to be physically translated and put in us or upon us nor are they said to be Imputed to us meerly in their Effects as Socinians say but wherein Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience Suffering is in a Law-sense made over to beleevers put upon their score now accounted theirs they because thereof accounted Righteous legally and juridically and have therefore the Effects bestowed on them This being so obvious I wonder that Mr. Baxter cannot see it When a debtor is lying in prison for debt and a friend cometh Satisfieth the creditor for him by paying the summe in his place stead the Law doth not impute that payment to the debtor meerly in the effects but imputeth the payment it self not in its Physical acceptation as if it judged that he was the man that in his own Physical person told the money with his own hands brought it out of his own purse as the other did but in its legal force vertue efficary unto him accounted him in this Legal sense to be no more a debter unto the creditor therefore one that hath right to his liberty must therefore be set free from prison So in our case the Righteousness of Christ in a legal sense as to its efficary vertue is made over to the Beleever he thereupon is accounted Righteous and no more a debtor and therefore free of the Penalty Further Although he say that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the Effects Yet he knoweth that that is in his judgment but very remotely and that really these effects are more proximely the effects of Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness and that the Immediat effect and product of Christ's Righteousness is the New Covenant and this New Covenant being made with all Mankind as he thinketh Christ's Righteousnes is in this immediat Effect imputed to all flesh Reprobat as well as Elect. And this is in part cleared from the words Immediatly following when he saith In as much as we are as really pardoned justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious Cause by the Instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we ourselves had done suffered all that Christ did For this Instrumentality of the Covenant includeth the performance of the Condition thereof i. e. faith this Faith is properly imputed for Righteousness as he saith And therefore as the Covenant is the Effect of the merites of Christ so pardon and Salvation must be the Effects of Faith and the Effects of Christ's Righteousness only in that he did procure the Covenant which conveyeth these to us upon Condition of our performing of this faith which is therefore called by him our Gospel-Righteousness He giveth us next foure wayes n. 31. pag. 60. wherein the Lord is said to be our Righteousness an Expression that doth emphatically more than sufficiently express the meaning of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 1. In that saith he He is the meritorious cause of the pardon of all our sins our full justification Adoption Right to glory by His Satisfaction and Merites only our justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law works is purchased Ans. He cannot be said by him to be the Meritorious Cause of pardon c. But in as far as He is the Meritorious cause of the Covenant in which these benefites are promised upon Condition of faith our Gospel-righteousness which properly and only is our Imputed Righteousness according to him and so Christ is our Righteousness in meriting that faith shall be repute our Gospel-righteousness in order to our obtaining of Pardon and Right to glory But moreover where is our Righteousness For Pardon is no Righteousness neither is justification Adoption or Right to Glory properly a Righteousness But do presuppose a Righteousness after which we are enquiring and cannot finde that Christ is made to be that to us and consequently either faith must be it or there is none The other senses are 2. In that He is the legislator Testator donor of our Pardon justification by this new Covenant 3. In that He is the Head of Influx King Intercessour by whom the Spirit is given to Sanctifie us to God cause us sincerely performe the Conditions of the Iustifying Covenant 4. In that He iâ— the righteous judge justifier of Beleevers by sentence of judgment Ans. All these three will make the Father to be our Righteousness as well as the Son for He is legislator He draweth to the Son sendeth the Spirit to Sanctifie us He judgeth by the Son justifieth 2. But none of these nor all of these give us the true Import of that glorious Name according to the true scope of the place Ier. 23 6. of which we have spoken above In like manner n. 32. he giveth us four senses of these words we are made the Righteousness of God in Him The 1. is In that as he was used like a sinner for us But not esteemed one by God so we are used like innocent persons so far as to be saved by Him Ans. As He was used by God like a sinner so was He legally accounted a sinner otherwise God would not have used Him as a sinner Therefore if we be used like innocent persons we must be in God's esteem legally juridically innocent through Christ's Righteousness imputed so must be saved by Him The 2. is In that through His Merites upon our union with Him when we beleeve consent to Hiâ— Covenant we are pardoned justified so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but glorified Ans As I said neither pardon nor justification maketh us Righteous but suppose us to be Righteous and therefore in justification we are declared pronounced Righteous thereupon pardoned Moreover all our Righteousness that we have in order to justification pardon is according to Mr. Baxter our Faith which is is reputed to be our Gospel Righteousness is said to be properly Imputed to us thus Christ suffered in our stead that our faith might be accounted our Righteousness Though pardon will take away condemnation yet as we have cleared above more must be had in order to Glorification His 3. 4. are In that the divine Nature Inherent Righteousness are for His merites In that God's justice holiness truth wisdom mercy are all wonderfully Demonstrated in this way of Pardoning justifying of sinners by Christ. Ans. This last hath no ground as the sense of the words And as for the. 3. Before he make it the sense of the place 2 Cor. 5 21. he must say That Christ was a sinner inherently which were blasphemy for otherwayes that beautiful correspondence that is betwixt the First the Last part of the verse must be laid a side
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
satisfie that demand by dying the shameful death of the cross undergoing the wrath curse due to us for sin thereby making a more perfect Satisfaction unto the Sanction and threatning part of the Law than we could have done by lying in hell for ever more And by faith closeing with Christ resting upon Him as such a satisfying Cautioner Redeemer the sinner acknowledgeth the Law in all its force confessing himself a Transhressour and obnoxious to the Curse now presenting to the Law Law-giver the obedience Satisfaction of Christ whereby both its commands Sanction are fully answered resting thereupon as the only ground of his Absolution from the sentence of the Law for his guilt and of his right to the Crown which he formerly had forfeited 4. Here is another mystery That such as are unrighteous and Ungodly should be declared and pronunced Righteous In justification the person is declared not guilty of what was laid to his charge in order to punishment that juridically and so he is declared free from the punishment that the Accuser was seeking to have inflicted upon him and so is declared pronunced to be a righteous man though not one that hath not sinneth yet now one that is juridically righteous But how can this be seing every man and woman is guilty before God and is come short of the glory of God The mystery lyeth here as was said The righteousness of their Cautioner Christ is reckoned upon their score and is imputed to them they receive it by faith and so it becometh theirs for now by faith they are united unto Christ become members of His mystical body He being the Head and true Representative thereby He and they are one Person in Law being one Spirit as the Husband and the Wife are one person in Law being one flesh and as the Representer and Represented the Cautioner principal debtor and thus they have a true Interest in His Righteousness obedience to the Law which He yeelded not upon His own account being not obliged thereunto antecedently to His own voluntary condescension for us for as to His person He was God and so not obnoxious to any such Law imposed upon man who is in the way to the obtaining of a Crown as the end of his race yea nor was this requisite as to His humane Nature which by vertue of the personal union with the God-head was as to it self either in Patria and in possession of the State of blessedness or in a capacity thereto without working therefore And it is certaine that therefore His being made under the Law was for His owne people that in their room He might in the Nature of Man give perfect obedience to the Law and so make up a righteousness with which they might all become clothed by Imputation on Gods part by faith receiving it on their part and so be justified Hence-saith the Apostle by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Rom. 5 19. And thus are they who are unrighteous in themselves being Transgressours of the Law constituted righteous as to the Commands of the Law by the righteousness of their Cautioner As also they are though guilty in themselves obnoxious to wrath yet pronunced free and absolved from that charge by the Imputation of the Satisfaction of Christ made in His sufferings death who did bear our griefs and carry our sorrowes and was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His stripes we are healed Esai 53 4 5. 1 Pet. 2 24. And his own self bear our sins in His own body on the tree 3. There is likewise a mystery here That the Imputation of the obedience and Righteousness of Christ doth not take away the Imputation of His Satisfaction nor make His Satisfaction useless of no Importance or necessity as Socinians imagine who cast the whole Gospel in the mould of their own corrupt Reason and understanding For they think if Christs Righteousness be imputed to us we are perfectly righteous and if we be perfectly righteous we have no sin if we have no sin there is no need of Satisfaction for our sin But they little consider that we are both guilty of the broken Law and also nothwithstanding obliged to perfect obedience It is unreasonable to think that Adam by his breach of the Law was exeemed delivered from any obligation to obey the Law sin doth not neither can dissolve that obligation otherwayes the best way of being freed from the Lawes of God or Man were to break them cast them at our heels We then being transgressours still under the obligation of obedience to the whole Law our Mediator and Cautioner must not only obey the Law for us to the end we may inherite the promised reward but must also make Satisfaction for the Violation of the Law to the end we may escape Gods Curse wrath threatned in the Law and due to us for the breach of the same Had we perfectly kept the Law we had then had no need of any Satisfaction for our breach thereof but being guilty of sin this Satisfaction and the Imputation thereof to us is absolutely necessary And though we need not nicely here distinguish betwixt this Righteouness Satisfaction in reference to the different ends and say that by His Righteousness imputed to us we have right to the Crown by His Satisfaction freedom from death which was the penalty of the broken Law for God hath joined both together for both ends what He hath thus joined together as we should not separat so neither may we nicely scrupulously distinguish but adore the wonderful wisdom of God in this contrivance and observing our necessity of both sweetly acquiesce in and thankfully accept of both But you will say if we be perfectly righteous by the Imputation of Christs righteousness what need have we of any more are we not possessed of right to the reward and being righteous are we not free of our sin I answer It is true indeed if we said that Christs Righteousness or compleet obedience was first imputed to us or if the Scripture gave any ground to say so there might be some coloure for this Exception but as the Scripture giveth no such ground so neither do we assert it Only we have need of both both are graciously imputed and received by faith yea we being sinners if we might speak of an order here Satisfaction must first be imputed that thereby we may be freed from the sentence of the Law which most presseth a wakened convinced sinner who is most anxious hereanent crying out How shall I escape the wrath and curse of God But as the Lord hath graciously and wonderfully knit the effects together so is the Cause Both Christs obedience and Sufferings were so woven together that they belonged both to made up His
receive the Adoption of Sones and the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3 13 14. 4 4 5. As it is one thing to finish the Transgression to make an end of sin to make Reconciliation for iniquity another thing to bring-in Everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9 24. Yea the redemption from the Law and from its curse is mentioned as preceeding the other as the finishing of transgression is also mentioned before the bringing-in of Righteousness in the passages cited And thus as these Effects are distinguished though inseparable so is the Cause By the Imputation of Christs Satisfaction we have pardon of sin being redeemed from the curse of the Law by His being made a curse for us by the Imputation of His Rigteousness and obedience we are looked upon as Righteous so have a right to the promise and Inheritance Though we need not thus distinctly consider both save only to demonstrat the necessity of the Imputation of both for Christ by His death did also purchase the Inheritance for us and by His obedience made Satisfaction for sin it being a piece of His Humiliation So that both in the deep wisdom of God make up one cause of that one Effect which comprehendeth all Blessedness that is both pardon of sinnes and Right to the Inheritance c. By the Imputation of both or of this compleat Surety-righteousness of Christ including both beleevers are pardoned and adjudged unto life Hence our pardon and justification are often ascribed unto Christs death not as distinctly considered or as excluding His Righteousness obedience but among other reasons because that was the compleating Act of His obedience and to which all the rest preceeding had a respect as to that which should compleat the whole Meritorious part of His Mediation And hereby His obedience can no more be excluded than His foregoing soul-sufferings Nay His death did presuppose and include His obedience for it was the death of one who had perfectly obeyed the Law which death obedience being His Mediatory work in the state of His Humiliation was a compleat Righteousness for the blessedness advantage of all those for whom He appeared whose debt He undertook to pay 5. That the obedience of Christ must also be imputed to sinners is manifest from this That otherwise they should have no Righteousness at all imputed to them that properly can be called a Righteousness for if nothing but that which is commonly called Christs passive obedience or His Sufferings be imputed there can no Righteousness be said to be imputed for dying and suffering the penalty as such are no righteousness being no obedience to the commands of the Law in conformity to which consisteth proper Righteousness as when one dieth for his crime of Murther he cannot be said to be thereby a righteous man or to have obeyed the Law forbidding Murther nor can we be said properly to have obeyed the Law when Christ in our room did suffer the penalty of death due to us for the breach of it They who are in hell suffering the vengeance of eternal fire cannot be said to be obeying the Law It is true Christ in dying did obey a command Imposed upon Him by the Father but that was no command of the Moral Law prescribed unto man thereafter in dying Suffering He gave no obedience to that Law under the obligation to which we were standing no more than He can be said to have Suffered the penalty while He was obeying the Law these two being so manifestly different So that it is clear that if Christs obedience be not imputed to us no proper Righteousness is or can be said to be imputed to us Yea 6 If Christs obedience be not imputed to us that Law which saith do this and live is not fulfilled but rather abrogated quite abolished and it must be said that not withstanding of that constitution of Gods we live though we neither do this nor is our Cautioners doing of it imputed to us And so we have a right to the Reward get it at lenght without the Righteousness required in order thereunto Let us therefore admire the harmonious perfection of this Effect Work of infinite wisdom I know several things are objected against this Truth as there are many other grounds Reasons adduced for the same but these I shall speak to at more length afterward 7. This is also a mysterie here to be noticed That a Righteousness that is not ours inherently but Christs should be made ours made over to us reckoned upon our score or we become clothed therewith there upon justified as Righteous as really effectually as if we had wrought it our selves and it had been properly inherent in us Socinians Papists Arminians others who will not subject their reason unto this mystery and give credite to Revelation will acknowledge no such imputation of Righteousness but at most do grant but an improper imputation that is an imputation as to Effects so that with them Christ neither Suffered nor obeyed in our stead room but only for our good advantage that too conditionally only in case we beleeve and performe the Gospel-condition But this imputation as to Effects only is no imputation at all there being no thing thereby Imputed not the Righteousness of Christ it self for this they expresly deny nor yet the Effects themselves for we no where read of Imputed Justification Adoption Pardon c. which are the Effects Yea it is not enough to them to deny this Imputed Righteousness but in contempt scorne they call that which we name an Imputed Righteousness a putative Righteousness as if it were a meer imaginary thing But whatever such in decision think or say the Gospel holdeth forth to us a Righteousness imputed or the Righteousness of Christ graciously bestowed upon made over to belevers or freely given unto them so that they are dealt with by God as Righteous Juridically legally or as possessours of such a compleat perfect Righteousness that as really to all Effects as if it had been their own inherently performed by them so had been theirs without any such Imputation And because this as the cause is imputed to them made theirs therefore all the Effects thereof shall really certainely be bestowed upon them in God's appointed time methode This is the Truth which the Gospel holdeth forth to the solide peace joy comfort of Beleevers the full clearing vindicating of which would require a just Treatise I shall therefore here propose but a few clear manifest Grounds of this refreshful comfortable truth leaving the further prosecution vindication of them of other arguments that are used in this matter with the examination of what is objected on the contrary till afterward First therefore we say as Christ who knew no sin was made sin that is had the sinnes of His people laid upon Him imputed to Him so
disease Otherwise he should make sins of Omission to be no disobedience be cause Omissions are no Acts. Ans. The Apostle so compareth the Obedience of Christ with the disobedience of Adam as the Satisfaction with the provocation or as the Remedie with the disease as that withall chiesly he cleareth up the manner way thereof to be by Imputation thus That as Adam's sin of disobedience which includeth both Omission Commission being a Violation of the Law of the Covenant was imputed to his posterity they hence became guilty obnoxious to death yea were punished with original Corruption which cometh by propagation the consequences thereof so Christ's obedience which was full compleat is imputed unto Beleevers whereupon they become Righteous in order to their recovery out of their Natural state of sin and misery Further He saith By that obedience of Christ whereby it is here said that many are or shall be made Righteous that is jusâ—ified we cannot understand that Righteousness of Christ which consists only in obedience to the Moral Law but that Satisfactory Righteousness or obedience which He performed to that peculiar Law of Mediation which was imposed upon him and which chiesly consisted in his sufferings Ans. By the obedience of Christ unto the Law of Mediation strickly so taken as distinguished from His obedience to the Moral Law beleevers could not be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience for that could not be properly imputed as this is as hath been shown so Paul's similitude should halt But 2. Why is Christ's obedience to the Law of Mediation set in opposition to His obedience to the Moral Law seing this was a part of that unto this He obliged Himself in undertaking the Mediation Was He not by the Law of Mediation bound as well to give obedience to the Law as to suffer the penalty And was He not obliged to both as Surety in room place And then why may not both be imputed unto them 3. Why should obedience here be thus restricked to the Law of Mediation He addeth two reasons but neither are valide The 1. is this Because otherwise the opposition â—etwixt Adam's disobedience which was but one single Act and Christ's Obedience if it were his universal conformity to the Law would not hold Ans. This same man told us in his former exception That Christ's obedience in respect of Adam's disobedience was considered opposed as the Satisfaction to the provocation as the Remedie to the disease now if this be true Christ made Satisfaction for no provocation but for that single act of eating the forbidden fruit what He did suffered should be only a Remedie for that one distemper if so how shall the rest of the Provocations and diseases be taken away or are there no more Provocations or diseases 2. Adam's disobedience was no Single act of disobedience but a disobedience including the breach of the whole Moral Law Saith not Iames that he who offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2 10. prove it too in the following vers The 2. is this The Effect that is here attributed to this obedience of Christ to wit justification or Righteous making of many is constantly appropriated to the death blood of Christ. Ans. This that is attributed to the blood death of Christ elsewhere to wit our justification sheweth that the death of Christ is not understood exclusively for by His death exclusivly considered we cannot-be made Righteous for the Imputation of another's suffering though it may exeem from death suffering yet it cannot constitute Righteous in reference to the commanding Law 2. The death of Christ must not be looked on as one act of obedience but as including all His foregoing acts of obedience belonging to His State of humiliation whereof His death was the crowning piece so as including as His whole suffering so His whole obedience to the Law under which he was made for He is said to have been obedient unto death even unto the death of the cross Phil. 2 8. not that the death of the cross was all His obedience as it was not the whole state of His humiliation but the terminating remarkable act thereof as it was not all His suffering His whole life being a life of suffering 3. If this obedience be understood of this one act of obedience in His dying justification be looked upon as the effect of this only what shall become of His Soul-sufferings while He was in an agonie in the garden But if the act of obedience in His death include these why not His whole state of humiliation And if it include all this why not also His obedience to the Law seing His being made under the Law belongeth to His state of humiliation as the Apostle tels us Gal. 4 4. He excepteth furder saying Suppose that by the obedience of Christ we should here undorstand His active obedience to the Moral Law yet it will not hence follow that men must be justified or made Righteous by it in such a way of imputation Ans. If by Christ's obedience to the Moral Law we be made Righteous as the posterity of Adam were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam that obedience of Christ must necessarily be imputed to us as Adam's disobedience was imputed to his posterity for there is no other way imaginable Let us hear his reason to the contrary For certaine it is said he that that justification or Righteous-making whereof the Apostle speaketh vers 19. is the same with that which He had spoken of v. 16 17 18. Now that Righteousness vers 17. is described vers 16. to be the gift i.e. the forgiveness of many offences i.e. of all the offences whereof a man either doth or shall stand guilty of before God unto justification and evident it is that that Righteousness c. cannot stand in the Imputation of a fulfilling of the Law Ans. 1. Though making Righteous and justification be inseparable yet they are not formally one the same but Righteous-making to wit by Imputation is antecedent unto justification the ground thereof as becoming sinners is not formally to be condemned but is prior to it the ground thereof 2. That free gift mentioned vers 16. is not free forgiveness but is that which is opposite to judgment or guilt or reatus tending to condemnation so is the same with that which is called the Grace of God the gift by Grace vers 15. and the gift of Righteousness vers 17. which is in order to justification free pardon As therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guilt is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation but tendeth thereunto so neither is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justification but leadeth thereunto is followed therewith 3. Nor can the Adversary Himself take these words vers
from the Sun in one act expelling darkness bringing in light which are here adduced for illustration have no force to prove any thing here in regard there is no correspondence in all points betwixt Matters Natural Matters meerly Moral or Political There is no Medium betwixt light and darkness or the habite and its privation but there is a Medium here betwixt Transgressing of the law perfect obedience to the law unto the end Adam so long as he stood was no Transgressour yet he had not then given perfect obedience to the end according to the Covenant So there is a Medium betwixt Freedom from the Penalty the Right to the Reward as was shown above Arg. 7. If do this live be an everlasting Rule of God which shall never be dissolved then must the Active obedience of Christ be imputed unto Men in justification that so they may be said to have done this and so live But the former is true Ergo c. That these words do this and live containe a determination constitution of the Lord as unalterable as these words That day thou eats thou shalt die cannot well be denied and therefore if because of this latter no man can be saved unless their Surety die for them so because of that former no man can have right to the reward unless his Surety performe perfect obedience And as the one is imputed to the Beleever so must the other be Imputed also in order to his compleat Salvation Against this he excepteth pag. 216. c. thus In this sense I grant that do this and live is an everlasting Rule that is it is hath been and shall be everlastingly true that who so ever shall fulfill the law perfectly shall live But not in this sense that it is the only perpetual and standing Rule whereby and according to which men must be justified and so saved for in this sense it neither is nor ever was nor ever shall be a rule of God for God hath alwayes had and for ever will have another rule for the justification of men Ans. 1. Was it not a Rule of life justification to Adam in the state of Innocency was he not according to that Covenant where in he stood to purchase the good promised by his doing It may be the Excepter thinketh with the Socinians that no more was promised to Adam than what he had in possession 2. We do not assert it as a standing rule whereby we should now expect to be justified but we say that it being a constitution of God's as well as the other viz. That day thou eats thou shalt die It must be satisfied as well as the other And as the rule of faith taketh not away Christs suffering of death according to what was threatened in the law so nor doth the law of faith take away His obedience according to the command of the law and as Christs paying down of the Penalty was necessary for our freedom from death so His giving full obedience to the law is necessary to our life though as was said we need not nicely thus distinguish save to shew the necessity of the Imputation of both Arg. 8. That Righteousness which God accepteth on our behalfe is the Righteousness imputed to us in justification But the Righteousness of Christ is that Righteousness which God accepteth on our behalf Ergo c. He excepteth pag. 217. 1. Denying the Major because God may and doth accept that for us or on our behalf which yet He need not impute to us at He accepted of Abrahanis prayer in the behalf of Ismael of the prayer of Elisha for the Shumanites Son and yet neither was imputed to the other Ans. But all this a thousand Instances of the like nature can evince nothing for the Argument speaketh of what is accepted of God in order to justification as the ground and meritorious cause thereof which the Instances adduced come not nigh unto He addeth In like manner these in whose behalf Christs Sufferings were accepted receive an unspeakable benefite blessing by them but this operats nothing to the Inference of the Imputation pleaded for that is that God must look upon these Sufferings of Christ as if they had personally endured them on whose behalf they are accepted Ans. Then it seemeth not only is the Imputation of Christs active obedience denied but also the Imputation of His death and Sufferings and no more is granted than what Socinians will yeeld unto 2 The Imputation we plead for is not such as maketh God to look upon these Sufferings of Christ as if Beleevers had personally endured them but such as maketh God to look upon them as the Sufferings of Christ as Surety Head Publick person in the room stead of His chosen ones which Sufferings payment of the Penalty by the Surety being made over unto reckoned upon the score of Beleevers they are upon the account thereof accepted dealt with as if they themselves had so Suffered and Satisfied in their own persons 2. He distinguisheth thus If by the Righteousness of Christ the proposition meaneth precisely that obedience which He exhibited to that general common law whereunto all Men are obliged considered apart from His obedience to that particular law of Mediator given to Himself alone so it is false If by Righteousness be here meant that obedience of Christ commonly called passive or both active and passive together so it may be true but then the other will be found tardy Ans. 1 Christs obedience to that general law by which all men were obliged did as well belong to His law of Mediation and was comprehended under it as His giving up Himself to Suffering to death for as Mediator He was made under the law as well as suffered the Curse 2 The Minor proposition is to be understood of the whole Surety-righteousness consisting not only in Suffering but also in actual obedience to the law when this is granted the whole we seek is granted Neither is the former proposition found tardy as appeareth from what is said the Syllogisme is good and no Paralogisme what ever he supposeth Arg. 9. If Christ were a publick Person standing in the place or stead of all those that should beleeve in Him then all that He did and Suffered is to be looked upon reputed by God as done Suffered by these consequently are Imputed to them But the former is true Ergo c. Sure if Christ was a publik person standing in the place and room of the chosen ones all that He did as such a person or as a Surety as to that whâ—â—h law and justice required of them they were obliged unto must needs be imputed unto them reckoned upon their score and they must be dealt with upon the account thereof as if all had been done suffered by themselves We do not say that all He did Suffered is or must be
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
the most remarkable piece thereof expressive of His love and condescension and terminating point of Surety-obedience for He said it was finished when He offered up Himself gave up the Ghost He addeth So where it is said againe Chap. 5. vers 16. that the gift viz. of Righteousness by Christ is of many offences unto justification If the gift of many offences i.e. the forgiveness of Mans Sinnes will not amount to a justification without the Imputation of a legal Righteousness we must give a check to Paul's pen. Ans. This is but vanity we need give no check unto the Apostle's pen for though He said not in this verse expresly that there was a gift of Righteousness also imputed yet he said it expresly vers 17. 18. 1. And shall we think that in such a continued discourse as this is wherein the Apostle is explaining the whole mystery by its parts he should mention all things in one verse He proceeds to prove that Remission of sins is the whole of justification pag. 131. Because the end saith he for which this Imputed Righteovsness of Christ is thus brought in to the business of justification viz. to be the Right to the Inheritance is supplied in a way more evangelical of more sweetness dearness to the Children of God to wit by the grace of Adoption Ans. To this we have said enough above will have occasion to speak againe to it in the next objection He addeth further 4. That if we thus separat and divide the benefite of Christ's Active and passive Obedience in Iustification we take a course to lose destroy both Ans. Not to transcribe his tedious discourse on this accout I only say That it is wholly founded upon a mistake as if our showing the necessity of the Imputation of both were a separating or dividing of the benefite of both whileas the whole Effect floweth from the whole cause both Christ's Active His passive obedience making up one compleat Surety-righteousness and so producing one whole blessedness to beleevers consisting in Remission of Sins in a Right to Glory we say with him that neither of them separated or abstracted from the other can profite us and therefore we assert the Imputation of both as one compleat Surety-righteousness answereing our necessity in all points His own words pag. 132. 133. make clearly for us I would not have saith he the active obedience of Christ separated from the passive nor againe the passive from the active in respect of the common joint effect justification arising from a concurrence of them both yet would I not have Christ in his mystery tumbled up together on a heap for this would be to deface the beauty and excellency of that wisdom which shines forth gloriously in the face thereof I would have every thing that Christ was did-and suffered to be distinguished not only in themselves but also in their proper and immediat Effects respectively ariseing and flowing from them severally Lastly He tels us If the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness must be added as another part of justification then must the formal cause of one the same Effect be double yea one the same formal part of the thing shall be compounded of two things of a diverse and opposite consideration Ans. We make the Impâ—tation of Christ's Righteousness not a part of justification But the cause of it and yet the formal cause of one and the same Effect is not made double for as the Cause is one compleat Cause viz. the Surety-righteousness of Christ so the Effect is one compleat Effect though both Cause and Effect may be considered as consisting of several Integral parts There is no ground here to say That one and the same formal part of a thing is compounded of diverse or opposite things Obj. 4. Chap. 12. Pag. 136. c. That which dissolveth and taketh away the necessity use of that sweet evangelical grace of Adoption cannot hold a streight course with the thruth of the Gospel But this is done by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Ergo. The Minor which is only here to be denied he laboureth to prove because we say The Righteousness of Christ must be imputed in order to our obtaining Right and Title to Life that by Remission of Sins a man is only delivered from death but receiveth no Right to the Kingdom of heaven But what can he hence inferre for confirmation of the Minor Now saith he this being the direct proper end use office purpose intent of Adoption to invest a beleever with a capacity with heaven it followes that whosoever shall attempt to set any thing else upon this throne seeks to dissolve Adoption Ans. The Consequence is null The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will no more take away Adoption than justification for it is the ground and Cause of both He might as well say That because in and by justification we have Remission of Sins to assert the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings for this end is to dissolve justification But the truth is clear as was explained above Myst. 14. He thinks both cannot stand together because either of them is a compleat entire Title within itself perfect Righteousness is a perfect title alone so is Adoption or Sonship Ans. 1. This will say as much against the Imputation of Christ's death and Sufferings as against justification for either of these is a compleat Title according to our Adversary to Immunity from death perfect Satisfaction is a perfect title alone to this Immunity as well as perfect Righteousness is a perfect title to the Inheritance Justification or Remission of Sins which are one with him is also a perfect Right to this as well as Adoption is a perfect Right to that 2 But as Justification is founded upon the Imputed Righteousness of Christ so is Adoption As Christ's death and Satisfaction is not formall pardon or Right to Impunity but is when Imputed the ground and cause of justification wherein the Beleever is solemnely brought into a state of freedome from death So Christ's Obedience and Fulfilling of the Law is not a formal Right unto the inheritance but when Imputed and received by faith the ground and cause of Adoption whereby the Beleever is as it were solemnely infeoffed of the Inheritance Here then is nothing in vaine but all things so ordered as may most commend the riches of the wisdom Grace of God may most ensure life and all to the â—eleever So that his following discourse is meer froath and vanity for as God may appoint moe meanes for the same end as He pleaseth as His promises oath Sacraments to confirme the faith of beleevers so there can be no reason given why it may not be so here yet to speak properly Adoption is no mean or Cause of the Right and Title to Glory being the solemne Collation of that Right to the beleever or the solemne stating of
of justice truth in God in reference to Christ yet as to us it is of free grace so much the more of free grace that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for that end And such as understand not this are more principled with Socinian abominations than with the doctrine of the Gospel of the grace of God Obj. 18. pag. 173. If men be formally just by God's act imputing Christ's righteousness then do men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin But this is not true for then an Act of God should be as the life soul of that sin which is in men Ergo Ans. As this argument concludeth nothing against the truth now asserted this conclusion being different from the question now in hand so it is but a meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philosophical termes notions that thereby the truth may be more darkened We are not obliged by any Law of God to explaine or interpret these mysteries of Salvation according to these Notions which men explaine after their own pleasure knowing no Law constraining them to follow either one man or other in the arbitrary sense which they put upon these termes But as to the present â—rgument no answer can be given untill it be known what is the true meaning of these words formally just Possibly he will understand hereby the same that others meane by Inherently just so indeed do all the Papists And if so we can answere by saying That no orthodox man thinketh or saith that in this sense we are made formally just by God's act imputing Christ ' righteousness but by Holiness wrought in us by His Spirit And as to that righteousness which is imputed whether it be called the Formal or the Material cause of our justification it is but a nominal debate having no ground or occasion in the Word of God by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts expressions in this matter Nor do they who say we are formally just by Christ's righteousness say we are formally just by God's Act imputing that righteousness But by the righteousness it self imputed by God received by faith Nor do they say that men become formally sinful by the like act of God imputing Adam's sin unto his posterity but by Adam's sin imputed though God's Act be the cause of this effect it is not the effect it self Adam's sin imputed doth constitute the posterity sinners that is guilty obnoxious to wrath so Christ's righteousness imputed doth constitute beleevers Righteous Obj. 19. pag. 175. If justification consists in the Imputation of Christ's righteousness partly in Remission of sins then must there be a double formal cause of justification that made up compounded of two several natures really differing the one from the other But this is impossible Ergo. Ans. 1. This Argument is founded upon another School-nicety or notion viz the Simplicity Indivisibility of Natural formes this Philosophical Notion is here adduced to darken the mystery we are treating of It were a sufficient answere then to say That the Minor though it be true in natural formes Yet will not necessarily hold in the privileges of Saints which may be single or compounded as the Lord thinketh meet to make them And can any reason evince that the Lord cannot conferre bestow in the grand privilege of justification moe particular favoures than one Can He not both pardon sins accept as declare to be Righteous Can He not both free the beleever from the condemnation of hell adjudge him to the life of glory or cannot these two be conceived as two things formally distinct though inseparable 2. But I shall not say That Imputation of Christ's righteousness is a part of justification But rather that it is the ground thereof necessarily presupposed thereunto Nor shall I say that Remission of sins is the forme or formal cause of justification a pardoned man as such not being a justified man It is true pardon of sins doth inseparably follow upon is a necessary effect of our justification a certaine consequent of God's accepting of us as righteous in His sight upon the account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us received by faith I grant also that justification may be so described or defined as to take in that Effect without making it thereby a formal part thereof when strickly considered 3. But he will have Remission of sins to be the whole of justification nothing more included therein or conferred thereby abusing to this end as we heard above Rom. 4 6 7 8. Where the Apostle is citing the words of the Psalmist is not giving us a formal definition of justification nor saying that justification is the same with Remission nor that Remission's the formal cause of justification but only is proving that justification is not by our works as the ground thereof that by this reason Because that would utterly destroy free Remission which is a necessary Effect consequent of Gospel-justification cannot be had without it in order to which justification he there asserteth expresly an Imputation of righteousness Now an Imputation of righteousness is not formally one the same thing with Remission of sins nor can Remission of sins be-called a righteousness or the Righteousness of God or of Christ yet the Man is a blessed man whose sins are covered because that man is necessarily covered with the righteousness of Christ whose sins are covered for Imputation of righteousness free pardon do inseparably attend one another Nor is it to the purpose to say That pardon is a passive righteousness though not an Active righteousness for all righteousness rightly so called is conformity to the Law that is not a passive or Negative righteousness which may be in a beast that transgresseth no Law consequenly hath no unrighteousness Obj. 20. pag. 176. If such Imputation be necessary in justification this necessity must be found either in respect of the justice of God or in respect of His Mercy or for the salving or advancing of some other attribute But there is no necessity in respect of any of these Ergo. Ans. 1 This same man tels us that there is a necessity for the Imputation of faith as our Righteousness not withstanding of all that Christ hath done and why may he not grant the same necessity for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ will it satisfie him that we found the necessity of Imputation of Christ's Righteoufness on the same ground 2 Though we should not be in case to assigne the real just ground of this necessity yet I judge it should satisfie us that the Lord in His wisdom Goodness hath thought fit to appointe and ordaine this methode manner of justification so far should we be from disputing against this Truth with such Arguments from rejecting of it untill we be satisfied as to
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
fault guilt charged on him by the law So that here is a long series of efficient causes bringing down from Adam's person guilt a distinct numerical person guilt of everyone of this later posterity Ans. 1. The fundamentum of that relation of guilt is more properly proximely the foederal relation of the person to Adam than the Natural relation and the fundamentum of this foederal relation is not Generation but the free Ordination and Constitution of God 2 What he meaneth by these words and Adam's generation being the communication of a guilty nature with personality to his Sons and Daughters is the fundamentum next following his personal fault and guilt charged on him by the Law I do not know If his meaning be that the Communication of a guilty Nature by the peccatum originale originatum is the fundamentum of the following personal fault and guilt by reason of the peccatum originale originans that is if he say that the corrupted Nature is the ground of the Imputation of Adam's transgression it is not consonant to truth nor to what himself said above pag. 34. against Placeus But if he meane that Adam's Generation being the communication of a guilty Nature is the fundamentum that next followeth his personal guilt charged on him by Law I must say I do not understand what he would be at though the words seem to express some such thing But the truth that I shall lay down is this That all Adam's posterity being federally in him sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression by vertue whereof when they come physically by natural Generation to partake of his Nature they are first in order of Nature guilty of Adam's transgression and then have a corrupt Nature communicated as a punishment and consequent of the other this Corrupt Nature being sin hath its own guilt attending it also 3 Though this long series of Efficient causes be requisite to the production of a distinct numerical person from Adam's person in a physical and natural sense yet every one of these physically distinct numerical persons do immediatly derive from Adam their legal and foederal personalities that is these same persons considered foederally are equally and alike neer to Adam their federal Head and Representative And therefore the guilt of Adam's sin cometh from him immedratly to each one of them foederally considered and is consequently the same numerical guilt and all this is founded upon their Federal Union with and Interest in Adam He saith 2. And it is not the same sort of guilt or so plenary which is in us for Adam's act as was on him but a guilt Analogical or of another sort that is he wes guilty of being the wilfull sinning person so are not we but only of being persons whose being is derived by Generation from the wilful sinning persons besides the guilt of our own inherent pravity that is the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to desert us and to punish us for that our pravity together This is our guilt of original sin Ans. 1 Hereby that original sin whereof we are speaking here viz Adam's breach of Covenant seemeth quite to be taken away for not only is it said that original sin as in us is another sort of thing than what it was in Adam and so not only not the same numerically as he formerly said but not the same specifically but moreover it is said to be only an Analogical guilt yea in end it is made just nothing for it is said that we are guilty of being persons whose being is derived from the wilfull sinning persons and this is no guilt at all no mans simple being let it be by generation from the most prodigiously guilty and wicked persons that can be can be imputed to him for guilt for his receiving a being is contrary to no Law And beside when he addeth by way of Explication that the Relation is such which our persons have to Adam's person as makes it just with God to deserte us he must either make the simple Relation to be the guilt or the ground of guilt and its Imputation The Simple Relation without some guilt following it and founded upon it cannot make it just with God to desert us c. For sin only can do this that Relation is not sin If he say That guilt is Superadded upon this account it is just with God thus to punish I would ask what is this guilt It is not Adam's sin but some analogical thing which Scripture knoweth nothing of and Reason can give us no account whence it came He cannot say that it came from Adam's sin for if we be federally united to Interessed in Adam as we are as he confessed we were and if upon that account we be reputed guilty the same Individual guilt which was on Adam must be upon us and if our guilt be of another sort he must give us another Adam from whom that other analogical sort floweth The Scripture saith that we all sinned in Adam Rom. 5 12. which were not truth if his individual sin were not ours or if ours were of another sort and only analogical But this is the fruit of Mr. Baxter's casting all these things in Aristotle's mould But moreouer 2 It hath a foule aspect towards Pelagianisme to make our guilt another than Adam's because that Adam was the wilful sinning person and so are not we for this is to confirme the Pelagians who say that that sin was only Adam's because he was the only wilfully sinning person we had no will therein 3. He saith And this guilt cometh to us by Natural propagation and resultancie from our very Nature so propagated Ans. It is true we come to be actually charged with this guilt to have it imputed to us when we partake of our beings by Natural Generation or propagation and that because of our federal Union with Interest in Adam and exclusive of this it cannot be said to come to us by resultancy from our very Nature so propagated for the guilt of all Adam's after-Transgressions should as well be said to come to us after this manner as the guilt of that one Transgression Disobedience of which only the Scripture maketh mention Rom. 5. He cometh next to consider our contrary Interest in Christ tels us 1. Our persons are not the same as Christ's person nor Christ's as ours nor ever so judged or accounted of God Ans. Physically this is true but it is not true legally for when he came in the Law-place of the Elect become Surety for-them they and he became one person in Law He saith 2. Our persons were not Naturally seminally virtually in Christ's person any further than He is Creator Cause of all things as they were in Adam's Ans. Adam was a natural Head our Lord is a Spiritual Supernatural Head as to
That it did binde him to suffer for his old sin adde also for his new sin yet the obligation to obey for time to come remained But all this is beside the purpose for the maine thing is not yet noticed by Mr. Baxter viz. That Adam by his sin was obliged to suffer that yet there was no way for him to come to the promised Crown but by perfect obedience to that Law that therefore neither he or any of his posterity can enjoy life untill their Surety fulfill that Law for them or undertake to do it as they cannot be freed from Suffering untill their Surety suffer the penalty for them or undertake to do it We need not speak so unaptly as he supposeth we do that is say that the Law commandeth lapsed man not to have sin or imperfect man to have been perfect for we know that were to binde to an Impossibility in Nature for sin existent cannot but be existent But this we say That by vertue of that Law constitution there was no way for lapsed man to enjoy the Reward-promised but by yeelding perfect obedience unto that Law and as this was Impossible in Nature so was it impossible for lapsed man to enjoy the Reward therefore the Lord provided a Surety who should yeeld perfect obedience unto that Law this perfect Obedience is made over unto the Beleever put upon his score as well as the Sureties Sufferings are But saith he if Christ's perfect Obedience and holiness be imputed unto them from their first being then they are reputed not lapsed nor sinners from the beginning so not pardonable Ans. There is no necessity for such a Reputation for this is not the end of that Imputation It is Imputed in order to their obtaining a Right to the Reward which was lost by vertue hereof they do obtaine the Reward as certainly as if they had never sinned Others he saith n. 126 would come neerer the matter say that we are reputed Righteous as fulfillers of the Law yet reputed sinners as breakers of the Law that though there be no medium in Naturals betwixt light darkness life death yet there is betwixt a breaker of the Law a fulfiller of it viz. a Non-fulfiller between just unjust that is not just ◠Ans. I Finde Wolls bius in his Compend Theol. Lib 1. Cap. 30. § 15. full plaine as to this who in order to prove that in justification there is a Remission or Abjudication of sins Imputation or Adjudication of a perfect Righteousuess that though these two benefites be the same as to Time Subjects yet they are really distinct both as to their proper definitions their proxime Causes proper Effects in clearing of the difference as to their definitions he tels us that there is a difference betwixt not just just not just unjust not unjust just that not just just are contradictory that unjust just are partly privative partly contrary that not just unjust unjust just are diverse as also that unjust just are not immediatly contrary for there is Medium betwixt them viz. Innocent who is such an one as is neither unjust nor yet just and that though now these two do not differ as to Subjects yet of old they did for Adam in Paradise before he fell was innocent but was not just for he was to obtaine this by perfect Obedience Now. what saith Mr. Baxter to this He saith this is meer darkness As it seemeth all things are that agree not to his Notions But why There is saith he a Medium negative in a person as not obliged but none between positive private in one obliged as such A stone is neither just nor privatively unjust nor a man about a thing never commanded or for bidden him But what is this to the matter God's Law is presupposed we talk of nothing but Moral Acts. The Law forbideddeth omissions and Commissions both are sin Ans. Though there be no medium betwixt positive and privative in a person obliged as to particular acts commanded or forbidden yet there is a Medium in such a person in reference to the Reatus poenae meritum praemii In reference to every moral act Adam was either just or unjust i. e. either one that obeyed or one that transgressed but in reference to the punishment threatned to the Reward promised before he fell he was neither unjust that is one that was a Transgressour reus culpae poenae nor was he just that is one that had purchased the Reward but was in his way thereunto himself saith little less as I judge in his premonit p. 19. saying 3. But that Law giving life eternal only to obedience to the end of his time of trial he merited not that life by Initial obedience This was Initial Imperfect Righteousness wanting perseverance but not a Medium between just unjust except as just signifieth the merite of life by persevering Righteousness to the last And so I never denied but in a disobliged Subject there is a Medium Adam was not bound to do a yeers work the first hour so was neither just nor privatively unjust as to the future yeers work but as to what he was presently obliged unto he was either Righteous or a sinner Here upon the matter is almost all I desire or say When a command is given to a person to run so many miles in an hour a Reward is promised in case he do it a punishment threatned in case he do it not while he is running as to his present acting he is not disobedient but obedient so in so far is just not unjust yet in reference to the Reward he cannot be called just untill he hath finished the course in the time appointed So Adam while standing though he sinned not yet he had not merited the Reward Mr. Baxter replieth 1. He merited what Reward he had viz. the Continuance of his blessings first freely given Ans. That was not all the Reward which was promised whereof we are speaking for Adam was not yet in Patria howbeit himself was not clear as to this when he wrote his Aphorismes yet afterward in his Book against Mr. Cartwright pag. 19. he tels us he became convinced hereof 2. He raiseth dust to darken the aire by saying That it is yet unresolved what that was by which Adam must merite Immutability Glory whether 1. Once obeying or Consent to his full Covenant 2. Or once loving God 3. Or conquering once 4. Or eating of the tree of life 5. Or persevering in perfect obedience to the end that is till God should translate him But this dust falleth to the ground when he addeth That this last is most likely And indeed it were much of his concernment to prove if he could that all that was required of Adam by vertue of that
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
third yea multiplied Regeneration whereof the Scripture is silent nay it clearly depones the contrary 10. And if it be enquired how it cometh to passe that after sins may not at least gradually impaire the State of Justification as sins do impaire and weaken Sanctification I answere and this may further help to clear the business under hand The reason is manifest from the difference that is betwixt these two blessing and benefites Iustification is an act of God changing the Relative-state of a man and so is done and perfected in a moment Sanctification is a progressive work of God making a real physical change in the man whence sin may tetard this or put it back but cannot do so with the other which is but one single act once done and never recalled the gifts and calling of God being without repentance Rom. 11 29. In justification we are meerly passive it being a sentence of God pronunced in our Favours in Sanctification as we are in some respect patients so are we also Agents and Actors and thus sin may retard us in our motion and as it evidenceth our weakness for acting so it produceth more weakness Moreover Sin and Holiness are opposite to other as light and darkness therefore as the one prevaileth the other must go under and as the one increaseth the other must decress But there is no such Opposition betwixt sin pardon which is granted in Justification And whereas it may be said that sin expelleth also grace Meritoriously yet that prejudgeth not the truth in hand for it can expell grace meritoriously no further than the free constitution of God hath limited and so though it can and oft doth expell many degrees of Sanctification yet it cannot expell make null the grace of Regeneration or the Seed of God so no more can it expell or annul Justification because the good pleasure of God hath secured the one the other made them both unalterable By these particulars we see how the first doubt is removed out of the way we shall next speak to the Second which is concerning afflictions Punishments which are the fruits and deserts of sin and seem to be part of the curse or penalty threatned in the first Covenant To which we need not say much to show that notwithstanding hereof the State of Justification remains firme and unaltered These few things will suffice to cleare the truth 1. Though all affliction and suffering be the fruite consequent of the breach of the Covenant by Adam the head of mankind for if he had stood and the Covenant had not been violated there had been no Misery affliction Death or Suffering and though in all who are afflicted in this world there is sin to be found And though it cannot be instanced that God ever brought an afflicting or destroying stroke upon a Land or Nation but for the provocations of the People yet the Lord may some rimes afflict outwardly or inwardly or both a particular Person in some particular manner though not as provoled thereunto by that persons sin or without a special reference to their sin as the procuring Cause thereof as we see in Iob and as Christ's answer concerning the blinde man Ioh. 9 3. Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents that he was born blinde but that the works of God should be made manifest in him giveth ground to think 2. Though it doth oftner fall out that God doth afflict Punish and Châ—sten his people even because of their sinnes as well as other wicked persons yet the difference betwixt the two is great though the outward Camitie may be materially the same To the godly they flow from Love are designed for good are sanctified and made to do good they are covenanted mercies but nothing so to the wicked They are mercies to the one but curses to the other They speak out love to the one but hatred to the other They are blessed to the one but blasted cursed to the other They work together for good to the one but for evil to the other and all this notwithstanding that the outward affliction calamity that is on the godly may be double or treeble to that which is upon the wicked Yea there is mercy and love in the afflictions of the Godly when the prosperity of the wicked is cursed Whence we see that all these afflictions cannot endanger or dammage their Justified state 3. Though the Lord may be wroth smite in anger his own people chasten punish them in displeasure yet this wrath anger is but the wrath and anger of a Father and is consistent with fatherly Affection in God and therefore cannot be repugnant to a state of Sonshipe in them Prov. 3 11 12. Heb. 12 5-8 Psal. 89 30 33 34. Revel 3 19. 4. In all these afflictions that seem to smell most of the Curse and of the death threatned and are most inevitable such as death c. there is nothing of pure vinâ—ictive justice to be found in them when Justified persons are exercised with them for Christ did bear all that being made a curse for them and as to this the Lord caused all their iniquities to meet together upon him He drunk out the cup of Vindictive anger and left not one drop of the liquor of the Curse of the Law for any of his own to drink He alone did bear the weight of revenging justice and there is nothing of this in all that doth come upon beleevers So that the very sting of death is taken away the sting of all these Afflictions is sucked out and now they are changed into Mercies Blessings 1 Cor. 3 21 22. Therefore we must not think that they contribute the least mite unto that Satisfaction which justice required for sins Christ payed down to the full justice was fully satisfied with what he paid down nor must we think that God will exact a new satisfaction for sins or any part thereof of the hands of beleevers after he hath received a full satisfaction from the Mediator Christ did rest satisfied therewith The afflictions and Punishments then that the godly meet with being no parts of the Curse nor of that Satisfaction that justice requireth for sin nor flowing from vindictive justice but being rather fatherly chastisments mercies meanes of God can do no hurt unto their state of justification nor can any thing be hence inferred to the prejudice of that glorious state 5. But it is said Pardon and Justification is one thing and a man is no more Justified than he is Pardoned and Pardon is but the taking off of the obligation to punishment and consequently of punishment it self and seing punishment is not wholly taken off but there remaineth some part of the curse or of the evil threatned for sin and will remaine untill the resurrection it is cleare that pardon is not fully compleet not consequently Justification so long as we live But
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
denote one the same thing the last being explicative of the former Ezek. 18 30. Repent turn yourselves And this is imported by many Synonimous expressions in the Old Testament as Seeking the Lord Deut. 4 29. Turning to the Lord vers 30. Returning to the Lord. Hos 5 4. Seeking the face of God 2. Chron. 7 14. the like See also Revel 3 19. 4. It is sometimes expresly distinguished from Godly sorrow mentionned as a Consequent or fruite effect of it 2. Cor. 7 9 yee sorrowed to Repentance 10. for Godly sorrow worketh Repentance 5. Sometime it is expresse distinguished from Faith as Act. 20 21 Repentance toward God faith toward our Lord Iesus Christ. Heb. 6 1. not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works of faith towards God So Ier. 31 19. after I was turned that is wrought up to faith I repented 6. Sometime it signifieth nothing else upon the matter but a receiving of the Gospel a beleeving in Christ not only Mark. 1 15. repens ye beleeve the Gospel where the later is explicative of the former but also in many other places where Bapist's ministrie is spoken of the summe whereof is said to have been Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand Mat. 3 2. and his baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance Mark. 1 4 or unto Repentance Mat. 3 11. See also Luk. 3 3. Act. 13 24. Now that this preaching of Repentance Baptisme of or unto Repentance which is said to have been Iohn's ministrie work was the preaching of Faith in the Messiah Paul telleth us expreslie Act. 19 4. Then said Paul Iohn verily baptized with the baptisme of Repentance saying unto the people that they should beleeve on him which should come after him that is on Christ Iesus So that by this Commentary of Paul's we understand both what was the scope of his Baptisme of Repentance also what was the meaning of his calling on his hearers to Repent to wit to embrace Christ who came after him to beleeve in him And by this Commentary we may understand the purpart of Christ's preaching Mat. 4 17. from that time Iesus began to preach to say Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand And this is called Mark 1 14. the Gospel of the Kingdom of God As also of the preaching of the Apostles Seventy disciples when they were sent to say the Kingdom of God was come or is nigh unto you Luk. 10 9. Mat. 10 7. which is called the Gospel Luk. 9 6. and Repentance Mark. 6 12. they went out preached that men should Repent By this also we may understand the meaning of these the like passages Mat. 9 13 I am not come to call the Righteous but sinners to Repentance So Mark 2 17. Luk. 5 32. as likewise of that passage Luk. 15 7 10 joy in heaven over one person that repenteth for this is Christ's saving of the man that was lost Mat. 18 11. Luk. 15 4. 19. 10. See also Mat. 11 20. Act. 2 38. 11 18. 26 18. 20. compared together 7. Sometime it denoteth a recovery from some measure of defection into which persons are backsliden as Revel 2 5. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen Repent do shy first works So Ch. 3 3. Remember therefore how thou hast received heard hold fast Repent 8. Sometime it is distinguished from works of Obedience that follow upon it flow from it as Mat. 3 8. bring forth fruits meet for Repentance that is fruits suiting or answerable unto a Christian state or a state of beleeving in Christ which before we saw was denoted by Iohn's Baptisme So Luk. 3 8. Act. 26 10. 9. Sometime it includeth all that is required in order to Salvation upon mans part as 2 Pet. 3 9 not willing that any should pertâ—h but that all should come to Repentance So that Repentance includeth all that is requisite to escape perishing So Luk. 13 3 5 except ye Repent ye shall all likewise perish So also Act. 5 31. to give Repentance to Israel Remission of sins where as Remission of sins may comprehend all the spiritual favours and privileges which Christ bestoweth so Repentance may include all the graâ—es blessings which he bestoweth in order to the actual participating of these privileges Thus we may understand it Act. 17 30. but now commandeth all men every where to Repent that is by the preached Gospel wherever it cometh commandeth all men to relinquish their courses of vanity to embrace the Gospel of Salvation to walk accordingly So Luk. 24 47. And that Repentance Remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations which is the short summe of the Apostles Commission to wit to exhort to all Christian duties imported by Repentance hold forth all Gospel privileges as an encouragment thereunto included in Remission of sins Having premitted these things in order to the clearing of the question we would know further 1. That the Question is not whether the doctrine of Papists about Repentance in order to Justification be to be owned in whole or in part for none now appeareth in the direct owning of their Assertions who commonly are utterly ignorant of true Justification as different from Sanctification as may sufficiently appeare by the very naming of their positions for 1 They look upon Repentance as having force efficacy to expell sin as light hath to expell darkness taking Remission to be a destroying of the very being of sin expelling of Corruption by contrary gracious Qualities inherent Holiness of which they make Repentance a part 2 They make Repentance concurre as a material cause dssposing the soul for receiving a gracious Quality for the expelling of sin 3 They make Repentance to obtain pardon by way of merite and 4 by way of Satisfaction Not to mention 5 their Sacrament of Pennance All which the Reader will finde not only rejected but also shortly solidly confused by worthy judicious Mr. Durham in his Comment on the Revel in that digression on Repentance pag. 251. 2. Nor is the Question whether the Lord call for Repentance as a duty at the hands of such as either are to be Justified or are already Justified for both these we willingly grant as being divine truthes richly confirmed in the Scriptures what ever Antinomians say to the contrary 3. Nor is the Question whether Repentance be a Condition of the Covenant or not For if by a Condition of the Covenant we understand every thing that is a duty required of the Covenanters it is readily granted as was said that Repentance is a duty required of such as are really in Covenant with God but if by a Condition of the Covenant be meaned a duty required in order to the closing of the Covenant or entering into Covenant upon the performing of which the Covenant is immediatly
to say we are Justified by Repentance as we are justified by Faith It is best for us to follow Scripture language The Scripture expresly denieth that we are justified by works yet Repentance is sometimes taken in such a large sense as to include all acts of Obedience This way then would allow us to sav we are justified by all works of obedience even as to constitutive Justification as we are by Faith Yet Mr. Baxter in his Confess p. 89 90. putteth a difference betwixt Faith Evangelick Obedience as to this Constitutive Justification making the one like consent to marriage relation or taking one to be my Captaine the other like conjugal fidelity obedience or obeying the captain sighting under him tels us that he no more comprizeth all Obedience in Faith than conjugal obedience in the marriage consent 3 That Repentance is not the same with Faith in the matter of justification in reference to which we now speak of both will appear from our following reasons So that whatever paines be taken to make them one on other accounts will be to no purpose as to our present business 2. If Repentance have the same interest in Justification that Faith hath then works shall have the same interest with Faith but this is diametically opposite to all the Apostles disput Rom. 3. 4. Gal. 2. 3. The reason of the Consequence is because Repentance includeth works is a special work act of obedience itself Mr. Baxter tels Confess p. 94. That Paul's scope is both to take down Moses's Law especially its necessity conceited sufficiency the Dignity of legal works consequently of any works that therefore by works Paul meaneth to exclude only merites or works which are conceited Meritorious or which for the worth of the dead done should procure Pardon acceptance with God without a Mediators blood so Paul himself described the works that he speaketh against Rom. 4 4. That they are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt Ans. This is but the same we heard before from Iohn Godwine and the same answer may suffice 1 If the scope of Paul had been only to take down Moses's Law why did he speak so much of the Gentiles shew how they were all under sin therefore must be justified by Faith not by the Law or by works This had no manifest tendency to that scope 2 Why brought he in the Instance of Abraham who was before the Law of Moses Abraham's not being justified by works could not prove the insufficiency of Moses's Law thereunto 3 To think that the Jewes did conceite that they would obtaine Pardon Acceptance with God only by their laborious performance of Ceremonies costly Sacrifices excluding all Moral acts of obedience is apparently groundless contrary to Rom. 9 30 31 32. 10 3 4 5. would say that Paul took not a right medium to destroy that conceite for his neerest surest course had been to have shown the nullity of that Law now under the Gospel hereby all occasion of further debate being perfectly removed 4 Paul is so far Rom. 4 4. from describing the works that he speaketh of to be such only as make the reward of debt that he proveth that Justification cannot be by works by this medium because then the reward should be reckoned not of grace but of debt and so telleth us that all work make the reward of debt This is a manifest perversion of the Apostles argument for he saith not now to him that so worketh as to conceite his works meritorious the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt but now to him that worketh far less can this be the meaning or construction of the words now to him that maketh the reward to be not of grace but of debt for what sense is here And further the meaning of the following words must accordingly be this but to him that so worketh as not to make the reward of debt but of grace his working is counted for Righteousness While as the Apostle saith a plaine other thing But to him that worketh not but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Sure working without this conceite of merite is not beleeving on him that justifieth the ungodly neither are these works counted for Righteousness for holy Abraham wrought without that conceite yet he was not justified by works vers 2 3. Nor did David meane that mans blessedness did consist in the imputation of such works nor did he describe that blessedness when he said blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven c. Consider 1. Cor. 4 4 Ephes. 2 9. Phil. 3 9. Tit. 3 5. 3. Repentance hath no instrumentall acting on Christ his Righteonsness in order to our being justified But Faith hath this as was shown in the foregoing Chapter Therefore Repentance hath not the same Interest in Justification that Faith hath It is requisite necessary in order to our Justification that we be clothed with a Righteousness even the Surety-Righteousness of Christ and Faith only can lay hold on this put it on not Repentance Repentance doth not act so upon any thing without a man to bring it home that it may become the mans Righteousness it hath other work acteth upon another object upon sin within the man It is true Mr. Baxter in his Catholick Theol. of God's Government Sect. XI will have faith rather to be called a receiving cause than an Instrumental a medium or dispositive cause of the effect justification as as received but not as given And then Sect. XII he calleth Repentance a disposit to materiae recipientis too a part of the condition of the Covonant But we think it needless here to distinguish with him betwixt receiving Iustification being Justified we do not call Faith an Instrument of God's act Justifying as was said above If Faith Repentance be dispositive causes of the effect causa dispositiva be part of the causa materialis as he also saith I suppose they are not meer causae sine quibus non as he said elsewhere But to our business we have cleared before how â—aith acteth in the matter of Justification how it receiveth an imputed Righteousness laith hold on this Surety-Righteousness of Christ applieth it to the end the accused impeached man may have wherewithall he may stand before the Tribunal of God be accepted of as Righteous in his Cautioner through his Cautioners Righteousness imputed to him now received by Faith though Mr. Baxter do account Faith's accepting of Christ life offered on that condition only its aptitude to the office that the formal reason of its office as to our Justification is its being the performed condition of the Covenant as he there speaketh yet that will not invalidat our argument for 1 Faiths aptitude as he calleth it or
was requisite the perfect observation of the Law Now perfect observation of the Law saith there was no transgression but remission saith supposeth that the Law was not perfectly observed So the imputation of the Law fulfilled either saith the Law was not broken or that now satisfaction is made for the breach thereof therefore the person unto whom this imputation is made hath a right unto the reward which this imputation doth directly immediatly respect as such But in our case both these go together perfect remission the imputation of the Law fulfilled because freedom from the obligation to punishment right to the reward go also together inseparably For how can he be said saith he to have all his sins fully forgiven who is yet looked upon or intended to be dealt with all as one that hath transgressed either by way of omission or commission any part of the Law Ans. He that hath his sins fully forgiven may well be looked upon as one that hath transgressed either by omission or by commission or by both because he must be so looked upon for pardon presupposeth sin no man can be pardoned but a sinner and no man can think or dreame of a remission but withall he must suppose that the person pardoned hath sinned But it is true he who is said to have all his sins fully forgiven cannot be intended to be dealt withall as one that hath transgressed for pardon destroyeth that obligation to punishment but doth not so destroy sin as to cause that it never was for that is impossible What more And he that is looked upon as one that never transgressed any part of the Law must needs be conceived or looked upon as one that hath fulfilled or keeped the Law Ans. This is very true But what then Which is nothing else saith he but to have a perfect Righteousness or which is the same a perfect fulfilling of the Law imputed to him Ans. This is also true taking this imputation of a perfect fulfilling of the Law to be to one who never broke the Law by sin but it is not true in our case who are transgressours all the imputation of Righteousness in the world can not make us to have been no sinners Yet he inferreth So that besides that perfect remission of sins which hath been purchased by the bloud of Christ there is no need of indeed no place for the imputation of any Righteousness performed by Christ unto the Law Ans. The inconsequence of this is manifest from what is said But he addeth a reason Because saith he in that very act of remission of sins there is included an imputation of a perfect Righteousness Ans. This is but the same thing which was said is manifestly false Remission regairdeth only the punishment or the obligation thereunto dissolveth it but as such giveth no right to the reward which was promised only to obedience to the Law But then he tels us more properly with Scripture-exactness as he saith that that act of God whereby heremitteth pardoneth sin is interpretativly nothing else but an imputation of a perfect righteousness or of a fulfilling of the Law compare Rom. 4 6 with vers 7. 11. Ans. This is but the same thing needeth no new answere for it is denied that that act of God whereby he pardoneth sin considered in itself as such is interpretativly an imputation of perfect Righteousness But it is true in our case it may be called so interpretativly in this respect that there is such an in dissoluble connexion betwixt the two that the one inferreth the other necessitate consequentis And this is all that can be proved from Rom. 4 6 7 11. He addeth Even as the act of the Physician by which he recovereth his patient from his sickness may withfull propriety of speach be called that act whereby he restoreth him to his health Ans. The Physician purging away the humors the causes of the distemper is the cause of health by being the causa removens prohibens because ex natura rei health followeth upon the removal of that which caused the distemper but the connexion of pardon of imputation of Righteousness is not ex natura rei but ex libera Dei constitutione connecting the causes of both together His next similitude of the sun dispelling darkness filling the aire with light is as little to the purpose because here is a natural necessary consequence light necessarily expelling darkness which is denied in our case Hence there is no ground for what he addeth when he saith In like manner God doth not heal sin that is forgive sin by one act restore the life of righteousness that is impute righteousness by another act at all differing from it but in by one the same punctual precise act he doth the one the other For we are not here enquiring after the oneness or diversitie of God's acts in a Philosophical manner God can do many things by one Physical act but we are enquireing concerning the Effects whether they be one precise thing flowing from one moral cause or so diverse as to require diverse moral causes grounds or whether the one doth naturally essentially include the other as being both but one thing His following words would seem to speak to this when he saith forgiveness of sins imputation of Righteousness are but two different names expressions or considerations of one the same thing one the same act of God is sometimes called forgivness of sins sometimes an imputing of Righteousness the forgivness of sins is sometimes called an imputing of righteousness to shew signifie that a man needs nothing to a compleet Righteousness or Iustification but the forgivness of his sins And againe the Imputing of Righteousness is sometimes called the forgivness of sins to shew that God hath no other Righteousness to conferre upon a sinner but that which standeth in forgiveness of sins Ans. This is but gratis dictum nothing at all is proved These two pardon of sins imputation of Righteousness are two distinct parts of one compleet favour and blessing granted of God in order to one compleet blessedness consisting likewise in two parts to wit in freedome from punishment which was deserved in right to the promised inheritance which was lost And because these two both in the cause and in the effect are inseparable conjoined by the Lord therefore the mentioning of the one may doth import signifie both by a Synecdoche And hence no man with reason can inferre that they are both one the same precise thing flowing from one the same precise cause and import only the different names expressioâ—s or considerations of one the same thing Christ's obedience to the Law and his suffering for sin were not one the same thing under various considerations or names but distinct parts of one compleet Surety-Righteousness no more can the effects that
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
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
his owne he died to prevent their falling into and to keep them from this sin for he died to bring them unto God that they might have the Adoption of sons that they might be sanctified and live unto Righteousness be made Righteous yea the Righteousness of God as is clear 1. Pet. 2 24. Heb. 10 10. 2. Cor. 5 21. 1. Pet. 3 18. Rom. 5 19. what then will they say to this Final unbeleef is certainly a sin and Christ either died for it or not if he died for it than it can be laid to no mans charge or Christ's death is of no value If he died not for it he died not for all the sinnes of all men but at most for some sinnes of all men and if that was all no man could thereby be saved for one sin is enough to procure damnation Moreover 10. we finde the Persons for whom this price of blood was laid down designed more particularly and the Object of this Redemption restricted and so it could not be for all every one It is said to be for Many Esai 53 11. Matth. 20 28. 26 28. Mark 10 45. Heb. 9 28. and what these many are is abundantly declared in other Scriptures where they are called Christ's Sheep Ioh. 10 15. Christ's People Mat. 1 21. His People whom according to the predictions of the Prophets which have been since the world began he should save from their enemies and from the hand of all that hate them to performe the mercy promised to the Fathers and to remember his holy Covenant the oath which he swore to Father Abraham that he would grant unto them that being delivered out of the hand of their enemies they might serve him without fear in holiness Righteousness before him all the dayes of their lifo Luk. 1 68 70 71 72 73 74 75. His Church Ephes. 5 25. Act. 20 28. His Body Ephes. 5 22. The Children of God that were scattered abroad Ioh. 11 52. Sones Sanctified Brethren the Children that God gave him that Seed of Abraham Heb. 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. They are the Sheep that shall infallibly beleeve because sheep Ioh. 10 26. and Whom Christ knoweth and of whom he is known vers 14. and such as shall heare his voice vers 16. follow him vers 27. to whom he will give eternal life so that they shall never perish who are given to him of his Father vers 28 29. the Elect 2. Tim. 2 10. He is bread giving life unto the World of them that the Father hath given him and shall come to him Ioh. 6 33 39. They are these concerning whom the Fathers will was as being given of him that he should lose nothing but raise it up againe at the last day ver 38 39 47. The Redeemed ones that are numbered by God 144000. are the first fruites unto God and the Lamb. Revel 14 3 4 5. They are such as are the Lords whom the Lord knoweth for his 2. Tim. 2 19. are enrolled in the Lambs book Revel 13 8. 20 15. So are they designed to be these for whom God is and who shall have unquestionably all things the Elect who shall be justified who shall not be separated from the Love of Christ are in all things more then Conquerours Rom. 8 31 32 33 34 37 38 39. These with whom the Covenant shall be confirmed Dan. 9 27. The redeemed out of every Kinred Tongue People Nation and made Kings Priests Revel 5 9 10. Further 11. if Christ died for the sinnes of all persons how cometh it that they are not all actually pardoned It cannot be said that Christ's death was not a satisfactory price nor that the Father did not accept of it If then he shed his blood for the remission of sins Mat. 26 28. are not all these sins pardoned virtually fundamently or shall they not all actually be pardoned in due time If it be said they shall be pardoned upon Condition of their faith But if the sinnes of all be equally payed for and equally in a virtual manner discharged in Christ's being actually discharged from that debt in the day of his Resurrection and the actually discharge depending upon the uncertain Condition of mans Will man who willingly performeth the Condition shall praise himself for the actually pardon and none else for Christ did no more for him as to the Actual Pardon than for others who never shall be blessed with actual forgiveness and yet forgiveness is held forth as a special act of free grace forgivenesse of sinnes is according to the riches of his grace Ephes. 1 7. Moreover as to that Condition whether did Christ purchase it or not If he did not purchase it than man is not beholden to Christ for the Condition be it faith or what ye will it is no purchased mercy but man is beholden to his good Lord Free Will for it and so he may sacrifice to his own net and sing glory to himself for making himself to differ and for obtaining to himself Actual Remission of all his sinnes and consequently blessedness Rom. 4 6 7 8. for had not his owne well disposed Lord Free Will performed that Condition all that Christ did had never more advantaged him than it did others that perish If it be said that grace to performe the condition though it be not purchased by the blood of Christ yet it is freely given by God to whom he will I Answer Not to insist here on the proof of faith's being purchased by Christ because we shall cleare it afterward there is nothing else assigned for the condition I would enquire whether Christ knew to whom this grace would be given or not if not then we must deny him to be God if he knew why shall we suppose that he would lay down his life equally for all when he knew before hand that many should never get grace to performe the condition upon which his death should redound to their actual pardon justification what Ends or what Advantages can we imagine of such an Universal Redemption 12. If the Condition upon which actual pardon justification is granted in the blood of Christ be purchased by Christ then either all shall certainly be Pardoned Justified or Christ hath not purchased an Equal Common Possible Redemption to all and every man But the former is true it is not true that all shall certainly be pardoned actually justified for then all should be glorified That the condition to wit Faith Repentance is purchased by Christ who can deny seing he is expresly called the Author of Faith Heb. 12 2. and a Prince exalted to give Repentance forgiveness of sins Act. 5 31 So that as forgiveness of sins is founded upon his death as the Meritorious cause so must Repentance be and Christ as an exalted Prince Saviour hath this power to dispose of his owne purchased legacy which he hath
also considerable 14. That no where in Scripture we finde it expresly said affirmed That Christ died for all men Far less finde we it said that Christ died for all and every man Why then is all this trouble made But they say as much as all that is said by consequence And this we deny if they will rationally presse this matter they should evince that such expressions as they make so much work about can be no otherwise understood than they suppose in the places where they stand and this they shall never be able to do Though it be said that Christ gave his life a Ransome for all yet no reason can evince that that is necessarily to be understood of all every man so nor can they conclude any thing rationally from the word world They may as well inferre from these words all and the world that Christ died for devils beasts sensless creatures as that he died for all every man for they are comprehended under these terms as well as Men And if they will restrict these termes to men because of other Scriptures why may not we restrick them also to the Elect because of the correspondence of other passages of Scripture They cannot deny us the liberty they take to themselves If they say that there is a vast difference betwixt Devils an Men in reference to such favours We deny it not but shall adde that in reference to spiritual favours amongst which we cannot but reckon with the good leave of our Adversaries the death of Christ being the fruit expression of the greatest Love of God to Man we finde also a great difference in Scripture Some are Loved some Hated Rom. 9 11 12. Some whom he Knoweth some whom he Knoweth not Ioh. 10 14. 13 18. Mat. 7 23. 2. Tim. 2 19. Some Chosen Ordained to life others not but to Wrath Act. 13 48. Rom. 8 30. 9 18. c. Ephes. 1 4. 1. Thes. 5 9. Some Sheep others Goats Mat. 25 32. Some on whom God hath Mercy others whom he Hardeneth Rom. 9. Some his Church others not Act. 20 28. Ephes. 5 25. Some of the World others not Ioh. 17 9 10. Some his Brethren others not Heb. 2 10 12 13. And as plainly read we that Christ died for his People Mas. 1 21. his Sheep Ioh. 10 11 12 14. his Church Act. 20 28. Ephes. 5 25. his Elect Rom. 8 32 34. and his Children Heb. 2 12 13. If we would consider aright 15. What Christ did undergoe suffer while he was made sin or was making satisfaction for sin we should hardly think it probable that Christ Jesus God-man who was the brightness of tho Fathers glory and the express image of his person Heb. 1 3. and thought it no robbery to be counted equal with God Phil. 2 6. Should have undergone what he did undergoe and that the Father should have laid all that upon him which he did lay upon him and that to purchase only a meer Possible Redemption from sin wrath whereby not one person should be saved or pardoned if so it had seemed good to captaine Free will Not to mention his condescending to be Born of a woman to be made under the Law Gal. 4 4. nor his being in the forme of a servant Phil. 2 7. nor his Poverty mean Condition in the world 2. Cor. 8 9. nor his Conflicting with the indignities of the world Psal. 22 6. Heb. 12 2 3. with the temptations of Satan Math. 4 1-12 Luk. 4 15. and his being under the infirmities common to the nature of man being in all things like us except sin Heb. 2 17. 4 15. Esai 52 13 14. Nay nor his sufferings in his Body Name Honour at death when he was betrayed by Iudas Mat. 27 4. forsaken by his disciples Math. 26 56. Scorned Reviled by the world Esai 53 2â— 3. Condemned as a malefactor by Pilat Tormented by his persecutors Mat. 27 26-50 Ioh. 19 34. Endured the Painful Shameful Cursed death of the crosse Phil. 2 8. Heb. 12 2. all which the like being endured by Him who was the Son of God could be no mean suffering nor undergone for an uncertain end or for the procureing of a meer Possible Uncertain good But that which we would most take notice of here is his Soul sufferings being persued by divine justice when that Zach. 13 7. was accomplished awake O sword against my shepheard against the Man that is my follow saith the Lord of hostes smite the shepheard and the sheep shall be scattered Mat. 26 31. and the Lord did bruise him and put him to griese Esai 53 5 10. and he began to be sorrowful even unto death Mat. 26 37 38. and was sore amazed and very heavy Mark. 14 34. and was put to offer up prayers and supplications with strong cryes and teares to him that was able to save him Heb. 5 7. when notwithstanding that an angel appeared unto him from heaven strengthening him yet being in an agony he prayed more earnestly and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground Luk. 22 43 44. and at length was made to cry out my God my God why hast thou forsaken me Psal. 22 1. Mat. 27 46. Mark 15 34. This was no mean business when the Rayes Irradiations of Divine Love were drawn-in withheld from him who had such a sharp sense of the happiness in the enjoying of God's favour because of the Personal union with the Godhead But that which is most of all to be considered is his being made a Curse Gal. 3 13. and so made to wrestle with the Justice and Wrath of a sin revenging God This was the gall and the worm wood that made him cry Ioh. 12 27. Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour Shall we suppose that all this was about an Uncertane Bargane Shall we think that he died the cursed death of the crosse and bore the weight of God's wrath Luk. 22 41. Mat. 27 46. and so became a sacrifice to satisfie divine justice Heb. 9 14 18 all to purchase a meer Possibility or a meer Possible Redemption Shall we think that the Second person of the Trinity should do suffer all these things for to redeem man when possibly if Freewill should be so ill natured not one man should reap any advantage thereby Me thinks the asserting of this should be a great temptation to cause people turne Socinians and deny all these soul sufferings of Christ his bearing the wrath of God making any satisfaction to justice Adde to this 16. That the Scriptures speak of Christ's Death Sufferings as being not for himself but for others and that not only for the good advantage of others and doubtless the advantage of all this should be but little if it were nothing else but a meer Possible Redemption which
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
society His Church when ever any person doth beleeve is united federally to Him he then receiveth the effects of that which was before in Christ as a virtus effectiva Ans. But Christ being a federal Head to His own whom in due time He was to bring in to an holy Society beleevers receive the effects of that which was in Christ as such a federal Head which is more than as a virtus effectiva Importeth His Obligation as a Surety to work these effects speaketh out His representing of them as a publick Person and paying their debt according to His Undertaking in the Covenant of Redemption Thereafter pag. 78. from this That the Law made to Adam did not assigne Christ to this office nor oblige Him to suffer for sinners according to it that therefore He suffered not by that obligation which bound us to suffer but by the obligation of His own consent he inferreth that the Law of works took not Christ for the Civil or legal person of Beleevers more than it made Him such Ans. But this consequence is denied for when a debtor is lying in prison a friend who was not formerly obliged undertaking to satisfie the Creditor making satisfaction is by Law taken for the legal person of the debtor who is accordingly dealt with as if he himself had satisfied the Creditor In the 4 5. 6. places he tels us That beleevers receiving Christ Himself receive title to His Grace Spirit Glory are personally actually His Subjects c and have a right to all His conferred benefites which right followeth not Immediatly to them from what Christ did or suffered but from the Covenant of grace therefore they have no right before the time nor any but on the Conditions specified in the Covenant Ans. 1 Though they have no full compleat actual right untill such time as is condescended upon yet by vertue of the compact betwixt Jehovah the Mediator wherein the Mediator undertook particularly for those given unto Him these may be said to have a real fundamental right though that right be not subjected in them nor pleadable by them before the time appointed yet a Right or something equivalent for I will not strive about words must necessarily flow from Christ's Satisfying for them and paying their debt according to His Undertaking As when it is contracted that the Eldest daughter of the marriage shall have such a summe of money when she cometh to be married or to be of such an age that daughter hath another right unto that summe than any other daughter hath that fundamentally from the contract Agreement though before the time designed her right be not such as she can plead it in Law in order to the possessing of the summe 2. Therefore the right that Beleevers have floweth from the Compact Christ's Suffering according to compact though it be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace their possession of the Benefites be immediatly therefrom as that daughters right to the summe is properly from the contract though her actual possession according to the contract be from her Marriage or coming to that age Though beleevers right to the actual possession of the benefites be so conveyed as to the conveyance some be granted absolutly as faith as himself will confess some upon condition of faith that is in that order according to that Methode that faith shall preceed Yet in respect of God their right to all is absolutly purchased by Christ so in a sense theirs though not subjected in them nor pleadable by them till the time appointed come This whole scheme of Mr. Baxter's seemeth to me to be founded upon and to flow from his Notion of Universal Redemption whereby he will have Christ to have died in the room stead of all which to me is in the room place of none to have purchased the New Covenant a Common good to all whereby all that would performe the New Conditions should have right to the benefites as having obtained the same by their performance of these proper Conditions anteriour to which there was no difference at all betwixt them others but this Scheme and the ground thereof I cannot owne 7. He tels us that as none till he was a person could be a person guilty of Adam's sin nor when he was a person any sooner than he was also guilty of his own inherent pravity none that had the use of reason was guilty of either or both these only without the guilt of his own actual sin So none till he be a beleever is related as a member of a perfectly Righteous Saviour that is done no sooner in time then he hath the inherent righteousness of his personal faith federal consent that obligeth him to the further active Righteousness of a holy life Ans. The Protasâ—s Apodosâ—s seem not to agree for as upon our personal existence we become persons guilty of Adam's sin that before as to nature though not as to time we have inherent pravity because this is an Effect Consequent Punishment of the former so upon our faith which is our personal existing grace corresponding to our personal existing in Nature by our Natural being should follow as answering to this Imputation of Adam's guilt the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness but in stead of this he mentioneth nothing but a Relation as a member of a righteous Saviour which according to the comparison should correspond to our relation to Adam which is in nature before our partaking of his sin 2 As answering to our inherent pravity he should have named our justification Adoption c. as the effects of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousâ—ess in stead of this he nameth the Inherent righteousness of our personal faith federal consent thereby Importing that this federal consent is posteriour to our Relation while as I suppose he will say that our Relation is upon the condition of our federal consent Not to mention here his errour hereafter discovered of making faith to be considered here as our personal Inherent Righteousness Then he tels us That all these three conjunct though not coordinat make up the total Righteousness of a Saint viz. 1. our Relation to Christ in Union as to a perfectly Righteous Head who fulfilled all Righteousness for us to merite our justification which is called Christ's Righteousness imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours 2. our penitent beleeving consent to his Covenant which is the condition of the foresaid relation to Christ. 3. And our Sanctification Ans. 1 Here we see that Righteousness made the second Righteousness which yet is the condition of the first as if our Inherent pravity were the condition of the Imputation of Adam's sin to us 2 our Relation to Christ is not one the same with the Imputation of Righteousness to us no more than our relation to Adam is the same thing with the Imputation of