at which they stumbled when he said Rom. 9 31 32. But Israel which followed after the law of Righteousness hath not attained to the law of Righteousness wherefore Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law for they stumbled at that stumbling stone And againe Rom. 10 3 4. But they being ignorant of God's Righteousness going about to establish their own Righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness c. Is it not hence clear that they rejected Christ and would not owne Him as the end of the law for Righteousness that they stumbled at Him seeking after justification life by their own personal following after the law of Righteousness by seeking to establish their own righteousness How then can this man say pag. 61. That Paul was as far from holding justification by the works of the law as performed by Christ as the jewes were who would have nothing to do with Christ but stumbled at Him while as Paul sought only to be found in Him not having his owne Righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3 9. And proclamed Christ to be the end of the law for Righteousnes to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. Against Fit 3 5. where mention is made of the works of righteousness which we have done a sufficient ground laid for the distinction mentioned to prevent the stumbling of such as love to walk in the light he advanceth several answers pag. 62. c. As I. He never said that the active righteousness of Christ should be made a stander-by but that it hath a blessed influence into justification as it issueth into His passive obedience which together may be called a Righteousness for which but not with which we are justified except it can be proved to be either the Material or formal or instrumental cause of justification whoever attempt to do this will wholly dissolve the merite of it Ans. 1 All this maketh nothing to the purpose now in hand which is to show that Paul by this expression cleareth sufficiently what he meaneth by the works of the law which he excludeth from having any interest in justification viz. The works of the law performed by us in our own persons 2 What influence the active obedience of Christ hath in justication when he will not admit it to be any part of that Surety-righteousness which is imputed unto us he showeth not nor what way it issueth in to His passive obedience If all this influence be to make Him fit to be a Sacrifice we have shown above that the personal Union did that and consequently His active obedience if it had no other influence is made a meer stander by 3. A Righteousness for which a Righteousness with which is a distinction in our case without a difference for the one doth no way oppugne or exclude the other because the meritorious cause imputed made over to and reckoned upon the score of beleevers can be also that Righteousness with which they are justified 4 Whether it may be called the Material or Formal cause of justification that any ever called it the instrumental cause is more than I know is no great matter seing it may be either as the termes shall be explained which men are at freedom to do according to their own minde when they apply them unto this matter which hath so little affinity with Effects meerly Natural unto the causes of which these termes are properly applied though I should choose rather to call it the formal objective cause if necessitated to use here philosophik termes 3 That to call Christ's whole Righteousness either the Material or Formal cause of justification is to overthrow the merite of it is said but not proved It is not these philosophical termes themselves but the explication of them by such as use them in this matter that is to be regarded and none shall ever show that either of these termes as explained by the orthodox doth overthrow the merite of Christ's Righteousness both doth rather establish it He saith 2. The H. Ghost may reject the works of men from being the cause of such or such a thing yet no wayes intimat that the works of any other should be the cause thereof If the words had gone thus not by the works of Righteousness which we our selves had done this had been some what an higher ground to have inferred the opposite member of the distinction upon viz. by the works of another or of Christ. Ans. This exception is as little to the purpose as the former for these words were here brought only to show what the Apostle meant by the works of the law which he excluded from justification viz. the works which we do and not to prove immediatly that the works of any other were understood hereby 2 It is foolish thing to imagine a distinction betwixt works which we do works which we our selves do the same word in the original which vers 5. is rendered we is rendered we our selves vers 3. What poor shifts are these which men take to support a desperat cause He saith 3. To put the matter out of all question that excluding the works of the law which we had done he had no intent to imply the works which another might do he expresseth the opposition thus according to His mercy Ans. The mistake is still continued in By these words we onely cleare what the works are which are excluded viz. our personal works or works which we do or have done whose works else are accepted other places prove expresly this by consequence unless the worke of a third could be alleiged 2 The opposition here made destroyeth not the opposition which we make for when we are justified Saved by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ we are justified saved according to His mercy as well as we are justified freely by His grace when justified through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ Rom. 3 24. He saith 4. thereby seemeth to reply to what is last said The Apostle delivereth himself distinctly of that wherein this Mercy of God be speaks of consisteth viz. regenerating us c. Ans. But I hope the Apostles mentioning of Regeneration doth not exclude the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the ground thereof nor can he suppose this unless he plead with Papists for justification by our good works done after Regeneration the new birth He saith 5. Such an inference is neither probable nor pertinent to the purpose because the Apostle rejecteth the works of righteousness which he nameth from being any cause antecedaneously moving God to save us not from being the formal cause of justification and we our selves saith he will not say that the works of the law which Christ hath
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 principles from which nor the ends to which our works proceed are intended There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge to discerne the sincerity of works as of faith it self He may see that all this will make as much against Christ's saying Mat. 5 16. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works glorifie your Father which is in heaven And that Ioh. 13 35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another and that 1. Pet. 2 12. Having your Conversation honest among the Gentiles they may by your good works which they shall behold glorifie God in the day of Visitation Nor is it to the purpose to say that he was the justifier who was the imputer of Righteousness that is God for works of obedience may declare that God hath imputed Righteousness unto the person hath justified him and this is all we say that Abraham was in this sense justified by his works that he was declared to be justified indeed before God by his works Some were pleased to express their sense of Iames's words thus That Iames speaks of works as justifying our faith not as justifying our persons meaning only that the Apostle did not consider works here as the Cause or Condition of the persons being justified before God but as the effect evidence proving the mans faith to be sound saving and consequently the man thereby to have been justified which sense is the same with what we have given but Mr. Baxter saith it is as plaine as can be that it is the person not his Faith which is here said to be justified Ans. The person it is true is said here to be justified but not causatively but declaratively that is It is not said that by works his justification is effectuated but that it is declared that because it is hereby declared that the man is a true beleever thus his faith is manifested to be of the right kind which is all that was intended by that expression Yet Mr. Baxter will not say that works do effectually produce our justification for Faith doth not so But yet he will have both to justifie as Conditions or as parts of one Condition Only he addeth that they do not justifio as equal parts of the Condition for Faith is the principal but as the secondary less principal part of the Condition Ans. Yet Iames hinteth at no such thing but giveth the preference to works Yea excludeth the faith whereof he speaketh altogether from having any interest in justification as being nothing but a dead carcass a vaine fruitless unprofitable thing so hath no kind of causality or procurement in justification But he addeth as a reason 1. That when it is said we are justified by works the word by implieth more than an idle concomitanoy Ans. I shall easily grant this but withall say that this will not give unto works any causality in justification but only evince works to be an evidence of justification as the cause is said to be manifested by the effect He addeth 2. When the Apostle saith By works not by faith only he plainly makes them concomitant in procurement or in that kind of causality which they have Especially seing he saith not as he is commonly interpreted not by faith which is alone but by faith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. Then hath fruitless dead faith which devils may have a kind of causality in justification which is expresly contrary to the scope all the reasonings of the Apostle And therefore the common interpretation must be admitted But he addeth 3. Therefore he saith that faith is dead being alone becaâ—se it is dead as to the use purpose of justifying This appears from his comparison in the former vers 16. that this is the death he speaks of so works make faith alive as to the attainment of its end of justification Ans. If it be thus how could he then say before that faith was the principal part of the Condition can that be the principal part of the Condition which is dead useless without the other must be quickened in order to its usefulness by the other I would think that other looked rather like the principal part and most considerable necessary seing this were but a dead Cypher without it But the truth is the Apostle as is said hath a far other designe sheweth that that faith which they pretended unto as sufficient to ground their conclâ—sion of their justification hope of Salvation was no true saving faith at all but a dead thing so no works could make it of any use as to justification because it behoved first to flow from another principle even from a principle of saving grace and then it would evidence prove itself to be of the right kind by good works that would flow from it But saith he When the Apostle saith that faith did work in with his works it clearly aimeth at such a working in with as maketh them conjunct in the work of justifying Ans. No such matter for the Apostle is only there shewing as the whole context cleareth that Abraham's faith was another sort of faith than that whereupon they relyed even a faith that did prompt to the most difficulte duties when the call of God came so did work in with his performances but not in order to justification for he was justified already many yeers before this He addeth And when he saith that Faith was made perfect with works it is not only a manifesting to be perfect But as the habite is perfected in its acts because they are the end to which it tendeth as marriage is perfected per congressum procreationem or any Covenant when its Conditions are performed Ans. The whole of the context sheweth that faith was perfected purely as to its manifestation as by the like expression is clear 2. Cor. 12 9. Col. 4 12. Mat. 5 48. Nay though It were granted that faith were perfected by works as the end to which it tendeth that would say nothing for the interest of faith in justification but in Salvation let is be granted that justification is perfected by faith without works as marriage is by consent without what he addeth we have what we desire That works are a Condition of entering into Covenant or of the Covenant in order to justification as required before justification is still denied He saith further elsewhere against Mr. Cartwright p. 212. That by works faith was made perfect as is hath naturam medii viz. conditionis to the continuation consummation of justification Ans. That the continuation of justification hath other media or Conditions than the beginning hath is not yet made apparent far less can any such thing be drewn from this passage to continuance the same the Apostles scope not being to speak to any such thing nor
sap life influence from the head much more must this be the way of getting the first change made from death to life And this way or not much different of argueing in this same debate we see the Apostle followeth Rom. 4. where from what was said of Abraham a considerable time after he was a beleever he proveth justification by faith without works or that Abraham was justified by faith not by works The Import then of the Testimony is that this life whereof beleevers are made partakers is begun continued carried on by faith therefore it is not by the works of the Law but by faith that they are justified brought into a state of life If it be true that without faith even belevers cannot be supported nor in case to live as becometh to the glory of God to their own peace Comforth in new Trials Difficulties much more is it true that without faith those who are in nature in state of Enmity to God cannot live the life of justification with it alone they can shall Before we come to speak particularly to any Truthes deducable from the words we shall premise some few things considerable CHAP. II. Naturally we are inclined to cry up Selff in Justification THe Apostle as we see in all his writtings about this matter is very carefull to cleare the question of justification so as Man may have no cause of boasting or of glorying in himself upon the account of any thing he hath or he hath done in order to justification that hereby he might cast a copie unto all such as would approve themselves faithful unto the Lord in being co-workers with Him in the Gospel that he might so much the more set himself against that innatelusting of heart that is in all naturally unto an exalting crying up of Self in the matter of their justification before Acceptance with God and especially we finde how zealously how frequently with what strength multitude of Arguments he setteth himself against cryeth down that which men do so naturally with such a vehement byasse incline unto to wit justification by their own works or by their own obedience to the Law to the end their innate pride may have ground of venting it self in boasting glorying before men From this we may premit in short the consideration of these Three things to prepare our way unto the clearing-up of the Gospel-Doctrine in this matter First That there is a corrupt byasse in the heart of men by nature a strong Inclination to reject the Gospel-Doctrine of free justification through faith in Christ to ascribe too much to themselves in that affaire as if they would hold the life of justification not purely of the free grace rich mercy of God through Jesus Christ but of themselves either in whole or in part in one measure or another Secondly That it is the duty of all who would be found faithful Ambassadours for Christ after the example of the Apostle so to preach forth the Grace of God in this mystery to explaine the same as corrupt Nature within such without as are byassed with mistakes about this matter are led away with proud carnal self conceits may have no apparent or seeming ground of boasting nor be confirmed in their natural prejudices Mistakes therein Thirdly That in very deed free Gospel-justification is so contrived ordered as that none have any real ground of boasting or of glorying in themselves or of ascribing any part of the glory thereof unto themselves as if they by their deeds works did contribute any thing to the procuring thereof It will not be necessary to speak to these at any length but only briefly to touch upon them to make way unto what followeth to be said on this weighty subject which is of so much concernment to us all As to the First of these to which we shall speak little in this Chapter thereafter of the rest in their due order it is too too apparent to be a truth from these grounds following I. This is most manifest from the many Errours false opinions that are Vented Owned Maintained with so much Violence corrupt zeal all to cry-up Self in less or in more to cry down Grace Hence so many do plead with great confidence for an Interest of our works in our justification Such as Papists who quite mistake the nature of true justification Socinians Arminians Others who side with these in less or in more will plead for a justification by our inherent Righteousnoss or works of Righteousness which we do Others that will not plead for such an early Interest of our works in this matter will plead for faith as our Gospel-Righteousness affirme that the very act of our Obedience in us is imputed for a Righteousness to us is accounted such by God so hath the same place in the New Covenant that compleet perfect obedience had in the Old Covenant of works made with Adam which as shall hereafter appear driveth us upon the same rock II. It is manifest likewise from the large frequent Disputes about this matter that we have in Paul's Epistles If there had not been a great pronness in man by nature to cry-up himself to set up his own Righteousness in matter of justification why would the Spirit of the Lord have been at so much paines to speak so to cry down Self our works in this matter as He is in these Epistles of Paul if He had not seen the great necessity thereof by reason of this strong Inclination that men Naturally have hereunto We must not think that any thing is there spoken in vaine or that the Spirit of the Lord would have left that Doctrine so fully cleared wherein our works are so expresly excluded if there had not been a necessity for it if it had not been as necessary in all after ages of the Church as at that time when first written Whatever the truth be that is so frequently pungently inculcated in the Scriptures we may saifly suppose that as the faith practice of that truth is necessary so there must be much reluctancy of Soul in us to receive the same to close with it and a strong Inclination to beleeve practise the contrary III. In the Infancy of Christianity we see what a strong Inclination there was to cry-up works what we do the Law as the only ground of justification or at least to have a share with Christ in that Interest which gave occasion to the penning of these Epistles of Paul where this matter is so fully clearly handled particularly that to the Romans that to the Galatias unto the speaking less or more hereunto in almost all his other Epistles And this Inclination to the crying up of works the Law in Opposition to the pure Gospel-way of
this satisfie But the matter is plaine Their fault was that they sought after a righteousness by their owne obedience to the law neglected that righteousness which the Gentils attained by faith viz. the Righteousness of Christ at whom they stumbled vers 32. 33. And the Righteousness of God of which they were wholly ignorant Rom. 10 3. This was not a simple endeavour of keeping the law as he hinteth in the following words where he would preoccupy this objection and then tell us that this study could be no cause of their coming short of righteousness as Christians are never further off from justification by keeping the commands of God but a proposeing of that designe of attaining a Righteousness by their own works whereby alone they might be justified And when Christians endeavour after holiness but not from Gospel-principles nor upon Gospel-grounds but to the end they may attaine unto a Righteousness of their owne by their works of obedience they prejudge themselves of justification for thus they do not lay hold on Christ but reject Him and stumble at that stumbling stone that is at Christ who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10 4. 2. He faith neither Calvine nor any other restaine the law to the Moral law Ans. Nor do we so restraine it to that law strikly so taken but comprehend thereby all that God prescribed for a righteousness and this is the Moral law in its full sense the ceremonial judicial being parts thereof appendices thereto 3. He saith There is no reason to limite this to the Moral law only for the jewes sought righteousness by the Ceremonial also Ans. This is but the same with the former and we have told him that the Ceremonial law was then enjoined by the Moral law so the Moral law did comprehend it so long as the Ceremonial law was unrepealed And whatever law it was their seeking of righteousness by it and their refusing of Christ and his Righteousness went together and they so pursued after it that they sought Righteousness by their obedience to it and did not seek by faith after Christs Righteousness nor would they submit thereunto 4. He saith The righteousness of the Moral law alone suppose they should have attained to it by beleeving could have stood them in no stead they being bound also to the observation of the Ceremonial law Ans. This hath been answered before Christ fulfilled all righteousness and satisfied that law of righteousness which was an Universal Rule of righteousness so comprehended the ceremonial lawes so long as they were in force so that if they had forsaken their own righteousness and embraced by faith the righteousness of Christ they had been certainely saved the Imputation of this Righteousness had made them up Lastly he saith The clear sense is that the law of righteousness is justification it self or righteousness simply and indefinitely taken which the jewes seeking to attaine to by the works of the law that is by themselves the merites of their own doings and not by faith in Iesus Christs lost Gods favour and perished in their sinnes Ans. 1 That the jewes sought after justification by the merites of their own works otherwise than merites are included in all works is not manifest in this place 2 Otherwayes this may passe for part of the sense for by faith he understands the act of faith it self as our righteousness not the Righteousness of Christ which faith laith hold on or faith as laying hold on receiving a Surety-righteousness which is here imported when the contrary is expressed of the jewes of them it is said that they stumbled at that stumbling stone in the next chapter it is said they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God What he addeth as a confirmation of this interpretation is to no purpose for he speaketh nothing to cleare the maine thing in doubt but all is to prove that by the law of righteousness Righteousness is meaned which is not denied withall he taketh for granted what is not proved hath been denied viz. That Righteousness and Justification are one the same thing Seventhly Rom. 10 3 4. A passage cleat pregnant for our purpose where the Apostle is but prosecuting the same purpose as to the jewes and shewing whence their disappointement missing of that came which they so earnestly endeavoured after viz. A righteousnss by which they might be justified before God for saith the Apostle they being ignorant of Gods Righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God for Christ is the end of the law for righteousnes to every one that beleeveth There is a Righteousness here called Gods Righteousness which is opposite to inconsistent with mens owne righteousness that is all that is done by them in conformity to the law of God as a righteousness whereupon to be justified yea so great is this opposition that who ever laboures most to establish set on foot his own Righteousness or to seek after a Righteousness by his own performances is furthest from the Righteousness of God as being both ignorant thereof and in pride refuising to submit thereunto This Righteousness of God is explained vers 4. to be the end of the law that is the full righteousness which the law in its primitive institution called for which is the accomplishment of the lawes designe as proposed to be a Rule of Righteousness and the condition of life promised upon the performance thereof And Christ is said to be this end of the law for righteousness He by yeelding perfect obedience hath brought forth a righteousness in which the law hath its End And Christ is this to every one that beleeveth the righteousness being made over unto them who beleeve and by faith lay hold on him which because the Gentiles did they therefore attained to this righteousness Rom. 9 30. Mr. Goodwine pag. 137. c. excepteth several wayes 1 There is saith he no coloure of Reason that by the law here should be meaned precisely determinatly the Moral law because the jewes never dreamed of justification by this law only but chiefly by the Ceremonial law Besides vers 5. he citeth that description which Moses giveth of the righteousness of the law not out of any passage of the Moral law but out of the heart as is were of the ceremonial law Lev. 18 5. Ans. The first part of this Exception hath been often answered we take not the Moral law so precisely determinatly as not to include as parts or appendices all other lawes given by God And the last part of this Exception will say nothing unless he think this law is precisely determinatly to be understood of the Ceremonial law excluding all others especially the Moral law taken as distinct from judicial and ceremonial But why doth he say that this description
Imputed but that all which He did and suffered in Satisfaction of the law and in payment of that which we were liable unto stood under the obligation of is and must of necessity be imputed to the end we may be deliverâ—â— from under the former obligation He excepteth pag. 220. c. 1. The publickness of Christs person or His standing in the place of those that should beleeve is no sufficient ground to build this Inference upon That therefore all He did suffered are looked upon by God as done and suffered by them such as His conception Birth c. Ans. We have obviated this already by showing that the Major is to be limited to understood of those things only which the law required of us which we were under the obligation of and were debtors to do and suffer amongst which none of the particulars mentioned and many moe such-like can be reckoned His after rambling discourse upon this mistake is not worth the noticeing And who seeth not how vaine it is for him to say that then God should look upon men as having redeemed the world For as the law did not require this of us so to speak thus destroyeth all acts of Sutetyship for the Sureties acts can never be so imputed to the debtor as to make him thereby the Surety We know that Sureties and publick persons may do many things which cannot be said to be imputed to the debâ—ors persons represented but these things are not done by them as such publick persons Sureties but in another capacity And it is folly hence to inferre that therefore the Sureties payment of the debt cannot be said to be imputed to the debtor or that wherein the publick person was a publik person and which he did as such cannot be said to be imputed to those whom he represented 2. Except Itagreeth not with Scripture expression to say that the Sufferings of Christ are by God looked upon as our Sufferings or to conceive that we should suffer in Him It is not all one to say we were punished in Christ and Christ was punished for us This last as warranted by Esai 53 6. But the other cannot be affirmed for seing in Christs death we havâ— remission of sins we cannot be said for the same sinnes to be punished in and with Christ. Ans. This is wholly founded upon his own way of wording the Argument so as he thought it would give him most advantage for all this looketh to these words in the Major propos are to be looked upon are reputed by God as done suffered by those which words might have been left out without any hurt to our cause the Argum. without them would have been full and concludent for us whether any have argued so or he hath framed the Argum to his own mind I know not Sure there is no necessity for adding of these words yet the words may admit of a candide Interpretation for it hath no repugnancy or dissonancy to Scripture expression to say that the Sufferings of Christ are looked upon as the beleevers sufferings when they are impuâ—â—d to him not as if God should think judge or conceive that the beleever in his own Physical person had suffered that which Christ did suffer but that he hath a special legal interest in these Sufferings as being in a special manner interessed in Christ and are now dealt with by God no otherwayes than as if he himself had in his own person laid down that satisfactory price And in this sense there is no difference betwixt the saying that we are punished in Christ that Christ was punished for us for we 〈◊〉 only punished in Christ legally as Christ suffered for us as coming in â—ur law-place Neither doth the saving in this sense That we are punished in Christ take a way Remission of sins but doth rather establish the same as being the only ground thereof for till we have an Interest in Christ and in His Sufferings by the Imputation thereof to us our leaning to them by faith we can have no Remission according to the Gospel-way Except 3. The publikeness of a person who negatiats the affaires of others doth no further nor any other wayes interesse those whose affaires he mannageth in what he doth in or about such a transaction buth only with reference to the issue success of what he doth for them in that behalf so that his dishonest or unconscientious way in the miscarying or his wisdom faithfulness in the right managing are no wayes imputable to the persons whose business is negotiated Ans. It is not necessary that that special manner of managment should be so imputed unto the persons whose affaire is negotiated it being sufficient that the persons represented be interessed in the transaction it self in reference to an interest in the issue in the same affaire managed and the transaction it self is so imputed to the persons represented in reference to the effects as if it had been done by themselves So in our case though the Wisdom Faithfulness patience of Christ used in the managment of that publick affaire intrusted to Him as a publick person undertaking for and representing all His Children be not imputed unto them yet the business it self with which He was intrusted viz. Giving satisfaction to the law in all points by Suffering Obedience which the law required of us is imputed to us must be so in order to our partaking of the benefites advantage thereof Except 4. It is not altogether so solide or sound as is supposed that Christ stood in the place stead of those that should beleeve in Him especially in all things performed by Him and which tended to the qualification of His person To stand in the place and stead of another implieth a necessity of his being in the same place doing the same things himself wherein he stands which he doth who is supposed to stand in his stead unless they had been done by this other for him Ans. This last Exception is the same with the first needeth little more consideration We do not assert that He did so stand in the place stead of beleevers as to all things He did suffered but only that He stood in in our room stead in the whole of His active passive obedience or in making satisfaction to the demands of the law in His state of humiliation this being it for in reference to which He was appointed to be a publick person all other things He did as His Miracles assuming a body and the like need not be said to be imputed to us though in that they concerned His person were requisite thereunto to the work He was imployed in they carry a special advantage in them for Beleevers were in a particular manner designed for their good were subservient to that maine designe Arg. 10. If we cannot be justified by the Righteousness of Christ
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
is therefore a Third sense wherein neither Christ's Righteousness that is His Habites Acts Sufferings are said to be physically translated and put in us or upon us nor are they said to be Imputed to us meerly in their Effects as Socinians say but wherein Christ's Surety-righteousness consisting in His Obedience Suffering is in a Law-sense made over to beleevers put upon their score now accounted theirs they because thereof accounted Righteous legally and juridically and have therefore the Effects bestowed on them This being so obvious I wonder that Mr. Baxter cannot see it When a debtor is lying in prison for debt and a friend cometh Satisfieth the creditor for him by paying the summe in his place stead the Law doth not impute that payment to the debtor meerly in the effects but imputeth the payment it self not in its Physical acceptation as if it judged that he was the man that in his own Physical person told the money with his own hands brought it out of his own purse as the other did but in its legal force vertue efficary unto him accounted him in this Legal sense to be no more a debter unto the creditor therefore one that hath right to his liberty must therefore be set free from prison So in our case the Righteousness of Christ in a legal sense as to its efficary vertue is made over to the Beleever he thereupon is accounted Righteous and no more a debtor and therefore free of the Penalty Further Although he say that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us in the Effects Yet he knoweth that that is in his judgment but very remotely and that really these effects are more proximely the effects of Faith which he calleth our Gospel-righteousness and that the Immediat effect and product of Christ's Righteousness is the New Covenant and this New Covenant being made with all Mankind as he thinketh Christ's Righteousnes is in this immediat Effect imputed to all flesh Reprobat as well as Elect. And this is in part cleared from the words Immediatly following when he saith In as much as we are as really pardoned justified Adopted by them as the Meritorious Cause by the Instrumentality of the Covenants Donation as if we ourselves had done suffered all that Christ did For this Instrumentality of the Covenant includeth the performance of the Condition thereof i. e. faith this Faith is properly imputed for Righteousness as he saith And therefore as the Covenant is the Effect of the merites of Christ so pardon and Salvation must be the Effects of Faith and the Effects of Christ's Righteousness only in that he did procure the Covenant which conveyeth these to us upon Condition of our performing of this faith which is therefore called by him our Gospel-Righteousness He giveth us next foure wayes n. 31. pag. 60. wherein the Lord is said to be our Righteousness an Expression that doth emphatically more than sufficiently express the meaning of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness 1. In that saith he He is the meritorious cause of the pardon of all our sins our full justification Adoption Right to glory by His Satisfaction and Merites only our justification by the Covenant of Grace against the Curse of the Law works is purchased Ans. He cannot be said by him to be the Meritorious Cause of pardon c. But in as far as He is the Meritorious cause of the Covenant in which these benefites are promised upon Condition of faith our Gospel-righteousness which properly and only is our Imputed Righteousness according to him and so Christ is our Righteousness in meriting that faith shall be repute our Gospel-righteousness in order to our obtaining of Pardon and Right to glory But moreover where is our Righteousness For Pardon is no Righteousness neither is justification Adoption or Right to Glory properly a Righteousness But do presuppose a Righteousness after which we are enquiring and cannot finde that Christ is made to be that to us and consequently either faith must be it or there is none The other senses are 2. In that He is the legislator Testator donor of our Pardon justification by this new Covenant 3. In that He is the Head of Influx King Intercessour by whom the Spirit is given to Sanctifie us to God cause us sincerely performe the Conditions of the Iustifying Covenant 4. In that He iâ— the righteous judge justifier of Beleevers by sentence of judgment Ans. All these three will make the Father to be our Righteousness as well as the Son for He is legislator He draweth to the Son sendeth the Spirit to Sanctifie us He judgeth by the Son justifieth 2. But none of these nor all of these give us the true Import of that glorious Name according to the true scope of the place Ier. 23 6. of which we have spoken above In like manner n. 32. he giveth us four senses of these words we are made the Righteousness of God in Him The 1. is In that as he was used like a sinner for us But not esteemed one by God so we are used like innocent persons so far as to be saved by Him Ans. As He was used by God like a sinner so was He legally accounted a sinner otherwise God would not have used Him as a sinner Therefore if we be used like innocent persons we must be in God's esteem legally juridically innocent through Christ's Righteousness imputed so must be saved by Him The 2. is In that through His Merites upon our union with Him when we beleeve consent to Hiâ— Covenant we are pardoned justified so made Righteous really that is such as are not to be condemned but glorified Ans As I said neither pardon nor justification maketh us Righteous but suppose us to be Righteous and therefore in justification we are declared pronounced Righteous thereupon pardoned Moreover all our Righteousness that we have in order to justification pardon is according to Mr. Baxter our Faith which is is reputed to be our Gospel Righteousness is said to be properly Imputed to us thus Christ suffered in our stead that our faith might be accounted our Righteousness Though pardon will take away condemnation yet as we have cleared above more must be had in order to Glorification His 3. 4. are In that the divine Nature Inherent Righteousness are for His merites In that God's justice holiness truth wisdom mercy are all wonderfully Demonstrated in this way of Pardoning justifying of sinners by Christ. Ans. This last hath no ground as the sense of the words And as for the. 3. Before he make it the sense of the place 2 Cor. 5 21. he must say That Christ was a sinner inherently which were blasphemy for otherwayes that beautiful correspondence that is betwixt the First the Last part of the verse must be laid a side
me it is such that by Mr. Baxter's way the whole frame of the Gospel is changed such as hold it do in my judgment not only confound but alter the causes of justification If that which Christ did by His Merites was to procure the New Covenant what was there in Adam that can be said to answere this or hold correspondence with it With us the Parallel runneth smoothly and clearly thus As by vertue of first Covenant whereof Adam was the head engaging for all his Natural Posterity so soon as they partake of Nature thereby become actual members of that Political Body partake of Adam's guilt or breach of the Covenant which is imputed to them there upon share of the consequences thereof as immediatly resulting therefrom to wit the corruption of the whole Nature Privative positive wrath the curse c. This himself asserteth pag. 34. So by vertue of the Second Covenant whereof Christ the Second Adam is Head engaging for all His Spiritual posterity they so soon as they come to partake of His spiritual Nature so become members of His mystical body which is by a Phisical supernatural operation conveyed morally and Covenant wayes according to the Good pleasure of His will according to His wisdom who doth all things well wisely are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness which is imputed unto them thereupon do share of the Consequences which do immediatly result therefâ—om viz. of justification pardon Adoption Right to Glory He addeth n. 44. Though the person of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very person of each sinner nor so many persons as there are sinners or beleevers yet it doth belong to the person of the Mediator so far limitedly to bear the person of a sinner and to stand in the place of the persons of all sinners as to bear the punishment they deserved to suffer for their sins Ans. We do not imagine that the Physical peâ—son of the Mediator is either really or reputatively the Physical person of each sinner It is enough for us to say that the Mediator is an Head Surety publick person and so that He Beleevers are one legally and juridically And we judge also that it belongeth to the person of the Mediator being Surety to Satifie for the whole debt of these for whom He is Surety therefore must not only so far stand in the place of sinners as to Suffer for their sins bear the punishment they deserved But also give that perfect obedience which they were obliged unto and were not able to performe or pay He granteth n. 45. pag. 67. that Morally it may be said that Christ's Righteousness was given to us in that the thing purchased by it was given to us as the money given for the ransome of the Captive may besaid morally to be given to the captive though Physically it begiven to the Conquerour But neither this similitude not yet the other of a mans being said to give anotheâ— so much money when he giveth him the land bought therewith do not come home to the point in hand for there is a neer closs union betwixt Christ Beleevers which union is not supposed in these cases Next Christ was in our Law-place and undertook to do what He did as our Surety neither is this supposed in the cases proposed againe the benefite here following viz. Justification c. doth presuppose us to be Righteous consequently we must have a Righteousness imputed because we have none of our owne for we may not admit Faith to that high dignity We have mentioned more apposite fit Similitudes above I cannot assent to what he saith n. 47. pag. 68. That Christ is less improperly said to have represented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam in a general sense for the purchasing of the universal gift of pardon life called the New Covenant than to have represented in his perfect holiness and sufferings every beleever considered as from his first being to his death For of His representing all mankind newly fallen in Adam I read not in the Scriptures nor yet of His purchasing the New Covenant Whether these be not additions to the word of God let Mr. Baxter who oft chargeth others herewith consider Nor do I know what Scripture warranteth him to say pag. 69. That Christ the second Adam is in a sort the root of Man as Man as He is the Redeemer of Nature it self from destruction Nor what truth can be in it unless he think to play upon the word in a sort He seemeth to come neerer us when he saith n. 48. p. 70. The summe of all lyeth in applying the distinction of giving Christ's Righteousness as such in it self as a Cause of our Righteousness or in the causality of it as our sin is not reputed Christ's sin in it self and in the culpability of it for then it must needs make Christ odious to God but in its causality of punishment So Christ's material or formal Righteousness is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in it self as such but the causality of it as it produceth such such effects Ans. How Christ's Righteousness should be the cause of our Righteousness if we speak properly I know not for we are here speaking of Righteousness in order to justification in this case I know no other Righteousness but Christ's Surety-righteousness imputed to us and bestowed upon us it is improper to say that Christ's Righteousness is the cause of it self as given to us But it may be he meaneth that it is the cause of our Faith this I grant to be true but I deny that this faith is our Righteousnese whereupon we are justified or the ratio formalis objectiva of our justifications When we mention the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness we mean the Righteousness of Christ it self not Physically but legally juridically that is its worth or legal causality not as it produceth but in order that it may produce such Effects Our sin is reputed Christ's legally in its demerite of punishment or in its reatus culpae that He might be legally thereby reus culpae and yet He was not odious to God because it was not His Inherently but only legally by Imputation Mr. Baxter in his following Chap. 3. fearing that by all that he had said he had not made the state of the controversie plaine enough to the unexercised Reader goeth over it againe in a shorter way that he may make it as plaine as possibly he can And yet I judge such is my dulness that he never made the matter more obscure at least to the Unexercised Reader nor possibly could than he hath done here for if any man how understanding so ever shall understand his Expressions let be the matter by them that is not very well versed both in Aristotles Logicks or Metaphysicks and the termes thereof and in justinian's Lawes
and the termes thereof I am far deceived He that would understand this plaine discovery of the Question must understand what Relations are what Reatus culpae poenae what poena damni sensus what cessante capacitate Subdut what pro-legal Righteousness what quoad valorem quoad ordinem conferendi rationem comparativam What is Terminus fundamentum in relations what is Titulus fundamentum juris what causa fundamenti donationis the like And if all Unexercised Readers shall be able to understand this I doubt And sure I am many a poor soul that understands nothing of these termes gets grace of God to understand the thing better than all this explication how plaine so ever it be called shall ever make him do And if this be the plainest way that Mr. Baxter can chose to make us understand this so necessary and fundamental a truth I shall never choose him for my Teacher as to this It could therefore tend o no edification at least unto his Unexperienced Readers whose edification I judge should be sought by us all in handling of this matter to fall upon any examination of or debate with him about what he hath here said seing it would necessarily end in a debate about logical and Law termes which I shall rather leave to others who have delight therein And beside the matter it self delivered by him in more plaine intelligible termes as I judge both to exercised more unexercised Readers is already examined Notwithstanding as we have seen his opinion be different from what the orthodox do commonly hold in this question yet Chap 4. he stateth the question against which he purposeth to disput so as he may be sure none of these will oppose him yea and it may be doubted if Antinomians themselves will contradict him for thus he proposeth what he denieth That God did so impute Christ's Righteousness to us as to repute or account us to have been holy with all that habitual holiness which was in Christ or to have done all that He did in obedience to His Father or in fulfilling the Law or to have suffered all that He suffered to have made Satisfaction for our sins merited our own Salvation justification in by Christ or that He was did suffered merited all this strickly in the person of every sinner that is saved Or that Christ's very individual Righteousness material or formal is so made ours in a strick sense as that we are Proprietors Subjects or Agents of the very thing it self simply and absolutely as it is distinct from the effects or that Christ's individual formal Righteousness is made our formal personal Righteousness or that as to the Effects we have any such Righteousness imputed to us as formally ours which consisteth in perfect Habitual and Actual conformity to the Law of Innocency that is that we are reputed perfectly holy and sinless and such as shall be justified by the Law of Innocency which saith perfectly obey and live or sin dye And the more to secure himself from all opposition from the orthodox 〈◊〉 proposeth this Law which is but equitable to all that will answere him I suppose he meaneth the Arguments that there follow that he must keep to his words not alter the sense by leaving any out I shall therefore be none of his Opposites here on these termes but shall consider what he saith elsewhere CHAP. XIV How Christ is our Surety and what Mr. Baxter saith as to this is examined OUr Lord Jesus being called a Surety in the Scriptures may give us much satisfaction and clear light anent the Doctrine of the Imputation of His Righteousness if prejudice and Love to our own particular hypothesis do not blinde us The Apostle tels us Heb. 7 22. that Iesus was made a Surety of a better Testament or Covenant rather and though the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered Surety be only in this place found in the N. Testam yet that can give no colourable ground of Exception against the true Native import of the word and the truth thereby hold forth seing one sentence of divine Revelation should captivat our faith judgment as well as Twenty otherwise all divine Revelation though never sooft reiterated will hereby at length come to be questioned And beside the word properly signifieth a Surety Cautioner Praes Sponsor fide jussor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sponsio expromissio fidejussio hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub fide sponsionis trade as it were to deliver into hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spondeo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidejussio Vadimonium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidejussor vas sponsor and whether the word come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prope or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appropinquo or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manibus the same import and signification is hold forth and the conjunction and neerness betwixt the Sponsor or Surety and the person for whom He is sponsor with the ends for which he engageth himself who is a Sponsor is manifestly hold forth for the word Importeth one who of his own accord engageth for another taking upon him the Cause and Condition of that other promising to do or pay what the other was obliged unto or to see it done and thus engaging and promising becometh the just legal debtor for what he hath engaged and obliged unto the performance And this sense is both obvious and generally received by all men which should Satisfie us as to the acceptation of the word here untill it be demonstrat that of necessity it must be taken in a peculiar distinct sense in this place which yet the scope and circumstances of the place will not admit but rather confirme the usuall and generally received signification Import of the word This is also confirmed by the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath many significations all or most of which as some think may be reduced to two general heads one is of mixing things together or agreeing things or persons together by compacts Merchandice pledges or Caution Hence it signifieth to become Surety Gen. 43 9. 44 22. Prov. 11 15. 6. 1. 17 18. 22 26. Psal. 119 122. as also to oppignorat or give in pledge Neh. 5 3. 2. King 18 23. Esai 36.8 Iob. 17 3. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arrabon a pleage Gen. 38 17 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidejussion sponsio pignus suretiship a pledge 1. Sam. 17 18. 2 King 14 14. This word then denoteth the Conjunction Mixture that is between a Surety him for whom he is Surety for the word signifieth to mix or mingle together so that they become hereby one person in Law an engaging Ier. 30 21. to shew that the Surety standeth engaged to performe what he hath promised become Surety for having 〈◊〉 stricken hands as it is rendered Prov. 22 26. Whence we see
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
words and termes be laid aside because the terme itself by which we express our Conceptions of the truth is not in so many letters syllabs to be found in Scripture if so indeed we had quickly lost a fundamental point of our Religion and yeelded the cause unto the Socinians If the Scripture may be explained we may make use of such expressions termes sentences as will according to their usual acceptation contribute to make the truthes revealed in Scripture intelligible to such as heare us And when some termes have been innocently used in Theologie for explication of truthes whether to the more learned or to the more unlearned have pâ— ssed among the orthodox without controll or contradiction beyond the ordinary time of prescriptions it cannot but give ground of suspicion for any now to remove these old Land-marks especially when it is attempted to be done by such meanes arguments as will equally enforce a rejection of many Scriptural expressions for should all the Metaphorical expressions sentences which are in â—ature be so canvassed rejected because every thing agreeing properly to them when used in their own native soile doth not quadrate with them as used in the Scriptures in things divine where should we Land If these divine mysteries had been expressed to us only in termes adequatly corresponding with suiting the matter how should we have understood the same Therefore we finde the Lord condescending in the Scriptures to our low Capacities and expressing sublime high mysteries by low borrowed expressions to the end we might be in case to understand so much thereof as may prove through the Lord's blessing saving unto us And thereby hath allowed such as would explaine these matters unto the capacity of others to use such ordinary expressions as may contribute some light understanding to them in the truthes themselves Now when the orthodox have according to their allowed liberty made use of the word Instrument in this matter and maintained that Faith was was nothing more then an Instrument in Justification it is not faire to reject it altogether because improper though fit enough to signifie what they did intend thereby because all the properties that agree to proper Physical or artificial Instruments do not agree to it and because if the same be strickly examined according to the rules of Philosophie concerning Instrumental Causes it will be found to differ from them Mr. Baxter himself writting against D. Kendal § 47. tels us that the thing which he denieth is that Faith is an Instrument in the strick logical sense that is an Instrumental efficient cause of our Iustification that he expresly disclaâ—meth contending de nomine or contradicting any that only use the word instrument in an improper large sense as Mechanicks Rhetoricians do So that the question saith he is de re Whether it efficiently cause our Iustification as an Instrument But it may be conceived to have some efficient Influence in our Justification not as that is taken simply strickly for God's act justifying but as taken largely comprehending the whole benefite as activly coming from God as Passively received by or terminated on us that as an Instrument though not in that proper sense that Logicians or Metaphysicians take Instrumental causes and explaine them in order to physical natural Effects We know that Justification is a supernatural work effect and therefore though in explaining of it in its Causes we may make use of such termes as are used about the expressing of the Causes of Natural or Artificial Works Effects yet no Law can force us to understand by these borrowed expressions the same proper Formal Efficacy Efficiency and influence which is imported by these Expressions when used about Natural Causes Effects But Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 5. tels us what great reasons he had to move him to quarrel with this calling of faith an Instrument viz. he found that many learned divines did not only assert this Instrumentality but they laid so great a stress upon it as if the maine difference betwixt us the Papists lay here And yet any might think that they had reason so to do when Papist's on the other hand laid as great stresse upon the denying of Faiths Instrumentality He tels us moreover that our divines judged Papists to erre in Justification fundamentally in these points 1. about the formal Cause which is the formal Righteousness of Christ as suffering perfectly obeying for us 2. About the way of our participation herein which as to God's act is Imputation that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith which justifieth 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in justification which is as the Instrument thereof I doubt not saith Mr. Baxter but all these four are great errors But we neither may nor can call all errors which Mr. Baxter calleth errors We have seen above how necessary truthes the two first are and have explained in part the third wherein I confesse too many yet not all of the forraigne divines have as to expression missed the explication of true Justifying faith it may be it was not their designe to describe it so as it might agree to the faith of every sincere though weak beleever but rather to shew its true nature grounds tendency when at its best yet what Papists hold on the contrare is more false absurd But as to this fourth it seemes that it hath a necessary dependance upon the foregoing and this to me seemes to be the maine reason why our Divines did owne plead for Faiths Instrumentality in the matter of Justification viz. because the Righteousness which they called the Formal or others the Material Cause thereof was not any Righteousness inherent in us as Papists said but the Surety-Righteousness of the Cautioner Christ without us And therefore they behoved to look on Faith in this matter otherwayes then Papists did and not account it a part of our Formal Righteousness but only look upon it as an hand to lay hold on bring-in the Surety-Righteousness of Jesus Christ and therefore judged it most fit to call it only an Instrumental Cause And how ever Mr. Baxter exaggerat this matter as complying with Papist's in condemning us as to all these controversies and think it no wonder they judge the whole Protestant cause naught because we erre in these and yet make this the maine pairt of the Protestant cause yet we must not be scarred from these truthes Yea because this point hath such a connexion with the other concerning that Righteousness upon the account of which we are to be Justified in the sight of God we are called to contend also for this that so much the rather that though Papist's do utterly mistake the Nature of Justification and confound it with Sanctification yet Mr. Baxter
heirs of God joynt heirs with Christ Rom. 8 17 and are discharged as Mr. Baxter granteth himself Confess p. 102. Concl. 9. from all guilt of Eternal Punishment yea of all destructive Punishment in this life Yea they are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law Act. 13 39. They are blessed Rom. 4 5 6. And all this is so fixed that none can lay any thing to their charge Rom. 8 33 34. Yea they are said to have Everlasting Life Ioh. 5 24. Now seing all this is by Faith what necessitie is there for another Condition beside this same Faith keeping fast by Christ unto the Continuance of this State If it be said that notwithstanding hereof they are liable to future sins and these must also be forgiven and in reference to the Pardon of these other Conditions may be required in that respect these may be called Conditions of the Continuance of Justification 4. The answere to this will furnish us with another Argument for answere therefore I say That works are not the Condition of Pardon of after sins but faith going to Christ and washing in his bloud 1. Ioh. 2 1 2. If any man sin we have an advocat with the Father Iesus Christ the Righteous he is the propitiation for our sins Christ is here proposed to sinning beleevers in his Priestly office as the object of their Faith in order to Pardon And Mr. Baxter in the forecited place Concl. 11 saith that when ever the Iustified do commit any sin they have a present effectual certaine remedie at hand for their pardon that is the merit of Christ's blood his Intercession the Love of God the Promise of Pardon in which they have interest the Spirit to excite them to Faith Repentance No word of works of obedience as Condition here David in order to the obtaining of the pardon of his sin did betake himself to the free mercy of God that he might get his sin covered his iniquities forgiven and his sin not imputed unto him Psal. 32 1 2. and this was in Paul's judgment Rom. 4 6 7 8. a betaking himself to imputed Righteousness without works So he betook himself to mercy and withall he desired to be purged with hysope Psal. 51 1 7. which looked to the blood of Christ that only sprinkleth consciences Heb. 9 13 14 22. 5. If Justification be continued upon Condition of works we enquire what these works are Are herein comprehended all commanded duties or all that is required of justified persons by way of duty then a faloure in any of these whether by Omission or Commission should cause an intercision of that State and a breach of that Relation But this is utterly false Yea if so the justified should become Unjustified every day for no man liveth sinneth not The reason of the Consequence is because the non-performance of the Condition upon which the State Relation of the justified is continued must make a breach in that State If it be said That not every sin but only such sins as are inconsistent with the State of Justification will make an Intercision Then it must consequently be said that upon these alone or on the non-performance of these alone doth the Continuance of Justification depend as on a Condition And what be these David's sin I hope nor Peters sin were none of these And whatever they be I suppose it will be granted except by Arminians that there is sufficient provision against these laid-in in the New Covenant of Grace and that such as are justified indeed shal never fall into such sins And then what need it be said that the State of Justification is continued upon such termes 6. By this way Proud Nature should have occasion to boast and say It was of God's Grace Mercy that I was brought into a justified State had all my former sins pardoned but for my abiding continueing therein and for the pardon of all my sins that I have committed or do commit since I am beholden to my own Gospel-obedience immediatly for Remission is granted and my Justification continued upon Condition of my personal Gospel-obedience But how inconsistent this is with the whole straine of the Gospel cannot be unknown We no where read that our sinnes are pardoned or not imputed to us in or by our Evangelick Obedience but as we are justified freely by grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom. 3 24. so it is in through Him his bloud that we are washen our sinnes purged away Mat. 26 28. Revel 1 5. Ephes. 1 7. Col. 1 14. 7. The dayly experience of the people of God may cleare to us what that is upon which their State is continued and upon which they seek obtaine new Remission of their new Transgressions and shew us that it is not their own personal Obedience but the Grace Mercy of God in Jesus Christ for it is to this they betake themselves daily both in reference to their being keeped in the favour of God in reference to their getting new extracts of Pardon It is to the blood of sprinkling they goe dayly that there they may be washen cleansed from all their sins sailings It is to this fountaine opened to the house of David to the Inhabitans of Ierusalem that they run with their sins uncleannesses Zach. 13 1. For it is his bloud alone that cleanseth from all sin 1. Ioh. 1 7. And so they finde by experience that they stand only by Faith and that it is through Faith in this bloud that they are keept in the favoure of God get their sins pardoned These proofs may serve for confirmation of what we say Let us now see what Mr. Baxter saith for the contrary In his Confess p. 47 he adduceth three Arguments The first is this The word expresly constituteth these Conditions of our not-loseing our State of Justification or of Continueing it And this he tels us he hath formerly shewed in many Scriptures meaning I suppose the passages he had immediatly before cited on the margine But to these I Answere in general That not one of them maketh mention of the continuance of our justification or of our not loseing of it And therefore it cannot be said from these that the word expresly constituteth these Conditions of our not-losing Justification But we shall consider them particularly Mat. 12 36 37. speaketh not of justification whereof we are now treating but of the last judgment and we see no cause of confounding this Justification whereof we speak or its Continuance with the last Judgment as Papists do confound their second justification with this judgment and abuse the same Scriptures here adduced by Mr. Baxter the like to prove their second justification to be by works Jam. 2 24. speaketh not of the Continuance or not losing of justification but of the very beginning of justification
which is not by a dead faith or by a faith that cannot produce works of Obedience or by such a faith as devils have but by a faith that is working making the soul prompt ready to yeeld all Obedience unto the Lord and this is the true meaning of the words as was showne above and the whole scope of the place evidenceth Will Mr. Baxter say that by a dead Faith and by a Faith that cannot save and by a Faith that is in devils is attended with no Christian Love we are brought into a justified state at first No sure and yet this is the faith that Iames opposeth unto works or rather unto a working faith whereby we are justified first last as was Abraham vers 21. whose faith was such as it wrought with his works and by the same was manifest to be what it was the true saving faith of God's Elect. And sure this Faith of Abraham and the faith that wrought in Rahab was another sort of Faith than is the Faith of devils or that Faith that is but a dead carcase Mat. 6 14 15. speaketh of Remission of sins And I suppose it will not be said that every one who forgiveth his neighbour doth thereby and thereupon obtaine Remission of his own sins at the hands of God otherwayes Heathens wicked persons may be said to have their sins Pardoned before God because they may forgive others some wrongs done unto themselves If it besaid that such cannot forgive others a right not having a principle of grace and not being in Christ. True but then we see that it is not this forgiving abstractly considered that is spoken of here but a Forgiving flowing from faith principled thereby and so the meaning of the place is That without such a Faith in Christ as principleth prompteth to Pardoning of others we can expect no pardon of our own sins from God not have ground to suppose that we are indeed pardoned of God our forgiving of others then is here mentioned as the native Effect evident Signe of Faith as our Commentators manifest upon the place speaking against the Papists See Pareus Gualter others Pareus particularly disproveth the Papist's gloss sayeth that our pardoning of others must follow upon God's pardoning of us as he cleareth from Mat. 18. and will not have our forgiving of others said to be the causa sine qua non of our obtaining Remission from God This place then saith That while we cannot finde in our heart a readiness cheerfully heartily to forgive others we have no ground to imagine that our sinnes are pardoned for all such as are pardoned of God have this Christian disposition flowing from faith in Christ They may have this as to the seed root but till it grow up to yeeld this fruite they want the evidence of their faith consequently of pardon 1. Ioh. 1 9. meaneth such a Confession of sins as is accompanied with the making use by faith of the bloud of Christ that cleanseth from all sin vers 7. and with a running to the Advocat with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous who is a Propitiation for sins Chap. 2 1 2. Most wicked persons as Saul may make confession of their sins but not so as to run to the fountaine the blood of sprinkling And by a Confession that is not accompanied with this acting they can attaine to no Remission before God And therefore faith only acting in humble Confession to the glory of God to the taking of shame to themselves is the condition of Pardon of Continuance of Justification as to this Revel 22 14. is also abused by the Papists to prove their second justification to be by works The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hereused doth not alwayes denote right or jus for it sometimes signifieth meer freedome liberty power to do such or such a thing as 1. Cor. 9 4 5 6. And so here the words import that such as do his commandements are blessed for thereby they have free access unto the tree of life unto Christ their objective blessedness which is the same with that which is commonly said viz. that Works of Obedience are the way of the Kingdom but not the cause of reigning It will not suite with the Gospel to say that by our works of obedience we buy a right to the tree of life even in part or in subordination to Christ's blood for Christ hath purchased the whole Right nothing of ours must be joined as a part of that price otherwise must we have a proportionable share of the glory to ourselves Nor can it be said that by our works of Obedience we obtaine a Right to Christ to his Merites for before we have a Right to Christ we can do no works of Christian Obedience and Christ alone hath bought to us both Grace Glory But our works of Christian Obedience though they cannot precede our Right to yet they may go before our Possession of the Inheritance purchased now Right Possession are different things But in fine we say that this place speaking of the possession of glory is not apposite to the purpose now in hand for Justification is different from Glorification Rom. 8 30. And of justification as continued are we here speaking Ioh. 15 3 4 5 6 8 9 10. Verse 3. 9. can prove nothing in reference to what we are upon Vers. 4. sheweth that there is no fruitfulness in Grace but by a constant abiding in sucking of sap by faith from Christ the true Vine which none denieth Verse 8. sheweth that by fruitfulness in good the Father is Glorified thereby a demonstration is given to the world who are indeed the true disciples of Christ vers 6. holdeth forth the dreadful punishment that attendeth Apostates but we hope true beleevers are secured against full final Apostasie Vers. 10. proveth indeed that keeping of Christ's commands is a mean to keep the sense of our being beloved of Christ fresh in our souls to enjoy the fruites of his Love of Beneficence but saith nothing of good works being the Condition of our Continuance in the state of justification unless we will also say that Christ's obedience was the Condition of his Continueing in the State of Justification 1. Ioh. 2 24. c. proveth that full final Apostasie from the faith truth of the Gospel will indeed cutt off from all Interest in Christ from benefite by him But as true beleevers are secured from this as vers 27. cleareth So this will only prove that continuance in Faith is the Condition of continuance of Justification Mat. 18 35. Only proveth and so confirmeth what was said to Mat. 6 14. that such as do not from their hearts forgive their brethren their trespasses can have no ground of Assurance that God hath forgiven them theirs ... our Cruelty Unmercifulness towards our Brethren may give us sufficient ground to doubt of
Cor. 11 3. Ephes. 4 15. 1 22. Col. 1 18. And so must have a body Ephes. 1 23. Rom. 12 5. Ephes. 4 4. Col. 3 15. 1 24. 2 19. Ephes. 4 16. 5 23. 3 6. He is called the Vine stock shall he have no Brancnes Ioh. 15 1 2. c. These things might be further enlairged pressed but we shall haste forward 19. Our Adversaries say That Christ by his Death passion did Absolutely even according to the Intention of God purchase Remission of sins Reconciliation with God and that for all every man Others say conditionally But withal as to the application of this purchase it is made to depend upon faith and so they distinguish betwixt Impetration Application And though it is true the purchase made is one thing and the actual enjoyment of the thing purchased is another thing Yet we may not say with our Adversaries that the Impetration is for moe than shall have the Application But we assert that both Impetration Application in respect of the designe of the Father which is absolute certain and the Intention of Christ the Mediator which is fixed peremptory are for the same individual persons so that for whomsoever God sent Christ Christ came to purchase any good unto these same shall it actually in due time in the Method manner Condescended upon prescribed be given upon them none else shall it actually be bestowed for 1. No other thing beside this Application can be supposed to have been the end of the Impettation And sure Christ was herein a Rational Agent Nay it was the Intention designe of the Father that the Application of these good things should be by the meanes of this Impetration as is abundantly cleared above 2. We cannot suppose that either Christ or his Father should faile or come short of their end designed but by our Adversaries the Impetration might have been obtained and yet no Application made of the good things impetrated obtained 3. If no Application was intended by the Father or by Christ then it must be said that both were uncertain as to what the Event should have been or at least Regardless Unconcerned either of which to affirme were blasphemy 4. The very word Impetrate having the same force import with Purchase Procure Obtaine Merite and the like doth say that such for whom this Impetration was made have a right upon the Impetration to the thing Acquired Purchased And if they have a right thereto that Possession should follow 5. Yea the word importeth the actual conferring of the good to be the very end of the Purchaseing Impetrating and so in this case the very Impetration is ground of Assurance of the Application considering who did impetrate and at whose hands and withall what was the ground of the Fathers sending of Christ and of Christs coming to impetrate even inconceiveably wonderful great Love Nor doth the intervening of a condition required before the actual collation of some of the good things purchased hinder at all for all these Blessings some whereof are as a condition to others are the one good thing Impetrated and the very conditions are also Impetrated as we declared above and so this pointeth forth only the methode of the actual bestowing of these good things purchased 6. How absurd is it to say a thing is Impetrated or Obtained and yet may or may not be Bestowed may be Possessed or not Possessed Or to say that such a good thing is Obtained by price or petitioning and yet the same good thing may never be Bestowed or the Bestowing of it hangeth dependeth upon an Uncertain Condition which may never beperformed 7. How unreasonable is it that such should have right to the Merites that have no right to the thing Merited Doth not an interest in the Merites procureing any thing include an interest in the thing Merited When a ransome is payed for captives to the end they may be delivered have not these Captives a right to the deliverance upon the payment of that ransome 8. The Scriptures do so connect these two that it argueth contempt thereof to imagine such a separation as Rom. 4 25. Yea the one is assigned as a certain Effect Consequent flowing from the Other as its Moral cause Esai 53 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many this Justification is the Application whence cometh it For he shall bear their iniquities there is the Impetration given as the ground hereof So further vers 5. he was wounded for our transgressions c. and what followeth upon this Impetration And by his stripes are we healed So Rom. 5 vers 18. By the Righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification So that the Application reacheth an all that is all who have interest in the Righteousness which is the thing Impetrated see also Heb. 10 10. 9. If Christs Intercession be for the same persons for whom he died then the Application is to the same for this Intercession of Christ is in order to the Application But that Christs Intercession is for the same persons for whom he died we shall see hereafter 10. If all things be ensured to such for whom Christ died then certanely this Application cannot fail but the former is true Rom. 8 32. He that spared not his owne Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not mark this manner of expression which importeth the greated of absurdities to think otherwise with him also freely give us all things 11. And in that same place vers 33 34. Christs death is given as the certain ground of Justification Salvation so that such as he died for shall certanely in due time after the methode prescribed be Justified Saved otherwayes there were no sure ground in the Apostles argueing for if all the ground of this certanty as to Application were from their Faith or fulfilling of the Condition the Apostle would have mentioned this as the maine ground not have led them to a ground common to others who never should partake of the Application 12. This matter is abundantly confirmed from what we said above concerning Christs purchasing of Faith and dying for our sanctification to bring us to God c. so that more needeth not be added here 20. For further confirmation of this and because our Adversaries think to salve the fore mentioned separation of Impetration Application by telling us that where good things are Absolutely purchased then Application must follow But not where good things are purchased only Conditionally as in our case we shall therefore shew how this will not hold nor advantage their cause for 1. If all be Redeemed Conditsonally that condition whatever it be must in equity be revealed to all 2. Either God Christ knew who would performe this condition or not If not then they were not omniscient If they
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
in his body on the tree he was not wounded for our transgressions the chastisement of our peace was not on him He was not made sin for us He was not our Cautioner High Priest He died not in our room stead Againe 2. saith he some what more properly Christ may be said to have suffered the Curse of the Law because the things which he suffered were of the same nature kinde at least in part with these things which God intended by the Curse of the Law Ans. Though this seemeth to come nigher to the truth than the former Yet it cannot give full satisfaction untill it be explained what that part is in respect of which only Christ's sufferings were of the same Nature kinde with what the Law threatned Let us hear therefore what followeth see if thence satisfaction can come But if by the Curse saith he of the Law we understand either that entire systeme historical body as it were of penalties evils which the Law itself intends in the terme or else include take-in the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom is was to be executed in neither of these senses did Christ suffer the Curse of the Law Ans. 1 This doth not explaine to us what that part is in which Christ sufferings are of the same Nature kind with what was intended by the Curse of the Law 2 There is need of explication here to make us understand what is that entire Systeme historical body of penalties evils which the Law itself intends in the terme Curse or death for this is but to explaine one dark thing by what is more dark so can give no Satisfaction 3 But if the alternative added be explicative so the two particulars here mentioned be one the same then we deny that that doth properly belong to the essence of the penalty as threatned in the Law that is every thing that necessarily attended the punishment as inflicted on man did not directly essentially belong thereunto as threatned by the Law such as the everlastingness of death despaire the like necessarily accompanying this punishment inflicted on sinners so that notwithstanding Christ did not neither could endure these accidental consequential evils Yet he both did might be said to suffer the Curse death threatned by the Law which is to be abstracted from what floweth not from the Law itself but meerly from the Nature of the subject or Condition of the sinner punished But it may be these words of his the intent of the Law as touching the quality of the persons upon whom it was to be executed have some other import that he meaneth hereby no more but this that the intent of the Law was that the sinner should suffer And indeed if so it was impossible that Christ's sufferings could answere the intent of the Law But we have said above that as to this the Law was dispensed with yet notwithstanding Christ the substitute Sufferer did suffer the same kinde of punishment that the Law threatned under the termes of Death Curse What he addeth Further can give no Satisfaction So that God saith he required the death sufferings of Christ not that the Law properly either in the letter or intention of it might be executed but on the contrary that it might not be executed I meane upon those who being otherwise ohnoxious unto it should beleeve Ans. Though it be true that God required the death sufferings of Christ not that the Law either in the letter or intention of it might be executed as to that wherein it was dispensed with Yet God required the death sufferings of Christ that the letter intent of the Law might be executed as to that wherein it was not dispensed with that is as to the punishment therein threatned And unless the Law as to this had been executed no man obnoxious to it should have escaped and that because of the Veracity of God yea because of his justice which he had determined to have Satisfied ere sinfull man should escape the punishment In the next place he tels us that God did not require the death sufferings of Christ as a valuable consideration where on to dispence with his Law towards those that beleeve more if so much in a way of Satisfaction to his justice than to his wisdom Ans. This savoureth rankly of Socinianisme It is not for us to make such comparisons as if God's Wisdom justice were not at full agreement and were not one The Scripture tels us that God set forth Iesus Christ t s be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his Righteousness for the remission of sins that are past To declare I say at this time his Righteousness that he might be just the justifier of him which beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3 25 26. And so it is manifest that Satisfaction to justice was hereby intended And this is enough to us who know also that in the whole contrivance of the business the Infinite Wisdom of God is eminently relucent And Love not to make any such comparisons only we think that a Propitiation and Satisfaction the like termes used in Scripture in the expressing of this matter have a direct aspect bear a manifest relation unto justice and correspond diâ—ectly there with yea clearly enough inferre the same though there were no other mention made expresly of the justice of God in this matter What saith he next to prove this for doubtless God might saith he with as much justice as wisdom if not much more have passed by the er ansgression of his Law without consideration of satisfaction Ans. What God might have done by his absolute Soveraignity antecedent to his designe purpose as to the punishment or the reatus poenae which must not be extended to the reatus culpae is not to the question But now the Lord having declared his determination purpose to rule governe the world thus to have the glory of his relative justice manifested in the Salvation of lost man could not according to justice passe by transgressions without a satisfaction He adds No man will say that in case a man hath bin injured wronged that therefore he is absolutly bound in justice to seek satisfaction though he be never so eminent in the grace practice of justice but in many cases of injuries sustained a man may be bound in point of wisdom discretion to seek satisfaction in one kind or other Ans. This is the Socinian way of argueing nothing to the pointe for we are to look upon the Lord in this matter not as a private man who may dispense with injuries done him but as a Righteous Governour who is resolved to demonstrate his justice equitie and who therefore cannot suffer sin to go unpunished without a due satisfaction had for the violation of his Lawes